Low Impact Development

Best Management Practices

Design Guide
Edition 1.1
December 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PREFACE

This document – the Low Impact Development - Best Management Practices Design Guide
(Design Guide) - was developed by the City of Edmonton (City) to provide guidance for the
application of low impact development best management practices (LID-BMPs). It provides
an overview of LID-BMPs and design guidelines that planners, engineers, developers, and
designers can use to integrate LID-BMPs into land development, redevelopment, or retrofit
projects. Development of the Design Guide supports the City’s vision of sustainable growth
and forwards the environmental goals laid out in The Way We Green, the City’s environmental
strategic plan.

The Design Guide consists of 15 chapters. Chapter 1 introduces why LID is necessary and
what it entails. Chapter 2 briefly describes the federal, provincial and municipal legal
documents that are most likely to have an impact on implementation of LID-BMPs. Chapter 3
describes soil and climate characteristics typical of the City of Edmonton. Chapter 4
describes LID site planning level details. Chapter 5 provides an overview of seven LID
features identified to be most applicable to the City of Edmonton. Chapter 6 provides a LID
facility design process and identifies cold weather adaptations recommended for Edmonton
applications. Chapters 7 to 13 describe design considerations for each of the seven LID
facilities. Chapters 14 and 15 contain a glossary and list references cited in this document.
There are also five appendices that provide LID sizing, modeling tools and examples.

As LID is an evolving field and new to the City, this Design Guide is a living document and will
be updated through continuing engineering experience and research studies in the City’s local
context. This Design Guide is not a design standard but rather provides high-level information
about LID-BMPs to assist those interested in LID oriented development. Each site considered
for development is unique. Consequently, the design of the LID-BMP facilities will also be
unique and must be based on sound engineering principles that account for the soils,
vegetation, topography, hydrology, and management requirements for the site. Qualified
professionals should be consulted for advice specific to each development. In addition, the
relevant requirements for stormwater management as set out in City drainage bylaws, Design
and Construction Standards and other pertinent legislation remain applicable to LID. It is
strongly recommended that discussions with applicable City of Edmonton departments be
started early in the process to facilitate the design and approvals process and ensure mutual
understanding of the development objectives and methodology.

The original document was drafted in June 2011 by AMEC Earth & Environmental with
assistance from Armin A. Preiksaitis & Associates Ltd. and Progressive Engineering Ltd. The
City’s Drainage Services Branch made revisions to the draft in November 2011 and released
Edition 1.0. This Edition 1.1 provides further updates to the document based on feedback
from stakeholders and users. The authors acknowledge the contributions and participation of
key stakeholders including Parks, Community Services, Sustainable Development,
Development Services, Buildings and Landscape Services, and Transportation Services.

Edition 1.1 Page (i)

Comments and questions regarding this Design Guide should be directed to:

Drainage Services, 6th floor Century Place, 9803-102A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3A3.
Phone: 780-423-5138 or 780-496-5454

Edition 1.1 Page (ii)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1 Stormwater Management Practices ..................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Impact of Urbanization ......................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Conventional Stormwater Management ............................................... 1
1.2 Low Impact Development .................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 What is LID? ........................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Benefits of LID-BMP Based Development ............................................ 3
1.3 LID-BMP Design Considerations ......................................................................... 4
1.4 Regulatory Involvement and Approvals ................................................................ 5
2 STORM DRAINAGE REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES................................................... 7
2.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Navigable Waters Protection Act.......................................................... 7
2.1.2 Federal Fisheries Act ........................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Edmonton Garrison Zoning Regulations .............................................. 9
2.2 Provincial Regulations and Guidelines ................................................................. 9
2.2.1 Alberta Water Act ................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) ........ 9
2.2.3 Alberta Building Code ........................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Alberta Public Lands Act .................................................................... 10
2.2.5 EPEA Approval to Operate ................................................................ 11
2.2.6 Municipal Policies and Procedures Manual ........................................ 11
2.2.7 Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and
Storm Drainage Systems ................................................................... 11
2.2.8 Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta ....... 12
2.3 Municipal Guidelines, By-laws and Regulations ................................................. 12
2.3.1 City of Edmonton Design and Construction Standards, Part 3 -
Drainage ............................................................................................ 12
2.3.2 City of Edmonton Design and Construction Standards, Part 5 -
Landscaping ...................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 City of Edmonton Drainage Bylaw 16200 (Consolidated on April 1,
2014) ................................................................................................. 13
2.3.4 City of Edmonton Zoning Bylaw No. 12800 ........................................ 14
2.3.5 City of Edmonton North Saskatchewan River Valley Area
Redevelopment Plan Bylaw No. 7188 ................................................ 14
2.3.6 City of Edmonton Snow and Ice Control Policy – C409G ................... 14
2.3.7 City of Edmonton Roadway Cleaning Policy – C550 .......................... 15
3 LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................... 17
3.1 Physical and Climatic Conditions ....................................................................... 17

Edition 1.1 Page (iii)

 3.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Precipitation ....................................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Evaporation........................................................................................ 20
4 LID SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN ............................................................................. 25
4.1 Conventional vs. LID Neighbourhood Design ..................................................... 25
4.2 LID Site Design Process / Sequence ................................................................. 30
4.2.1 Site Assessment ................................................................................ 30
4.2.2 Identification of Applicable Zoning, Land Use, Subdivision and Other
Relevant Legislation........................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Delineation of the Development ......................................................... 34
4.2.4 Reduction of Impervious Surfaces within the Development ................ 36
4.2.5 Development of Preliminary Integrated Site Plan ............................... 37
4.2.6 Hydrology Comparison....................................................................... 37
4.2.7 Construction Management ................................................................. 38
4.2.8 Completion of the LID Site Plan ......................................................... 40
5 LID-BMPS OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 41
5.1 LID Facility Features and Description ................................................................ 41
5.1.1 Bioretention / Rain Gardens ............................................................... 41
5.1.2 Bioswales .......................................................................................... 43
5.1.3 Green Roofs ...................................................................................... 44
5.1.4 Permeable Pavement ........................................................................ 46
5.1.5 Box Planters ...................................................................................... 48
5.1.6 Naturalized Drainage Ways ............................................................... 51
5.1.7 Rainwater Harvesting for Re-use ....................................................... 53
5.2 Performance of LID-BMPs ................................................................................. 53
5.3 LID Benefits, Costs and Limitations ................................................................... 55
5.3.1 LID Benefits ....................................................................................... 55
5.3.2 Life Cycle Costs ................................................................................. 58
5.3.3 Limitations of LID-BMPs..................................................................... 60
6 LID-BMPS FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................................... 65
6.1 Vegetation Selection and Planting ..................................................................... 65
6.2 Soil Management and Amendment .................................................................... 66
6.2.1 Soil Management ............................................................................... 66
6.2.2 Soil Amendments ............................................................................... 67
6.3 Cold Climate Considerations.............................................................................. 70
6.3.1 Managing and Designing for Road Salt Applications .......................... 71
6.3.2 Managing and Designing for Sand and Gravel Applications ............... 72
6.3.3 Recommendations for Edmonton ....................................................... 72
6.4 LID Facility Design Process ............................................................................... 75

Edition 1.1 Page (iv)

 6.4.1 Facility Selection ................................................................................ 76
6.5 Hydrological Analysis ......................................................................................... 80
6.6 Site Monitoring ................................................................................................... 82
6.6.1 Precipitation ....................................................................................... 83
6.6.2 Flows ................................................................................................. 83
6.6.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................... 83
6.6.4 Optional Parameters .......................................................................... 84
7 BIORETENTIONS / RAIN GARDENS ........................................................................... 85
7.1 Description......................................................................................................... 85
7.2 Application ......................................................................................................... 85
7.3 Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 87
7.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................... 89
8 BIOSWALES ................................................................................................................ 93
8.1 Description......................................................................................................... 93
8.2 Application ......................................................................................................... 93
8.3 Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 94
8.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................... 99
9 GREEN ROOFS .......................................................................................................... 101
9.1 Description....................................................................................................... 101
9.2 Application ....................................................................................................... 103
9.3 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 104
9.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 107
10 PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 109
10.1 Description....................................................................................................... 109
10.2 Application ....................................................................................................... 109
10.3 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 109
10.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 114
11 BOX PLANTERS ........................................................................................................ 117
11.1 Description....................................................................................................... 117
11.2 Application ....................................................................................................... 117
11.3 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 118
11.4 Maintenance Schedule .................................................................................... 120

Edition 1.1 Page (v)

12 NATURALIZED DRAINAGE WAYS ........................................................................... 125
12.1 Descriptions ..................................................................................................... 125
12.2 Applications ..................................................................................................... 125
12.3 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 125
12.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 127
13 RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR RE-USE ............................................................... 131
13.1 Description....................................................................................................... 131
13.2 Application ....................................................................................................... 132
13.3 Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 133
13.4 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 135
14 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 137
15 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 141

Edition 1.1 Page (vi)

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Regulations and Guidelines Applicable to LID-BMPs in the City of

Edmonton ......................................................................................................... 8
Table 3.1 Edmonton Climate Statistics ........................................................................... 18
Table 3.2 Soil Characteristics for the Edmonton Region ................................................. 19
Table 3.3 Monthly Average High and Low Temperature and Precipitation (1971-
2000) at Edmonton City Centre ....................................................................... 20
Table 4.1 Site Assessment Requirements ...................................................................... 32
Table 4.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Relation to Soil Texture ........................... 40
Table 5.1 Observed Removal Efficiencies (%) in LID-BMP Facilities in the USA
and Canada .................................................................................................... 54
Table 5.2 Benefits of LID-BMPs ...................................................................................... 56
Table 5.3 Cost Comparison Summary of Conventional and LID Approaches for
Selected Projects in the USA .......................................................................... 61
Table 5.4 Life Cycle Costs of LID-BMP Facilities ............................................................ 62
Table 6.1 Amended Topsoil Characteristics.................................................................... 69
Table 6.2 Challenges to Design of LID-BMP Facilities in Cold Climates ......................... 71
Table 6.3 LID Facility Selection Matrix ............................................................................ 77
Table 6.4 LID Facility Site Constraint Matrix ................................................................... 78
Table 6.5 Non-Point Sources of Pollution in Developed Areas........................................ 80
Table 7.1 Bioretention Parameters and Guidelines ......................................................... 90
Table 7.2 Bioretention Drawing Details ........................................................................... 91
Table 7.3 Bioretention Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule ................. 92
Table 8.1 Bioswale Design Parameters and Guidelines.................................................. 98
Table 8.2 Bioswale Drawing Details................................................................................ 99
Table 8.3 Bioswale Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule ................... 100
Table 9.1 Function of Green Roof Layers ..................................................................... 102
Table 9.2 Green Roof Characteristics – Extensive and Intensive .................................. 104
Table 9.3 Guidelines for Green Roof Physical and Performance Parameters ............... 105
Table 9.4 Details and Considerations for Green Roof Selection and Design................. 106
Table 9.5 Green Roof Drawing and Reporting Details .................................................. 107
Table 9.6 Green Roof Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Schedule ................ 108
Table 10.1 Permeable Pavement Parameters and Guidelines ........................................ 112
Table 10.2 Permeable Pavement Drawing Details .......................................................... 113
Table 10.3 Permeable Pavement Operation, Maintenance and Replacement
Schedule ....................................................................................................... 115
Table 11.1 Box Planter Parameters and Guidelines ....................................................... 122
Table 11.2 Box Planter Drawing Details ......................................................................... 123
Table 11.3 Box Planter Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule ............... 124
Table 12.1 Naturalized Drainage Way Parameters and Guidelines ................................ 128
Table 12.2 Naturalized Drainage Way Drawing Details................................................... 129
Table 12.3 Naturalized Drainage Way Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement
Schedule ....................................................................................................... 130
Table 13.1 Rainwater Harvesting System Components .................................................. 135
Table 13.2 Rainwater Harvesting System Design Parameters and Guidelines ............... 136
Table 13.3 Cistern Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule ...................... 136

Edition 1.1 Page (vii)

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 The Natural Hydrologic Cycle............................................................................ 3

Figure 3.1 Natural Regions and Sub Regions of Alberta .................................................. 21
Figure 3.2 Current City of Edmonton Boundary and Historical Soil Survey Map............... 22
Figure 3.3 Rain Point Diagram for Edmonton Area Rainfall ............................................. 23
Figure 4.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept Plan.................................................... 28
Figure 4.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept Plan .......................................................... 29
Figure 4.3 Steps to Designing a LID Site ......................................................................... 30
Figure 4.4 Street Layout Options According to Pavement Length .................................... 37
Figure 5.1 Bioretention Installations in Edmonton, Alberta ............................................... 42
Figure 5.2 Bioretention Area Components ....................................................................... 43
Figure 5.3 Bioswale Installation Examples ....................................................................... 44
Figure 5.4 Intensive and Extensive Green Roofs ............................................................. 45
Figure 5.5 Layers of a Green Roof ................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.6 Permeable Pavement Installation Examples ................................................... 47
Figure 5.7 Components of Permeable Pavement Facilities .............................................. 47
Figure 5.8 Examples of Box Planter Installations ............................................................. 49
Figure 5.9 Tree Trench Box Planter with Soil Cells .......................................................... 49
Figure 5.10 Stormwater Management Mechanisms in a Box Planter ................................. 50
Figure 5.11 Naturalized Drainage Ways in Medium and Low Density Developments......... 51
Figure 5.12 Stormwater Management Mechanisms in a Naturalized Drainage Way .......... 52
Figure 5.13 Types of Rainwater Storage Tanks ................................................................. 53
Figure 6.1 Compost Amendment Ratios for Topsoil and Subsoil Types ........................... 69
Figure 6.2 Water Holding Capacity by Soil Type .............................................................. 70
Figure 6.3 Distribution of Total Rainfall at Edmonton City Centre Gauge ......................... 82
Figure 7.1 Bioretention Installations in Residential, Commercial and Park Settings ......... 86
Figure 7.2 Cross Section of a Basic Bioretention Area ..................................................... 86
Figure 7.3 Cross Section of a Deep Infiltration Bioretention Area ..................................... 87
Figure 8.1 Local Bioswale Installations in Residential and Commercial Settings .............. 94
Figure 8.2 Cross-Section of a Bioswale ........................................................................... 96
Figure 8.3 Longitudinal Profile of a Bioswale with Check Dams ....................................... 96
Figure 8.4 Plan View of a Bioswale .................................................................................. 97
Figure 9.1 Cross-Section of Typical Green Roof Layers ................................................ 102
Figure 10.1 Cross-Section of Permeable Pavement Installation....................................... 111
Figure 11.1 Soil Cells Installation for Stormwater Management ....................................... 118
Figure 11.2 Cross-Section of Flow-Through Box Planter ................................................. 121
Figure 11.3 Cross-Section of Infiltration Box Planter ........................................................ 121
Figure 12.1 Longitudinal View of Naturalized Drainage Way with Check Dams ............... 127
Figure 13.1 Rainwater Harvesting System Schematics .................................................... 132

Edition 1.1 Page (viii)

 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Recommended Vegetation for LID-BMP Facilities in Edmonton

APPENDIX B Soil Amendment Tools
APPENDIX C Cold Climate Facility Sizing Example
APPENDIX D Road Salt Application Examples
APPENDIX E Comparative Modelling Study

Edition 1.1 Page (ix)

 TABLE OF MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNICAL ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Definition
cm centimetre
g gram
hr hour
L litre
m metre
mg milligram
mm millimetre
Q2 Edmonton’s 2 year precipitation event (95% of storms)
Q5 Edmonton’s 5 year precipitation event
Q10 Edmonton’s 10 year precipitation event
Q25 Edmonton’s 25 year precipitation event
Q100 Edmonton’s 100 year precipitation event
WSE Water Surface Elevation

Edition 1.1 Page (x)

Stormwater – water that 1 INTRODUCTION
runs off land and
developed surfaces during 1.1 Stormwater Management Practices
a rain or snowmelt event.
1.1.1 Impact of Urbanization
Impervious Area – areas
covered with surface As the City of Edmonton grows and more land is developed both
material that prevents within the city and in surrounding areas, hydrologic functions of the
water from passing natural water cycle are altered. Urbanization creates impervious
through or penetrating to areas that negatively impact stormwater runoff characteristics.
the sub-soils. These changes to the natural hydrologic cycle result in:

Urban Heat Island – an

 increased flooding;
area, such as a city or
industrial site, having  decreased groundwater recharge;
consistently higher  decreased evaporation from soil to the atmosphere;
temperatures than  decreased transpiration from plants to the atmosphere; and
surrounding areas  increased urban heat island effects.
because of a greater
retention of heat, as by
buildings, concrete, and
asphalt.

1.1.2 Conventional Stormwater Management

Current stormwater management practices in Edmonton and other
urban centres direct stormwater runoff from pervious and
Storm Sewers – concrete impervious areas to storm sewers and then either directly to the
or PVC pipes, buried receiving water body or to stormwater ponds. These stormwater
below the frost line,
designed to convey ponds are used to reduce release rates during major storm events.
stormwater runoff from the Stormwater runoff reaching surface water bodies through the storm
surface to the receiving sewer system are characterized by increased volumes, duration
waterbody or an and flow rates, especially during small storm events. These inputs
end-of-pipe facility such as to the receiving surface water body eventually result in:
a stormwater pond

 erosion and sedimentation in receiving waters due to increased

sediment loading and flow rates during small storm events;
 water quality degradation due to increased sediment and
pollutant loadings;
 stream channel degradation due to erosion and sedimentation;
 alterations to water temperature patterns within receiving waters
due to the input of warmer runoff water;
 degradation of high-quality fish habitat due to erosion and
sedimentation; and
 loss of recreation opportunities due to water quality degradation
and bank erosion.

Edition 1.1 Page 1

 1.2 Low Impact Development

1.2.1 What is LID?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines low
Stormwater Management impact development (LID) as “an approach to land development (or
Facilities – manage re-development) that works with nature to manage stormwater as
stormwater runoff to
provide controlled release close to its source as possible” (US EPA, 2010). This approach
into receiving streams focuses on maintaining or restoring the natural hydrological
processes of a site, providing opportunities for natural processes to
take place. Key principles in LID include:

 preserving natural site features;

 small scale, integrated stormwater management controls
dispersed throughout the site;
LID-BMP –  minimizing and disconnecting impervious areas;
ecosystem-based  controlling stormwater as close to its source as possible;
approach to managing and  prolonging stormwater runoff flow paths and times; and
treating stormwater runoff  creating multi-functional landscapes.

LID best management practices (BMPs) are techniques that rely on

natural processes to manage water quantity and quality, including:

 absorption;
 infiltration;
Infiltration – process by  evaporation;
which water penetrates
into soil from the surface  evapotranspiration;
or upper soil layers.  filtration through standing plant material and soil layers;
 potential pollutant uptake by select vegetation; and
 biodegradation of pollutants by soil microbial communities.

Transpiration – the LID-BMPs promote maintenance of the hydrologic cycle, shown for
process of absorption of a natural environment in Figure 1.1, where rainwater is able to
water by plants, usually
provide soil moisture for plants, infiltrate to recharge groundwater
through the roots, the
movement of water aquifers and allow for evaporation and transpiration of water back
through the plants, and the into the atmosphere. The properties of natural materials such as
release of water vapour soil, gravel, vegetation and mulch reduce the volume and peak flow
through small openings on rates of runoff reaching receiving streams and enhance the quality
the underside of leaves.
of stormwater entering our receiving water bodies. As a landscape
becomes more developed, many of the functions of the hydrologic
cycle shown in Figure 1.1 are impaired. LID-BMPs seek to restore
Rainwater – drops of
fresh water that fall as these natural processes to the urbanized landscape.
precipitation from clouds.

Edition 1.1 Page 2

 (www.solcomhouse.com/images/hydrowealth.jpg)

Figure 1.1 The Natural Hydrologic Cycle

1.2.2 Benefits of LID-BMP Based Development

There are three primary stormwater management objectives that
typically drive LID-BMP applications. These are:

 stormwater volume control;

 stormwater peak flow control; and
 stormwater water quality enhancement

LID-BMP facilities often address all three of these stormwater

management objectives at some level. Facilities may also be
designed to work in series within a development to meet the

Edition 1.1 Page 3

 regulatory requirements driving these objectives.

Applications of LID-BMPs provide many benefits to stormwater

management, the environment and communities. Some of these
benefits can be assigned monetary value while others are more
intangible environmental or social benefits that are difficult to assign
a quantitative value. These benefits are further discussed in
Section 5.3.

1.3 LID-BMP Design Considerations

The application of LID-BMPs uses existing natural systems, where
feasible, and practical engineered systems that use natural
materials. These applications are based on the individual
requirements and design of the development or site. Application
ranges from lot level to site level to regional level, and facilities are
often combined to meet the requirements of the site. Unique
characteristics (site location, climate, vegetation, regulations) may
affect the performance of LID-BMP facilities and must be accounted
for in the design. These include:

 tight soils;
Greywater – untreated  frost depth;
used domestic water that  local precipitation and hydrology;
does not include sewage  vegetation suitability to precipitation characteristics;
(e.g. laundry, dishwashing,
bath waters)  winter maintenance materials including sand, gravel and salt;
 maintenance responsibilities and commitments;
 regulatory conflicts or resistance;
 regulation gaps (e.g. greywater re-use code); and
 objectives or drivers for implementation.

Some sites may have unique challenges or constraints to the

application of LID-BMPs that must be addressed by a qualified
engineer/designer on a case by case basis. There is no universal
prescriptive guide for LID-BMPs that applies to all sites. One
unique challenge facing designers of LID-BMP facilities in the
Edmonton area relates to cold climate considerations. These
considerations are discussed in Chapter 6.

Edition 1.1 Page 4

 1.4 Regulatory Involvement and Approvals
Regulations at all levels of government (federal, provincial and
municipal) are likely to have an impact on the implementation of
LID-BMPs for stormwater management. The most relevant
regulations from the various levels of government are discussed in
Chapter 2. LID-BMP designs may require additional input on
approvals from City Departments outside of the Drainage Services
Branch, Financial Services & Utilities Department. The level of
involvement from other departments will depend on the City’s plans
for an appropriate approval process for LID-BMP implementation.

Edition 1.1 Page 5

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Page 6

 2 STORM DRAINAGE REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES

There are regulations and guidelines, at the federal, provincial and

municipal levels, that govern stormwater management. This
section provides an overview of the regulations and guidelines that
impact the development of LID-BMPs in the City of Edmonton. The
bylaws, acts, regulations, plans and manuals reviewed in this
chapter are listed in Table 2.1 for each regulatory level on the
application of LID-BMPs in the City of Edmonton.

The following sections provide details regarding the impact of each

regulation or guideline for the implementation of LID-BMP practices
within the City of Edmonton. Discussions with various regulatory
bodies regarding the design and construction of LID-BMP facilities
may be required to confirm their applicability.

2.1 Federal Regulations

2.1.1 Navigable Waters Protection Act

The Navigable Waters Protection Act (2010, Transport Canada)
requires that (Section 5(1)):

Section 5
No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any
navigable water without the Minister’s prior approval of the work, its site
and the plans for it.

LID-BMP facilities are typically sited to ensure they do not

compromise the environment and habitat. It is unlikely that
LID-BMP facilities would be located where this Act would be
invoked. If an LID-BMP facility does invoke the Act it will not be
given special consideration but will be treated in the same manner
as conventional stormwater management facilities.

2.1.2 Federal Fisheries Act

The Federal Fisheries Act (2010, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans) requires that:

Section 35
No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that
results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish
habitat.

Edition 1.1 Page 7

 LID-BMP facilities will be treated similarly to conventional
stormwater management facilities and will not be given special
consideration under the Act.

Table 2.1 Regulations and Guidelines Applicable to LID-BMPs in the City of Edmonton
Impact on LID-BMP Practices
Regulation WQ
Location Design Const. Operation
Treatment
Federal
Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985 x x
Federal Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985 x
Edmonton Garrison Zoning Regulations x x
Provincial
Alberta Water Act, R.S.A. 2000 x
Alberta Environmental Protection and
x x
Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000
Alberta Building Code x x
Alberta Public Lands Act, R.S.A. 2000 x x
City of Edmonton EPEA Approval to Operate x x
Municipal Policies and Procedures Manual x
Stormwater Management Guidelines (Part 5 of
Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, x x x x
Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems)
Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province
x x x x
of Alberta
Municipal
City of Edmonton Design and Construction
x x x
Standards, Volume 3 Drainage
City of Edmonton Design and Construction
x x
Standards, Volume 5 Landscaping
Drainage Bylaw No. 16200 x x x
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw No. 12800 x
North Saskatchewan River Valley Area
x
Redevelopment Plan Bylaw No. 7188
Winter Road Maintenance Policy C-409G x x
Roadway Cleaning Bylaw C550 x

Edition 1.1 Page 8

 2.1.3 Edmonton Garrison Zoning Regulations
Regulations for height restrictions, bird hazard mitigation and noise
attenuation that impact areas adjacent to and under the flight paths
for the Edmonton Garrison are in the Department of National
Defence (DND) Edmonton Garrison Zoning Regulations.

The regulations dealing with bird hazard migration may have an

impact on the ability to implement certain LID-BMP facilities in
certain locations as the creation and enhancement of wildlife habitat
is one of the desirable benefits of many of these techniques.

2.2 Provincial Regulations and Guidelines

2.2.1 Alberta Water Act

The Alberta Water Act (Alberta Environment, 2009) allows the
designated Director of the Act to require an approval for any
activities that involve:

Section 1(1)
(b) placing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing or
disturbing of ground, vegetation or other material

and have the potential to impact the water body, aquatic

environment or adjacent areas. In addition, activities involving
outfall structures discharging into a water body must be carried out
in accordance with the Code of Practice for Outfall Structures on
Water Bodies (2007, Alberta Environment)

LID-BMP facilities that discharge water to a watercourse require the

same approval and follow the same approval process as
conventional stormwater management structures.

2.2.2 Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

(EPEA)
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)
Wastewater and Storm Drainage (Regulation 119 / 93),
administered by Alberta Environment (AENV), states (Section
6.1(1)):

Section 6.1
No person shall commence construction of an additional storm drainage
treatment facility or a modification of a storm drainage treatment facility

Edition 1.1 Page 9

 except in accordance with a written authorization from the Director.

LID-BMP facilities that discharge to a natural watercourse fall into

the category of “special features” and therefore a Letter of
Acknowledgement is required from AENV prior to construction. It is
recommended that discussions with AENV are started during the
planning or preliminary design stage to ensure that everyone
involved has a complete understanding of the purpose of, and
restrictions on, the planned LID-BMP facility. It is the responsibility
of the developer to obtain the Letter of Acknowledgement.

Re-use of domestic wastewater is acceptable for irrigation or other

purposes when approved by AENV or governed by a code of
practice.

2.2.3 Alberta Building Code

The Alberta Building Code (2006, revised 2009) states:

Section 7.2.1.2 Plumbing Systems and Fixtures

(8) Non-potable water shall not be connected to plumbing fixtures
that provide water for human consumption, cooking, cleaning,
showering or bathing.

Water collected through rainwater harvesting systems, and not

provided further treatment, is considered non-potable and must
comply with the Alberta Building Code.

Green roof systems must comply with the structural loading and
moisture protection requirements detailed in the Alberta Building
Code.

2.2.4 Alberta Public Lands Act

The Public Lands Act (2010) is administered by Alberta Sustainable
Resources Development (ASRD). Where a proposed facility
(including a stormwater outfall discharging to a major watercourse)
may encroach on Crown lands, a License of Occupation would be
required under the Public Lands Act.

An LID-BMP facility which discharges directly to a major

watercourse requires a License of Occupation through the Public
Lands Act.

Edition 1.1 Page 10

 2.2.5 EPEA Approval to Operate
The City of Edmonton Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Act (EPEA) Approval to Operate (No. 639-02-07) is the governing
document for the City of Edmonton’s drainage system and requires
specific water quality objectives be met prior to the release of water
into receiving water bodies.

Further, the EPEA Approval to Operate stipulates that “…the

approval holder shall develop a comprehensive Storm Water
Quality Control Strategy and a plan for implementing the strategy.”

Edmonton’s Stormwater Quality Control Strategy and Action Plan,

developed in 2008, recommends the application of green
infrastructure and innovative design. LID-BMPs fall within these
recommended approaches.

2.2.6 Municipal Policies and Procedures Manual

The Alberta Environment Municipal Policies and Procedures
Manual (2001) stipulates:

Minimum Quality Standards – Storm outfalls without due consideration

for water quality improvement shall not be allowed. Stormwater
management techniques to improve water quality shall be included
to effect a minimum of 85% removal of sediments of particle size
75 μm or greater. Additional quality management measures shall be
required, based on site-specific conditions.
And,
[Alberta Environment] will work with the municipalities to develop
a Master Drainage Plan, and this process shall be integrated into the
Drainage System Approval for the municipalities.

LID-BMP facilities often provide enhanced water quality treatment

which can further enable the City of Edmonton to meet the
sediment reduction requirements set by AENV.

2.2.7 Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks,

Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems
The Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks,
Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems (AESRD, 2013) sets out
the minimum standards and design requirements for these systems
in Alberta municipalities. Part 5 provides guidance on best
management practices for well-designed and managed storm

Edition 1.1 Page 11

 drainage systems.

The Design Criteria for Stormwater Quality Control (5.3.1.2) of this

document should be considered for planning and designing LID-
BMPs. LID-BMPs design should also adhere to the guidance on
Source Control BMPs, Lot-Level BMPs, and Infiltration practices
provided by Part 5 of the Standards and Guidelines.
Minor System – the
roadside drainage, 2.2.8 Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of
underground pipes and lot Alberta
drainage systems that
collect, store and convey The Stormwater Management Guidelines for the Province of Alberta
stormwater runoff from (AEP, 1999) provides guidance in the planning and design of
more frequent storm stormwater management systems in Alberta. This document
events up to and including
the minor design event
outlines the objectives of stormwater management, as well as the
storm (5 year return methodologies and concepts for the planning, design, and operation
period) of storm drainage systems from the aspect of water quantity and
quality. These guidelines should be viewed as a tool for making
decisions.

LID-BMP applications should consider the guidelines to source

control BMPs, infiltration practices, and water quantity and quality
objectives in this document.

Major system – overland 2.3 Municipal Guidelines, By-laws and Regulations

portion of the overall
stormwater drainage 2.3.1 City of Edmonton Design and Construction Standards,
system that controls flows Part 3 - Drainage
greater than those
controlled by the minor The drainage system is made up of a minor system and a major
system and up to and system. The minor system should provide flood protection for a 1:5
including flows from the year design rainfall event and the major system able to convey and
major design event storm
store a 1:100 year design rainfall event without flooding.
(100 year return period)
The Drainage Design and Construction Standards will have differing
impacts on implementation of LID-BMP practices. These standards
must be considered during the planning stage. Consultation with
the City of Edmonton is recommended at this stage to ensure that
the impacts of these standards on the ability to implement
LID-BMPs are fully understood by both the developer and the
approving department.

Edition 1.1 Page 12

 2.3.2 City of Edmonton Design and Construction Standards,
Part 5 - Landscaping
The Landscaping Standard sets out the requirements that
landscape plans and specifications submitted to City of Edmonton
must meet or exceed. The use of trees, shrubs, and other
vegetation in LID features shall conform to Section 6 Plant
Materials. The LID features on landscape drawings should meet the
Section 3.3 Stormwater Management Facility Drawing
Requirements at a minimum. Mulch specifications provided in this
standard apply when mulch is used in LID features. Requirements
assuring the quality of soil in topsoil should also be followed when
designing LID soil mix.

2.3.3 City of Edmonton Drainage Bylaw 16200 (Consolidated

on April 1, 2014)
The Drainage Bylaw 16200 is a consolidation of Sewers Use Bylaw
9645, Sewers Bylaw 9425, and Surface Drainage Bylaw 11501.

Provision and connection of LID features to the City’s drainage

system should comply with Section 7 of Bylaw 16200. If LID
features are applied, they should be included in the lot grading plan
based on Section 41. Section 43 requires the property owner to
maintain surface grades and elevations in compliance with the
approved lot grading plan. Based on Section 43, any LID-BMP
facilities implemented on private property must be operated and
maintained by the owner.

Bylaw 16200 (Section 42) provides the City Manager with the
authority to specify where and at what rate surface drainage may be
discharged to any stormwater management facility, including public
sewers, ditches or surface drainage features. LID-BMP facilities are
required to comply with the drainage restrictions of the site as
determined by the City Manager.

Edition 1.1 Page 13

 2.3.4 City of Edmonton Zoning Bylaw No. 12800
Current residential yard requirements may hinder the reduction of
imperviousness by requiring minimum setback distances. However,
Section 56.4 details hard surfacing and curbing requirements for
parking and loading spaces in residential properties that may allow
for driveways to be less impervious:

Section 56.4.2.b
For an on-site driveway in any Residential Zone, the area required to be
hard surfaced may be constructed on the basis of separated tire tracks, with
natural soil, grass, or gravel between the tracks, but shall be constructed so
that the tires of a parked or oncoming vehicle will normally remain upon
the hard surface.

2.3.5 City of Edmonton North Saskatchewan River Valley

Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw No. 7188
A boundary for the North Saskatchewan River valley and ravine
system within Edmonton is identified in City of Edmonton Bylaw
No. 7188. The bylaw requires assessment and review of
development or construction that would impact designated areas
within this valley and ravine system against a set of policies and
development approval procedures. The goal of this bylaw is to
preserve the natural character and environment of the North
Saskatchewan River valley and ravine system.

LID-BMP facilities planned within this area are required to comply

with the policies and procedures set out in this bylaw.

2.3.6 City of Edmonton Snow and Ice Control Policy – C409G

The City of Edmonton Snow and Ice Control Policy
(Policy Number C409G, 2011) does not directly impact the design,
construction or function of LID-BMP facilities. However, it has
indirect implications on the long-term function and maintenance of
the facility due to de-icing activities.

The Winter Road Maintenance Program Policy must be considered

during planning stages to ensure that LID-BMP facilities selected for
the site and location do not conflict with Policy C409G.

Edition 1.1 Page 14

 2.3.7 City of Edmonton Roadway Cleaning Policy – C550
The City of Edmonton Roadway Cleaning Policy C550 set spring
and summer roadway cleaning standards to provide roadway safety
and protect the environment. Consideration of this policy is
necessary when designing roadside LID-BMPs, particularly when
determining the maintenance requirements. Dialogue with the
Transportation Department should be initiated in the planning stage
if maintenance requirements, such as cleaning, will be different than
prescribed in the standards in order to protect the LID facilities.

Edition 1.1 Page 15

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Page 16

 3 LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

Since LID-BMPs are site specific, a full understanding of the

characteristics of the local environment, such as climate, hydrology,
soil and vegetation conditions, is instrumental in LID-BMP planning
design, construction and maintenance.

3.1 Physical and Climatic Conditions

Edmonton is located in the Alberta Capital Region, at a latitude and
longitude of 53°34′0″N, 113°31′0″W, respectively. The population
of the City is 877,926 (2014). The average elevation of the city is
686 metres above sea level. The total land area is 71,000 hectares
(ha), with about 34,000 ha of urban footprint.

Edmonton is in a semi-arid, continental climate region. The

average maximum temperature is 24°C (July) and average
minimum temperature is -19°C (January). There are about 100 to
120 frost free days in Edmonton, or a growing season of 138 days.
Table 3.1 shows climate data for the Edmonton region.

Ecologically, the City of Edmonton lies within the Central Parkland

Natural Sub-region of Alberta (Figure 3.1), with prairie to the south
and boreal forest to the north. Based on the sub-region’s soil
fertility, the area is dominated by cultivated land with only 5% native
vegetation, primarily aspen and prairie mosaics, and 10% wetland
(Natural Regions Committee, 2006). The soil survey of the
Edmonton region (Alberta Soil Survey, 1962) is the main source of
information regarding native soil types within the City of Edmonton
(Figure 3.2). However, Edmonton city limits have grown nearly five
times in areal extent from 1959 to 2010, indicating that the majority
of native soils in the area have been disturbed.

Bedrock underlying the City of Edmonton includes part of the Upper

Cretaceous Wapiti Formation (Andriashek, 1988). This formation is
composed of bentonitic sandstones, sandy shales, bentonitic clays,
and coal seams. Within most of the area of the City of Edmonton,
this is directly overlain by clay and silty clay deposits of Glacial
Lake Edmonton. Quaternary sands, stratified deposits of the
Empress Formation and glacial till occur between the Wapiti
Formation and the glacial clays in some places. Till of variable
thickness makes up the surficial deposit in parts of east Edmonton.
The till predominately has a clay loam texture and is slow to very

Edition 1.1 Page 17

 slowly permeable with 1-3% diffused calcium and magnesium
carbonate content (Alberta Soil Survey, 1962; Andriashek, 1988).
Soils within the Edmonton area predominately belong to the Malmo
soil series, with two phases:

 silt loam (Mo.SiL); and

 silty clay loam (Mo.SiCL).

Table 3.2 details some of the characteristics of soils native to the

Edmonton region.

Table 3.1 Edmonton Climate Statistics

Climate Parameter Value

1
Average Annual Mean Temperature 3.9ºC
1
Average Daily Temperature, January -11.7ºC
Average Daily Temperature, July 18 ºC
2
Frost Free Days 100-120
3
Typical Frost Depth 2.3 m
1
Mean Monthly Snowfall 1.2 m
1
Average Annual Precipitation 477 mm
1
Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000, Edmonton City Centre A (Environment Canada, 2010)
2
Frost-Free Period (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1981)
3
Maisonneuve, 2011.

Edition 1.1 Page 18

 Table 3.2 Soil Characteristics for the Edmonton Region

Soil Characteristics
Map Symbol Mo.SiL; Mo.SiCL
Water Storage > 12 cm of water per 30 cm of soil (High)
Topsoil (A horizon) 10 mm to 100 mm/hr saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Medium)
Subsoil (B horizon) 3 mm to 10 mm/hr saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Low to Medium)
Underlying soil (C <3 mm/hr saturated hydraulic conductivity
horizon) (Low)
Topsoil thickness Organic enriched topsoil horizon; Commonly
(cm) 15-25 cm, can be up to 50 cm or more in
places; Slightly acidic
Natural Drainage Water is removed from the soil readily (Well)
Organic Matter in > 7% organic matter (High)
Topsoil
Salinity of Subsoil < 2% soluble salt (Low)
> 8% soluble salt (Medium)
Stoniness Relatively no stones
Topography Relatively level; very little non-arable land
(Alberta Soil Information Centre, 2001).

3.2 Hydrology

3.2.1 Precipitation
Average annual precipitation measured for Edmonton is 477 mm
(1971 – 2000), of which 364 mm are rainfall and 113 mm are melt
from snowfall (123.5 cm). On average, there are 122 days annually
Precipitation – any form in which greater than 0.1 mm of precipitation (rain, sleet, snow or
of water that falls from the
hail) occurs. The driest month is March, when on average 16.6 mm
clouds including rain,
of precipitation occurs. The wettest month is July, with an average
snow, hail, sleet or mist.
rainfall of 91.7 mm. Table 3.3 shows monthly average precipitation
as measured at Environment Canada’s Edmonton City Centre
Airport station.

A rainfall analysis based on Environment Canada’s 1960-2008 data

shows that most rainfall events (~90%) in Edmonton are less than
25 mm in depth and have durations of 5 hours or less. Figure 3.3

Edition 1.1 Page 19

 presents a summary of the distribution of rainfall events
corresponding to three Environment Canada rain stations in
Edmonton (Namao, City Center Airport, and International Airport).

3.2.2 Evaporation
Evaporation – process by The average annual lake evaporation (the water that evaporates
which liquid water converts from water bodies) is 665 mm in Edmonton (Alberta Environment,
to water vapour by energy 2010). Annual evaporation is greater than annual precipitation.
from heat or air movement With lower precipitation in winter, the soil moisture is not always
restored to capacity in an average year.

Table 3.3 Monthly Average High and Low Temperature and Precipitation (1971-2000) at
Edmonton City Centre

High Low
Temperature Temperature Rainfall Snowfall Precipitation
Month
(mm) (cm) (mm)
Mean Value Mean Value
January -8.2 -17 1.3 24.5 22.5
February -4.2 -13.7 0.9 15.8 14.6
March 1.1 -8.4 2.1 16.8 16.6
April 10.5 -0.7 13.1 13.4 26.0
May 17.5 5.7 45.1 3.5 49.0
June 21.3 9.9 87.1 0.0 87.1
July 23 12 91.7 0.0 91.7
August 22.1 11 68.9 0.0 69.0
September 16.6 5.6 42.3 1.5 43.7
October 11.3 0.6 10.5 7.8 17.9
November -0.1 -8.4 1.9 17.9 17.9
December -6.3 -14.8 0.8 22.3 20.9
Total 365.7 123.5 476.9
(EC, 2010)

Edition 1.1 Page 20

 Northwest Territories
±
Lake
Athabasca

Lake
Claire

Fort McMurray

¾
2 Lesser
Slave Lake

Alberta

Saskatchewan

British Columbia

¾
16 Edmonton

¾
2

Red Deer

¾
9

Calgary

¾
1

Lethbridge ¾
3

CANADA ¾
5 ¾
4
S:\Gis\Projects\EW\1022_EdmontonLIDBMP\ArcGIS Projects\Report Figures\Fig04.02 Natural Regions.mxd

Washington
Idaho U.S.A.
Montana

Legend 50 25 0 50 100

Study Area - City of Edmonton (Current Boundary) Kilometres

1:4,000,000
Natural Regions and Sub-regions of Alberta
Boreal Forest Natural Region Foothills Natural Region
Central Mixedwood Upper Foothills
Dry Mixedwood Lower Foothills
Northern Mixedwood Canadian Shield Natural Region
Edmonton LID/BMP Design Criteria
Boreal Subarctic
Kazan Uplands
Peace-Athabasca Delta
Lower Boreal Highlands
Parkland Natural Region Natural Regions and
Upper Boreal Highlands Foothills Parkland Sub-regions of Alberta
Athabasca Plain Peace River Parkland
Central Parkland
Figure 3.1
DATE:
Rocky Mountain Natural Region
January 2011
Grassland Natural Region
Alpine PROJECT:

Subalpine Dry Mixedgrass EW1022 Fig 3.1 Natural Regions 11-01-21

Montane Foothills Fescue ANALYST: QA/QC:

Northern Fescue CP TR KR KR
PROJECTION/DATUM:
Mixedgrass
UTM Zone 12 NAD83
Sources: AB TPR, DMTI Spatial Inc., ESRI, Spatial Data Warehouse Ltd.
 ±
S:\Gis\Projects\EW\1022_EdmontonLIDBMP\ArcGIS Projects\Report Figures\Fig04.03 Soil Survey.mxd

Legend 2 1 0 2 4

Study Area - City of Edmonton (Current Boundary) Kilometres

1:125,000
Soil Survey
Chernozemic Soils Solonetzic Soils Podzolic Soils Regosolic Soils Gleysolic Soils Organic Soils Soil Complexes
Db. L Ar. L Wf. L Ck. L Bi. C Cn. L O. U. R
Bh. L Mo. SiL Du. SiL Bn. L Av. Pr. SiL
Pe. L Mo. SiCL Du. SiCL Mw. CL D. S Pr. SiCL
Nv. SiL Pk. LL Du. SiC Mw. SiCL B. S Nv. M Edmonton LID/BMP Design Criteria
Nv. SiCL Pk. L To. L P. G
Cam. L
Ph. FSL
Ph. SL
Pk. SiL
Wkn. SiL
To. SL
Gy. L
Dy. L Current City of Edmonton
Fn. L Wkn. SiCL
Ph. CSL
Ph. LFS Wb. L Wkn. SiC
Md. L
Cu. SL
Boundary and Historical
Wb. LL Am. L
Ph. LS
Ph. CLS Wb. FSL Kv. L
Cu. LS
Soil Survey Map
Fth. L Wb. SL Ki. L Un. L
Figure 3.2
DATE:
Fth. SL Rb. L Kn. SiCL Ml. CL January 2011
Fth. CSL Mc. SiL Gd. SiL Cv. L
PROJECT:
El. L Mc. SiCL Cv. SL
EW1022 Fig 3.2 Soil Survey 11-01-21
I. CSL Le. SL
Le. FSL ANALYST: QA/QC:

Le. LS CP TR KG KR
Hl. SL PROJECTION/DATUM:
Note: Adapted from soil survey map drawn and published by the Soil Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1962.
UTM Zone 12 NAD83
Sources: DMTI Spatial Inc., Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
 EC Station 3012210 - Namao Airport (535 rain events from 1965 to 1995)
120
EC Station 3012208 - City Centre Airport (585 rain events from 1960 to 1993)
EC Station 3012205 - International Airport (869 rain events from 1961 to 2008)

100
Rainfall Depth (mm)

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Storm Duration (hrs)

Figure 3.3 Rain Point Diagram for Edmonton Area Rainfall

Edition 1.1 Page 23

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Page 24

 4 LID SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN

LID site design seeks to:

 minimize land and vegetation disturbance;

 capitalize on the natural hydrology of the site when locating
roads, buildings and drainage features;
 utilize, or accommodate, the natural topsoil, subsoil and
vegetation within individual LID facilities;
 reduce the impacts of development by minimizing soil
compaction and impervious area;
 reduce or prevent stormwater runoff during small storm events;
 provide treatment for stormwater runoff as close to the source
as possible; and
 incorporate multi-purpose landscapes that treat water as a
resource rather than a nuisance.

The focus of Chapter 4 is primarily on site level greenfield and

Brownfield – abandoned brownfield development. However, LID retrofit opportunities at the
or underused commercial
or industrial land available
lot level are abundant and may provide solutions for stormwater
for re-development management, flooding and erosion issues being experienced in
established communities.

4.1 Conventional vs. LID Neighbourhood Design

The benefits of LID are illustrated through comparison of conceptual
plans for conventional and LID neighbourhood developments
(Figures 4.1 and 4.2). A more detailed description and
assessment of the two development designs is contained in
APPENDIX E Comparative Modelling Study.

The site design follows the development objectives outlined in the

City of Edmonton’s Municipal Development Plan The Way We
Grow. Both site plans have been developed to mimic a realistic
greenfield suburban development in the Edmonton context
including the following features:

 lot building pocket, housing stock, population density and mixing

of use are consistent with others offered in the Edmonton
housing context;
 mixed dwelling types provides for a variety of housing options;
 residential densities taper down to protect interfaces between
properties, minimize shadows cast, preserve privacy and

Edition 1.1 Page 25

 maintain view corridors of community significance;
 commercial areas are laid out as focal points for
neighbourhoods where a major commercial anchor is
surrounded by residential development; and
 collector roads direct traffic from peripheral arterial roads into
the neighbourhood, providing immediate access to a school site,
commercial areas and surrounding residential local roads and
lanes.
Holistic – consideration of
the importance of the The standard site development process was followed for both
whole system and the neighbourhood plans. However, the LID Neighbourhood Plan
interdependence of its incorporated additional sustainable development considerations
parts, including: ecology;
including:
biology; hydrology;
sustainability; economics;
growth; etc.
 holistically based site assessments prior to site delineation;
 identification of natural vegetation and soil preservation zones;
 development delineation based on soil and hydrologic features;
 minimal impervious areas wherever possible;
 preservation of natural hydrologic processes to the extent
possible; and
 up front planning to minimize the impacts of construction
activities.

Figure 4.2 is an example of a site layout designed to minimize

impervious area by minimizing street lengths. Site layouts should
be designed to minimize impervious area as much as possible while
still meeting design objectives of the development, such as
walkability or densification. When a cul-de-sac based layout is
used (Figure 4.2), pedestrian pathways should be provided to
connect streets with other pathways, transit or open spaces (PSAT,
2005). The LID Neighbourhood Plan illustrated in Figure 4.2,
maintains the same housing and commercial density as the
Conventional Neighbourhood Plan (Figure 4.1) while providing the
following additional unique characteristics:

 minimized site grading and preservation of existing drainage

paths by locating roadways to avoid significant changes to the
site topography;
 reduced runoff from impervious areas by minimizing road
lengths and widths as much as possible while staying within
Edmonton’s development guidelines;
 road layout designed to reduce traffic through residential zones
and maintain easy access to institutional and commercial areas;

Edition 1.1 Page 26

  connected green spaces throughout the site, allowing for
stormwater capture and conveyance, wildlife movement and
easy pedestrian access to commercial and institutional areas;
 reduced imperviousness in institutional and commercial zones
through use of green roofs, permeable pavements and parking
lot bioretention areas;
 rainwater captured for re-use;
 reduced building setbacks to shorten driveways and reduce
impervious area;
 stormwater runoff directed toward natural depressions and
wetlands; and
 stormwater runoff conveyed through bioswales along a central
boulevard.

Edition 1.1 Page 27

 Figure 4.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept Plan

Edition 1.1
 Figure 4.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept Plan

Edition 1.1
 4.2 LID Site Design Process / Sequence
The LID site design process builds on the conventional site design
process with key modifications to capitalize on natural
characteristics of the site. The LID site design process seeks to
minimize detrimental hydrological impacts of development (Figure
4.3) by reducing impervious surfaces and using soil, vegetation and
topography to maintain the hydrologic cycle.

The LID site planner has an extensive tool kit at their disposal to
mitigate negative impacts on receiving waters by managing
volume, discharge frequency, peak flow rates and water quality.
Beginning at the assessment stage, involvement of a
multi-disciplinary LID design team, including qualified and
experienced professionals in landscape architecture, vegetation
ecology, geotechnical engineering, soils science, and water
resources engineering, is recommended to ensure long term
success of LID site designs.

The comparison of LID Neighbourhood planning with Conventional

Neighbourhood planning is referenced throughout this section for
illustration purposes.

Figure 4.3 Steps to Designing a LID Site

4.2.1 Site Assessment

A holistic approach is required for characterising key aspects of the
pre-development condition, including soils, geotechnical vegetation

Edition 1.1 Page 30

 and hydrologic conditions. A thorough understanding of these
aspects enables development of designs that work to preserve the
natural hydrologic response of the developed watershed.

Site assessments provide the information needed to fully

understand unique aspects of a potential development area. Table
4.1 provides an overview of the recommended parameters to be
captured in each of the assessments and at what stage of planning
these assessments should be conducted.
4.2.1.1 Soils and Geotechnical Assessment
Soils and geotechnical assessments are required, as outlined in
Table 4.1, to determine pre-development soil and sub-surface
conditions (PSAT, 2005). The following planning decisions are
directly based on results of the soils and geotechnical assessment:

 soil preservation zones in areas of more permeability;

 suitable LID facility locations;
 recommended soil amendments; and
 required soil protection measures during construction.

Facility failures such as flooding, ponding and clogging can occur if

infiltration based LID facilities are located in tight soil zones caused
by soil compaction or the presence of bedrock or clay sub-soils. High
native soil permeability increases the potential for groundwater
contamination in the presence of elevated pollutant concentrations.
Slope stability may be compromised when infiltration based LID
facilities are located in an unsuitable area.

Riparian – related to or 4.2.1.2 Vegetation Assessment

located on the banks of a A vegetation assessment is necessary to identify any areas
natural water course.
requiring protection during the construction process (PSAT, 2005).
These protected areas may be selected to:

 maintain a contiguous riparian or wildlife corridor;

 preserve rare plants;
 maintain mature tree stands; or
 maintain slope stability during construction.

The vegetation assessment may also provide a natural plant palate

for the landscape designer.

Edition 1.1 Page 31

 Table 4.1 Site Assessment Requirements
Assessment Parameter Location Timing
Soils
Field Investigation Structure
Texture
Colour
Predevelopment saturation condition Prior to
Particle distribution Across Site Development
Bulk density Delineation
Nutrient content
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
pH
Geotechnical
Assessment of existing information Ongoing
Field Testing Soil types
Soil layer depths
Depth to bedrock Prior to
Across Site Development
Groundwater elevation Delineation
Groundwater quality
Hydraulic conductivity
1
Infiltration Testing Saturated hydraulic conductivity at Below
elevation of facility base designed
Following
base at 2
PISP
facility
locations
Vegetation
Field Investigation Rare plants survey Prior to
Protection area delineation Across Site Development
Delineation
Hydrologic
Site Survey (Existing or surveyed topography)
Surface flow paths
Meteorologic Investigation Precipitation Prior to
Across Site Development
Temperature Delineation
Humidity
Wind
1
Infiltration tests must be conducted using published procedures
2
Preliminary Integrated Site Plan (Section 3.2.5)
(USEPA, 1999b; SEMCOG, 2008; PSAT, 2005)

Edition 1.1 Page 32

 4.2.1.3 Hydrologic Assessment
Hydrology is a function of the vegetation, soils and topography of
the site, as well as precipitation patterns. An assessment of
precipitation and meteorological conditions of the site must be
combined with a detailed survey to determine the hydrologic
patterns of the site (Table 4.1). Peak discharge rates from storm
events depend on the hydrologic response of the site during
precipitation events, and these rates are used to determine the
impact of the site on the receiving stream or downstream
stormwater management facilities. This assessment must be
carried out by a qualified stormwater engineer.

4.2.2 Identification of Applicable Zoning, Land Use,

Subdivision and Other Relevant Legislation
Some common land use regulations impacting LID implementation
are listed in Chapter 2. Discussions with the City of Edmonton
Sustainable Development department should be initiated at this
point in the process for clarity on constraints due to zoning, land
use and other legislation. Potential constraints that may impact the
implementation of LID facilities include:

 restrictions on the size and application of LID facilities within

right-of-ways due to width limitations; and
 limitations on road width reductions due to requirements to
provide access for the largest servicing vehicles, regardless of
whether these vehicles would need to access the area
(i.e. access for large ladder trucks where only two storey homes
are present).

In most cases, developable land is subject to a hierarchy of

overarching policies to which appropriate land uses must conform
through the subdivision of land. The corresponding Area Structure
Plan (ASP), Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) or Neighbourhood
Structure Plan (NSP) is the linkage between zoning and high level
statutory documents. The ASP / ARP / NSP provide a conceptual
layout of major city sectors by locating roads and other servicing
corridors, open spaces and general land uses.

The level of detail provided in planning documents for LID

implementation should be consistent to what is required for other
drainage infrastructure, as detailed in the City of Edmonton Design
and Construction Standards - Volume 3 Drainage, as well as in the

Edition 1.1 Page 33

 Terms of Reference for the Preparation and Amendment of
Residential Area Structure Plans.

Intent to implement LID in a development should be incorporated

into these planning documents. Proposed locations and types of
LID techniques should be displayed on land use and transportation
maps and incorporated into the drainage plans. The ASP should
also include discussion on proposed LID techniques as an
application of sustainable development principles. The Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw controls the use and development of all land in the
City of Edmonton and provides an essential link between policies
and subdivision and development control.
Area Master Plans (AMPs) develop and propose an optimum
drainage servicing scheme based on a high level hydraulic analysis
using proposed land uses and roadway alignment to confirm the
magnitude of flows and volumes to be accommodated. At this
stage in the planning process, the type and locations of LID facilities
should be considered and included as part of the conceptual design
of the proposed drainage scheme.

The Neighbourhood Design Report defines the basis of detailed

design of the principal components of the sanitary sewer and storm
drainage infrastructure. At this stage the feasibility of the LID
facilities proposed in the AMP should be analyzed. Land required
for the facilities, operation and maintenance requirements, and a
vegetation plan should be provided for the LID facilities

4.2.3 Delineation of the Development

Development delineation and subdivision design is the result of a
series of comprehensive considerations based on hydrology,
topography, soils variability, land and legal encumbrances,
surrounding land uses, environmental contamination and impacts
and servicing constraints. Involvement of a multi-disciplinary design
team is critical at this stage to account for unique site challenges
and constraints impacting the implementation of LID designs.

The first step in both conventional and LID development planning is

to identify ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ conservation areas. Primary
conservation areas typically consist of non-developable lands
adjacent to water bodies and water courses, wetlands and steep
slopes as identified by analysis of the site’s topography and / or
environmental and geotechnical studies. Depending on the context
of the site, secondary conservation areas may include less

Edition 1.1 Page 34

 significant natural areas such as existing tree stands, historically
and culturally significant sites, sites with exceptional views of
surrounding land, and high quality agricultural lands. Development
is designed to avoid primary conservation areas and preserve
secondary conservation areas wherever feasible.

Remaining land is referred to as the potential development area.

Careful preservation of primary conservation areas and minimized
development on secondary conservation areas often yields higher
lot value. In accordance with the Municipal Government Act, 10%
of developable land, which includes secondary conservation areas,
must be dedicated to municipal reserve (MR). No development
Passive Recreation – may take place on land deemed environmental reserve (ER).
emphasizes the open However, passive recreation uses are permitted.
space aspect of a park
and involves a low level of
development, including During the LID planning process, the following additional
picnic areas and trails. considerations will help to delineate the development area to
protect hydrologic and ecological features, and allow for
incorporation of LID facilities:

 identify protected areas (riparian habitat, stream buffers and

wetlands, among others), easements, setbacks, existing
drainage, topographic features, and natural drainage features;
 locate development in areas with lower infiltration potential such
as barren clayey soils and preserve higher infiltration soils for
LID facilities, where practical;
 delineate development envelope so that it respects natural
features and conforms to existing site topography and
hydrology;
 utilize slopes to naturally direct flows to bioswales;
 keep building footprints small to minimize grading and clearing
of land;
 avoid soil compaction and preserve natural vegetation where
possible;
 situate roadways in parallel with existing topographic ridges to
avoid unnecessary soil disturbance;
 where feasible, apply zoning consistent with LID design
objectives. For example, replacing RF1 Zoning (6 metre
minimum front yard setbacks) with a combination of Residential
Small Lot Zones (RSL) and Planned Lot Residential Zones
(RPL) (5.5 metre and 4.5 metre front yard setbacks,
respectively) will reduce site imperviousness by permitting
shorter driveways and more lot green space; and

Edition 1.1 Page 35

  continue or initiate dialogue with appropriate City departments
to ensure that expectations of both parties are understood and
incorporated.

4.2.4 Reduction of Impervious Surfaces within the

Development
Edmonton’s Subdivision Control and Servicing Agreements dictate
the level of flexibility a site planner has when designing a
neighbourhood layout. Widths of roads, sidewalks, alleyways and
driveways are often fixed to accommodate municipal servicing and
emergency services response. The increase in the total impervious
area causes an increase in total runoff volumes and peak runoff
rates. The layout of the road network has a bearing on the total
impervious area. Figure 4.4 provides a schematic comparing the
length of paved surface for various layouts. Many of the more
recent conventional neighbourhood plans in Edmonton are
characterized by a warped parallel layout.

LID sites use a variety of methods to minimize impervious areas.

These strategies include the use of:

 narrower road widths that reduce site imperviousness while

decreasing requirements for clearing and grading;
 flat curbs and roadside bioswales in place of traditional curb and
gutter, resulting in a substantial reduction in construction costs;
 single sidewalks limited to one side of primary roads (where it
will not negatively affect the social objectives of the
neighbourhood);
 one sided on-street parking;
 ‘green’ laneways using pervious materials and surfaces;
 minimized building footprints may be achieved by building taller,
narrower dwellings rather than sprawling ranch style homes;
 green roofs on multi-family and commercial sites to reduce
urban heat island effects;
 limited width (2.75 metres) shared driveways and two track
driveways to reduce impervious area;
 zoning changes to RSL and RPL zones to reduce the overall
length of driveways, due to reduced lot setbacks; and
 alternate street layouts designed to maximize the number of lots
with the minimum amount of pavement as shown in Figure 4.4.

After minimizing impervious areas, portions of the remaining

Edition 1.1 Page 36

 impervious area may be routed to vegetated areas throughout the
neighbourhood to derive further hydrologic benefits. This can be
accomplished in an LID context by:

 disconnecting roof drains from weeping tile or storm sewers and

routing flows to vegetated areas;
 preventing compaction of pervious areas during construction;
 fostering sheet flow through vegetated areas. Concentrated
runoff can be converted to sheet flow by incorporating level
spreader stormwater outlets; and
 locating impervious areas to drain to LID facilities.

Figure 4.4 Street Layout Options According to Pavement Length

Hydrologically 4.2.5 Development of Preliminary Integrated Site Plan

Sustainable Site – A
The preliminary integrated site plan gives context to the
development that
minimizes its impact to the development and provides an opportunity to fine tune selected LID
natural hydrological strategies. It provides a basis for comparison of
process. pre- and post-development hydrology to ensure that the objective of
creating a hydrologically sustainable site has been satisfied. The
preliminary integrated site plan also provides construction
management strategies for soils and vegetation to maintain the
biologic, ecologic and hydrologic function of the LID site.

4.2.6 Hydrology Comparison

Hydrologic modelling allows stormwater engineers to identify where
LID facilities will be most beneficial and the level of stormwater

Edition 1.1 Page 37

 management provided through the selected facilities. Stormwater
engineers will use hydrologic modelling to calculate any additional
level of control required, beyond planned LID facilities, to ensure
the site release rate and volume meet discharge requirements to
the receiving stream or downstream stormwater management
facilities. The modelled site hydrology can be compared to
pre-development hydrology, enabling the developer, designer and
approver to quantify stormwater impacts of the LID based
development. Monitoring of the site following development will
provide information on real-world performance of the LID site.

4.2.7 Construction Management

Soil and vegetation management during construction are critical to
the success of an LID development. A construction management
plan should be developed early in the planning process.

4.2.7.1 Soil Management

Soil management is a sustainable land development practice that is
recommended from initial site planning through to final facility
completion. Soil management can be achieved by:

 delineating and flagging or fencing on-site soil preservation

areas identified during the soil assessment process to protect
these areas from compaction and grading (PSAT, 2005);
 developing a soil management plan, to be implemented during
grading and development, that defines topsoil stockpiling
strategies and topsoil amendment requirements for on-site
restoration;
 restricting construction access and traffic to clearly defined
on-site routes; and
 measuring soil characteristics (Table 3.2), especially on retrofit
sites, at planned facility locations immediately prior to
construction to confirm sub-soil characteristics and amendment
requirements.

It is important to keep in mind that tight soils with low infiltration

rates do not preclude the implementation of LID facilities. Rather,
adaptations such as underdrains connected to downstream LID
facilities or storm sewers may be required for successful
implementation. Site evaluations are key components for the
success of a LID-BMP facility as soil structure and composition
often vary across a site. Infiltration rates vary over a wide range

Edition 1.1 Page 38

 depending on soil type, texture, moisture content, and compaction
levels. The hydraulic conductivity rates in Table 4.2 are for general
guidance only, as they can vary widely with local soil conditions.

Construction management is critical to the success of LID facilities

because although soil permeability is strongly influenced by soil
texture and moisture, compaction can dramatically modify infiltration
rates. The extent of impact differs depending on soil texture and
moisture content. Soils with high fines (silt and clay) content will
experience a more substantial decrease in infiltration rate as
compared to soils with high sand content. Care should be taken
during construction to avoid introducing unnecessary compaction to
the subgrade and soil media at the LID site.

On-site soil storage and erosion control plans require compliance

with local, provincial, and federal standards and must be planned in
advance. Soil media should not be placed until the site draining to
vegetative LID features, including bioretention and bioswale
facilities, has been stabilized or effective sediment controls to
intercept sediments from nearby construction activities have been
installed and are functioning.

4.2.7.2 Vegetation Management

The preservation or restoration of site vegetation on a construction
site is possible and may be achieved through the following steps:

 delineate and / or flag on-site vegetation preservation areas as

identified through the site assessment process (Table 4.1);
 select vegetation species with considerations given to site
conditions, coverage, and viability;
 develop a landscape plan in collaboration with landscape
architecture, vegetation ecology, soil science and water
resource engineering professionals; and
 prepare a Landscape Maintenance Plan in accordance with the
City of Edmonton Design & Construction Standards
(COE, 2013). The plan should specify integrated pest and weed
management and plant maintenance activities as well as facility
inspection schedules.

Edition 1.1 Page 39

 Table 4.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Relation to Soil Texture
Soil Texture Ksat (mm/hr)
Coarse sand >423
sand 152 - 508
sandy loam 51 - 152
very fine sandy loam 15 - 51
clay loam 5 - 15
sandy clay 2-5
(USDA, 2014)

4.2.8 Completion of the LID Site Plan

The LID Site Plan will outline findings of the assessments and
modelling as background to the selected site layout. Hydrologic
modelling of the planned site, detailed in the LID Site Plan, will be
used to justify LID facility type, location and impact on stormwater
management of the site. The site plan will also include any
conventional stormwater management facilities required to meet
discharge requirements of the site. The LID Site Plan will include
expected erosion and sediment controls and operation and
maintenance activities required over the life of the LID facility.

Edition 1.1 Page 40

 5 LID-BMPS OVERVIEW

5.1 LID Facility Features and Description

LID Best Management Practices are intended for managing
stormwater near or at its source in addition to efficiently conveying
and discharging excess stormwater into a receiving water body.
Although there are various types of LID-BMPs, they all follow the
same principle of “slowing it down, spreading it out, and soaking it
in” (EPA, 2011), aimed at replicating the natural hydrological
processes of absorption, infiltration, evaporation and evapo-
transpiration.

Through a literature review, LID-BMPs were assessed considering

Edmonton’s climate and physical characteristics. Seven LID
features were identified to be suitable for Edmonton’s environment:
(1) bioretention; (2) bioswales; (3) green roofs; (4) permeable
pavements; (5) box planters; (6) naturalized drainage ways; and
(7) rainwater harvesting for re-use.

5.1.1 Bioretention / Rain Gardens

Bioretention areas (also referred to as rain gardens) are
stormwater management and treatment facilities within a shallow
depression using vegetation and amended topsoil. They provide
water quality treatment, reduce runoff, and allow for infiltration near
where runoff originates, such as roofs, driveways and sidewalks.
A bump-out is a facility where the curb is extended into the street
and a bioretention facility is placed in the space between the
extended curb and the original curb line. An inlet or curb-cut directs
runoff into the bump-out allowing for storage, infiltration and
evapotranspiration. An overflow outlet on the downstream side of
the bump out allows for excess water over designed ponding depth
to bypass the facility and enter storm sewer system. Figure 5.1
shows examples of bioretention facilities installed in Edmonton,
including two bump-out facilities.

On the surface, bioretention areas appear similar to flower / shrub

beds and are often called rain gardens. Bioretention installations
can range from highly urban environments with hard walls to
extensive areas within parks, blending into the topography and
extending to street corners and bump outs, to combinations with
conveyance facilities such as bioswales. They may be designed to
infiltrate water into the underlying soils for groundwater recharge or

Edition 1.1 Page 41

 may provide soil moisture with excess water being directed to
storm sewers through an under drain.

The fundamental differences between a bioretention area and a

conventional planting bed are that bioretention areas utilize
engineered soils and vegetation to capture and treat rainwater and
are located at the low point of a landscape. Rainwater then flows
either naturally or through an inlet into the bioretention area’s
concave surface. Depending on the ability of the sub-soils to
infiltrate water (hydraulic conductivity), a bioretention area may
have four layers, including (Figure 5.2):

1. plantings and aged mulch;

2. topsoil, natural or amended;
3. gravel drainage layer; and
4. under drain with cleanouts.

Big Lake Starling Road Bump Outs Big Lake Starling Road Bump Outs
Big Lake Trumpeter rain garden in Edmonton, AB.
Bioretention in Edmonton AB. Photo by Bioretention in Edmonton AB. Photo by
Photo by Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton, 2011
Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton, 2013 Kenneth Yip, City of Edmonton, 2013

Figure 5.1 Bioretention Installations in Edmonton, Alberta

Edition 1.1 Page 42

 Figure 5.2 Bioretention Area Components

5.1.2 Bioswales
Bioswales, also called vegetated swales, are swales with grass and
other vegetation, enhanced topsoil, and an underlying infiltration
layer (Claytor, 1996; TRCA, 2009; MDEP, 1997). They are
designed to slow runoff velocities by increasing surface roughness.
Increased surface roughness results in increased surface contact
time, allowing more infiltration, evaporation, transpiration and water
quality enhancement prior to the runoff entering another stormwater
management facility. Examples of bioswale applications are
depicted in Figure 5.3.

Bioswales differ from common grass swales. Grass swales have

limited infiltration potential since they usually do not have an
enhanced top soil or infiltration underlayer. The layers of a
bioswale are similar to those of bioretention areas, as shown in
Figure 5.2.

Edition 1.1 Page 43

 Altalink Cumberland bioswale in Terwillegar Recreation Centre Bioswale in parking lot in Surrey,
Edmonton, AB. Photo by Xiangfei Li, bioswale in Edmonton, AB. Photo by BC. Photo by Fayi Zhou, City of
City of Edmonton, 2011 Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton, 2011 Edmonton, 2011

Mill Woods Parks Parking in University of Alberta Cyclotron Big Lake Starling PUL Ellerslie Fire Station #27 in
Edmonton, AB. Photo by Facility Parking in Edmonton, Bioswale in Edmonton, AB. Edmonton, AB. Photo by
Kenneth Yip, City of AB. Photo by Kennth Yip, City Photo by Xiangfei Li, City of Kennth Yip, City of Edmonton,
Edmonton, 2014. of Edmonton, 2014 Edmonton, 2014 2014.

Figure 5.3 Bioswale Installation Examples

5.1.3 Green Roofs

Green roofs consist of live vegetation established on top of
buildings. There are two types of green roofs: extensive and
intensive (see Figure 5.4). An extensive green roof consists of a
relatively thin layer of growing medium (approximately
50 to 150 mm) and a ground cover type of plant that is hardy to the
harsh conditions of a rooftop. An intensive green roof consists of
soil depths of at least 300 mm and may include woody plants such
as shrubs and trees. Intensive green roofs are often used as public
green spaces. Both types of green roof consist of a series of layers
as illustrated in Figure 5.5.

Edition 1.1 Page 44

 Victoria Golf Course Maintenance
Stantec Building, Edmonton, AB. Photo REI Building (intensive green roof), Denver, CO.
Building Green Roof in Edmonton,
courtesy Penny Dunford, Stantec Photo courtesy Kerri Robinson, AMEC Earth &
AB. Photo by Kenneth Yip, City of
Consulting, 2009 Environmental
Edmonton 2014

Valley Zoo Entry Plaza Green Roof in

Victoria Golf Course Maintenance Building Green Roof in
Edmonton, AB. Photo by Kenneth Yip, City
Edmonton, AB. Photo by Kenneth Yip, City of Edmonton 2014
of Edmonton 2014

Figure 5.4 Intensive and Extensive Green Roofs

Edition 1.1 Page 45

(adapted from: greenwardliving.com/green.aspx)

Figure 5.5 Layers of a Green Roof

5.1.4 Permeable Pavement

Porous asphalt, porous concrete, permeable unit pavers and open
grid pavers (Figure 5.6) are all considered to be permeable
pavement, and may also be known as porous pavement.
Incorporating permeable pavements into a development will
reduce the effective impervious area of the development without
losing its functionality. They are typically used in low traffic areas
such as parking lots. In general, the structure of permeable
pavement consists of four layers (Figure 5.7):

1. permeable pavement or pavers;

2. ‘choker course’ or bedding layer of washed stone;
3. reservoir layer consisting of clean washed uniformly graded
aggregate or a tank consisting of a matrix of open weave
boxes; and
4. perforated underdrain incorporated into the reservoir layer as
required.

Edition 1.1 Page 46

 Pervious paver in Surrey, BC. Porous asphalt parking lot with Porous asphalt in Philadelphia, PA.
Photo by Fayi Zhou, City of bioretention in Surrey, BC. Photo by Photo by Xiangfei Li, City of
Edmonton, 2011 Fayi Zhou, City of Edmonton, 2011 Edmonton, 2011

University of Alberta, Maintenance Building Walkway University of Alberta, East Campus Village
Permeable Pavers in Edmonton, AB. Photo by Kenneth Yip, Walkway Permeable Pavers in Edmonton, AB.
City of Edmonton, 2014. Photo by Kenneth Yip, City of Edmonton, 2014.

Figure 5.6 Permeable Pavement Installation Examples

Figure 5.7 Components of Permeable Pavement Facilities

Edition 1.1 Page 47

 5.1.5 Box Planters
Infiltrating box planters are similar to bioretention systems as they
use vegetation and amended soils to filter and retain stormwater
(Figure 5.8). There are three types of box planters that may be
implemented based on site characteristics and requirements:

 contained planters with outlet only through overflow;

 flow-through planters with an underdrain outlet; and
 infiltration planters that drain through deep infiltration and
groundwater recharge.

A planter typically consists of a concrete box, which may or may not

have a lined or concrete bottom (depending on whether infiltration is
desirable), filled with a soil medium, and planted with trees, shrubs
or flowering species. An alternative to the concrete box is a matrix
of buried plastic cells (Figure 5.9) that can be assembled to any
required shape and size. The matrix provides structural support for
sidewalks and roadways while allowing for deep root penetration
and stormwater management through infiltration, filtration and
interception.

Box planters are typically designed to provide treatment for

frequent, smaller volume rainfall events. Infiltration planter boxes
should be regularly spaced along the length of a corridor such that
they provide an appropriate level of water quality treatment for the
receiving drainage area and reduce the impervious surface area.

Edition 1.1 Page 48

 Box planter in Philadelphia, PA. Photo by Xiangfei Li, Box planter installation including trees in Kitchener,
City of Edmonton, 2011 ON. Photo by Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton, 2011

Figure 5.8 Examples of Box Planter Installations

Figure 5.9 Tree Trench Box Planter with Soil Cells

Edition 1.1 Page 49

 Box planters can also aid in reducing runoff volume and peak flows.
The primary mechanisms of stormwater management for infiltrating
box planters (Figure 5.10) include:

1. surface infiltration;
2. transpiration;
3. deep infiltration (optional); and
4. delayed release to the minor system.

Typically, stormwater enters the infiltrating box planter through a

curb cut and infiltrates through a layer of mulch and soil. Some of
the water is retained by the soil and subsequently used by the
vegetation and released through evapo-transpiration. Depending
on the native soils’ characteristics, infiltrated water will percolate
(deep infiltration) to the groundwater table. If infiltration is not an
option a perforated underdrain placed near the bottom of the box
planter will convey excess water to the storm drainage system or a
reservoir for re-use purposes (such as irrigation).

Figure 5.10 Stormwater Management Mechanisms in a Box Planter

Edition 1.1 Page 50

 5.1.6 Naturalized Drainage Ways
Naturalized drainage ways are surface stormwater conveyance
features that use wetland zones, drop structures and natural
materials and vegetation to replace storm sewer mains or prevent
erosion of existing drainage ways (Figure 5.11). They generally
have frequent or continuous runoff (base flow), even during
periods of little or no precipitation. Base flow in these facilities
results from residential irrigation and outdoor water use.

Naturalized drainage ways are often used as replacements for

Catchment – the area storm sewer trunks. As more development occurs in upstream
draining to a single point catchments, increased base flows are observed in the drainage
such as an LID-BMP
ways. These facilities are generally viewed as great amenities to
facility
surrounding communities and provide a refuge for birds and
wildlife in the area.

Naturalized drainage ways are typically larger than grass swales,

more engineered than natural wetlands and in some cases may
appear similar to a small creek. Velocities of urban runoff and
stormwater are slowed using natural vegetation, increased
resistance along the flow path and drop structures (MDEP, 1997).
Additionally, prolonged stormwater contact with natural materials
promotes the hydrologic cycle through evaporation and
transpiration.

Naturalized drainage way and Naturalized drainage

Filing 35 in Denver, CO The Preserve in Denver, CO
wetland way in unknown location.
All photos courtesy Kerri Robinson, AMEC.

Figure 5.11 Naturalized Drainage Ways in Medium and Low Density Developments

Edition 1.1 Page 51

 Naturalized drainage ways usually follow property lines and utility
rights-of-way. Infiltration from naturalized drainage ways is
typically not a significant contributor to the hydrologic cycle due to
saturated soils and / or direct connection with the groundwater
table.

Where longitudinal slopes exceed 1%, drop structures are used to

reduce flow velocities and maintain flat grades. The primary
mechanisms of stormwater management in a naturalized drainage
way are shown in Figure 5.12 and include:

1. slowed velocities through channel roughness and drop

structures; and
2. evaporation and transpiration from surface flows and plant
uptake.

Figure 5.12 Stormwater Management Mechanisms in a Naturalized Drainage Way

Edition 1.1 Page 52

 5.1.7 Rainwater Harvesting for Re-use
Rainwater harvesting gathers and accumulates rainwater falling on
a rooftop and stores it for re-use in irrigation or other legislated
uses. Rainwater harvesting may be as simple as collecting
rainwater from roof downspouts in a rain barrel and using it to
water planters and gardens. On a larger scale, rainwater may be
collected in a large cistern located underground or in a garage or
basement, and then re-used for irrigation with a direct hook-up to
automatic sprinklers or an outdoor hose bib (Figure 5.13).

Clockwise from top left: Residential rain barrels, photo by University of Alberta Triffo Hall Rainwater Harvesting in
Diane Wirtz, 2013; cast in place concrete cistern Edmonton, AB. Photo by Kennth Yip, City of Edmonton,
integrated within a parking garage (Source: TRCA); 2014
above-ground plastic cistern; underground pre-cast
concrete cistern (Source: University of Guelph)

Figure 5.13 Types of Rainwater Storage Tanks

(From TRCA and CVCA, 2010)

5.2 Performance of LID-BMPs

LID-BMPs replicate natural hydrological processes to manage
surface runoff due to urbanization. They reduce both runoff
volumes and rates and improve stormwater quality.

Edition 1.1 Page 53

 In general, treatment of stormwater begins with filtration of
particulates as runoff flows over the surface and through
vegetation, and again when it infiltrates through mulch and soil
layers. Water is retained in the growing medium and contributed
back to the hydrologic cycle through evapo-transpiration. Soil
microbes within the soils provide decomposition for pollutants
such as hydrocarbons and nutrients. Soils also allow metals and
chemicals to sorb to soil particles and compounds within the soil,
preventing their release to receiving streams.

For permeable pavements, water quality benefits begin with

filtration of stormwater through the porous asphalt / concrete or
bedding course layer. Contaminants such as fine particulates, oil
and grease and heavy metals will be trapped within the pore
structure of the porous asphalt / concrete or bedding course layer.

Due to the site specific characteristics of LID features,

performance varies from site to site. Performance also depends
heavily on design objectives and quality of construction. Table
5.1 summarizes overall performance of LID-BMPs for reduction of
annual runoff and some key pollutants.

Table 5.1 Observed Removal Efficiencies (%) in LID-BMP Facilities in the USA and Canada

Naturalized
Bioretention / Vegetated Box Planter / Permeable
Pollutant 1 2 3 Drainage
Rain Garden Swale Green Roof Pavement 4
Way
Annual Runoff
Reduction (RR) 50~90 40~80 45~60 45~75
Total Suspended Solids 59-90 65-81 86 85-89 80
Hydrocarbons 65
Metals 80-90 20-50 35-90 40-70
Total Phosphorus 5-65 25 59 55-85 20
Total Nitrogen 46-50 15-56 32 35-42 40
Bacteria negative 37 40-80
1
based on monitoring results for grass swales
2
filtering practices
3
infiltration practices
4
based on monitoring results for wet swales
(CWP, 2007a; Claytor et al, 1996)

Edition 1.1 Page 54

 5.3 LID Benefits, Costs and Limitations

5.3.1 LID Benefits

Table 5.2 provides a summary of the benefits that the seven LID-
BMPs described in this guide can offer. These benefits can be
realized at various scales according to local and site-specific
factors. Some of the benefits can be quantified with a monetary
value while others are intangible. The Value of Green
Infrastructure, developed by the Center for Neighbourhood
Technology, provides a reference to calculate the economic benefit
of LID applications (CNT, 2010). Benefits that can be quantified
with economic values include avoided runoff treatment, total
suspended solids (TSS) reduction, air pollutant removal, and
energy savings from green roofs.

The benefits of LID originate from its approach of treating

stormwater close to its sources by mimicking natural systems.
Environmental benefits are realized because LID is able to reduce
stormwater peak flow and volume and improve water quality.
Realization of environmental benefits further brings social and
economic benefits associated with LID applications. The benefits of
LID are further described below.

Reduced stormwater runoff. LID is intended to intercept,

infiltrate, filter, store, and detain stormwater runoff. For example,
green roofs can store significant amounts of water in their growing
media, while bioretention can infiltrate and attenuate storm runoff.
Reduced flooding. LID applied throughout a watershed can
reduce urban runoff volumes and thus has the potential to reduce
subsequent flooding risk.
Reduced combined sewer overflow. Integrating LID into
stormwater management practices can reduce overflow volumes,
frequency, and impacts for both combined and separate systems
through reducing peak flows and improving water quality. Some
municipalities have found that the reduction of CSOs through LID-
BMPs was more cost-effective than conventional practices of CSO
storage and sewer separation (Riverkeeper, 2007).

Edition 1.1 Page 55

 Table 5.2 Benefits of LID-BMPs

LID-BMPs
Benefits Bioretention Bioswale Green Permeable Box Naturalized Rainwater
Roof Pavement Planter Drainage Way Harvesting
Reduced Storm Runoff + + + + + + +
Reduced Flooding + + + + + + +
Reduced CSO + + + + + + +
Improved Water Quality + + + + + + +
Increased Groundwater
+ + + □ +
Recharge
Reduced Salt Application +
Improved Air Quality + + + + +
Reduced Urban Heat Island + + + + + +
Reduced Energy Use + + + + + + +
Improved Aesthetics and
+ + + □ + +
Property Values
Improved Habitat + + + + +
Reduced Traditional
Stormwater Infrastructure + + + + + + +
Expenditure
(CNT, 2010; ECONorthwest, 2007; USEPA, 2007)
+ Yes □ Possible

Edition 1.1 Page 56

 Improved water quality. LID can improve water quality by
effective capture and treatment of pollutants and sediments that
typically wash into sewers and receiving water bodies. Pollutants
are filtered, absorbed, or biodegraded while moving through
infiltration media.
Increased groundwater recharge. On-site infiltration of
stormwater can increase groundwater recharge by directing
rainwater into the ground instead of pipes.
Reduced salt application. Permeable pavement has been
demonstrated to delay the formation of a frost layer in winter
(Roseen, 2009; Houle, 2008), which can reduce salt application and
reduce pollution to surface and groundwater resources. The
economic benefit of salt reduction is a potential cost saving.
Reduced energy use. The presence of vegetation on LID facilities
reduces the temperature of its surroundings. This can reduce
requirements for heating and cooling systems, resulting in reduced
energy use. For example, green roofs reduce roof surface
temperatures through evaporative cooling from water retained in the
growing medium and reduce a building’s energy consumption by
providing superior insulation. Rainwater harvesting saves energy
by reducing use of potable water that needs energy for treatment
and transport.
Improved air quality. Vegetated LID facilities (e.g. bioswale,
bioretention) can improve air quality through uptake of air pollutants
and deposition of particulate matter. Permeable pavement,
rainwater harvesting, and vegetated LID facilities can indirectly
improve air quality by reducing the amount of water/wastewater
treatment needed, in turn reducing greenhouse gas production and
air pollution from power plants.
Reduced urban heat island. Permeable pavements help reduce
Albedo – Reflective the surrounding air temperature because they absorb less heat than
power or fraction of solar conventional pavement. Vegetated LID facilities mitigate the urban
radiation reflected by a
heat island effect through evaporative cooling and reduction of
surface or object
surface albedo.
Improved aesthetics and property values. The vegetation cover
of LID facilities can enhance aesthetic appeal of an area and
increase adjacent proper values by increasing desirability of the lots
and their proximity to an open space (ECONorthwest, 2007). Some
permeable pavements help to reduce noise.
Improved habitat. LID supports biodiversity and provides valuable

Edition 1.1 Page 57

 wildlife habitat in the urban setting by contributing green spaces and
connections to ecological corridors.
Reduced cost of stormwater infrastructure. LID can help reduce
the demand for conventional stormwater controls (e.g. curb-and-
gutter) and reduce requirements to upgrade downstream storm
sewer capacity with additional infrastructure. LID can potentially
reduce the long-term cost of operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation of stormwater management infrastructure through
improved environmental performance.

5.3.2 Life Cycle Costs

There is considerable interest in comparing the development costs
of sites designed using LID-BMPs to manage stormwater runoff and
those designed using conventional stormwater management
practices. Table 5.3 provides a cost comparison of sites designed
using LID-BMPs and those designed using conventional
development practices. Development of LID-BMP stormwater
management systems costs less than comparable conventional
systems in most cases. However, every development is unique and
should be considered and assessed individually.

In addition to whole site comparisons of the costs for implementing

LID or conventional design methods, an understanding of the life
cycle costs of LID-BMP facilities is necessary for planning and
decision making purposes. Table 5.4 provides a breakdown of
capital costs, annual maintenance costs, expected life for well
designed, constructed and maintained facilities and facility
replacement costs. These costs are provided for comparison with
conventional systems and infrastructure life cycle costs. In addition
to capital construction and maintenance costs, the value of
environmental and social benefits of both types of systems must be
incorporated into cost-benefit analyses. It is important to note that
design and engineering costs for LID-BMP facilities typically range
from 5% to 40% of construction costs (TRCA, 2009).

The range of costs illustrated in Table 5.4 is quite wide. In the

development of LID-BMP facilities, economies of scale apply when
assessing costs. Sites designed with several similar features
Greenfield – land that has utilizing the same materials, or incorporating large facilities will have
not been previously reduced costs per unit area compared to sites with a single
developed
LID-BMP feature. The costs of retrofit applications of LID-BMP in
highly urbanized areas are likely to be higher than greenfield

Edition 1.1 Page 58

 developments due to site preparation costs. Several additional
factors will contribute to increased costs of LID-BMP facilities,
including:

 poor quality or contaminated site soils requiring extensive

amendments or transport of soil;
 requirement of geotextiles to prevent infiltration where
groundwater contamination may occur or in tight soils where
frost heave is a concern;
 structural reinforcement requirements associated with retrofitting
green roofs on existing buildings;
 application of intensive green roofs utilizing higher soil volumes
and more plant varieties than extensive green roofs;
 plant selection variations for bioretention areas, bioswales and
box planters depending on location, i.e., downtown planters may
use species with higher initial costs or requiring more
maintenance;
 higher labour costs associated with permeable paver installation
compared to porous asphalt or concrete; and
 small rainwater harvesting cisterns with higher costs per unit
volume than large units.

Table 5.4 applies an approach for cost estimating where capital,

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated based on
facility size. This method is simple to use, but may not represent
specific site conditions and installation options as the costs
tabulated are the averaged costs from various projects.

A recently developed Best Management Practice and Low Impact

Development Whole Life Cost Model by the Water Environmental
Research Foundation (WLCM-WERF) is a parametric approach that
incorporates capital costs using design parameters and a detailed
O&M cost estimation using a prescribed maintenance schedule
(WERF, 2009). Parametric methods such as the WLCM-WERF
model offer a variety of factors to be adjusted to improve the
accuracy of estimates. These factors include retrofitting, self or
professional installation, level of capital cost, and level of O&M (low,
medium, or high) costs. However, this type of model requires
significant input of parameters for which data may not be available.

Caution should be used when applying any models developed for

LID projects outside of the Edmonton region. Users should modify
model parameters using local data if available for estimating LID

Edition 1.1 Page 59

 costs applicable to the Edmonton region.

5.3.3 Limitations of LID-BMPs

Although LID provides many tangible and intangible benefits
environmentally and socially, it has some limitations. This section
lists the limitations of each of the seven LID-BMPs discussed in this
Guide.
5.3.3.1 Bioretention/Rain Gardens
 Unlike stormwater ponds, bioretention cannot treat large
drainage areas;
 They are susceptible to clogging by sediment. Therefore,
pre-treatment may be required, especially in locations where
anti-skid material has been applied to the contributing
catchment;
 They may consume considerable space, between 5% to 20%, of
the catchment area;
 Incorporation into parking lot design may reduce the number of
parking stalls available; and
 Depending on the location and development type, construction
costs can be relatively high compared to some conventional
stormwater treatment practices.
5.3.3.2 Bioswales
 Improper installation will prevent removal of sediment and
pollutants. Slopes and vegetation density are critical;
 Individual swales can treat only small areas;
 They are less feasible along roadsides with many driveway
crossings;
 Phosphorus and bacteria removal capabilities are limited;
 Maintenance requirements are higher than curb and gutter
systems; and
 They may be subject to damage from off-street parking and
snow removal when located along roadways.

Edition 1.1 Page 60

 Table 5.3 Cost Comparison Summary of Conventional and LID Approaches for Selected Projects in the USA
1 Conventional LID Development Cost Percent LID-BMP Facilities
Projects 3
Development Cost Cost Difference Difference Included
2
Ridgefield , New Hanover County, North
$2,394,136 $889,140 $1,504,996 63% S, W
Carolina
2nd Avenue SEA Street, Seattle,
$868,803 $651,548 $217,255 25% B, RIA, S
Washington
Auburn Hills, Wisconsin $2,360,385 $1,598,989 $761,396 32% B, RIA, S, VL, W
Bellingham City Hall, Bellingham
$27,600 $5,600 $22,000 80% B
Washington
Bellingham Bloedel Donovan Park,
$52,800 $12,800 $40,000 76% B
Bellingham, Washington
Gap Creek, Sherwood, Arkansas $4,620,600 $3,942,100 $678,500 15% RIA, VL
Garden Valley, Pierce County, Washington $324,400 $260,700 $63,700 20% B, CD, S, PP, W
Kensington Estates, Pierce County,
$765,700 $1,502,900 -$737,200 -96% CD, RIA, PP, VL, W
Washington
Laurel Springs, Jackson, Wisconsin $1,654,021 $1,149,552 $504,469 30% B, CD, RIA, S
Mill Creek Lots, Kane County, Illinois $12,510 $9,099 $3,411 27% CD, RIA, S
Prairie Glen, Germantown, Wisconsin $1,004,848 $599,536 $405,312 40% B, CD, RIA, S, VL, W
Somerset, Prince George's County,
$2,456,843 $1,671,461 $785,382 32% B, S
Maryland
Tellabs Corporate Campus, Naperville,
$3,162,160 $2,700,650 $461,510 15% B, S, VL, W
Illinois
1
( USEPA, 2007; The Watershed Academy, 2010)
2
Additional lots were added to the site as a result of the LID measures for an additional profit of $500,000
3
Bioretention (B), Swales (S), Permeable Pavement (PP), Reduced Impervious area (RIA), Wetlands (W), Vegetated Landscape (VL), Cluster Development (CD)

Edition 1.1 Page 61

 Table 5.4 Life Cycle Costs of LID-BMP Facilities

Generalized Costs
Feature Replacement
Construction Annual Maintenance 1
Life Cycle Cost
Fall irrigation
3 maintenance: $25/yr
Rainwater Harvesting $212-$1000/m of 25-100+
residential; cistern Construction costs
System storage years
flush/pump:
$100-$150 /yr
2
$3-$44/m during first
Extensive: Replacement of waterproof
2 2 years (reduced 2
$230-$550 /m 30-50 membrane $6/m plus
Green Roofs following establishment
Intensive: years general labour to remove
2 of plantings after 2-5
$500-$3000 /m and replace green roof.
years)
Construction costs;
drainage area
characteristics may require
2 2 25-50
Box Planters $30-$350/m $13-$30/m replacement of soils
years 2
($10-$15/m ) 2-10 times
more often than the
drainage structure
Major rehabilitation:
2 2 2
Bioretention $30-$250/m $13-$30/m >20 years $4-$170 /m every 15-20
years
2
2 $0.15-$0.30/m for
Permeable Pavement $340-$500/m >20 years Construction costs
vacuum or deep clean
Construction costs;
drainage area
characteristics may require
2 2
Biowales $11-$35/m $0.20-$1.00/m >20 years replacement of sod and
2
soil ($15-$20 /m ) up to
2 times more often than
the drainage structure
Full replacement not
2 2 >20-100+
Naturalized Drainage Ways $25-$250/m <$1-$18/m expected when well
years
maintained
1
Expected life for well-designed and maintained facilities
(TRCA, 2009; Wayne County, 2001; CRDWS, 2008; Peck, 2003; SWRPC, 1991; Alberta supplier/installers; AMEC,
pers. comm. 2010; Progressive Engineering Ltd, pers. comm, 2010)

Edition 1.1 Page 62

 5.3.3.3 Green Roofs
 Costs to build green roofs are high compared to traditional roof
treatments;
 Only direct rainfall is treated;
 Control of maintenance and operation is often beyond municipal
jurisdiction; and
 Design and construction experience is currently limited in
Canada, though rapidly becoming less so.
5.3.3.4 Permeable Pavement
 Maintenance requirements are high compared to other LID-BMP
stormwater management facilities;
 Costs to build permeable pavements are high compared to
other stormwater management facilities;
 A small drainage area is treated;
 They are susceptible to clogging where anti-skid material is
applied;
 Performance is reduced if freezing occurs while the surface is
saturated;
 They are unsuitable for use in areas where heavy sediment
loads are expected or in active construction or excavation areas
that are not fully stabilized; and
 They are unsuitable for use in areas with heavy vehicle traffic,
unless specifically designed for heavy loads.
5.3.3.5 Box Planters
 Contained and flow-through box planters require downstream
LID-BMP facilities or connection to a conventional storm sewer
system to convey excess stormwater; and
 Contained and flow-through box planters do not contribute to
groundwater recharge.
5.3.3.6 Naturalized Drainage Ways
 They are impractical to implement in areas with very flat or very
steep topography;
Flash Flood – may occur
 They may be subject to some erosion during high flow velocities
when water levels in a
drainage way rise very
or volumes resulting from large storm events;
rapidly with little or no  They require considerable space for implementation, which may
warning preclude their use in highly developed sites;
 Potential for high flow rates and / or flash floods must be
assessed to ensure public safety where pedestrian access
alongside naturalized drainage ways is encouraged; and

Edition 1.1 Page 63

  Feasibility of application is reduced along roadsides with many
driveway crossings.

5.3.3.7 Rainwater Harvesting for Re-Use

 Systems have minimal water quality treatment capabilities;
 In Alberta, rainwater re-use systems often require a potable
water supplement since rainfall is not consistent enough to
supply all irrigation or non-potable demands in a timely and
economical manner;
 Installation MUST be done by experienced personnel to prevent
any chance of cross contamination of the potable system;
 Due to installation on private property, control of operation and
maintenance is typically beyond the jurisdiction of municipalities.

Edition 1.1 Page 64

 6 LID-BMPS FACILITY DESIGN

This chapter provides general considerations for design of LID-BMP

facilities. Specific design recommendations for addressing local
and climatic constraints will be described in later chapters.

All LID design parameters within this Design Guide are based on
underlying assumptions that soils in Edmonton are tight and
expansive and that winter snow accumulates to a final frost depth
and spring melt. Facility design details include cold climate
adaptations and consideration of the City of Edmonton’s sand / salt
winter maintenance regime.

Each LID site is unique and has specific characteristics that require
consideration during the planning and design stages to ensure
successful implementation. A thorough investigation of each design
parameter is required to ensure the design accounts for all of local
conditions surrounding the proposed application.

6.1 Vegetation Selection and Planting

Vegetation selection and survival is an important facility feature as
vegetation type, morphology, and structure influence hydraulics and
pollutant settling or transport.

The use of native vegetation throughout the project site is

Ornamental Vegetation – recommended where appropriate (APPENDIX A; Table A. 1).
Vegetation typically grown However, there is also a very large selection of ornamental trees,
for aesthetic (flowers, fruit, shrubs, and perennials that will be successful in specific LID
etc.) purposes. facilities (APPENDIX A; Table A. 2).

Vegetation selections for LID facilities can be generally grouped into

two basic soil scenarios: a well-drained soil which receives periodic
inundation; and a poorly drained soil which is moist to wet for most
of the growing season. These two scenarios require different plant
selections to be successful.

Regardless of the designation (native or ornamental), vegetation

selection must meet weed and pest control requirements as
outlined in the City of Edmonton Community Standards Bylaw, the
Alberta Weed Control Act and Regulations, and the Agricultural
Pests Act and Regulation, where applicable. Vegetation selections
and planning should include the following four parameters:

Edition 1.1 Page 65

  select plant varieties that will thrive on the site conditions
(climate, soil, and water availability) and that grow well together
(e.g., group plants by water need). Base plant selections on
mature sizes and recommended planting distances as outlined
in the City of Edmonton Guideline for Planting Trees on City
Property (COE, 2008). Species selections should consider:
 maintenance needs, including mowing and pruning;
 reduction of water and fertilizer needs after establishment;
 resistance to pests;
 tolerance of seasonal salt loadings, depending on facility
location; and
 pollutant uptake capacity.
 plan vertically to incorporate ground cover, understory shrubs,
and trees. Plant in the spring or fall for quicker establishment.
When planting trees, select species based on morphology (e.g.,
rooting zones, branching patterns, size at maturity, etc.). Note
that deep rooting trees can improve soil structure with results
similar to tilling. However, in areas where perforated weeping
tile is used, deep rooting vegetation may damage buried
infrastructure;
 plant vegetation at proper depths, locations, and groups
(COE, 2008; COE, 2013); and
 provide the City of Edmonton maintenance staff with a written
Landscape Maintenance Plan and train as needed. Budget and
plan for extra maintenance efforts during vegetation
establishment.

6.2 Soil Management and Amendment

6.2.1 Soil Management

Water movement through soil is referred to as infiltration. The rate
Hydraulic Conductivity – that water infiltrates is based on the soil’s permeability
the rate at which soil (i.e., hydraulic conductivity). Saturated hydraulic conductivity refers
allows water to move to the rate of water movement through soil once void spaces within
through it. the soil are full of water and no more water can be retained within the
soil structure. Although standard infiltration rates are difficult to
determine, as both soil properties (chemical and physical) and
vegetation cover influence water movement, unsaturated infiltration
rates for native Edmonton soils are high regardless of soil type or
vegetation cover (Verma and Toogood, 1969). A rapid decrease in
infiltration rates following the first 30 minutes is attributed to the initial
physical soil characteristics including moisture content, temperature,
Porosity – a measure of texture, structure, and porosity. Hydraulic conductivity is higher at

Edition 1.1 Page 66

the void space in a the top of the soil profile due to specific porosity, structure and
material, expressed as a texture of the soil.
ratio of the volume of void
space to the total volume Compaction of soil particles is a factor in permeability. For example,
of the material
materials consisting of strongly compacted clays, observed following
construction with heavy machinery, have a hydraulic conductivity
value of about 0.5 mm/hr (McKeague et al, 1986). After organic
Permeability – the ability
of a fluid to flow through a
material is removed during site construction, sub-soils can become
porous medium heavily compacted by construction activities. As well as reducing
infiltration, this compaction due to construction traffic will impede root
penetration, greatly reducing plant health and vigour. To increase
plant survival and health:

 loosen subsoil to a minimum depth of 150 mm in areas without

compaction and 300 millimetres in areas with heavier
compaction;
 remove all subsoil material exceeding 50 millimetres in diameter
(TRCA, 2009); and
 cover loose and friable subsoil with 200 to 300 millimetres of
topsoil for grass areas and 450 to 600 millimetres for shrub
beds (Rosen 2009).

6.2.2 Soil Amendments

Soil amendments, including mixed soil types, organic matter,
fertilizers, and compost, are often required to ensure specific
vegetation growth and to meet predetermined infiltration rates for
the LID facility. Organic compost can be an excellent source of
required nutrients for plant growth. However, selection of compost
type and source is critically important.

The most common sources of compost include tree and vegetation

prunings, construction waste, and animal manure. In BMP facilities
that promote surface infiltration through amended soils either for
groundwater recharge or to an underdrain, it is not recommended
that animal manure compost be used due to its high nutrient
(nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)) concentrations. These nutrients
may leach and contribute to elevated downstream loadings.
Organic compost must be completely composted (i.e., no
recognizable components) prior to use in LID facilities to prevent
denitrification, weed growth, bacterial contamination and leaching of
nutrients from amended soils.

Amendment additives may be used to meet specific hydrologic or

Edition 1.1 Page 67

 pollutant mitigation needs of the site. Gypsum compost may be
added to amended topsoil so that the calcium ion will reduce levels
of exchangeable sodium in soils impacted by de-icing salts and help
to regenerate water absorption qualities (Grieve et al, 2007). In
addition to its mitigative effect for de-icing products, gypsum
compost adds sulfur and calcium (necessary for plant growth) to the
soil without changing its pH.

Compost amendments can assist in increased aeration, percolation,

water holding capacity, and plant nutrient availability. The amount
of compost required to be mixed into topsoil depends on both the
type of topsoil and the type of subsoil it will overlay. For example, a
sand-compost mix should only be used on well drained sub-soils,
as it will form an impermeable layer when used in combination with
clay subsoil. For the same reason, clay-laden topsoil should not be
mixed with or placed over sand.

Figure 6.1 is a general summary of the recommended compost to

be added to topsoil for good long-term water holding, aeration, and
percolation capabilities for a typical rain garden. The chart in
Figure 6.1 is a general guideline only, as each unique site must be
thoroughly assessed for site specific characteristics that may have
an impact on required soil amendments. The added compost must
be balanced with the following factors: surface run-off conditions;
sub-surface infiltration; planting regimen; storage requirements;
and, cost effectiveness.

Amended topsoil characteristics are important factors in the

success of vegetated LID facilities. A general list of desirable
characteristics is provided in Table 6.1. Another important soil
characteristic to be considered in topsoil amendment is the water
holding capacity (Figure 6.2), which is affected by the soil texture
and organic matter content. Soils that hold generous amounts of
water are less subject to leaching losses of nutrients or soil applied
pesticides.

On-site amendment of native topsoil is often the most cost effective

and sustainable method of ensuring that soil parameters meet the
requirements of LID facilities. When stripped topsoil is in limited
supply, is highly contaminated, or is otherwise unsuitable for re-use,
premixed topsoil or structural soils (Table 6.1; APPENDIX B) that
meet the site requirements to support vegetation may be imported.

Edition 1.1 Page 68

 Table 6.1 Amended Topsoil Characteristics

Parameter Standard
Loamy Sand
Texture Classification
Sandy Loam
Phosphorus 10-30 ppm
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) 10 meq/100g
Particle size <50 mm
pH 5.5 to 7.5
Saturated hydraulic conductivity >25 mm/hr
(TRCA, 2009; Hunt et al, 2006; LIDC, 2003;)

0% 80

0% 70
Recommended Compost (%)

0% 60

0% 50

0% 40

0% 30

0% 20

0% 10

0% 0
0 1
Sand 2
Loamy 3
Sandy 4
Loam 5
Silty 6
Clay 7
Clay
Sand Loam Loam Loam

Soil Texture
Figure 6.1 Compost Amendment Ratios for Topsoil and Subsoil Types
(adapted from Shelton, 1991)

Edition 1.1 Page 69

 50
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT (%)

45

40

35

30

25
LEGEND:
20 Field Capacity:
Maximum % of
water soil can hold.
15

10
Permanent Wilting Point:
Water contents less than
5 this will lead to permanent
damage.

0
clay clay loam loamy sand sandy sandy sandy silt silty silty silt
loam sand clay clay loam clay clay loam
loam loam

SOIL TYPE
Figure 6.2 Water Holding Capacity by Soil Type
(Spectrum Technologies Inc, 2010)

6.3 Cold Climate Considerations

There are several cold climate design challenges that are always a
design concern for implementation and operation of LID facilities
(MSSC, 2005, Roseen et al, 2009). Similar to conventional
stormwater management facilities, these challenges do not
preclude implementation of LID facilities, but are listed here (Table
6.2) to inform the designer of the considerations that must be
specifically addressed in the design of any LID facilities operating in
cold climates.

Edition 1.1 Page 70

 Table 6.2 Challenges to Design of LID-BMP Facilities in Cold Climates
Cold Climate
BMP Design Challenge
Characteristics
♦ pipe freezing
Cold Temperature ♦ reduced biological activity
♦ reduced settling velocities
♦ frost heaving
Deep Frost Line ♦ reduced soil infiltration
♦ pipe freezing
Short Growing ♦ short time period to establish vegetation
Season ♦ different plant species appropriate to cold climates than moderate climates
♦ high runoff volumes during snowmelt and rain-on-snow
♦ high pollutant loads during spring melt
Significant Snowfall ♦ other impacts of road salt / deicers
♦ snow management affecting BMP storage
♦ weight of snow piles causing soil compaction
(Adapted from Caraco and Claytor, 1997)

6.3.1 Managing and Designing for Road Salt Applications

Road salt used for winter de-icing can alter physical properties of
soil and have an impact on vegetation growth and permeability.
Detrimental impacts at high concentrations include increased soil
swelling and crusting, increased erosion and soil dispersion,
decreased structural stability, and increased electrical conductivity.
Salts have also been shown to increase bio-availability of heavy
metals by allowing them to become water soluble in soils
(EC, 2001). Additionally, soil microbes, which are necessary for
pollutant breakdown, soil structure, and permeability, can become
inhibited with elevated salt concentrations (EC, 2001).

Vegetation injury is the most visible consequence of road salt

application and spray. All species of vegetation are not equal when it
comes to tolerance for road salt. APPENDIX A identifies the salt
tolerant species.

Salt concentrations in soils are the highest in spring and decrease

during warm weather rain events, as rainwater and road spray
facilitate leaching of salts from soils. Based on impacts of road salt

Edition 1.1 Page 71

 on roadside soil and vegetation, and on documented crop injury due
to saline waters (Fipps, 2003; Bauder et al, 2007), the recommended
maximum winter loading of chloride to a roadside LID facility planted
with salt tolerant grasses is 1000 mg/L (Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, 1998).

LID facilities can be designed to accommodate road salt loadings.

Soil amendments can be used to buffer some salt loading.
Precipitation and irrigation will leach salt from soil. The amount of
water required to reduce a damaging concentration of salt to an
acceptable level is dependent on the depth and type of soil being
treated (Boumans et al, 1977). APPENDIX D provides examples of
planters and swales sized based on Edmonton’s current de-icing
operations (EC, 2010b).

6.3.2 Managing and Designing for Sand and Gravel

Applications
LID facilities with filtration or infiltration components are particularly
susceptible to clogging by anti-skid materials such as sand.
Filtration based LID facilities are well suited to treating melt water
and, depending on the design, providing storage for snow, ice and
melt water during the spring season. To capitalize on the treatment
properties of such systems and prevent clogging by anti-skid
material, a settling zone for melt water, such as a vegetated filter
strip, settling basin, or forebay, is required prior to its entry into the
facility. The designer may also choose to locate LID facilities away
from areas where large quantities of these materials are routinely
applied.

6.3.3 Recommendations for Edmonton

6.3.3.1 Design Adaptations
Adaptations to frequently used LID-BMPs make application in cold
climates feasible and introduce excellent opportunities to treat melt
water. Although biological pollutant removal may slow down in cold
weather, standing vegetation still provides some filtering capabilities
and soil microbes are alive and active (Roseen, 2009). By carefully
evaluating the location and type of LID-BMP facility when designing a
Treatment Train – LID- site, cold climate LID-BMP facilities can be a very effective and
BMPs placed in series to valuable part of a treatment train even during spring melt
improve water quality (Gunderson, 2008).
treatment so that each
successive cell receives Adaptations for cold climates including, but not limited to, areas

Edition 1.1 Page 72

cleaner water than the where considerable anti-skid and de-icing materials are necessary,
previous one. may include:

 careful site selection for infiltration and filtration facilities to

avoid implementation in zones where high concentrations of
pollutants and sediments are unavoidable. Where space is
available, implement pre-treatment (forebay) or straining
features (vegetated filter strips) for runoff prior to its entry to the
filtration or infiltration facility;
 careful plant selection and placement to use more
salt-tolerant plants to buffer less salt-tolerant plants from the
impacts of road salt and to minimize damage to LID facilities
treating stormwater runoff from streets with heavy salt
application;
 strategic application of sand and salt to reduce impacts
(clogging and elevated salinity) in snow storage zones and LID
facilities receiving roadway runoff;
 placement of filter strips along roadways to promote settling
of sand and gravel prior to runoff entering an infiltration or
filtration facility and to allow removal of anti-skid material from
the filter strip during spring street sweeping. Filter strip widths
vary depending on the type of roadway and the quantity of
anti-skid material applied and may range from 5 m to 35 m
depending on location and application rate;
 snow storage zones for contaminated or gravel / sand laden
snow may be located on pervious surfaces or impervious
surfaces where melt water is directed to treatment facilities and
contaminants are diluted prior to release;
 timely maintenance activities to remove sand and gravel from
streets and boulevards as soon as the spring melt has occurred;
 direction of sand / salt laden flows away from sensitive
facilities during spring runoff. This may be through a vegetated
swale or using traditional minor and major storm sewer systems;
 sizing of facilities to accommodate snow melt volumes where
public safety may be compromised in the event that minor
flooding occurs (such as near sidewalks and crosswalks);
 enlargement of curb cuts or employment of alternate curb
types to allow runoff to enter facilities during times when ice
and snow may partially block inlets; and
 location of facilities away from crosswalks and sidewalks to
prevent ice buildup on pedestrian routes during the spring melt
period.

Edition 1.1 Page 73

 In residential and open space areas where high concentrations of
chloride or soluble toxic pollutants are not present, infiltration (or
filtration where sub-soils are tight) of melt water is an effective way
to remove many typical contaminants. Pre-treatment for
particulates, including sand and gravel, are required to prevent
clogging of facilities and may consist of filter strips, vegetated
swales or settling basins.
6.3.3.2 Operation and Maintenance
Preventing contamination of receiving waters due to winter de-icing
activities requires proactive operation and maintenance. The initial
focus must be on keeping contaminants out of
accumulated / dumped snow. Management approaches that aid in
accomplishing these goals may include:

 wise and strategic use of de-icing and anti-skid materials;

 improved application technology on sanding trucks such as road
weather information systems, direct roadway application or
brine wetting;
 avoidance of salt additives (e.g., cyanide) which can be toxic at
low doses;
 storage and mixing of chemicals in covered areas and mixing
only amounts required;
 snow removal and / or melt water routing to appropriate
treatment facilities;
 a dilution system (may include irrigation) to reduce direct impact
of high chloride concentrations;
 rapid and regular street sweeping as soon as snow is gone from
roadways;
 litter control; and
 erosion control.

Snow storage areas for relatively clean snow should be located on

permeable surfaces to facilitate some level of filtering prior to melt
water entering receiving waters. If soil is highly impervious, the
groundwater table is high or snow contains high concentrations of
anti-skid or de-icing materials, storing the snow on an asphalt pad
and directing melt water to a treatment facility is recommended.
LID filtration systems may be used to treat snow storage melt water
provided particulates are settled out prior to discharge into the filter.

Edition 1.1 Page 74

 6.4 LID Facility Design Process
LID facility design starts after the LID site design (described in the
previous chapter). Since each LID facility is site-specific, there is
no universal step-by-step design procedure applicable for all LID
facility designs. In general, the facility design usually starts with
selection of LID facility types according to site suitability. The
following factors should be considered when selecting LID features
(O’Brien & Company, 2009).

 Available space. Ensure there is sufficient functional open

space to install LID facilities. Existing hydrological functional
spaces should be preserved.
 Soil performance. Infiltration and water bearing capacity of
soils and sub-soils must be investigated and assessed. For
tight soils that have limited infiltration capability, sub-drains
should be installed.
 Slopes. LID design must properly account for slope to ensure
effective detention and infiltration performance. Small scale LID
facilities perform well on gentle to moderate slopes.
 Depth to groundwater table. For bioretention, bioswales, and
naturalized drainage ways, the facility base should be at
minimum 0.6 m to 1 m above the seasonal high water table.
 Proximity to foundations and underground utilities. For
bioretention and bioswales, leave enough space between the
LID facility and building foundations or other underground
utilities to prevent saturation and uncontrolled moisture intrusion
into these structures.

Once facilities are selected, the next step is sizing of the selected
facilities. Sizing of the LID facility is primarily influenced by runoff
reduction and quality improvement requirements for the defined
drainage area.

The LID facility design should also consider constructability and

requirements for operation and maintenance.

Edition 1.1 Page 75

 6.4.1 Facility Selection
6.4.1.1 Site Characteristics
Selecting an appropriate LID facility to address requirements of the
site is critical. A matrix (Table 6.3) has been developed to define
capabilities of each of the seven LID facilities identified in this
Design Guide in meeting the three primary objectives of:

 stormwater volume control;

 stormwater peak flow control; and
 stormwater water quality.

Also indicated in Table 6.3 are types of urban land uses where
application of these LID facilities is most suitable and their relative
land area requirements.

All selection criteria are based on the underlying assumptions that

soils in Edmonton are tight and expansive and that winter snow
accumulates to a final frost depth and spring melt. In areas where
soils are more permeable, opportunities may exist to implement
facilities that rely on infiltration in addition to evapo-transpiration,
detention, and filtration to manage runoff. Additionally, the
sand / salt winter maintenance regime is incorporated and cold
climate suitability of each facility is evaluated based on impacts of
these activities on the LID facilities.

Table 6.4 summarizes site constraints associated with each type of

LID facility discussed in this document. The combination of
information from Tables 6.3 and 6.4 will facilitate appropriate LID
selection based on site characteristics.

Edition 1.1 Page 76

 Table 6.3 LID Facility Selection Matrix

Management Objective Land Use

Land
High Single Multi- Parks / Cold
Water Area
Facility Type Vol. Peak Dis. School Comm. Density Indust. Family Family Open Roads Climate
Quality Req.
Urban Res. Res. Space
Bioretention / Rain Garden + + + + + ■ □ + + + + + ■
Vegetated Swale ■ ■ + + + □ + + + + + + ■
Green Roof ■ + + + + + + □ + ■ □
Porous Pavers + + ■ + + + ■ + + + □ □ □
Infiltration Box Planters ■ ■ + ■ + + □ + + + □ ■ □
Naturalized Drainage Ways □ ■ ■ ■ ■ □ ■ ■ ■ + + + ■
Rainwater Harvesting / Re-use ■ □ □ + ■ + ■ + + ■ □ □ □
(Adapted from: AMEC, 2009; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009; SEMCOG, 2008)

Land Use / Cold Climate

Symbol Legend Effectiveness in Meeting Objective Land Area
Suitability
+ High one of the functions of the facility is to meet the management objective well suited for land use high relative dedicated
application / cold climates land area required.
■ Medium facility can partially meet management objective but should be combined average suitability for land use moderate relative
with other facilities application / cold climates dedicated land area
required.
□ Low facility contribution to management objective is by product of other operational adaptations required low relative dedicated
functions and additional controls should be used in the treatment train if for use in cold climates (see land area required.
objective is important Section 6.0)

Edition 1.1 Page 77

 Table 6.4 LID Facility Site Constraint Matrix
Depth to Typical
Native Soil
Water Drainage
Infiltration 2 3 4 5
Facility Type Table or Area Head (m) Space (%) Slope (%) Setbacks
1 Rate
Bedrock Treated
2 (mm/hr)
(m) (m )
Underdrain
Bioretention / Rain
1 5 to 1,000 required if 1 to 2 5 to 10 0 to 2 B,U,W
Garden
<13 mm/hr
Underdrain
required in
Vegetated Swale 1 >50 dry swales 1 to 3 5 to 15 0.5 to 3 B,U,T,W
if
<13 mm/hr

Green Roof N/A >20 N/A 0 0 0 None

Underdrain
Porous Pavers 1 >5 required if 0.5 to 1 0 1 to 5 B, U, W
<13 mm/hr
Infiltration Box
N/A 5 to 20 N/A 1 to 2 2 to 5 0 to 2 B
Planters
Naturalized 6
N/A >50 N/A >1 15 to 30 >2% B,U,T,W
Drainage Ways
Rainwater
1 >20 N/A 1 to 2 0 to 1 N/A U, T
Harvesting / Re-use
N/A = Not Applicable
1
Minimum depth between base of facility and elevation of seasonally high water table, or bedrock
2
Vertical distance between the inlet and outlet of the LID facility
3
Percent of open pervious land on the site required for LID facility
4
Slope at the location of the LID facility, effective slope of facility
5
Setback Codes: B = building foundation; U = underground utilities; T = trees; W = drinking water wellhead protection
area
6
Naturalized drainage ways that incorporate wetland components must be kept moist and may be located within the
groundwater table
(adapted from TRCA, 2009)

6.4.1.2 Water Quality Treatment Capabilities

The urban environment has many non-point sources of pollutants
that are becoming more of a problem in receiving streams due to
increased runoff from developed areas. The ideal method of
reducing pollutants reaching these streams is by implementing
source controls that prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
Table 6.5 illustrates the sources of pollution in urban and industrial
areas.

As it is often not possible for source controls to completely remove

Edition 1.1 Page 78

 non-point source pollutants, strategically placed and specifically
designed LID facilities may provide some removal capacity of
pollutants commonly occurring in the urban environment (Table
5.1). Stormwater pollutant removal capabilities of LID occur
through five primary removal mechanisms including:

 sedimentation through reduced runoff velocities and extended

detention;
 filtering through soil and sand;
 straining and settling of particulates passing through standing
vegetation;
 infiltration reducing pollutant loadings in runoff by allowing
percolation into underlying soils; and
 biological uptake of nutrients and contaminants by plants and
soil microbes.

Table 5.1 shows pollutant removal efficiencies for six of the seven
LID facilities discussed in this Design Guide based on their ability to
provide water quality enhancement in monitored LID facilities in
Canada and the USA. The number of monitored LID facilities in
Canada is currently limited and monitoring of LID pilot projects in
Edmonton is recommended to determine more specific pollutant
removal capabilities for this area.

Water quality treatment in rainwater harvesting systems (the

seventh LID practice) is minimal without reuse. However, reuse for
irrigation of other LID facilities will provide treatment at the levels
indicated for those facilities (Table 5.1). Controlled irrigation
through soil moisture monitoring can be designed to prevent runoff
from irrigated areas, thereby removing 100% of pollutants occurring
in the rainwater harvested for reuse.

Removal efficiencies can be misleading as high influent pollutant

loads will tend to have higher removal efficiencies than low influent
loads even though they have higher effluent loads than those with
low influent loads (England, 2009). The best solution for reducing
pollutants in stormwater runoff is to reduce pollutant loads at their
source. This can be done through operation and management
practices that prevent high pollutant loads from reaching the minor
system or LID facilities. Selecting the appropriate LID facilities to
manage pollutants coming from a particular site is vital to the
success of both the LID facilities and the source control objectives
of the site. Table 5.1 is provided to facilitate this process.

Edition 1.1 Page 79

 Table 6.5 Non-Point Sources of Pollution in Developed Areas

Constituents Possible Sources Potential Effects

Sediments – total Construction sites, Habitat changes, stream turbidity,

suspended solids (TSS), urban / agricultural runoff, landfills, recreation and aesthetic loss,
turbidity, dissolved csos, septic fields, atmospheric contaminant transport, bank
solids deposition erosion
Lawn / agricultural runoff, landfills,
Nutrients – nitrogen and Algae blooms, ammonia toxicity,
septic fields, atmospheric deposition,
phosphorus (N and P) nitrate toxicity
erosion
Pathogens – total and Urban / agricultural runoff, septic
Ear / intestinal infections,
faecal coliforms, E.Coli, systems, illicit sanitary connections,
recreation / aesthetic loss
viruses CSOs, domestic / wild animals
Urban / agricultural runoff,
pesticides / herbicides, underground Toxicity to humans and aquatic
Toxic pollutants – heavy
storage tanks, hazardous waste life, bioaccumulation in the food
metals, toxic organics
sites, landfills, illegal disposals, chain
industrial discharges
Contamination of drinking water,
Salts - NaCl, MgCl2 Urban runoff, snowmelt
harmful to salt intolerant plants
(USEPA, 1993)

6.5 Hydrological Analysis

Stormwater management systems that utilize LID technologies may
have a centralized stormwater management facility to assist in peak
release rate control. Additional source control is provided by
individual LID facilities dispersed throughout the development area.

LID deals with smaller and more frequent rainfall events. These
events are usually of less than 2-year return period but generate
most of the annual runoff from an urban watershed. Such small
rainfall events tend to dominate hydrologic design of systems aimed
at improving water quality.

For LID design, hydrological analysis should pay a greater attention

Continuous Simulation – to abstractions potentials. Abstraction Potential is defined as the
modelling the performance
ability of the landscape to retain runoff in surface storage on
of a stormwater
management facility using vegetation (leaves) and minor depressions (puddles) and through
precipitation records over infiltration. Also, antecedent soil moisture conditions prior to an
a number of years to event are of greater importance when considering small storms.
account for: antecedent Whenever possible, continuous simulations are recommended to
moisture conditions;
seasonal variations; and
assess performance of systems designed to accommodate small
inter-event processes. storms. The use of computer models is at the discretion of

Edition 1.1 Page 80

 designers. APPENDIX E provides a case study using SWMM5 LID
module.

Antecedent Moisture – The water quality capture volume represented by rainfall depth
soil moisture level prior to provides a practical means for establishing an appropriate
a rainfall event.
hydrologic design basis for LID systems. Analysis of the long-term
rainfall record provides guidance on selecting an appropriate water
quality capture volume. For the Edmonton region, most rainfall
events are less than about 26 mm in depth and have durations of
Water Quality Capture
Volume – is the storage 5 hours or less, as indicated in Figure 3.3.
needed to capture and
treat the runoff from 90% The initial runoff from larger storms is significant in that it picks up
of Edmonton’s average and carries pollutants that are washed off impervious surfaces
annual rainfall. (e.g., pavements). This initial volume is commonly referred to as
the first flush. In practice, many jurisdictions specify a depth of
rainfall (typically 2.5 cm or 1 inch) to capture the first flush
component (USEPA, 2004).The amount of pollutants carried by the
First Flush – during a rain first flush depends on a variety of factors including:
event, the initial surface
runoff from impervious  the pollutants available for wash off;
surfaces, which contains
 the time between storm events;
elevated pollutant loads
 the storm characteristics; and
accumulated during the
preceding dry period.  characteristics of the sub-watershed.

For LID hydrological design purpose, the water quality capture

volume of 26 mm (per day) should be used to meet the first flush
Design Event – capture requirement. This provides a familiar design event size and
Hypothetical rainfall event distribution that is consistent with existing drainage design
used for design. The standards. (1:2 year event).
magnitude and duration of
the design event is usually Figure 6.3 provides a summary of the total percentage of runoff
based on observed volumes generated by rainfall events of various recurrence intervals
historical data. (based on the observed 585 precipitation events at the City Centre
Airport Gauge). 73% of the total rainfall depth is generated by
events smaller than the 2-yr rainfall event (Figure 6.3a). LID
systems designed with 26 mm rainfall capture will capture 90% of
the total rainfall depth (Figure 6.3b).

Edition 1.1 Page 81

 5yr - 50yr > 50yr
12% 6%
2yr - 5yr < 2yr
9% 73%

(a) Distribution of Total Rainfall Depth by Individual Events

Figure 6.3 Distribution of Total Rainfall at Edmonton City Centre Gauge

6.6 Site Monitoring

Many options exist for sensors suitable for monitoring the
performance of LID-BMP facilities. Development of a monitoring
program should consider precipitation, water quality, and flow
sensors. Consultation with equipment suppliers during
development of the monitoring program will ensure unique site
characteristics are accounted for in the design of the monitoring
network.

Edition 1.1 Page 82

 6.6.1 Precipitation
Site precipitation may be estimated from regional weather stations,
or a site-specific meteorological station may be deployed to capture
localized weather variations. The meteorological station should be
equipped with a rain gauge as a minimum. If additional knowledge
regarding evaporation on the site is desired, temperature, relative
humidity, and wind gauges are recommended.

6.6.2 Flows
Measurement of inflows to LID-BMP facilities may be difficult since
flow inputs may be non-point source and numerous. However,
inflow volumes and flows may be estimated based on precipitation
at the site and the catchment area contributing to each individual
facility.

Outflows can be measured by deploying a permanent or

semi-permanent flow sensor (Doppler or ultrasonic are
recommended) in the outlet pipe from a facility, treatment train, or
the site. Outflow measurements can be used to provide a
comparison with modelled estimates developed during the planning
stage. If considerable topsoil amendments have been applied
throughout the site and disconnection of impervious areas is a
method used to reduce runoff, overestimation of runoff into a facility
may occur when using standard modelling methods. Since all LID-
BMP facilities within the treatment train are designed to reduce
runoff, the resulting outflow reductions (compared with estimated
values) can be attributed to the LID-BMP site plan and facilities.

6.6.3 Water Quality

Monitoring of incoming and outgoing water quality in non-research
based LID-BMP facilities can be difficult due to the fact that flow
Non-Point Source – Any inputs to the facilities are often non-point source and may be
source of water that is numerous. This characteristic makes comparison of pollutant levels
diffuse. Examples of
in inflows and outflows difficult but, with some planning upfront, it is
stormwater non-point
not necessarily impossible.
sources are land runoff,
precipitation and seepage.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is a frequently regulated pollutant,
and reduction of TSS in stormwater is commonly identified as an
operational objective for stormwater management facilities. In
Water Quality Sonde – addition to TSS, nutrients are becoming more of a problem in many
device in a logging receiving streams as algae and aquatic plant growth impacts

Edition 1.1 Page 83

assembly that senses and oxygen levels and fish health during summer months.
transmits water quality
data. Water quality sondes commonly measure turbidity (a substitute for
TSS), nutrients, and water temperature with the option to add other
parameters. Sondes are easily deployed for either spot samples or
long-term monitoring in stormwater catchbasins and outlet control
Turbidity – cloudiness or vaults. Measurement of flows and water quality at the same
opacity in the appearance
locations may be desirable, and data loggers can be obtained to
of water caused by
suspended solids or
record all parameters for download at the same time. Depending
particles. on the location of deployment, recorded data may be uploaded to
the internet via satellite or cellular connection for ease of download.

6.6.4 Optional Parameters

Other sensors or measurements that may provide additional
information of interest include:

 soil moisture sensors;

 water depth sensors within the reservoir layers of infiltration
facilities;
 a pump recorder for irrigation systems to measure pump rates
and time of operation;
 a water quality autosampler triggered by storm events;
 a heated rain gauge to monitor snow water equivalents; and
 infiltration measurements conducted manually as spot checks to
determine long-term soil capacity.

Edition 1.1 Page 84

 7 BIORETENTIONS / RAIN GARDENS

7.1 Description
Bioretention is a stormwater management practice that uses plants
and soils to filter, retain, infiltrate, and distribute stormwater runoff.
The term “bioretention area” is generally used interchangeably with
the term “rain garden.” In general, a bioretention system consists of
pretreatment, flow entrance, ponding area, plant materials, a mulch
cover, a filter medium (a mixture of sand, fines and organic materials),
and an overflow outlet. The system may also include an under drain if
the in-situ soils have a low infiltration rate.

7.2 Application
Bioretention facilities should be located close to where runoff is
generated. Typical locations are near parking lots, in traffic islands,
and near building roof leaders (Figure 7.1). Bioretention areas can
be incorporated into either new or retrofit sites based on the site-
grading plan. Bioretention areas can be used for snow storage during
winter at locations near parking lots and roadways, provided that salt-
tolerant plants and soils are used. Depending on the runoff volume to
be controlled, site locations and soil conditions, enhanced infiltration
may be required. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 provide cross sectional details
for a standard bioretention area without enhanced infiltration and a
bioretention area combined with a filtering infiltration gallery for
enhanced infiltration.

Bioretention is not recommended in areas where slopes adjacent to

the facility exceed 20% due to the risk of erosion (Winogradoff,
2002). As with all LID facilities, bioretention facilities should not be
planned in locations where removal of existing mature trees is
required.

Edition 1.1 Page 85

 Figure 7.1 Bioretention Installations in Residential, Commercial and Park Settings

Figure 7.2 Cross Section of a Basic Bioretention Area

Edition 1.1 Page 86

 Figure 7.3 Cross Section of a Deep Infiltration Bioretention Area

7.3 Design Considerations

Several key factors must be understood prior to facility design to
ensure success, including:

 sand and salt application methods and rates, and application

variability throughout the site;
 snow plowing methods and snow dump and storage locations;
 sediment and salt concentrations resulting from road de-icing
and snow storage; and
 combined maximum volume of snow, ice and melt water during
spring thaw.

To ensure long-term viability of a bioretention area, key

components of a bioretention facility (i.e., the inlet, outlet, ponding
depth, captured volume, media layers, under drains, buffers for
ground water and structure), must meet the requirements listed in
Table 7.1. The details of all bioretention areas planned for the site
must be included on design drawings as indicated in Table 7.2.

Edition 1.1 Page 87

 Bioretention areas that allow deep subsoil infiltration require
sub-soils with hydraulic conductivity >13 mm/hr (USEPA, 1999a).
In areas with lower hydraulic conductivities, the design of facilities
to take advantage of deep infiltration to attenuate stormwater
volumes is more challenging. Where sub-surface stability is not a
concern and the ground water table is at least 1.8 metres below the
base of the facility (USEPA, 1999a), significant deep infiltration can
occur in sub-soils with limited hydraulic conductivity if sufficient time
is allowed. If additional time is required, it can be provided by
increasing storage capacity in the facility to allow infiltration to occur
between major storms while still managing the design storm. Other
considerations are:

 where necessary, to prevent icing of sidewalks and streets, size

surface ponding volumes to accommodate the spring thaw
volume of snow, ice and melt water without considerable
infiltration by topsoils;
 provide filter strips (ranging from 3 to 5 m on collectors to 35 m
wide at intersections along arterial roadways) between urban
roads and the bioretention facility to allow sediments and
particulate salts to settle prior to contact with the topsoils
(EC, 2001);
 plant salt tolerant plants as a buffer between the roadway and
the less tolerant species (APPENDIX A);
 plant species that grow later in the spring to avoid salt-spray
damage to leaves and flowers as much as possible and to
reduce the potential of repeated injury;
 amend topsoil to mitigate the impact of de-icing compounds;
and
 locate snow storage areas away from bioretention facilities
unless vegetation and soil structure is specifically designed to
accommodate snow storage (MSSC, 2005).
 place geotextile fabric along the sidewalls of the facility to help
to direct the flow downward and reduce lateral flow under
pavement when bioretention is located in a media strip or
parking lot

De-icing salt loadings to bioretention areas should not exceed

1000 mg/L during winter months (Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, 1998) to avoid salt induced injury to vegetation and soils.
Bioretention areas that will receive higher loadings must be designed
with salt tolerant species, highly permeable soils and underdrains.
Irrigation may also be considered as a mitigation method.

Edition 1.1 Page 88

 Other design considerations besides those listed in Table 7.1
include, but are not limited to:

 locating facilities appropriately to minimize damage due to

pollutants and de-icing and anti-skid materials, as well as snow
plowing operations;
 designing vertical profile of vegetation located along roadways
or near intersections to prevent impedance of driver visibility;
 sizing facilities receiving road runoff containing salts to prevent
salt induced injury to plants and soils per APPENDIX D;
 designing soil type and structure and selecting vegetation to
account for weight, added pollutants and melt volumes in
facilities built with the intent to provide snow storage;
 sizing curb cut inlets to prevent blockage by ice and snow
during spring runoff; and
 designing soil amendments in roadside facilities to buffer high
salt loadings.

7.4 Operation and Maintenance

Operation requirements include street sweeping, restricted or no
pesticide or herbicide use, and regular soil testing. Detailed
operation, maintenance, and replacement activities for bioretention
facilities are contained in Table 7.3. The recommended timeline for
these activities may vary depending on location and contributing
area characteristics. Facility inspections should be conducted
quarterly during establishment (first 2 years) and semi-annually
thereafter. Inspecting after a major storm event may be necessary
to facilitate early detection of erosion or debris blockages occurring
during elevated or sustained flows. Highly contaminated sites may
require more frequent upkeep and replacement activities while sites
which remain relatively undisturbed with little potential for
contamination or sedimentation may require very little attention.
Facility designers must provide site specific schedules for
operation, maintenance, and replacement to ensure long term
functionality of the LID-BMP facility.

Edition 1.1 Page 89

 Table 7.1 Bioretention Parameters and Guidelines
Reported Parameters Description
>13 mm/hr, underdrain is not required; underdrain required in tighter soils (<13 mm/hr); for design and modeling, use 50% of specified or
Sub-Soil Infiltration Rate measured rate
0.5 m to 3 m grass filter buffer for non-point source inlet; erosion control at point source inlet; filter strips to buffer salt impacts are required as
Inlet design follows: 3-5 m width along collectors (may use sidewalk) and 5-35 m width along arterials
Design Discharge Max overflow or underdrain flow rate in design events (2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year)
3%-30% of contributing impervious area, several small facilities provide better treatment than one large facility; facilities to be sized by designer
Surface Area based on snowmelt volumes and salt loadings as required
Contributing Impervious Area <4 ha; pretreatment (grass filter with level spreader, etc) to facility required if imperviousness <75%
Facility Flow Velocity <0.3 m/s in planted areas and <0.9 m/s in mulched zones, to prevent erosion
Outlet Release Rate From underdrain or catchbasin lead; less than or equal to on-site release rates defined in Master Stormwater Drainage Plan
Ponding Depth < 0.3 m during a 2 year design event; max. 0.35 m depth per City of Edmonton standards
WSE1 in Design Storms Show that HWL during 5-year, 10-year and 100-year design events does not compromise adjacent structures
Volume of water retained through ponding and surface infiltration during the 2 year design event; additional volume captured during larger
Captured Volume events if applicable
Emptying Time Duration of ponded water following a 2-year design event is <48 hrs
Mulch: 70-80 mm depth (optional, site specific)
Growing media: (amended topsoil with infiltration rate 25-50 mm/hr) 500-1000 mm depth
Media Layers
Filter layer: (<13 mm washed rock <0.1% silt) 100 mm depth
Drainage / infiltration: (<40 mm washed rock <0.1% silt) 300-1000 mm depth
Permeable filter fabric placed over drainage layer to control transport of sediments and direction of flow; permeability rate should be higher
Geotextile fabric than that of soil or 75 gal/min/ft2, whichever is greater
Underdrain perforated pipe Diameter 200 mm.
Surface Geometry Flat bottom, recommended length / width = 2:1
Side Slopes 4:1 (H:V) preferred (max 2:1)
Infiltration Trench (optional) 0.5 m to 1 m depth (dependent on native soils infiltration rate); 1 m to 6 m width, through length of facility; bottom slope 0%
Groundwater Buffer Groundwater must be >1.8 m below final surface grade; facility base must be 0.6 m to 1 m above groundwater level
Structural Buffer Facility located 3 m (significant clay content) to 5 m (heavy clay soils) from building foundations
Vegetation Species selected for contaminant removal, aesthetics and inundation / drought resistance (see APPENDIX A)
1
(USEPA, 1999a, Stephens et al, 2002; GVRD, 2005; Caraco et al, 1997; COP, 2004b; MSSC, 2005), WSE is Water Surface Elevation

Edition 1.1 Page 90

 Table 7.2 Bioretention Drawing Details

Parameter Plan Detail Profile Description

Location x Areal extent shown on plan view (bump-outs, municipal reserves, private lots, parks)
Surface area x Outlined on plan view drawings and stated in report
Inlet x x Shown on plan view and typical detail provided (curb cut, flow spreader, ribbon curb)
Materials x x Material specs (soil, drainage layer), depth, hydraulic conductivity, porosity
Vegetation x x Planting plan and vegetation details (species, mature density, succession plan)
Underdrain spec & slope, spill elevation, catch basin type and grate, weir type and
Outlet x x
location, inlet control device details
Catchment x Delineated catchment area directed to bioretention facility
Flow Arrows x From contributing area and overflow route
Water Depth x Ponding depth and water surface elevation during design storm and maximum prior to spill
Inundation x Extent of inundation during design storms
Erosion control x x Located at inlet, outlet if overland spill

Edition 1.1 Page 91

 Table 7.3 Bioretention Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule

Operation Activities Scheduling

Inspect for sedimentation, erosion, plant health, mulch Semi-annually (spring, fall),
condition quarterly during establishment (2 yrs)
Avoid use as snow storage facility unless specifically
Winter
designed for this purpose
Strategic application of de-icing and anti-skid material on
Winter
roadways contributing to facility
Street sweeping to prevent sedimentation Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Soil contamination testing in areas with high levels of
Annually
contaminants
Soil infiltration (empty time <36hrs) and pH (5.2-7.0)
Bi-annually
testing
Maintenance Activities
Weed control Bi-monthly
Mow grass and remove clippings, minimum length
Monthly (May-October)
(50-250 mm) no shorter than maximum flow depth
Prune vegetation when access or operation limited Annually
Litter and debris removal from inlets, outlets, vegetation
Bi-monthly
and flow paths
Tilling or deep raking Bi-annually, prior to infiltration testing
Annually (spring) or
Sand and sediment removal
when sediment depth >100 mm
Underdrain flush Annually (spring)
As indicated by inspection,
Erosion repair of soils, mulch, splash pad, rip rap
annually (spring)
Grass/plants (unhealthy or dead >10%) As indicated in inspection (1-10 years)
Mulch, replenish or replace As indicated by inspection (1-3 years)
Replacement Activities
As indicated by contaminant / infiltration
Soils
testing (2-20 years)
As indicated by infiltration testing
Gravel drainage layer
(25-50 years)
When flushing indicates irreparable
Underdrain
clogging (25-50 years)
(TRCA, 2009; GVRD, 2005; COP, 2004b)

Edition 1.1 Page 92

 8 BIOSWALES

8.1 Description
Bioswales are open channels with dense vegetation specifically
designed to attenuate, treat, and convey stormwater runoff. They
are distinguished from bioretention mainly by a linear shape and
sloped bottom that facilitates water movement. Bioswales use
amended topsoil, selected plantings, and may include an infiltration
layer to provide enhanced water quality treatment and promote
infiltration.

Used as a replacement for, or in conjunction with, curb and gutter,

bioswales are designed to strain particulates from the water, slow
flow velocity, and reduce volumes through surface infiltration and
evapo-transpiration.

Directing stormwater through vegetation improves surface

infiltration and soil moisture for evapo-transpiration. Stormwater
quality treatment in a bioswale is realized through straining and
settling of particulates through vegetation, deep infiltration,
biodegradation from soil microbes, and filtration through soil layers.
Water quality treatment efficiency can be improved by increasing
retention time through use of check dams.

8.2 Application
Bioswales can be applied in most development situations, including
residential areas, office complexes, along roadways, parking lots,
parks, and other green spaces (Figure 8.1). Bioswales are well-
suited to treat roadway runoff because of their linear nature and
ability for receiving sheet flows. They are often located within utility
rights-of-way along property boundaries for serving one or multiple
properties.

Using bioswales to replace existing drainage ditches is a common

retrofit opportunity. Ditches are traditionally designed only to
convey stormwater away from roads. In some cases, they can be
retrofitted to bioswales to enhance infiltration and pollutant removal
using check dams.

Edition 1.1 Page 93

 Bioswale at Mill Woods Parking Bioswale at Big Lake Trumpeter Bioswale at Terwillegar Recreation
Parking in Edmonton, AB to treat neighbourhood in Edmonton, AB to Centre, Edmonton, AB to treat roof
parking lot runoff. Photo by Kenneth treat roadway runoff. Photo by runoff. Photo by Xiangfei Li, City of
Yip, City of Edmonton, 2014. Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton. Edmonton.

Figure 8.1 Local Bioswale Installations in Residential and Commercial Settings

8.3 Design Considerations

Bioswales must be designed to fit the unique characteristics of each
site. The designer is responsible for ensuring the physical
attributes of the site can accommodate a swale.

To ensure the long-term functionality of bioswales, the facility’s

physical and performance parameters listed in Table 8.1 should be
considered during the preliminary design process. A bioswale
cross section is shown in Figure 8.2 and accompanying longitudinal
profile in Figure 8.3. Figure 8.4 shows a plan view of a bioswale.

Bioswale designs must filter and convey Edmonton’s 1-in-2 year

storm event and be within the parameters listed in Table 8.1. The
drainage area to a bioswale is based on the soil type, ponding
depth, and surface area. Surface flow velocity within a swale at a
given slope is determined by the roughness of the channel.
Different types of vegetation and surface treatments applied in a
bioswale will impact flow velocities. Modelling should be performed
by designers to demonstrate the function of the bioswale.
Effective Slope – gradient
governing flow velocity The drawdown time of bioswales is based on soil type and ponding
within a swale. If the slope depth, and must be reported to ensure safety and aesthetics are
of the surrounding terrain maintained. Bioswales along roadways must be designed to
is too steep for a
prevent compromising the road structure with water infiltration.
vegetated swale, the
Ponding areas in bioswales are created by using check dams to
effective slope may be
flattened by using check retain water and reduce the effective slope (Figure 8.3). Effective
dams or drop structures. slope can be determined using the following equation:

Edition 1.1 Page 94

 h
Se = St −
L
Where Se is the effective slope;
St is the terrain slope;
h is the height of the check dam; and
L is the distance between check dams.

Other design considerations besides those listed in Table 8.1

include, but are not limited to:

 Weaving swales around mature trees along boulevards and

green spaces rather than removing the trees;
 Preventing icing of sidewalks and streets by sizing surface
ponding capacity of the swales to accommodate the spring thaw
volume of snow, ice and melt water without considerable
infiltration by topsoils (see APPENDIX C);
 Designing bioswales that will receive additional snow to account
for the added weight because snow piles can cause topsoil
compaction;
 Providing curb cuts designed to direct the rate of flow and
volume of runoff stormwater into bioswales and protect
bioswales from plow blades during snow removal;
 Amending topsoil to mitigate, as much as possible, the effects of
de-icing compounds on soils and plants;
 Providing a buffer along arterial roads (5 to 35 m vegetated filter
strip) and along collector roads (3 to 5 m filter strip or sidewalk)
to protect swale vegetation from salt damage;
 Planting salt tolerant grasses and plants as a buffer between the
roadway and less tolerant species (APPENDIX A);
 Considering spring thaw volumes, soil compaction and salt
damage to sensitive vegetation when the bioswale is designed
specifically for snow storage;
 Equipping bioswales designed to receive high salt loadings with
an underdrain to allow salt to leach from the swale.
 Selecting vegetation that will be able to structurally withstand
moderate flow velocities and erosive forces of design events;
and
 Providing a buffer between facilities with deep infiltration
capability and roadways or building foundations to reduce the
risk of heaving or foundation damage due to saturated soils.

Edition 1.1 Page 95

 Design considerations to manage de-icing salt loading in roadside
swales are provided in APPENDIX D. The details of bioswales
planned for the site must be included on design drawings as
indicated in Table 8.2.

Figure 8.2 Cross-Section of a Bioswale

Figure 8.3 Longitudinal Profile of a Bioswale with Check Dams

Edition 1.1 Page 96

 Figure 8.4 Plan View of a Bioswale

Edition 1.1 Page 97

 Table 8.1 Bioswale Design Parameters and Guidelines
Reported Parameters Description and Recommendation
>13 mm/hr, underdrain is not required; underdrain required in tighter soils (<13
Soil Infiltration Rate
mm/hr) and with longitudinal slopes (St) less than 1%
Grass filter buffer (2 m to 30 m) prior to overland entry into swale; filter strips to
Inlet Design buffer salt impacts are required as follows: 3-5 m width along collectors (may use
sidewalk) and 5-35 m width along arterials
Flow rate within facility for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year design
Design Discharge
events and maximum rate from Edmonton’s continuous precipitation record
Determine using Mannings equation based on soil type and vegetation density;
Overland Flow Velocity ensure velocities remain non-erosive during the 10-year, 25-year and 100-year
design events
From underdrain or catch basin lead; must correspond to on-site release rates
Outlet Release Rate
defined in Master Stormwater Drainage Plan
Flow Depth <0.3 m during 2-year design event
< 0.15 m during 2-year design event; max. 0.35 m depth as per City of Edmonton
Ponding Depth
standards for drainage swale
Growing media: (amended topsoil) >300 mm depth
Media Layers Filter layer: (<13 mm clean gravel with <0.1% silt) 100 mm depth
Infiltration / storage layer: (<40 mm clean gravel with <0.1% silt) >450 mm depth
Required when longitudinal slope of site (St) <1%; also required when high salt
Underdrain loadings are expected.
Pipe diameter 200 mm.
Grasses and dense vegetation (100% coverage at establishment – 2 years); turf
Vegetation
grass recommended on slopes >0.5%
Show that HWL at 2-year and 100-year design events does not compromise
WSE in Design Storms
adjacent structures
Volume of water retained through ponding and surface infiltration during the 2 year
Captured Volume
design event; additional volume captured during larger events if applicable
Emptying Time Duration of ponded water following the 2-year design event <24hrs
10% to 20% of contributing impervious area; determined through continuous
Surface Area modelling; facility to be sized by designer based on snowmelt volumes and salt
loadings as required
Geometry Trapezoidal or triangular, provide cross-section detail with dimensions labelled
Facility Width (Surface) 0.6 m to 2.4 m width
Side Slopes 4:1 (H:V) preferred (max 3:1)
Sufficiently flat to maintain non-erosive velocities in the 10-year design event;
typically in the range of 0.5% to 1.0%. Grade control structures required for
Longitudinal Slope
longitudinal slopes (st) in excess of 1.0% to reduce the longitudinal slopes (se) to
0.5% to 1.0% between grade control structures
Groundwater Buffer Bottom of facility located minimum of 0.6 m to 1 m above groundwater table
Structural Buffer Facility located >3 m from building foundations
(TRCA, 2009; USEPA, 1999b; Claytor and Schueler, 1996; Stephens et al, 2002; GVRD, 2005; Caraco et al, 1997; COE, 2012)

Edition 1.1 Page 98

 Table 8.2 Bioswale Drawing Details
Parameter Plan Detail Profile Description
Shown on plan view and typical detail provided
Inlet x x
(curb cut, flow spreader, ribbon curb, OGS)
Material specs (soil, drainage, geotextile), depth,
Materials x x
hydraulic conductivity, void space
Planting plan and vegetation details (species,
Vegetation x x
mature density, succession plan)
Side slopes, longitudinal slope, effective slope,
Slope x x x
check dams or drop structures
Underdrain spec & slope, spill elevation, catch
Outlet x
basin type and grate, weir, ICD
Catchment x Delineated catchment area directed to swale
Surface area x Outlined on drawings and stated in report
Ponding depth and water surface elevation
Depth x
during design storm and maximum prior to spill
From contributing area, within swale and
Flow Arrows x
overflow route
Inundation x Extent of inundation during design storms
Erosion control x x Located at inlet, outlet if overland spill

8.4 Operation and Maintenance

A schedule for operation, maintenance and replacement activities for
bioswales is contained in Table 8.3. The scheduling for these
activities varies depending on location and drainage area
characteristics. Facility designers must provide site specific schedules
for operation, maintenance and replacement to ensure the long-term
functionality of the LID-BMP facility.

Facility inspections should be conducted quarterly during

establishment (first 2 years) and semi-annually thereafter. Inspecting
after a major storm event will facilitate early detection of erosion or
debris blockages occurring during elevated or sustained flows. Snow
plows should be careful not to cause damage to bioswales along
roadways. Sediments and debris should be removed in the fall before
snow covers the facilities and in spring before snowmelt runoff occurs.
LID-BMP facilities designed to receive runoff from contaminated sites
may require more frequent inspections, tests, and maintenance
activities; sites that remain relatively undisturbed with little potential for
contamination or sedimentation may require less maintenance.

Edition 1.1 Page 99

 Table 8.3 Bioswale Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule
Operation Activities Scheduling
Inspect for sedimentation, erosion, plant health, mulch Semi-annually (spring, fall), quarterly
condition during establishment (2 yrs)
Irrigation As needed during establishment (2 yrs)
Use for snow storage only where sufficient volumetric
Winter
capacity exists and snow weight can be accommodated
Strategic application of de-icing and anti-skid material on
Winter
roadways / parking lots contributing to facility
Street sweeping to prevent sedimentation Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Soil contamination testing in areas with high levels of
Annually
contaminants
Soil infiltration testing (empty time <48hrs) Bi-annually
Maintenance Activities
Weed control Bi-monthly
Mow grass and remove clippings, minimum length
Monthly (May-October)
(50-250 mm) no shorter than maximum flow depth
Prune vegetation when access or operation limited Annually
Litter and debris removal from inlets, vegetation and flow
Bi-monthly
paths
Tilling or deep raking Bi-annually, prior to infiltration testing
Annually (spring) or when sediment
Sand and sediment removal
depth >100 mm
Underdrain flush Annually (spring)
As indicated by inspection, annually
Erosion repair of soils, mulch, splash pad, rip rap
(following spring snowmelt)
Replacement Activities
Grass / plants (unhealthy or dead >10%) As indicated in inspection (1-10 years)
Mulch, replenish or replace As indicated by inspection (1-3 years)
As indicated by contaminant/infiltration
Soils
testing (2-20 years)
As indicated by infiltration testing
Gravel drainage layer
(25-50 years)
When flushing indicates irreparable
Underdrain
clogging (25-50 years)
(TRCA, 2009; GVRD, 2005; COP, 2004b)

Edition 1.1 Page 100

 9 GREEN ROOFS

9.1 Description
Green roofs are a stormwater management practice that uses
vegetation overlaid on rooftops to delay and retain rainfall. They
also offer shade and insulation benefits that result in reduced
energy usage. While green roofs are experiencing a surge in
popularity in recent years, they are a practice that actually dates
back to 500 B.C. in Sumerian civilization (Collins, 2011).

A typical green roof consists of several layers overlying the roof

structure. These layers are: vegetation, growing medium, drainage
filter, drainage layer, root barrier, waterproof/roofing membrane,
cover board, thermal insulation, vapour barrier, and roof and
building support structure. These layers are illustrated in Figure
9.1. Table 9.1 describes these layers and their function.

The amount of rainfall retained on a green roof depends on the

depth of the growing medium and the roof slope, and are reported
to be between 70% and 90% of the annual rainfall that lands on
them (Perry, 2003). Green roofs provide shade to underlying
surfaces, reducing heat transmission to the building and effectively
reducing cooling costs by up to 25% (Goom, 2003). Winter heating
costs may also be somewhat reduced (www.soprema.ca).
Additionally, the process of evapo-transpiration by vegetation
lowers the temperature of the surrounding air, reducing the urban
heat island effect (Peck et al., 2003). Green roofs also provide
urban green space and habitat for birds and insects
(Peck et al, 2003).

Edition 1.1 Page 101

 Figure 9.1 Cross-Section of Typical Green Roof Layers

Table 9.1 Function of Green Roof Layers

Layer Description and Purpose

• Provides the biomass for evapo-transpiration and insulation
Vegetation • Selection depends on the type of roof, building design, climate, sunlight, irrigation
needs, intended roof use and similar considerations
• Engineered for optimum support of vegetation, minimum weight and maximum
Growing Medium
water retention without water logging of plants
• Geotextile membrane to protect drainage layer
Drainage Filter • Prevents loss of growing medium and clogging of the drainage layer from
migration of fines
• Removes excess water, prevents overloading of roof and provides good air-
Drainage Layer
moisture balance in growing medium to prevent plant rot or water logging
• Prevents plant roots from damaging roofing membrane and structural support of
Root Barrier
roof
Waterproofing/ • Protects structural support from moisture damage
Roofing Membrane • Typically more durable in green roofs than in conventional roofs
• Thin semi-rigid board
Cover Board
• Provides protection, separation and support for waterproofing membrane
• Usually required to meet thermal insulation requirements of the Building Code
Insulation
• Can be installed either above or below membrane of green roof
Vapour Barrier • Resists passage of moisture through the ceiling
Structural Support • Supports weight of saturated green roof, snow and wind loads, roof users, etc.
Adapted from USEPA, 2008.

Edition 1.1 Page 102

 9.2 Application
Green roofs can be designed as part of new construction or
installed as a retrofit following a structural assessment. They are
suitable for installation on a wide range of buildings, including
industrial, educational, and government facilities, offices,
commercial properties, and residences. Generally, buildings with
large roof areas are targeted for stormwater management.

Selection of intensive or extensive green roofs will depend on the

location and desired function of the roof. Extensive green roofs are
lighter weight, typically requiring little to no additional structural
support, making them a more economical choice for retrofitting
existing structures, whereas a new building may be specifically
Green roof planted with grasses designed for the extra weight of an intensive green roof. Green
at the Mazankowski Heart roofs can be designed for many roof types. However, where the
Institute in Edmonton. The
Institute has four extensive green roof slope is more than 20 degrees, protection against slipping and
roofs, with one visible from the slumping of the plant layer must be provided. Steeper roofs may
Healing Garden. Photo by
Xiangfei Li, City of Edmonton,
retain less stormwater than an equivalent flatter roof.
2013.
In general, intensive green roofs are better suited to flatter roofs (5
degrees or less) and may be designed similar to a conventional
garden or park space. They are often installed to reduce energy
costs and provide an aesthetically pleasing park-like environment
for building occupants or the general public to enjoy. Since
intensive green roofs are heavier than extensive green roofs, they
require more structural support to handle the weight of additional
growing medium and public use, resulting in a higher initial
Green roof at Fort Edmonton investment. They may have greater maintenance requirements,
Park Pump Station, Edmonton,
including the need for irrigation systems. However, they are ideal
AB. Photo by Kenneth Yip, City of
Edmonton, 2014. candidates for dense, urbanized areas that have limited or no space
available for planting at ground level. Table 9.2 provides a
comparison of the distinguishing features of intensive and extensive
green roofs.

Edition 1.1 Page 103

 Table 9.2 Green Roof Characteristics – Extensive and Intensive
Growing Medium Growing Medium Recommended
Green Roof Type 2
Depth (mm) Saturated Weight (kg/m ) Vegetation
Native grasses
Extensive 100 to 150 129.1 to 169.4
Sedums
Native grasses
Sedums
Intensive 200 to 600 290 to 967.7
Shrubs
Trees
(City of Toronto, 2009)

9.3 Design Considerations

Green roof designs must include a structural assessment
completed by a professional engineer to ensure that the structural
loading capacity of the building can support the green roof. To
maximize the benefits of the green roof, heating and cooling
Newly planted green roof at implications for the building should be considered in the design. At
Terwillegar Recreation Centre a minimum, green roof designs must:
showing perimeter drainage,
Edmonton, AB. Photo by Xiangfei
Li, City of Edmonton, 2011.  ensure structural stability of the roof to support the weight of
both the green roof and snow loads based on continuous
precipitation records;
 confirm compliance of the roof with the Alberta Building Code;
 consider melt water runoff from the roof in the hydrologic model
because water storage and detention benefits of green roofs will
not be realized to the full extent during cold periods while the
vegetation is dormant and infiltration through the soil layer is
Established green roof at Stantec minimal;
Consulting corporate office,
Edmonton, Alberta. Photo  select plants that can withstand the winter temperatures and
courtesy Penny Dunford, Stantec, snow pack with minimal or no injury; and
2011.
 provide irrigation during the vegetation establishment period.
This period may be extended due to Edmonton’s limited growing
season.

The green roof design should also incorporate a drainage system to

manage overflows from the green roof. The drainage system
prevents damage to and erosion of the growth medium during
heavy rains, maintaining optimum growing conditions. Adequate
drainage also helps to preserve the roof structure.
Green roof at Valley Zoo Arctic
Shores in Edmonton, AB. Photo
by Kenneth Yip, City of The physical and performance parameters that are critical for long
Edmonton, 2014.

Edition 1.1 Page 104

 term operational success of green roofs are listed in
Table 9.3. These parameters must be considered in the preliminary
design process. Details of green roof layers, including material type,
saturated weight, installation, maintenance and testing must be
specified in the green roof design and are guided by consideration
of these critical parameters. Pertinent details for green roof
specification are listed in Table 9.4. Specifications that must be
included on design drawings are identified in Table 9.5.
Green roof at Valley Zoo Entry
Plaza in Edmonton, AB. Photo by
Kenneth Yip, City of Edmonton, Irrigation of green roofs must be carefully considered during the
2014.
design of the green roof to ensure that irrigation water will not take
up available soil storage space that would then be unavailable
during the next rainfall event. A continuous hydrologic model or
one of many commercially available soil moisture or
evapo-transpiration based automatic sprinkler controllers may be
warranted with the additional irrigation water input to ensure proper
rainwater management is achieved. To reduce reliance on potable
water supplies, water for green roof irrigation should be obtained
Intensive green roof at Lois Hole
Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton,
from a cistern collecting excess rooftop runoff.
Alberta. Photo by Xiangfei Li, City
of Edmonton, 2013. An electronic leak detection system may also be considered during
the design process to help protect the roof from moisture damage.
In addition, an electronic leak detection system may provide early
warning of maintenance issues.

Table 9.3 Guidelines for Green Roof Physical and Performance Parameters
Reported Parameters Description
Soil Infiltration Rate Provide infiltration rate of growing medium
Discharge rate through roof overflow during 2-year, 5-year-, 10-year, 25-year
Design Discharge
and 100-year design events
Volume of water retained within the growth media layer during the 2-year
Captured Volume
design event; additional volume captured during larger events if applicable
<5% requires sloped underdrain; 5-20% gravity drainage; >20% lath grid to
Roof slope
hold growing medium and drainage layer in place
Material details Layer specifications as per Table 9.4
Weight of layers when saturated and weight of retained rainwater not
Saturated weight
contained within facility
List of species and mature height, weight and density of vegetation (seeds
Plant density 2 2 2
>325/m ; cuttings >12 kg/100m ; plugs >11/m )
(City of Toronto, 2009)

Edition 1.1 Page 105

 Table 9.4 Details and Considerations for Green Roof Selection and Design
Layer Profile Schematic Requirements
Moisture Barrier • Material type and specifications
• Installation requirements
• Testing requirements
Root Barrier • Material type and specifications
• Installation requirements
Insulation • Material type and specifications
• Material thickness
Drainage • Material type and specifications
• Depth of layer
• Slope of layer
• Infiltration rate / hydraulic conductivity
• Percent void space
Filter • Material type and specifications
• Installation requirements
Growing Medium • Material type and specifications
• Depth of layer
• Infiltration rate / hydraulic conductivity
• Percent void space
Planting • Plant species
• Planting density
• Maximum height of highest species
• Weight of fully matured planting
• Transpiration rate (based on species or biomass density)

Edition 1.1 Page 106

 Table 9.5 Green Roof Drawing and Reporting Details

Building
Parameter Plan Detail Description
Dwgs
Materials x x Layer material type, specifications, depth
Slope x x Roof slope, illustrated to meet specifications
Roof scupper or downspout with erosion control;
Outlet x x
provide type, slope, diameter, height above membrane
Surface area x x Facility area outlined on drawings and stated in report
Requirements for surface preparation and layer
Installation
installation
Leak testing, detection and maintenance requirements
Testing
and schedule
(City of Toronto, 2009)

9.4 Operation and Maintenance

A recommended schedule for operation, maintenance and
replacement activities for green roofs is contained in Table 9.6. This
table is provided as a minimum recommendation as the schedule for
these activities may vary depending on roof and vegetation type,
climate and the level of maintenance acceptable to the owner.
Facility designers must provide site specific schedules for operation,
maintenance and replacement to ensure the long term functionality of
the green roof.

Facility inspections should be, at minimum, conducted monthly from

April to September. Maintenance will include irrigating, fertilizing and
weeding until plantings are established. After establishment,
maintenance can be limited to two visits per year in the snow-free
season for:

 Weeding
 Debris removal
 Safety inspection
 Repair of moisture and root barrier membranes
 Replacement of dead or dying plants
 Replacement of clogged or contaminated soils

Edition 1.1 Page 107

 Table 9.6 Green Roof Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Schedule
Operation Activities Scheduling
Every 3 days during establishment (2 years), then as
Irrigation (5 mm per application)
required at a minimum of at least once every 2 weeks
Fertilizing (use slow release complete fertilizers) As required, semi-annually (spring, fall)
Leak testing and Safety inspection Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Inspection for plant health, soil erosion, layer
Monthly (April to September)
deterioration
Maintenance Activities
Weeding Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Removal and replacement of unhealthy / dead As indicated by inspection, monthly during
vegetation establishment (2 years), then annually
Replacement of eroded soils As indicated by inspection, annually
Repair roof membranes and detected leaks As indicated by inspection / detection system
Remove debris and ensure clear path through
Annually (spring)
roof drainage outlet
Replacement Activities
Waterproof membrane As indicated in inspection (30-50 years)
(Peck, 2003; COP, 2004b; GVRD, 2005, City of Toronto, 2009)

Edition 1.1 Page 108

 10 PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS

10.1 Description
Permeable pavements, also called porous pavement (pavers),
include modular and cobble block pavers, structurally reinforced
grass and gravel, porous asphalt, and porous concrete. In general,
ENK & Associates Parking Lot,
Denver the structure of permeable pavement consists of pavement layer,
Photo Credit: Kerri Robinson, angular rock filter course, angular rock sub-base, reservoirs course,
AMEC
underdrain (optional), insulations and barriers to protect adjacent
buildings or roadway sub-base (Figure 10.1).

10.2 Application
Permeable pavements have been installed in cold climates with
excellent results when designed, constructed, and maintained
properly. The locations of permeable pavement systems must be
carefully considered at the planning stage to ensure that traffic
volume, de-icing activities, and operation and maintenance
activities are suitable for the long-term functionality of the system.
Permeable pavements can be used for low traffic roads, parking
lots, driveways, pedestrian plazas and walkways. They are ideal for
Porous Asphalt Parking Lot, sites with limited space for other surface stormwater BMPs (TRCA,
Denver 2010).
Photo Credit: AMEC Earth &
Environmental
The use of permeable pavements in sites with high levels of
sedimentation and high pollution such as gas stations, handling
areas for hazardous materials, and heavy industrial sites is not
recommended (TRCA, 2010). Contaminated sites must be well
understood and the impacts of infiltrated contaminants mitigated.

Properly designed, installed, and maintained permeable pavements

have been shown to reduce frost heave, icing, pollutant loading and
runoff, and to increase pavement longevity (Gunderson, 2008;
Hun-Dorris, 2005).

10.3 Design Considerations

Unique site characteristics must be accounted for in the design
based on professional knowledge and judgement. To reduce or
eliminate potential for frost heaving, the structure and depth of the
reservoir and drainage layer in a permeable pavement structure is
vital. Appropriate design and construction for cold climates is

Edition 1.1 Page 109

 possible and has been accomplished in other jurisdictions
(SMRC, 2010). Consultation with an experienced professional is
recommended during the design and construction process.

Table 10.1 lists design requirements for the facility’s physical and
performance parameters, such as paver and sub-soil infiltration
rate, layer material sizes and depth, under drain size, contributing
area, and groundwater buffers.

Permeable pavements should be able to filter and convey the 1-in-2

year storm event. They may also be designed to provide some
infiltration capacity within the sub-soils provided the infiltration rate of
the underlying soils is >13 mm/hr.

Selection of pavement material is at the discretion of the designer,

provided the infiltration rate and void requirements listed in Table
Permeable pavers walkway at the
University of Alberta East
10.1 are met. Porous asphalt and concrete must adhere to industry
Campus Village, Edmonton, AB. standards for gradation, mixing, and installation. Using contractors
Photo by Kenneth Yip, City of with experience installing porous asphalt and concrete is essential
Edmonton, 2014.
due to the sensitivity of the material to mixture and compaction
requirements. Pavement materials must be inspected by the
design engineer throughout the construction process to confirm
consistency of the product, ensuring long-term success of the
facility.

Other factors to be considered in permeable pavement design

include:

 Alternate methods of discharge of excess stormwater (other

than infiltration) if sub-soils have high clay content in order to
reduce the risk of heaving during winter;
 Locate facilities appropriately to minimize damage due to
anti-skid materials; and
 Provide adequate, rapid drainage for the base structure to
minimize the likelihood of freezing while saturated.

Details of all permeable pavement areas planned for the site must
be included on design drawings as indicated in Table 10.2.

Edition 1.1 Page 110

 Figure 10.1 Cross-Section of Permeable Pavement Installation

Edition 1.1 Page 111

 Table 10.1 Permeable Pavement Parameters and Guidelines

Reported Parameters Description

>13 mm/hr, underdrain required in tighter soils; >26 mm/hr when contact with
Sub-Soil Infiltration Rate
anti-skid material expected; >35 mm/hr when contributing area >4 hectares
Capable of maintaining 28 mm/hr over lifetime based on manufacturers tests
Pavement Infiltration Rate
and factor of safety of 10
Cobble: min 8%; modular block / plastic grid: min 20%; asphalt / concrete:
Open Annular Space
min 2%
Filter course: (10-12 mm angular stone with <0.1% silt) 25-30 mm below base
of pavers / pavement
Subbase: (25-40 mm angular stone with <0.1% silt) 50-250 mm depth below
Layer Materials
filter course
Stone reservoir: (>50 mm clean gravel with <0.1% silt) 50-500 mm depth
below subbase
Contributing Area Contributing impervious area up to three times the permeable pavement area
Discharge rate through underdrain for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year and
Design Discharge
100-year design events
Subgrade slope 0.5-2%; surface slope 0.5-1%, ideally directed toward
Longitudinal Slope
adjacent landscaped areas
Volume of water retained within the pavement structure during the 2-year
Captured Volume
design event; additional volume captured during larger events if applicable
Surface Flow Velocity As per City of Edmonton specifications for overland flow
Emptying Time Duration of water detention in reservoir layer <72 hrs
Bottom of reservoir layer located minimum 0.6 m to 1 m above groundwater
Groundwater Buffer
elevation
(USEPA, 1980; SMRC, 2010; GVRD, 2005)

Edition 1.1 Page 112

 Table 10.2 Permeable Pavement Drawing Details

Parameter Plan Detail Profile Description

Shown on plan view (driveways, parking stalls,
Location x pedestrian areas, emergency / delivery vehicle
access)
Shown on plan view, detail (if applicable), and in
Inlet x x
report
Permeable Permeable surface (pavers, asphalt, concrete)
x x x
Pavement with porosity and mix specifications
Layer order (filter, reservoir, geotextile) and
Sub-Surface
x specifications (gradation, hydraulic conductivity,
Materials
void space)
Slope x x Sub-base slope and surface slope
Underdrain diameter, material, slope & outlet,
Outlet x x
overflow spill elevation
Delineated catchment area directed to swale,
Catchment x
report imperviousness ratio
Surface area x Outlined on drawings and stated in report
Depth of each layer, reservoir retention depth (if
Depth x
applicable), surface ponding depth (if applicable)
From contributing area, within pavement
Flow Arrows x
structure and overflow route
Inundation x Extent of inundation during design storms
Located at inlet (until site stabilized), outlet if
Erosion control x x
erosion potential exists

Edition 1.1 Page 113

 10.4 Operation and Maintenance
Over time, sediments will accumulate in the pores of permeable
pavement, reducing the infiltration rate. To mitigate this, regular
(annual) vacuuming of the permeable pavement surface is required.
Some studies recommend designing the facility so that the installed
pavement can maintain a minimum infiltration rate of 28 mm/hr with
an applied factor of safety of 10 (initial rate: >280 mm/hr) to account
for this reduction in efficiency (GVRD, 2005).

Facility designers must provide site-specific schedules for operation,

maintenance, and replacement to ensure long-term functionality of
the LID-BMP facility. The schedule for operation, maintenance and
replacement activities for permeable pavement is contained in Table
10.3. The recommended timeline for these activities may vary
depending on location and contributing area characteristics.

Damage to permeable pavements and pavers during winter plowing

activities can be avoided by careful installation and maintenance and
by using rubber spacers to buffer the plow blade from the surface, if
required. Past experience has shown that permeable pavement is
not subject to the level of ice build-up that occurs on traditional
impervious materials since melt water can infiltrate immediately. This
characteristic should reduce or eliminate the need for de-icing
chemicals. If anti-skid materials are required, it is recommended that
clean gravel (2 to 5 mm) b used instead of sand, since it is resistant
to breakdown and will not clog the permeable pavement pores.

Edition 1.1 Page 114

 Table 10.3 Permeable Pavement Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Schedule

Operation Activities Scheduling

Inspect for broken pavers, loose asphalt / concrete, clogged Semi-annually
areas (spring, fall)
Do not apply sand for anti-skid Winter
Use salt sparingly, in spot applications, for de-icing Winter, as needed
Raise plow 10-25 mm to avoid damage to pavement surface
Winter
while clearing snow
Stabilize contributing catchment to prevent sedimentation, Semi-annually
erosion (spring, fall)
Semi-annually
Street sweeping in contributing catchment to prevent
(between snowmelt and spring rain,
sedimentation
following spring rains)
Surface infiltration testing Bi-annually
Maintenance Activities
Immediately clean chemical or granular spills with vacuum
As required
and pressure washer
Mow (length >100 mm) and remove clippings from structural
Monthly
vegetated surfaces
Weeding of invasive species Quarterly, as required
Litter, leaves, debris and weed removal Quarterly, as required
Prune nearby vegetation to avoid debris accumulation Annually
Semi-annually
Repair broken / loose surface material
(spring, fall)
Annually
Underdrain flush
(spring)
Site vacuuming / gravel replacement to remove Annually or bi-annually
sedimentation (based on testing)
Replacement Activities
As indicated in inspection
Pavers, asphalt or concrete
(>30 years)
Grass / plants in structural vegetated surfaces As indicated in inspection
(unhealthy or dead >10%) (1-10 years)
As indicated by infiltration testing
Gravel drainage layer
(>30 years)
When flushing indicates clogging
Underdrain
(>30 years)
(Diniz, 1980; COP, 2004b; Gunderson, 2008)

Edition 1.1 Page 115

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Page 116

 11 BOX PLANTERS

11.1 Description
Infiltrating box planters are similar to bioretention systems as they
use vegetation and amended soils to filter and retain stormwater. A
planter typically consists of a concrete box, which may or may not
have a lined or concrete bottom (depending if infiltration is
desirable), filled with a soil medium and planted with trees, shrubs,
or flowering species.

An alternative to the concrete box is a matrix of buried plastic cells,

or soil cells,that provide structural support for sidewalks and
roadways while allowing space for growing medium to facilitate tree
routing and provide stormwater management by promoting
absorption, evapotranspiration, and interception (see Figure 11.1).
Stormwater can be directed into the soil cell system through porous
pavement, sheet flow through a curb cut, roof drain connection, or
through a catch basin with pre-treatment.

Box planters may be designed as contained planters with outlet

only through overflow; as flow-through planters with an underdrain
outlet; or as infiltration planters which drain through deep infiltration
and provide groundwater recharge.

11.2 Application
Box planters are often designed for highly urbanized areas and
retrofits where impervious surface reduction or stormwater quality
enhancements are required. Runoff from surrounding impervious
surfaces is directed into raised or inset box planter facilities to
provide source control treatment, allow for retention within the
growing media (Figure 11.1), and, depending on subsoil types,
facilitate deep infiltration. The size and type of planter dictates
runoff reduction and water quality treatment capacity. Generally,
they are expected to perform similarly to bioretention areas.

The primary mechanisms of stormwater management for infiltrating

box planters include surface detention, infiltration, transpiration,
Flow through box planter, South deep infiltration (optional), and delayed release to the minor system.
Bay, CA. Photo Credit: Kerri
Robinson, AMEC. Stormwater enters the infiltrating box planter and infiltrate through a
layer of mulch and soil. Some of the water is retained by the soil
and subsequently used by the vegetation and released as

Edition 1.1 Page 117

 evapo-transpiration. Depending on native soils, infiltrated water
may percolate by deep infiltration to the groundwater table. If
infiltration is not an option, a perforated underdrain placed near the
bottom of the box planter will convey excess water to the storm
drainage system or a reservoir for re-use purposes (such as
irrigation). Contained and flow-through box planters require
downstream LID-BMP facilities or connection to a conventional
storm sewer system to convey excess stormwater and do not
contribute to groundwater recharge.

Figure 11.1 Soil Cells Installation for Stormwater Management

11.3 Design Considerations

To ensure the long term function of a box planter, the facility’s
physical and performance parameters listed in Table 11.1 must be
considered during the preliminary design process and inspected
during construction. Other design considerations besides those
listed in Table 11.1 include, but are not limited to:

 locating facilities appropriately to minimize damage due to

pollutants and de-icing and anti-skid materials;
 providing an impermeable barrier between an infiltrating box

Edition 1.1 Page 118

 planter and any roadway or adjacent building to prevent heaving
or foundation damage;
 directing outlet of flow-through planters away from pedestrian
walkways to prevent icing during spring thaw;
 designing vertical profile of vegetation located along roadways
or near intersections to prevent impedance of driver visibility;
 selecting salt tolerant species to be planted nearest the road
runoff inlets to buffer more sensitive species from the impacts of
salt (APPENDIX A);
 sizing facilities receiving road runoff containing salts to prevent
salt induced injury to plants and soils as per APPENDIX D;
 designing soil type and structure and selecting vegetation to
account for weight, added pollutants and melt volumes in
facilities built with the intent to provide snow storage; and
 sizing curb cut inlets to prevent blockage by ice and snow
Box planters, Oregon. Photo
during spring runoff.
credit: Dennis Uvbiama, AMEC..
If soil cells are used, they will be filled with growing medium and
designed to support vehicle loaded pavement. Soil cells must meet
the following requirements:

 At minimum, the cell shall be designed to support the weight of

the heaviest vehicle expected to travel the overlying or adjacent
surface, plus a factor of safety. The growing medium in the cells
should be based on the guidelines in APPENDIX B if the soil
cells are designed to integrate trees and stormwater runoff
treatment.
 An adequate volume of growing medium should be provided
within the soil cells as required to provide intended stormwater
management and tree/plant health. The soil cell system should
be designed to facilitate the movement of roots and water
between each cell and the access to utilities for repair or
Clermont Elementary School, installation.
Virginia. Photo credit: AMEC
Earth & Environmental.
Contained and flow-through box planters are easily implemented in
retrofit situations, highly urbanized areas, and new developments.
Infiltration box planters are more suitable for new developments
where appropriate siting and subsurface testing can be completed;
however, implementation in retrofit zones may be possible with
careful assessment. While some stormwater volume reductions
may be realized with box planters, their primary function is water
quality enhancement achieved by filtration and biodegradation of
pollutants through the vegetation and soil matrix. The structural

Edition 1.1 Page 119

 nature of these facilities lends itself well to connection from
impervious areas, providing opportunity for these facilities to serve
as pre-treatment for facilities downstream in the treatment train.
Figures 11.2 and 11.3 provide cross sectional details for the flow
through and infiltration box planters.

Required plan view details and dimensional profiles of each type of

box planter planned for a development are listed in Table 11.2.

11.4 Maintenance Schedule

The schedule for operation, maintenance and replacement activities
for box planters is contained in Table 11.3. The recommended
timeline for these activities may vary depending on location and
contributing area characteristics. Facility inspections should be
conducted quarterly during establishment (first 2 years) and
semi-annually thereafter. Inspecting after a major storm event will
facilitate early detection of erosion or debris blockages occurring
during elevated or sustained flows. More contaminated sites may
require more frequent inspection, upkeep and replacement activities
while sites which remain relatively undisturbed with little potential
for contamination or sedimentation may require very little attention.
Facility designers must provide site specific schedules for
operation, maintenance and replacement to ensure the long-term
functionality of the LID-BMP facility.

Edition 1.1 Page 120

 Figure 11.2 Cross-Section of Flow-Through Box Planter

Figure 11.3 Cross-Section of Infiltration Box Planter

Edition 1.1 Page 121

 Table 11.1 Box Planter Parameters and Guidelines
Facility Applicability
Reported Parameters Description Flow-
Contained Infiltration
Through
>50 mm/hr minimum, with 30 mm/hr used in
Sub-Soil Infiltration
design and modeling; underdrain required if x
Rate
infiltration <50 mm/hr
Inlet design Erosion control at point source inlet x x
Contained planter: 1-to-1 area ratio; infiltration /
2
Contributing Area flow-through planters: <1400 m (based on an x x
event producing 100 mm precipitation in 24 hr)
Overflow discharge rate in design events (Q2, Q5,
Q10, Q25 and Q100); infiltration / flow-through:
Design Discharge x x x
minor system connection must comply with
discharge rate set in Area Master Plan
Stone, concrete, brick, wood (chemically treated
wood unacceptable due to the leaching potential
Planter Material x x x
of toxic substances), clay, plastic acceptable for
contained planters
Growing media: (amended topsoil) 300-450 mm
x x x
depth
Filter layer: (16-25 mm washed rock <0.1% silt)
Media Layers x x
100 mm depth
Drainage layer: (20-40 mm washed rock
x x
<0.1% silt) 250-300 mm depth
Contained planters: 50 mm; infiltration /
Max. Ponding Depth x x x
flow-through planters: 300 mm
Volume water retained through ponding and
surface infiltration during the Q2 event; additional
Captured Volume x x x
volume captured during larger events if
applicable
150 mm (min) weeping tile drain through length
Outlet design x x
of facility to minor system lead
Duration of ponded water following design events
Emptying Time x x
<12hrs
Infiltration planters: >750 mm width;
Surface Geometry Flow-through planters: >450 mm width; x x x
Contained planters: as site allows
Contained / infiltration planters: flat surface;
Surface Slope x x x
Flow-through planters: <0.5% surface slope
Infiltration Features Scarify sub-soils x
Facility base must be 1 m above groundwater
Groundwater Buffer x
level
Infiltration: 10 m setback from building
foundations required; flow-through: damp
Structural Buffer x x
proofing along foundation and impervious water
barrier within planter required
Drought tolerant trees, shrubs, herbs, succulents,
Vegetation grasses to cover 50% of surface area at maturity; x x x
irrigation acceptable
(GVRD, 2005; COP, 2004b)

Edition 1.1 Page 122

 Table 11.2 Box Planter Drawing Details

Parameter Plan Detail Profile Description

Areal extent on plan view, including building setbacks,
Location x
structures and property lines
Dimensions shown on plan view drawings and areas
Surface area x
stated in report
Shown on plan view and typical detail provided (curb
Inlet x x
cut, flow spreader, downspout)
Dimensions and specifications for: planter wall material;
Materials x x waterproofing membrane; growing media; drainage
media
Landscaping / planting plan and vegetation details
Vegetation x x (species, mature density, succession plan, transpiration
rate, treatment capability)
Underdrain material, size, slope and inverts at all
Outlet x x
connections, overflow spill location and dimensions
Delineated catchment area directed to bioretention
Catchment x
facility
Flow Arrows x From contributing area and overflow route
Water Depth x Maximum ponding depth
Erosion control x x x Inlet splash pad material, dimensions, specifications
(COP, 2004b)

Edition 1.1 Page 123

 Table 11.3 Box Planter Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule

Planter
Operation Activities Scheduling
Type
Quarterly (first 2 yrs), semi-annually
C, I, F Operation and structural stability inspections
(spring, fall)
Downspout and splash block inspection for
C, I, F Semi-annually (spring, fall)
clogging, leaks and erosion
Filter media infiltration and contamination
C, I, F Annually
testing
C, I, F Irrigation Weekly
C, I, F Vegetation health and density inspection Annually
Maintenance Activities
C, I, F Weed control Bi-monthly
Litter and debris removal from vegetation, inlet
C, I, F Monthly
and overflow
Hand removal of accumulated sediment
I,F Annually (spring)
>100 mm
Hand repair of soils at locations where
I,F Annually (spring)
infiltration compromised
I,F Downspout, inlet and underdrain flush Annually (spring)
I,F Erosion repair Annually (spring)
As indicated in inspection
C, I, F Overflow flush or repair
(at 50% conveyance)
Plug holes inconsistent with design and which As indicated in inspection
C, I, F
allow water to seep into ground (1-10 years)
As indicated in inspection
C, I, F Plants (unhealthy or dead >10%)
(1-10 years)
C, I, F Mulch, replenish or replace Annually
As indicated by contaminant / infiltration
testing (2-20 years): when contaminant
C, I, F Soils level is stable from one year to the next
with no change in incoming levels; when
infiltration rate is below the modelled rate
Based on infiltration inspection: when
I,F Gravel drainage layer surface layer no longer meets emptying
time criteria (25-50 years)
When flushing indicates irreparable
I,F Underdrain
clogging (25-50 years)
C = contained; I = infiltration; F = flow-through
(GVRD, 2005; COP, 2004b; Claytor and Schueler, 1996)

Edition 1.1 Page 124

 12 NATURALIZED DRAINAGE WAYS

12.1 Descriptions
Naturalized drainage ways are surface stormwater conveyance
features that use wetland zones, drop structures, and natural
materials and vegetation to replace storm sewer mains or prevent
erosion of existing drainage ways. Naturalized drainage ways
Photo Credit: Dr.Robert
McGregor, AMEC generally have frequent or continual runoff (base flow). They are
typically larger than grass swales, more engineered than natural
wetlands, and, in some cases, may appear similar to a small creek.
Velocities of urban runoff and stormwater are slowed using natural
vegetation, increased resistance along the flow path, and drop
structures (MDEP, 1997). Additionally, prolonged stormwater
contact with natural materials promotes the hydrologic cycle through
infiltration, evaporation, and transpiration. Figure 12.1 provides
cross sectional details for a naturalized drainage way, with an outlet
into a constructed wetland prior to entry into the storm sewer or
receiving water body.

12.2 Applications
Naturalized drainage ways are typically located near the
downstream outlet of a developed basin as they require continuous
base flow to maintain the health of wetland and riparian vegetation
and prevent occurrence of stagnant pools. They can be
implemented as retrofits to replace overloaded storm trunks or
small eroded streams, or as part of new developments with long
term growth in mind to prevent the occurrence of such situations.

As is indicated by their name, naturalized drainage ways must be

designed to fit the unique drainage, topographic, and development
characteristics of each site. Natural drainage ways should not be
implemented in areas with very flat or very steep topography. The
designer is responsible for ensuring that physical attributes of the
site can accommodate a drainage way and that the naturalized
drainage way will enhance treatment and aesthetics of stormwater
management in the area.

12.3 Design Considerations

Naturalized drainage ways require continuous base flow to meet all
losses due to evaporation, transpiration, and seepage. The design
may incorporate existing natural features such as wetlands,
drainage paths, and recharge zones so long as care is taken to

Edition 1.1 Page 125

 maintain natural patterns and avoid sedimentation or pollutant
deposition. When incorporating wetlands, discussions with Alberta
Environment will be required to approve the design.

Soils must be able to sustain vegetation growth and with vegetation

present, withstand storm flows. Loamy soil is recommended for the
channel and amended soils must be based on constructed wetland
requirements.

The physical and performance parameters listed in Table 12.1 must

be considered during the preliminary design process. The
parameters listed in Table 12.1 are for the naturalized drainage way
and its outlet to a wetland, receiving water, or storm sewer.

Naturalized drainage way designs must convey at least the 1-in-2

year storm event with non-erosive velocities (Claytor et al, 1996)
and be within the parameters listed in Table 12.1. Where
longitudinal slopes exceed 1%, drop structures should be used to
reduce flow velocities and maintain flat grades. Water quality
treatment through filtration by vegetation may be possible in some
instances and is dependent on the site. Modelling of each
individual site must be completed by designers to demonstrate
function of the facility.

Other considerations for design and adaptation of naturalized

drainage ways to ensure safety and long term functionality in the
Edmonton climate and soils are as follows:

 design and locate facilities for pedestrian access and provide

safety measures appropriate for expected flow depths and
velocities;
 design vertical profile of vegetation located along roadways or
near intersections to prevent impedance of driver visibility;
 select vegetation to be able to structurally withstand moderate
flow velocities and erosive forces of design events;
 select vegetation for the facility base to withstand and thrive in
conditions of near constant inundation;
 select vegetation for side slopes to withstand cycles of drought
and brief inundation;
 select salt tolerant species for plantings along roadways
(APPENDIX A);
 size facilities receiving road runoff containing salts to prevent
salt induced injury to plants and soils as per APPENDIX D; and

Edition 1.1 Page 126

  design soil amendments in roadside facilities to buffer high salt
loadings.

The plan view, details and profiles of any naturalized drainage ways
must be included on design drawings as indicated in Table 12.2.

12.4 Operation and Maintenance

Operational requirements to keep maintenance of naturalized
drainage ways to a minimum include street sweeping, soil testing in
high pollution areas, and removal of organic matter and sediment.
The schedule for operation, maintenance, and replacement
activities for naturalized drainage ways is in Table 12.3. Similar to
grass swales, naturalized drainage ways should be inspected
quarterly during establishment (first 2 years) and semi-annually
thereafter, with spot inspections conducted after severe storm
events. Visual inspection during spring break-up is important to
mitigate flooding due to ice blockage. If the drainage way is
receiving water from roadways or parking lots to which de-icing
compounds are applied, soil testing is recommended annually to
monitor salt content.

Figure 12.1 Longitudinal View of Naturalized Drainage Way with Check Dams

Edition 1.1 Page 127

 Table 12.1 Naturalized Drainage Way Parameters and Guidelines
Reported Parameters Description and Recommendation
Contributing Area >1 ha
Near continual baseflows resulting from return flows from residential or commercial
Baseflow
water uses in contributing catchments, or proximity to water table
Safely convey Q2 event with non-erosive velocity (0.6 m/s to 1.5 m/s, depending on
Design Discharge vegetation and soil type ); Q10 and Q100 not to exceed rates defined in Master
Stormwater Drainage Plan
Determine flow through capacity (maximum flow without re-suspending and flushing
Flow-Through Velocity trapped pollutants) using hydraulic modelling; non-erosive velocities 2-year, 5-year,
10-year, 25-year and 100-year design events
Flow Depth 0.6 m to 1.2 m during a 2-year design event
Ponding Depth 0.15 m during a 2-year design event
Growing media: (amended soil) 300 mm to 650 mm depth able to support dense
Media Layers
vegetation
Grasses and dense vegetation (100% coverage at establishment – 2-years) on
Vegetation
drainage way slopes and within wetland zones along drainage way
Show that HWL in 100-year return period storm events do not compromise adjacent
WSE in Design Storms
structures
Volume of water retained through ponding and surface infiltration during the 2-year
Captured Volume
design event; additional volume captured during larger events if applicable
Duration of water quality volume ponding following design events is 24 hrs; however
Emptying Time baseflow ponding may extend beyond this time period and designs requiring this
characteristic must be made accordingly
Site specific to take advantage of existing topography and natural water features;
Geometry
typically trapezoidal or parabolic; provide cross-section detail with dimensions labelled
Side Slopes 3:1 (H:V) or flatter preferred (max 2:1)
Determine effective slope (>0.1%) for the 2-year design event using Manning's
equation with initial n=0.035 and at maturity n=0.08; slopes >1% require grade control
Longitudinal Slope
structures to flatten longitudinal slopes to less than 0.5% between grade control
structures
Where appropriate, groundwater table may be in continual or intermittent contact with
Groundwater Buffer
facility to sustain wetland vegetation
Structural Buffer Facility located >3 m from building foundations
Velocity tolerance for the 2-year design event flow; emergent plantings to be resistant
Planting Plan to intermittent inundation and prolonged drought; wetland plantings appropriate where
bottom is expected to receive continual baseflows
(UDFCD, 2008; MSSC, 2005; COP, 2004b; Claytor et al, 1996; Caraco et al, 1997)

Edition 1.1 Page 128

 Table 12.2 Naturalized Drainage Way Drawing Details

Parameter Plan Detail Profile Description

Shown on plan view and typical detail provided (pipe daylight,
Inlet x x curb cut, flow spreader, ribbon curb, OGS): inverts; sizes;
slopes; and, materials
Material specifications(soil, drainage material, drain pipes,
Materials x x
geotextile), depth, hydraulic conductivity
Side slopes, longitudinal slope, effective slope, check dams or
Slope x x x
drop structures, flow disconnection curtains
Spill elevation, catchbasin type and grate, weir, inlet control
Outlets x
device (ICD)
Delineated catchment area directed to naturalized drainage
Catchment x
way, including daylighted pipe catchment
Dimensions outlined on drawings and stated in report; setbacks
Surface area x
from property line and structures
Ponding depth and water surface elevation during design storm
Depth x
and maximum prior to spill
From contributing area; within drainage way and wetland zones;
Flow Arrows x
overland spill route
Inundation x Extent of inundation during design storms (HWL)
Erosion control x x Located at all inlets until site stabilized; outlets if overland spill
Detailed planting plan and succession plan if required, for
Landscaping x x
drainage ways and wetland zones
(COP, 2004b; Claytor et al, 1996)

Edition 1.1 Page 129

 Table 12.3 Naturalized Drainage Way Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule

Operation Activities Scheduling

Inspect for sedimentation (identify source), erosion, plant health,
Semi-annually (spring, fall)
and soil condition
Irrigation During establishment (as required)
Street sweeping to prevent sedimentation Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Strategic application of de-icing material on adjacent roadways Winter
Avoid piling snow into facility unless specifically designed for this
Winter
purpose
Soils testing in areas with high levels of contaminants Bi-annually
Maintenance Activities
Weed control Monthly
Mow grass, if applicable, and remove clippings, minimum length
Monthly (May-October)
(100-250 mm) no shorter than maximum design flow depth
Litter and debris removal from inlets, flow paths and vegetation Quarterly
Prune vegetation to prevent debris build-up Annually
Annually (spring) or when
Removal of accumulated sediment, repair source if possible
sediment depth >100 mm
Erosion repair of soils, splash pad, rip rap Annually (spring)
Prevent Ice blockage Inspection during spring break-up
Replacement Activities
As indicated in inspection
Plants/grass (unhealthy or dead >10%)
(1-10 years)
As indicated by inspection
Mulch, if applicable, replenish or replace
(1-3 years)
As indicated by
Soils contaminant / infiltration testing
(2-20 years)
(UDFCD, 2008; Caraco et al, 1997)

Edition 1.1 Page 130

 13 RAINWATER HARVESTING FOR RE-USE

13.1 Description
Rainwater is drops of freshwater that fall as precipitation from
clouds. Rainwater harvesting is the collection and conveyance of
rainwater from a building roof to storage in a rain barrel or a cistern
http://www.peachygreen.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/cistern.j for re-use in irrigation or approved non-potable uses. Figure 13.1
pg shows a schematic of a rainwater harvesting system with a buried
cistern. Key components of such a system include the roof surface,
gutters and downspouts, roof washer to remove contaminants,
cistern, and pumping and piping system. Table 13.1 lists and
details these components.

Above ground cisterns may include:

 rain barrels that receive unfiltered runoff from downspouts and

are not connected to automatic irrigation systems;
 rooftop capture cisterns which provide irrigation pressure
Residential rain barrel to harvest roof through gravity;
runoff for irrigating plants. Photo by
Diane Wirtz, City of Edmonton  above grade bladders which may be located in tight spaces and
an external pump to provide irrigation pressure; or
 cisterns incorporated into a heated building allowing year round
water use for non-potable purposes.

Above ground cisterns are easily implemented. However, care

must be taken to prevent damage and leakage due to winter
freeze/thaw cycles. These cisterns require both an overflow and a
drain to allow for winterization and for facility cleaning.
Underground cisterns require cleanout ports or manhole access,
depending on the cistern design. Concrete cisterns must be
winterized to prevent cracking and subsequent leaking due to the
winter freeze/thaw cycle. Buried cisterns may also be made of
plastic void crates able to withstand freeze/thaw cycling but
Residential rain barrel to harvest roof requiring periodic vacuum cleanout as part of maintenance
runoff for irrigating plants. Photo by
Diane Wirtz, City of Edmonton activities.

Edition 1.1 Page 131

 Figure 13.1 Rainwater Harvesting System Schematics
(adapted from Rupp, 1998)

13.2 Application
Depending on the jurisdiction, rainwater can be used for outdoor
irrigation, toilet flushing, and washing clothes. Re-use sources and
applications are governed by federal and provincial legislation
(Health Canada, 2007; Government of Alberta, 2010). In Alberta,
rainwater re-use for irrigation is widely accepted and re-use for toilet
flushing is becoming more common.

Topography, land use, and location all have impacts on rainwater

harvesting system design and performance. Rainwater harvesting
using a rain barrel typically does not require anything more than
directing a downspout into a water storage container and then
manually drawing water for irrigation.

Rooftop cisterns are likely to capture less rainwater due to structural

limitations; however, gravity based distribution to a re-use site is
possible. Buried cisterns require pumping but store more water
(TRCA, 2009) and should be located in native soils. If installation in
a fill slope is necessary, both geotechnical and structural
engineering design are required. Buried cistern overflows should

Edition 1.1 Page 132

 be located with consideration for the foundation location. Lot
grading, both adjacent to and downstream of the buried cistern
overflow, should be designed to avoid flooding, ponding or soil
saturation. Tanks should be water tight and installed at least 3
metres from building foundations (TRCA, 2009). The location of
utilities and services must be considered when placing buried
cisterns to avoid conflicts.

Rainwater should only be harvested from roof surfaces. Avoid

harvesting rainwater from vehicular or pedestrian areas, surface
water runoff, or standing water to prevent introduction of
contaminants such as salts, bacteria and metals (COP, 2004a).
Due to the minimal water quality treatment available with rainwater
harvesting, it is best paired with additional LID-BMP facilities when
pollutant loading targets must be met.

13.3 Design Considerations

Unique site characteristics must be considered in the rainwater
harvesting system design based on professional knowledge and
judgement. Cisterns must be designed and installed by qualified
professionals, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The following recommendations and criteria are provided to aid in

the design of rainwater harvesting and re-use installations:

 The volume of rainwater that may be collected from a roof

surface must be determined for each unique application based
on the roof footprint or exterior roof area (ft2 or m2). A roof
surface is generally about 75% efficient in collecting rainwater
due to evaporation, abstraction and leakage, so the volume
available for capture from a roof surface can be calculated using
the following formula:

0.75 * RA * Drw
Vrw =
1000

Where:
Vrw = Volume of available rainwater for capture (m3)
RA = Roof area (m2)
Drw = Average annual rainfall depth (mm)

Edition 1.1 Page 133

  The volume available for capture from a rooftop may exceed,
meet, or fall short of seasonal demand requirements based on
bi-weekly rainfall patterns, size of the cistern, and other water
uses. Careful sizing of the cistern is required, by a qualified
irrigation or engineering professional, to ensure the size and
costs of installation are appropriate for the capture volume and
non-potable demands.
 A cistern may be connected to a potable water source, such as
municipal water, for top-up in the event that demand exceeds
captured volumes. The potable water top-up must have
backflow prevention measures in place.
 Cistern overflows must be directed away from building
foundations to avoid flooding or damage to the foundation
during large events.
 The roof washer (first flush diverter) should be designed to
divert the first 0.5 mm of runoff during an event away from the
storage facility to avoid clogging or contamination. As a result,
treatment of the diverted water does not occur unless the
diverted water is directed to another LID-BMP facility in a
treatment train approach.
 account for frost depth and freeze / thaw cycles when specifying
depth and type of outdoor cisterns;
 confirm compliance with the Alberta Building Code; and
 consider timing of seasonal water availability and demands
using continuous precipitation modelling for determining the
optimal cistern size.
 Cisterns located within a building envelope must be included on
drawings submitted for the building permit. Buried cisterns
should be installed in native soils whenever possible to ensure
subsurface stability (TRCA, 2009). Due to the capture and
retention function of rainwater harvesting systems, natural soil
testing is required only for buried systems.
 Other inspection and testing activities recommended to be
completed during and following construction include: (1) a
plumbing inspection to ensure its compliance with CSA B128
and City of Edmonton by-laws; and (2) leak testing of cistern
and irrigation piping before commissioning. Rainwater and
greywater have different sources and therefore different
requirements and limitations for re-use in Canada.

To ensure long term operational success of these installations, the

facility’s physical and performance parameters as listed in Table
13.2 must be considered and included in the design.

Edition 1.1 Page 134

 The Alberta Guidelines for Residential Rainwater Harvesting
Systems and Handbook (Government of Alberta, 2010) that
provides design and installation guidelines specifically on residential
rainwater harvesting systems for non-potable reuse shall be
considered when applying such systems.

13.4 Operation and Maintenance

Operational requirements include inspecting gutters and leaf
screens, roof washers, filters, pumping and piping systems, and the
cistern itself for leaks and sedimentation. The schedule for
operation, maintenance, and replacement activities for cisterns is in
Table 13.3. Filter and screen inspections are recommended
monthly from April to September, and after a severe storm event.
This table is provided as a minimum recommendation, as the
schedule for these activities may vary depending on cistern type,
location, and the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Table 13.1 Rainwater Harvesting System Components

Components Description
Gutter Screen (Leaf
Prevents large debris and leaves from entering roof gutters
Screen)
System of gutters, downspouts and pipes (generally plastic) to carry
Rainwater Conveyance
water from roof to cistern
Roof Washer (First Flush Directs first 0.5 mm of rainwater volume, containing higher pollutant
Diverter) loads, away from cistern
Removes smaller debris, particulates and bacteria from rainwater prior to
Filter
entry into cistern; often included in roof washer
Watertight tank or void space connected to roof downspouts and re-use
Cistern
outlets
Outlet pipe to surface or subsurface drain for use when cistern volume is
Cistern Overflow
exceeded
Pump Submersible or surface pump to pressurize irrigation or plumbing
Irrigation and non-potable water pipes, marked in purple as per
Delivery Conveyance CSA B128, with appropriate signage ("Warning: Non-Potable Water - Do
Not Drink" ) at hose bibs or faucets
Pipes connected as per CSA B128, with backflow prevention to prevent
Potable Water Top Up
contamination of potable water source
Level indicator (float or other sensor) to trigger potable system top up
Level Indicator
when cistern volume drawn down
(Kloss, 2008; CRDWS, 2007)

Edition 1.1 Page 135

 Table 13.2 Rainwater Harvesting System Design Parameters and Guidelines

Design Parameters Description

Gutter Screen Maximum screen size: 10 mm
First Flush Diversion Volume: 0.5 mm * roof area; spill directed away from building foundation
Materials (type and depth of layer); treatment capacity (particle size and
Filter
pollutants removed); maintenance schedule
Location: protected from direct sunlight, (sub)surface; volume, material
Cistern
specifications, overflow elevation; access port or manhole
Automatic or manual withdrawal, expected rate of withdrawal, expected
Expected Demand
purpose for re-used water
(Optional) expected volumes and pattern of use; method of initiating
Potable Connection
top-up (manual / automatic)
Pump Specification, type and location (submerged or external)
(Kloss, 2008; CRDWS, 2007)

Table 13.3 Cistern Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Schedule

Operation Activities Scheduling

Inspect cistern, pipes and pump for leaks, clogging Quarterly
Inspect filters Monthly
Inspect roof gutter screens Quarterly
Irrigation hook-up Spring
Irrigation winterization and empty outdoor rain
Fall
barrel/cistern
Maintenance Activities
Litter, leaves and debris removal Quarterly, as required
Prune nearby vegetation to avoid debris accumulation Annually
Repair leaks and cracks Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Filter cleaning Semi-annually (spring, fall)
Flush inlet and outlet pipes Annually (spring)
Vacuum / flush cistern to remove sedimentation Annually or when accumulation >25 mm
Replacement Activities
As indicated in inspection to prevent root
Large shrub / tree removal
penetration (10-20 years)
Filter As indicated in inspection (10-100 years)
Cistern As indicated in inspection (25-100 years)
Pipes As indicated in inspection (25-100 years)
(COP, 2004a; City of Tucson, 2005)

Edition 1.1 Page 136

14 GLOSSARY

Term Definition

A Horizon Surface mineral (topsoil) horizon

The physical uptake of water or dissolved chemicals by soils or

Absorption
organisms such as microbes or plant roots

Ability of the landscape to retain runoff in surface storage on vegetation

Abstraction Potential
(leaves) and minor depressions (puddles) and through infiltration

Antecedent Conditions Soil moisture level prior to a rainfall event

B Horizon Enriched mineral horizon

Biodegradation Decomposition of any material by micro organisms

Biology Study of living organisms

Abandoned or under-used commercial or industrial land available for

Brownfield
re-development

C Horizon Undisturbed mineral horizon

Cation Positively charged ion

Salt and sand application to roadways during the winter to prevent ice
De-Icing Activities
build-up and provide traction

Depression Storage Water retained in puddles and other surface depressions of the ground

Runoff depth, simulated with an event-type model, for a storm likely to

Design Event
occur with a return period such as 1-in-10 years or 1-in-100 years

Water volume contained in a facility and released to the storm sewer

Detention (Stormwater)
network at a slower rate than the event runoff rate

Disconnected Impervious Impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveways, parking lots, that are
Areas designed to drain to vegetated surfaces or LID-BMP facilities

Study of organisms, their habitat and their interactions with the

Ecology
environment

The mechanical process of wearing or grinding something down (as by

Erosion
particles washing over it)

Process by which liquid water converts to water vapour by energy from

Evaporation
heat or air movement

Edition 1.1 Page 137

 Term Definition
Soils that contain water-absorbing minerals and expand as they take
Expansive Soils
on water

During a rain event, the initial surface runoff from impervious surfaces
First Flush which contains elevated pollutant loads accumulated during the
preceding dry period

Fluvial Relating to rivers and streams

Greenfield Land that has not been previously developed

Replenishment of existing natural groundwater aquifers from surface

Groundwater Recharge
water or precipitation

Considering the importance of the whole system and the

Holistic interdependence of its parts, including ecology, biology, hydrology,
environment, sustainability, economics, growth, etc.

Hydraulic Conductivity The rate at which soil allows water to move through it

Natural cycle of water from the atmosphere, to precipitation, to runoff,

Hydrologic Cycle infiltration and groundwater recharge, to evaporation and transpiration
back into the atmosphere

Study of the movement, distribution and quality of water throughout the

Hydrology
Earth and its atmosphere

Impervious Surfaces Prevent water from passing through or penetrating into the sub-soils

Indigenous Vegetation Plants that are native to a specific locale

Process by which water penetrates into soil from the surface or upper
Infiltration
layers

Rainwater held by plants as the water falls onto leaves, stems and
Interception
branches

Non-indigenous species, or non-native plants or animals that adversely

Invasive Species affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically,
environmentally, and/or ecologically

Stormwater outlet designed to convert concentrated runoff to sheet

Level Spreader
flow
-
Overland flow route designed to handle 1 in-100 year storm event flows
Major System
and volumes

Edition 1.1 Page 138

 Term Definition

Stormwater sewers designed to accommodate 1-in-5 year storm event

Minor System
flows

Pollutants or stormwater flows entering a facility or waterbody through

Non-Point Source overland sheet flow rather than through a specific discharge location
(point source)

An invasive species of plant that has been designated by local or

federal authorities as one that is injurious to agricultural and / or
Noxious Weed
horticultural crops, natural habitats and/or ecosystems, and/or humans
or livestock

Stormwater is directed from the primary flow path for retention and / or
Off-Line Facilities
enhanced treatment

Soils that have high infiltration rates and convey water into deeper
Open Soils
layers of soil or to groundwater aquifers

Ornamental Vegetation Vegetation typically grown in for aesthetic (flowers, fruit, etc.) Purposes

Emphasizes the open-space aspect of a park and involves a low level

Passive Recreation of development, including picnic areas and trails

Ph Degree of acidity

Amount of water contributing to runoff and other stages of the

Pre-Development
hydrologic cycle prior to incorporation of impervious area
Hydrology
(development) on the site

Rainwater Drops of fresh water that fall as precipitation from clouds

Water volume captured in a facility and released to groundwater or the

Retention (Stormwater) atmosphere through the hydrologic cycle instead of to the storm sewer
network

Installation of new technology or features (i.e. Lid-bmp’s) to existing

Retrofit
developments

Riparian On, of or relating to the banks of a natural course of water

The portion of rainfall that is not abstracted by interception, infiltration,

Runoff
or depression storage

Sedimentation The act or process of depositing sediment

Sheet Flow Slow, shallow stormwater runoff over the land surface

Edition 1.1 Page 139

 Term Definition

Facilities distributed throughout a site to capture and treat stormwater

Source Control
runoff from small catchment areas

Precipitation during a storm event that does not absorb into the soil and
Stormwater
runs off into surface water bodies or stormwater management facilities

The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more lots, plots,
Subdivision Of Land sites, or other divisions of land for the purpose, whether immediate or
future, of sale or of building development

Tight Soils Soils resistant to infiltration

The time it takes for surface runoff to travel from the farthest point of
Time Of Concentration (Tc)
the watershed to the outlet

The process of releasing water vapour through surface pores; typically

Transpiration
refers to vegetation

LID-BMP’s placed in series to improve water quality treatment so that

Treatment Train
each successive cell receives cleaner water than the previous one

Cloudiness or opacity in the appearance of water caused by

Turbidity
suspended solids or particles

An area, such as a city or industrial site, having consistently higher

Urban Heat Island temperatures than surrounding areas because of a greater retention of
heat, as by buildings, concrete, and asphalt

Physical growth of an urban area resulting in the conversion of

Urbanization
pervious surfaces with impervious ones

Water Quality Capture The storage needed to capture and treat the runoff from 90% of
Volume Edmonton’s average annual rainfall.

Device in the logging assembly that senses and transmits water quality
Water Quality Sonde
data

Edition 1.1 Page 140

15 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2009. Alaska Storm Water Guide.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Anchorage, AK.
Alberta Environment (AENV). 2010. Evaporation Data.
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/water/GWSW/quantity/learn/what/CLM_climate/CLM1_metdata.h
tml. Accessed October 2011.
Alberta Environmental Protection. 1999. Stormwater Management Guidelines for the
Province of Alberta.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013. Standards
and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Systems:
Part 5 Stormwater Management Guidelines
Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership. 2010. http://alidp.org/. Accessed
August 2010.
Alberta Soil Information Centre. 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil
Inventory Database (Version 3.0), Soil Layer File. Edited by J.A. Brierley, T.C., Martin, and
D.J. Spiess. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch; Alberta Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development, Conservation and Development Branch. Available from
Alberta Soil Information Centre.
Alberta Soil Survey. 1962. Soil Survey of Edmonton Sheet (83-H). Report No. 21, by
W.E. Bowser, A.A. Kjearsgaard, T.W. Peters, and R.E. Wells. University of Alberta,
Bulletin No. SS-4.
AMEC. 2009. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County – Green
Infrastructure Master Plan. Metropolitan Council. Nashville, TN.
AMEC. 2010. The Armature – Low Impact Development Conceptual Drainage Design Report.
City of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB.
Andriashek, L.D. 1988. Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Edmonton Map Area, NTS 83H. Open
File Report #198804. Alberta Research Council. Edmonton, Alberta.
Bauder, T.A., Waskom, R.M., Davis, J.G. 2007. Irrigation Water Quality Criteria, Crop Series
No. 0.506. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Fort Collins, CO.
Boumans, J.H., et al. 1977. Reclamation of Salt Affected Soils in Iraq – Soil Hydrological and
Agricultural Studies. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2007. Design and Installation of non-potable water
systems / Maintenance and field testing of non-potable water systems. CAN/CSA-B128.1-
06/CAN/CSA-B128.2-06. National Standards of Canada, Mississauga, ON.
Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA). 2008. Research Highlights,
Rainwater Harvesting and Grey Water Re-use, Technical Series 03-100. Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ottawa, ON.

Edition 1.1 Page 141

Capital Regional District Water Services (CRDWS). 2007. Water Conservation
Technology – Rainwater Harvesting in Greater Victoria. Capital Regional District Water
Services. Victoria, BC.
Caraco, D. and R. Claytor. 1997. Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates.
Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2010. The Value of Green Infrastructure; A Guide
to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2007a. National Pollutant Removal Performance
Database Version 3. CWP, Ellicott City, MD.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2006. Drainage Services Stormwater Quality Strategy. January
2006. City of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB.
<http://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_recreation/documents/ StormwaterQuality06.pdf>.
Accessed March 2010.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2008. Your guide to planting trees and shrubs on city property. City
of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB. <http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/documents/
guide_to_planting_trees_on_city_property.pdf>. Accessed May 2010.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2009. Roadway Cleaning Policy C550. 18 March 2009.City of
Edmonton. < http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/C550.pdf>. Accessed
August 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2010. Terms of Reference for the Preparation and Amendment of
Residential Area Structure Plans. City of Edmonton Planning and Development Department.
< http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Area_
Structure_Plan_TOR_2010.pdf>. Accessed October 9, 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2011. Snow and Ice Control Policy No. 409G. September 27, 2011.
City of Edmonton. < http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/transportation/PDF/C409G.pdf>.
Accessed August 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2012. Design and Construction Standards, Volume 3, Drainage.
May 2012. City of Edmonton, Alberta.
<http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Volume_3_Drainage_.pdf>.
Accessed December 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2013. Volume 5, Landscaping. Design and Construction
Standards. September 2013. City of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB.
<http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Design_and_Construction_Landscap
ing.pdf>. Accessed December 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2014a. Drainage Bylaw No. 16200. April 1, 2014. City of Edmonton.
< http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/C16200.pdf>. Accessed August 2014.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2014b. Community Standards Bylaw No. 14600. July 16, 2014. City
of Edmonton. < http://www.edmonton.ca/bylaws_licences/C14600.pdf>. Accessed
December 2014.

Edition 1.1 Page 142

City of Portland (COP). 2004a. ENB-15.71 – Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Interior Use
or Combined Interior and Exterior Use – ICC – RES/34/#1 & UPC/6/#2. City of Portland,
Portland, OR. <http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=81417&c=38527>.
Accessed February 2010.
City of Portland (COP). 2004b. ENB-4.01 - Stormwater Management Manual - Revision #3.
Environmental Services City of Portland Clean River Works, September 2004. City of
Portland, Portland, OR.
<http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=12548&c=28044>. Accessed
February 2010.
City of Toronto, 2009. Toronto Municipal Code Green Roofs Chapter 492. City of Toronto,
Toronto, ON.
City of Toronto. 2010. Green Roof Bylaw. City of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
http://www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/policy.htm. Accessed October 2010.
City of Toronto. 2013. Tree Planting Solutions in Hard Boulevard Surfaces Best Management
Practices Manual. City of Toronto, ON.
City of Tucson. 2005. City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual, October 2005.
Ordinance Number 10210. Ed. A.A. Phillips. City of Tucson, Department of Transportation,
Stormwater Management Section, Tucson, AZ.
<http://www.tucsonaz.gov/ocsd/business/water/>. Accessed April 2010.
Claytor, R.A., and T.R. Schueler. 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Center for
Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD and Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.
Solomons, MD.
Collins, Paul. “Green Roofs and Earth Sheltered Buildings.”
http://construction.ntu.ac.uk/staffwebs/greenroofs/aboutNoPics.htm. Accessed September
16, 2011.
Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG). 1983. Urban Runoff Quality in the
Denver Region. Denver, CO.
Diniz, E. 1980. Porous Pavement Phase 1 – Design and Operational Criteria.
EPA-600/2-80-135. US Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development. August 1980. Cincinnati, OH.
ECONorthwest. 2007. The Economics of Low Impact Development: A Literature Review.
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. 1981. The National Atlas of Canada 5th Edition,
Canada, Frost-Free Period. Geographical Services Directorate, Surveys and Mapping
Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, ON.
England, G. 2009. The Pollutant Removal Efficiency Conundrum. Stormwater – The Journal
for Surface Water Quality Professionals. October 2009.
Environment Canada (EC). 2010. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000, Edmonton City
Centre Airport. <http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/>. Accessed May 2010.

Edition 1.1 Page 143

Environment Canada (EC). 2010b. Annex C Annual Report from City of Edmonton –
Roadway Maintenance for 2010 (Submitted to Environment Canada under Annex C of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999) Code of Practice for the Environmental
Management of Road Salts). City of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB.
Environment Canada and Health Canada (EC). 2001. Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, 1999 – Priority Substances List Assessment Report – Road Salts. Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Gatineau, PQ.
Fipps, Guy. 2003. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Fact Sheet B-
1667. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University System, College
Station, TX. <http://agnewsarchive.tamu.edu/drought/DRGHTPAK/SALINITY.HTM>.
Accessed August 2010).
Goom, S. 2003. Green Roofing the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention. Prepared for
the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, Sarnia, ON.
Government of Alberta. 2010. Alberta Guidelines for Residential Rainwater Harvesting
Systems and Handbook.
Government of Alberta. 2010. Reclaimed Water Working Group.
<http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/1171.cfm>. Accessed April 2010.
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 2005. Stormwater Source Control Design
Guidelines 2005 – Final Report. Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District,
Vancouver, BC.
Grieve, C.M., S. Wu, S.R. Grattan and A. Harivandi. 2007. Tolerance of plants to salinity and
to specific ions In: K. Tanji (ed.) Salt Management Guide for Landscape Irrigation with
Recycled Water in Coastal Southern California. Chapter 5, 1-60.
Gunderson, J. 2008. Pervious Pavements – New findings about their functionality and
performance in cold climates. Stormwater, September 2008.
Health Canada. 2007. Canadian Guidelines for Household Reclaimed Water for Use in Toilet
and Urinal Flushing – draft for consultation. Working Group on Household Reclaimed Water
of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment, Ottawa, ON.
Hun-Dorris, T. 2005. Advances in Porous Pavement – Different types of materials and
continuing research offer more options. Stormwater. March-April 2005.
Hunt, W.F., and Lord, W.G. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction and
Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways
Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Kloss, C. 2008. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure - Municipal Handbook –
Rainwater Harvesting Policies EPA-833-F-08-010. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Low Impact Development Center. December 2008.
Kristopher H. 2008. Winter Performance Assessment of Permeable Pavements: A
comparative study of porous asphalt, pervious concrete and conventional asphalt in a
northern climate. Master thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire,
USA.

Edition 1.1 Page 144

Low Impact Development Center (LIDC). 2003. Drainage – Bioretention Specification. Low
Impact Development Center, Beltsville, MD.
http://lowimpactdevelopment.org/epa03/biospec.htm. Accessed December 2010.
Maisonneuve, Joan. 2011. Heaving Walk Out Patios and Decks.
http://www.phbia.com/documents/HeavingPatiosandDecksMay26.ppt. Professional Home
Builders’ Institute of Alberta, Calgary, AB.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 1997. Stormwater
Management. Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Handbook. MDEP, Boston, MA.
McKeague J.A., C. Wang, and G.M. Goen. 1986. Describing and interpreting the
macrostructure of mineral soils – a preliminary report. Tech. Bull. 1986-2E. LRRI
Contribution No. 84-50. Land Resource Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa,
ON. pp.47.
Minnesota Stormwater Steering Committee (MSSC). 2005. Minnesota Stormwater Manual
– Version 2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
National Research Council of Canada. 2006. Alberta Building Code. Second Release
Approved 2009 by the Building Technical Council of the Safety Codes Council. National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. Compiled by
D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852.
Neithalath, N., R. Garcia, J. Weiss and J. Olek. 2005. Tire-Pavement Interaction Noise:
Recent Research on Concrete Pavement Surface Type and Texture, 8th International
Conference on Concrete Pavements, Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Colorado Springs,
Colorado, August 14-18, 2005.
New Mexico State University. 1996. New Mexico Climate Center Irrigation Scheduling Model
Information. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. Las Cruses. New Mexico. USA.
<http://weather.nmsu.edu/models/irrsch/soiltype.html>. Accessed June 2010.
O’Brien & Company. 2009. Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual; A Practical
Guide to LID Implementation in Kitsap County, Version 1.2. Kitsap Home Builders
Foundation, Bremerton, WA.
Peck, S. and Kuhn, M. 2003. Design Guidelines for Green Roofs. Ontario Association of
Architects and CMHC, ON.
Perry, M. 2003. Green Roofs Offer Environmentally Friendly Alternative. Plant Engineering:
August 2003.
Pitt, R., J. Lantrip, R. Harrison, C.L. Henry, and D. Xue. 1999. Infiltration through Disturbed
Urban Soils and Compost-Amended Soil Effects on Runoff Quality and Quantity. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC 20460.
Pitt, R. 2005. Module 3b: Small Storm Hydrology and Why it is Important for the Design of
Stormwater Control Practices. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Edition 1.1 Page 145

Pitt R. and R. Bannerman. 2009. Soil amendments to enhance stormwater treatment.
Province of Alberta. 2009. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act – Wastewater
and Storm Drainage Regulation 119/93. <http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=E12.
cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779735495>. Accessed March 2010.
Province of Alberta. 2009. Water Act – Water (Ministerial) Regulation 205/98.
<http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=w03.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779745005
>. Accessed March 2010.
Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005. Low Impact Development Technical Guidance
Manual for Puget Sound. Washington State University Pierce County Extension,
Olympia, WA.
Riverkeeper. 2007. Sustainable Raindrops: Cleaning New York Harbor by Greening the Urban
Landscape. http://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Sustainable-
Raindrops-Report-1-8-08.pdf. Accessed November 2011.
Robert R. 2009. Water Quality and Hydrologic Performance of a Porous Asphalt Pavement as
a Stormwater Treatment Strategy in Cold Climate. Journal of Environmental Engineering
EEENG-553R1. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.
Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Houle, J.J., Avellaneda, P., Briggs, J., Fowler, G.,
Wildey, R. 2009. Seasonal Performance Variations for Storm-Water Management Systems
in Cold Climate Conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135:3.
Rupp, G. and B. Cichowski. 2006. Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Montana. Montguide,
Montana State University Extension. Bozeman, MT. (Originally published in 1998,
revised 2006).
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban Best Management Practices. MWCOG. Washington, D.C.
Shelton, J.E. 1991. Using Municipal Solid Waste Compost. Publication AG-439-19. North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, NC. (http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/
Soilfacts/AG-439-19). Accessed 2010
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 2008. Low Impact Development
Manual for Michigan, A Design Guide for Implementers and Reviewers. Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments. Detroit, MI.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures – Technical Report Number 31.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Waukesha, WI.
Spectrum Technologies Inc. 2010. Water holding capacity by soil type.
<http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/water_holding_capacity_chart.pdf>. Accessed June 2010.
Stephens, K., P. Graham and D. Reid. 2002. Stormwater Planning: A Guidebook for British
Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP). British Columbia.
Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the
Glaciated Prairie Region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Resource Publication 92. 57 pp.

Edition 1.1 Page 146

Stormwater Managers Resource Center (SMRC). 2010. Stormwater Management Fact
Sheet: Porous Pavement. <www.stormwatercenter.net>. Accessed May 2010.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1998. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity
Management. In: Texas Drought Management Strategies. The Texas A&M University
System. College Station, TX.
The Watershed Academy. 2010. Designing LID to Work: Lessons Learned from North
Carolina. Watershed Academy Webcast, December 2010.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation
Authority (CVCA). 2009. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Manual –
Draft, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation
Authority (CVCA), Ontario. October 2009.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation
Authority (CVCA). 2010. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning
and Design Guide; Version 1.0. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and
Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA), ON.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). N.D. Soil Textural Classes and Related
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Classes. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Soils. St. Paul, MN.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/office/ssr10/tr/?cid=nrcs144p2
_074846>. Accessed October, 2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Porous Pavement Phase
1 – Design and Operational Criteria. The City of Austin, Texas with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and
Development. Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Handbook: Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention and Control Planning. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. Storm Water
Technology Fact Sheet – Bioretention (EPA 832-F-99-012). United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. Storm Water
Technology Fact Sheet – Vegetated Swales. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Stormwater Best
Management Practice Design Guide, Order No. 1C-R059-NTSX. Office of Research and
Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory – United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Reducing Stormwater
Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices EPA 841-F-07-006.
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC.

Edition 1.1 Page 147

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Reducing Urban Heat
Islands: Compendium of Strategies; Green Roofs.
http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/compendium.htm. Accessed September 16, 2011.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Green Roofs for
Stormwater Runoff Control EPA/600/R-09/026. Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory – Water Supply and Water Resources
Division. Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Stormwater Management
Best Practices. <http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/stormwater/best_practices.htm>. Updated
February 2010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huO_NRn34GI. Accessed October 2011.
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC). 2007. 2007 Annual Report.
Durham, NH.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). 2008. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual - Volume 3 – Best Management Practices. Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District. Denver, Colorado.
Verma T.R., and J.A. Toogood. 1969. Infiltration Rates in Soils in the Edmonton Area and
Rainfall Intensities. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. Volume 49. pp 103-109.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). 2009. BMP and LID Whole Life Cost
Models (Version 2.0). www.werf.org. Accessed August 2011.
Wayne County. 2001. Planning and Cost Estimating Criteria for Best Management Practices
TR-NPS25.00. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Wayne
County, MI.
Winogradoff, D.A. 2002. Bioretention Manual. Prince George’s County, Maryland,
Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division. Prince George’s
County, MD.

Edition 1.1 Page 148

 APPENDIX A Recommended Vegetation for LID-BMP Facilities in Edmonton

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
 Table A. 1 Recommended Native Plant Species for LID Facilities in Edmonton Alberta
Common Scientific Soil Soil
Moisture Regime / Habitat Morphology Tolerances
Name Name Preference Stabilizer
Woody Species (Trees & Shrubs)
Alnus crispa syn Alnus Shrub to
Thinleaf alder moist to wet sites Y
viridis small tree
River/Water Birch Betula occidentalis moist to wet sites Tree
moist to dry; wooded to open High: salt, oil &
Red-osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera Shrub
sites grease, metals
High: oil &
Mounded
Common juniper Juniperus communis medium dry to moist sites grease, metals;
shrub
Med-High: salt
High: oil &
Creping juniper Juniperus horizontalis moist to dry sites Matted shrub grease, metals;
Med-High: salt
Cottonwood Populus baslsamifera moist to dry Large tree High: salt
High: salt, oil &
Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoids moist to dry sites Large tree
grease, metals
Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica moist to dry; shaded sites; slopes Shrub well drained
moist to dry; shaded sites;
Choke cherry Prunus virginiana Shrub Med-High: salt
exposed slopes
Beaked or Bebb's Willow Salix bebbiana wet to dry sites
Shrub to
Pussy Willow Salix discolor moist sites - open forests
small tree
Drummond's willow Salix drummondiana moist to wet sites Shrub
Salix exigua syn Salix
Sandbar Willow moist to wet Shrub well drained
interior
Yellow Willow Salix lutea moist sites Shrub

Edition 1.1 Page A-1

 Table A. 1 Cont’d
Recommended Native Plant Species for LID Facilities in Edmonton Alberta

Common Scientific Soil Soil

Moisture Regime / Habitat Morphology Tolerances
Name Name Preference Stabilizer
Herbaceous Species (Forbs & Grasses)
moist to dry; shaded to full sun
Canada anemone Anemone canadensis Forb
sites
Calamagrostis canadensis
Blue joint reed grass moist to wet sites Graminoid
syn Calamagrostis scibneri
Water sedge Carex aquatilis moist to wet sites Graminoid
Awned sedge Carex atherodes wet (standing water) sites Graminoid
Bebb`s sedge Carex bebbii moist to wet sites Graminoid
moist to wet; shaded to partially
Long beaked sedge Carex sprengelii Graminoid
sunny sites
wet to standing water; shaded to
Beaked sedge Carex stipata Graminoid Y
partially sunny sites
Bottle sedge Carex utriculata wet (standing water) sites Graminoid
High: salt, oil &
Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa moist to wet sites Graminoid
grease, metals
moist to wet (standing water)
Creeping spike rush Eleocharis palustris Graminoid
sites
moist to wet (standing water)
Needle spike rush Eleocharis acicularis Graminoid
sites
Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata moist to wet sites Graminoid fertile loamy
Wire rush Juncus balticus moist to wet sites Graminoid
slightly acid to
Torrey`s rush Juncus torreyi moist to wet sites Graminoid
alkaline
River bulrush Scirpus fluviatilis wet (standing water) sites Graminoid
moist to wet (standing water);
Small flowered bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Graminoid
shaded to partially sunny sites
wet (still or slow moving shallow
Soft-stemmed bulrush Scirpus validus Graminoid
water) sites
Gaint bur reed Sparganium eurycarpum wet (shallow water) sites Forb

Edition 1.1 Page A-2

 Table A. 1 Cont’d
Recommended Native Plant Species for LID Facilities in Edmonton Alberta

Common Scientific Soil Soil

Moisture Regime / Habitat Morphology Tolerances
Name Name Preference Stabilizer
Submerged Aquatics
Not
Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum open water
Applicable
Myriophyllum spicatum syn Not
Spike water milfoil wet site - still water
Myriophyllum exalbescens Applicable
Not
Sago pondweed Potomageton pectinatus open water
Applicable
Grass Seed Mixes (Wet to Dry Sites)
Northern wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachum dry slopes; dry open woods Graminoid
heavy alkaline,
Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii moist sites Graminoid
saline
Awned wheatgrass Agropyron trachyculum moist sites Graminoid
Slough grass Beckmania syzigachne wet to dry sites Graminoid
Blue Grama Grass Bouteloua gracilis dry sites Graminoid
Blue joint reedgrass Calamgrostis canadensis moist to wet sites Graminoid
Bebb`s sedge Carex bebbi moist; open sites Graminoid
Red fescue Festuca rubra dry sites Graminoid
non-saline,
Tall manna grass Glyceria grandis moist to wet sites Graminoid Y
alkaline
Hierochloe odorata syn moist to dry; shaded to full sun
Sweet grass Graminoid
Hierochloe hirta ssp. Artica sites
June grass Koeleria macrantha moist to day sites Graminoid
Annual rye grass Lolium multiflorum moist to dry Graminoid
Fowl blue grass Poa palustris moist to wet sites Graminoid Y
deep, fertile
Green needle grass Stipa viridula Dry sites Graminoid
with heavy clay
* Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Resource Publication 92. 57 pp.

Edition 1.1 Page A-3

 1
Table A. 2 Ornamental Plants for Well Drained, Wet and Frequently Inundated Soils in the Edmonton Region

Common Scientific Moisture Regime / Soil Soil

Morphology Tolerances
Name Name Habitat Preference Stabilizer
Dogwood spp.
Gold Prairie Fire Dogwood Cornus alba 'Aurea' full to part sun Shrub
Ivory Halo Dogwood Cornus alba 'Bailhalo' full to part sun Shrub salt
Bud’s Yellow Dogwood Cornus sericea 'Bud's Yellow' full sun Shrub
Mottled Dogwood Cornus alba 'Gouchaultii' full to part sun Shrub
Purple Twig Dogwood Cornus alba 'Kesselringii' full to part sun Shrub
Siberian Coral Dogwood Cornus alba sibirica 'Coral' full to part sun Shrub
Arctic Fire (native) Dogwood Cornus stolonifera 'Farrow' full to part sun Shrub moist, well drained
Kelsey Dwarf Dogwood Cornus sericea 'Kelseyi' full to part sun Shrub
Willow spp.
Coyote Willow Salix exigua full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Flaming Willow full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Tri-Colour Willow salix integra 'Albomaculata' full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Shining Willow salix lucida full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Yellow Twig Willow full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Dwarf Arctic Willow salix purpurea 'nana' full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Creeping Willow salix stolonifera full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
American McKay Willow salix rigida full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Polar Bear Willow salix salicola 'polar bear' full to partial sun Shrub dry to occasionally wet Y salt
Perennials, Grasses & Aquatics
Globeflower Trollius spp. full to part sun forb average
Moor Grass Molina sp. full to part sun grass moist to wet
Bulbous Oat Grass Arrhenatherum elatius sp. full to part sun grass dry to moist
Horsetail Equisetum sp. light shade grass moist
Ribbon Grass Phalaris arundinacea sp. full to part sun grass wet or boggy
Alkali Buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria forb moist to wet
Bulrush Scirpus spp. full sun to light shade aquatic wet to moist
1
This list is not comprehensive and additional non-invasive species may be acceptable to LID facilities in the City of Edmonton

Edition 1.1 Page A-4

 APPENDIX B Soil Amendment Tools

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
B.1 Basic Compost Recommendations
Compost material must meet the following five standards for use on LID facilities:

 weed free;
 contagion free (fungus, viral, and bacterial);
 partly organic based;
 organics completely composted; and
 promote drainage and increase water holding capacity when combined with native soils.

Site specific composting calculations can be determined using Table B. 1.

Table B. 1 Site Specific Compost Calculator

SBD SOM% FOM% CBD COM% D CR Area Amount Price Cost

Soil Bulk Initial Final Compost Compost Depth Calculated Area to Calculated Price of Total
Density soil target Bulk organic compost is to compost be amount of compost cost for
(kg/cubic organic soil Density matter (%) be application covered compost to ($ per that
2
metre dry matter organic (kg/cubic incorporated rate (mm)* (m ) cover that cubic amount
3
weight) (%) matter metre dry (mm) area (m ) metre) of
(%) weight.) compost
Example for
Planting 1311 1 10 392 60 200 75 93 7.0 $30-50 $350
Beds
Enter site
specific
information

*Calculated compost application rate (mm) formula is SBD*(SOM%-FOM%)/(SBD* (SOM%-FOM%)-CBD*(COM%-FOM%))*D.

Edition 1.1 Page B-1

B.2 Modelling Parameters for Engineered Soils
Modelling parameters for specific soil types are provided in Table B. 2. Listed parameters were developed for inclusion in the New
Mexico Climate Center Irrigation Scheduling Model (New Mexico State University, 1996).
Table B. 2 Modelling Parameters Used to Determine Water Retention Rates by Field Soil Types
Field Permanent Soil Evaporation
Average Saturated Water
Capacity Final (Stage II
Mass Based Wilting Point Bulk b** Evaporation Capacity/Pore
Soil Texture Intake Rate a* 1/2
(g/g) Mass Based (g/g) Density (mm/day ) Coefficient) Space
(mm/hr)
% (g/ml) 1/2 (ml/ml)
% (mm/day )
Clay 35.1 17.2 1.26 1.9 0.21 5.67 6.09 52.4
Clay Loam 26.4 12.5 1.35 4.7 0.23 6.14 5.03 48.9
Loam 22.3 10.2 1.40 10.0 0.20 7.02 4.69 47.4
Loamy Sand 11.6 5.1 1.58 60.2 0.23 8.87 2.96 40.2
Sand 9.1 3.9 1.63 90.5 0.31 8.92 2.14 38.6
Sandy Clay 23.1 11.3 1.44 6.4 0.23 6.40 3.98 45.5
Sandy Clay Loam 20.0 9.5 1.47 10.3 0.19 7.25 4.04 44.5
Sandy Loam 13.9 6.2 1.53 20.7 0.15 8.40 3.70 42.5
Silt 33.2 14.9 1.16 4.4 0.23 6.06 6.67 56.4
Silty Clay 31.2 15.0 1.28 1.8 0.20 5.66 5.81 51.7
Silty Clay Loam 32.1 15.1 1.24 2.6 0.22 5.76 6.30 53.2
Silty Loam 27.6 12.5 1.28 5.1 0.23 6.25 5.62 51.8
* a – intake function multiplicative coefficient (cm/min)
* b – intake function exponent

Note: Infiltration is based on a power function of the form:

b
F=a·t
where F is cumulative infiltrated water (cm/min);
a is an empirically determined coefficient (cm/min);
b is an empirically determined exponent; and,
t is time (in minutes).
Final intake values are determined from Campbell’s infiltration model by the flux in after saturation is reached.

Edition 1.1 Page B-2

B.3 Guidelines to Bioretention and Bioswale Soil Mix

The bioretention and bioswale soil mix should be a loamy sand or sandy loam with appropriate
hydraulic permeability under compaction (FAWB, 2008).

Texture and property

The suggested texture and properties of soil mix for bioretention and bioswale are outlined in
Table B. 3.

Table B. 3 Texture and Properties of Soil Mix for Bioretention and Bioswales
Parameter Guidelines
Texture classification Loamy Sand; Sandy loam
Sand (%) of dry weight 50 – 85%
Silt 10 – 15 %
clay 3 – 10 %
Silt and clay combined Maximum 20%
Compost (optional) 15 – 25 %
Organic matter 5 – 10 %
pH value 5.5 – 7.5
Phosphorus 10 -30 ppm
Cation Exchange Capacity >5 meq/100g
Saturated Hydraulic
Minimum 25 mm/hr
conductivity

Sand: Sand shall meet the grading requirements as described in Section 02910 Topsoil of
Design and Construction Standard – Landscape. Sand shall be free from clay balls and other
extraneous materials.

Compost: The use of compost is to enhance soil permeability and water holding capacity, and to
provide the right amount of organics and nutrient for plant growth. Compost should be City
certified for landscape use.

Samples and Laboratory Analysis

Soil mix samples and laboratory analysis results should be submitted to the Owner (or Owner
Representative) prior to placement as per contract specification requirements. The analyses
required may include, but not limited to, soil texture, grain size, permeability or saturated
hydraulic conductivity, organic matter, and pH.

Laboratory testing of permeability or saturated hydraulic conductivity should be performed using

a sample representative of the desired or design soil mix compaction. The recommended test is
ASTM D2434 Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) using a

Edition 1.1 Page B-3

6-in mold with samples compacted to 85 to 90 percent Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density
(ASTM D1557).

Construction Considerations
Project specifications should consider the following regarding construction of the LID facility and
placement of the soil mix:
 Construction execution planning should give careful consideration to the sequencing and
traffic flow of activities at and around the LID facility to minimize disturbance of the LID site.
 The LID site should be isolated from runoff and sedimentation from catchment area until
vegetation is established and ready to provide treatment as per design.
 The subsoil, bioretention or bioswale soil mix, filter layer/geotextile (if applicable), and
granular drainage layer should be inspected by qualified personnel prior to backfill.
 Subgrade excavation should be performed by suitable equipment and construction practices
that will minimize compaction to the infiltration area. The use of excavators reaching in from
outside the infiltration footprint is preferred. If excavation must be carried out within the
footprint, light weight, low ground-contact pressure equipment should be used. In this case,
tests should be carried out to ensure the subgrade infiltrations rates meet that of the design
prior to backfilling or installation of geotextiles. Tilling operations may be necessary should
infiltration tests indicate excessive compaction of the area.
 Surface of the subgrade and/or granular layers may require scarification to provide proper
bonding and transition between materials.
 Gravel drain rocks should be placed uniformly in 300 mm lifts.
 Soil, compost, and/or other amendments should be uniformly mixed prior to placement. Care
should be taken to avoid compacting the mixture during the mixing process. The resultant
product should resemble the soil mix samples previously submitted for approval.
 Soil mix should be placed uniformly in 200 mm to 300 mm lifts. Each lift should be water
consolidated or compacted using a suitable method as per design specifications.

Safety Factor
 When completing hydraulic simulations, a minimum safety factor of 2 for hydraulic is
recommended by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (2008).

Edition 1.1 Page B-4

 APPENDIX C Cold Climate Facility Sizing Example

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
 Facility Sizing Examples

Example 1: Sizing a LID-BMP Facility for Cold Climate Conditions

Assumptions:
Watershed area 0.5 ha
Impervious area fraction 100%
Average annual snowfall 123.5 cm
Average daily max January temp -7.3 degrees Celsius
Average annual precipitation 365.7 mm
% of snow hauled from site 0%
Sublimation insignificant
Pre-winter soil conditions moderate moisture

M = 10%*S - LH - LS - LWM

where M = moisture in snowpack (mm)

S = annual snowfall (cm)
LH, LS, LWM = losses to hauling, sublimation and winter melt, respectively (mm).

STEP 1 Determine if oversizing is necessary.

Average annual precipitation is less than 1/2 of average annual snowfall and snowfall is
greater than 900mm, oversizing is required.

STEP 2 Determine the annual losses from sublimation and snow plowing.

Loss from snow hauling based on 20% removal from site:

LH = 20% * 10% * (S*10 mm/cm)

where LH = water equivalent lost to hauling snow offsite

S = annual snowfall (cm)
10% = factor to convert snowfall to water equivalent
0 mm = 0%*0.1*(123.5*10)

Sublimation is negligible: LS = 0
In Edmonton, sublimation may be significant and should be accounted for.

Edition 1.1 Page C-1

STEP 3 Determine the annual water equivalent loss from winter melt events.

Using information in Step 2, moisture equivalent in snowpack remaining after hauling is:

S*10 mm/cm * 10% - LH = 123.5 cm*10*0.1 - 24.7 mm = 98.8 mm

Substituting into Table C. 1, using column 2, and interpolating, the volume lost to winter melt
LWM, is:

LWM = 49.4 mm

Table C. 1 Winter Snowmelt

(adapted from Caraco et al., 1997)

Adjusted Snowfall Winter Snowmelt Winter snowmelt

Moisture Equivalent (January Tmax < -3.9°C) (January Tmax < 1.7°C)
50.8 mm 25.4 mm 33.0 mm
101.6 mm 50.8 mm 68.6 mm
152.4 mm 76.2 mm 101.6 mm
203.2 mm 101.6 mm 134.6 mm
254 mm 127 mm 170.2 mm
304.8 mm 152.4 mm 203.2 mm

STEP 4 Calculate final snowpack water equivalent, M.

M = 10%*S - LH - LS - LWM
M = 0.1*123.5 cm*10 mm/cm – 0 mm – 0 mm - 49.4 m
M = 74.1 mm

STEP 5 Calculate the snowmelt runoff volume, Rs.

Rs = (100%-I)*(M-Inf)+I*M

where I = percent impervious area contributing

Inf = infiltration (mm), assuming average moisture (20 mm)
Rs = (100%-100%)*(74.1 mm – 20 mm)+100%*74.1 mm
Rs = 74.1 mm

Edition 1.1 Page C-2

STEP 6 Determine the annual runoff volume, R.

Use the Simple Method (Schueler, 1987) to calculate rainfall runoff:

R = 0.9*RV*P

where P = annual rainfall (mm)

RV = 0.05+0.9*I, where I is the imperviousness %
R = 0.9*(0.05+0.9*1)*365.7 mm
R = 312.7 mm

*Simple Method based on 25.4 mm rainfall which is close to the 1-in-2 year event of 26.6 mm
so the simplifying assumptions of the original analysis (Schueler 1987) were used.
http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm

STEP 7 Determine the runoff volume to be treated, T.

T = (Rs - 0.05*R)*A*10

where A = contributing area, ha

T = (74.1 mm - 0.05*312.7 mm)*0.5ha*10
T = 292 m3

STEP 8 Size the BMP.

The volume treated by the base criteria would be the larger of:

(1) Water Quality Volume:

WQv = RV*PWQ*A*10

where RV = volumetric runoff coefficient

PWQ = water quality depth, mm
A = contributing area, ha
WQv = (0.05+0.9*1)*26.6 mm*0.5 ha*10
WQv = 126.4 m3

(2) Cold Climate Volume:

Vcc = 0.5*T therefore this is the volume used to size the BMP
Vcc = 146 m3

Sites required to accommodate the full snowpack melt volume on the surface will require
dedication of a significant portion of the land to LID facilities. Cold climate sizing should only be
used for sites where overflow from LID facilities cannot be accommodated safely in the minor and

Edition 1.1 Page C-3

major storm systems and where overflow from the facilities will cause property damage or become
a danger to public safety.

Edition 1.1 Page C-4

 APPENDIX D Road Salt Application Examples

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
 TABLE D.1
Road Salt Application Calculations

Roadside LID Facility Design to meet Salt Leaching Requirements

Average Winter precipitation snow water equivalent (SWE) depth 111 mm

Average Spring / Summer / Fall precipitation depth 366 mm

Assume collector / arterial roadways in Edmonton receive the same salt application per square metre.
Total salt tonnage used (2010): 14629.8 tonnes (0.2 kg/m 2).

Salt Load Summer Rainfall

Road Type Lane km maintained Lane Width (m)
(tonnes/lane km) (m3/lane km)
collector 11.5 4209
5853 2.5
arterial 14.5 5307

Winter salt load to roadside per lane kilometre on collector (assumed crowned roadway directing 1/2 of runoff to roadside):
0.2 kg/m2 * (5.75m*1000m) 3
1.8 kg/m or,
(111mm * 5.75m*1000m) 1800 mg/L

Winter Runoff Summer Runoff x TDS runoff

Land Use Runoff Coefficient 1
Depth2 (mm) Depth2 (mm) concentration3 (mg/L)
asphalt / concrete pavement 0.95 105 348 1800 (winter)4 /374 (summer)
mid-density residential 0.5 56 183 374
commercial 0.6 67 220 296
industrial 0.6 67 220 168
undeveloped/natural 0.1 11 37 678

1
COE, 2012
2
using rational method
3
DRCOG, 1983; Greenwood Village, 2010.
4
Edmonton road salt estimate (winter) (Environment Canada, 2010b)

Maximum allowable winter salt loading without loss in fescue yield 1000 mg/L includes 40% factor of safety
(Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1998)
Maximum allowable summer salt loading 680 mg/L matching bakground average observed concentrations
(DRCOG, 1983)

Allowable salt loadings are based on the assumption that LID facilities designed to receive untreated road runoff will be planted with salt tolerant plantings such as native grasses and
plantings indicated in Appendix A.

Edition 1.1
 Example 1: Salt loading in a 2m Swale along a collector roadway with an appropriately designed contributing area:

Swale Area 0.20 ha

Contributing area, including swale 2.20 ha
SWALE EXAMPLE
Winter Runoff Winter TDS / Salt Summer TDS / Salt
Contributing Land Use Area (ha) Summer Runoff Volume (m3)
Volume (m3) Mass (mg) Mass (mg)
roadway 0.58 610 1100 2000 750
sidewalk 0.15 160 60 520 190
residential 0.59 330 120 1100 410
commercial 0.59 390 120 1300 380
industrial 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
undeveloped/natural 0.10 11 7.5 37 25
swale 0.20 22 15 73 50
TOTAL 2.20 1500 1400 5000 1800

Winter loading to swale Winter TDS / salt Mass 930 mg/L Within target loading values
Winter Runoff / Precip Volume

Summer loading to swale Summer TDS / salt mass 360 mg/L Within target loading values
Summer Runoff / Precip Volume

Example 2: Salt loading in a 2m Swale along a collector roadway with an improperly designed contributing area:

Swale Area 0.20 ha

Contributing area, including swale 1.20 ha

Winter Runoff Winter TDS / Salt Summer TDS / Salt

Contributing Land Use Area (ha) Summer Runoff Volume (m3)
Volume (m3) Mass (mg) Mass (mg)
roadway 0.58 610 1100 2000 750
sidewalk 0.15 160 60 520 190
residential 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
commercial 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
industrial 0.18 120 20 380 64
undeveloped/natural 0.10 11 7.5 37 25
swale 0.20 22 15 73 50
TOTAL 1.20 920 1200 3000 1100

Winter loading to swale Winter TDS / salt Mass 1300 mg/L Contributing area adjustments required
Winter Runoff / Precip Volume

Summer loading to swale Summer TDS / salt mass 370 mg/L Within target loading values
Summer Runoff / Precip Volume

Edition 1.1
 Example 3: Salt loading in a Box Planter receiving runoff from a parking lot with salt application within an appropriately designed contributing area:

Planter Area 0.20 ha

Total contributing area 1.00 ha
PLANTER EXAMPLE
Winter Runoff Winter TDS / Salt Summer TDS / Salt
Contributing Land Use Area (ha) Summer Runoff Volume (m3)
Volume (m3) Mass (mg) Mass (mg)
parking lot 0.25 270 490 880 330
sidewalk 0.04 42 16 140 52
residential 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
commercial 0.25 170 50 560 170
industrial 0.25 170 29 560 94
undeveloped/natural 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
planter 0.20 22 15 73 50
TOTAL 1.00 670 600 2200 700

Winter loading to planter Winter TDS / salt Mass 900 mg/L Within target loading values
Winter Runoff / Precip Volume

Summer loading to planter Summer TDS / salt mass 320 mg/L Within target loading values
Summer Runoff / Precip Volume

Example 4: Salt loading in a Box Planter receiving runoff from a parking lot with salt application within an improperly designed contributing area:

Planter Area 0.02 ha

Total contributing area 1.00 ha

Winter Runoff Winter TDS / Salt Summer TDS / Salt

Contributing Land Use Area (ha) Summer Runoff Volume (m3)
Volume (m3) Mass (mg) Mass (mg)
parking lot 0.95 1000 1800 3300 1200
sidewalk 0.03 36 13 120 45
residential 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
commercial 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
industrial 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
undeveloped/natural 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
planter 0.02 2.2 1.5 7.3 5.0
TOTAL 1.00 1000 1800 3400 1200

Winter loading to planter Winter TDS / salt Mass 1800 mg/L Contributing area adjustments required
Winter Runoff / Precip Volume

Summer loading to planter Summer TDS / salt mass 350 mg/L Within target loading values
Summer Runoff / Precip Volume

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
 APPENDIX E Comparative Modelling Study

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

E1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

E1.1 About the Comparative Modelling Study .............................................................. 1
E1.2 Limitations of the Study Report ............................................................................ 1
E2. HYDROLOGIC MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 3
E2.1 Conventional versus LID-BMP ............................................................................. 3
E2.1.1 Small Storm Hydrology Concepts ..................................................... 4
E2.1.2 Water Quality Capture Volume ......................................................... 5
E2.2 Hydrologic Abstractions ....................................................................................... 8
E2.2.1 Interception and Depression Storage ............................................... 9
E2.2.2 Infiltration ......................................................................................... 9
E2.2.3 Evapotranspiration ........................................................................... 9
E2.3 Design Rainfall................................................................................................... 10
E3. MODELLING LID-BMP FACILITIES ............................................................................. 13
E3.1 Model Review .................................................................................................... 13
E3.2 Adopted Model (EPA SWMM5).......................................................................... 16
E3.3 LID-BMP Facilities Representation .................................................................... 16
E3.4 LID-BMP Control Placement .............................................................................. 20
E4. NEIGHBOURHOOD MODELLING COMPARISONS .................................................... 25
E4.1 Stormwater Servicing Concepts ......................................................................... 26
E4.1.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept ........................................... 26
E4.1.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept ................................................. 27
E4.2 Model Construction ............................................................................................ 31
E4.2.1 Catchment Areas............................................................................ 31
E4.2.2 Hydrologic Response Parameters .................................................. 31
E4.2.3 Conventional Conveyance Systems ............................................... 36
E4.2.4 LID-BMP Conveyance Systems ..................................................... 37
E4.2.5 Storage Systems (Ponds)............................................................... 38
E4.2.6 LID-BMP Stormwater Management Facilities (Controls) ................. 39
E4.3 Model Application and Results ........................................................................... 39
E4.3.1 Single Rainfall Events .................................................................... 39
E4.3.2 Continuous Long Term Rainfall ...................................................... 46
E4.3.3 Flow Durations (Potential Erosion Impacts) .................................... 54
E4.3.4 Treatment Efficiency of LID-BMP Scenario..................................... 56

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page (i)

E5. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 59
E5.1 Total Costs ........................................................................................................ 60
E5.1.1 Capital Costs .................................................................................. 60
E5.1.2 Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs..................................... 61
E5.1.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ...................................... 61
E5.1.4 Land Costs ..................................................................................... 62
E5.2 Inflation and Regional Cost Adjustments............................................................ 62
E5.3 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................ 62
E5.4 Discussion of Life Cycle Costs ........................................................................... 63
E6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 65
E6.1 Conceptual Models ............................................................................................ 65
E6.2 Seasonal Volume Reduction .............................................................................. 65
E6.3 Detention Storage .............................................................................................. 65
E6.4 Flow Durations ................................................................................................... 65
E6.5 Treatment Efficiency .......................................................................................... 66
E7. APPENDIX E REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 67

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page (ii)

 LIST OF TABLES

Table E2.1 Comparative Summary of LID-BMP Stormwater Management Concepts

Impacting Hydrologic Design ............................................................................ 4
Table E2.2 Design Basis – Rainfall / Level of Service ....................................................... 10
Table E3.1 Model Review: Summary of Capacity to Model Various Hydrologic
Processes ....................................................................................................... 14
Table E3.2 Model Review: Summary of Suitability to Model LID-BMP Systems ............... 15
Table E3.3 Layers Representation for Typical SWMM LID-BMP Controls ......................... 19
Table E4.1 Percent Imperviousness of Different Land Uses in Conventional
Development Site Plan ................................................................................... 26
Table E4.2 Percent Imperviousness of Different Land Uses in LID-BMP Development
Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 28
Table E4.3 Depression Storage and Overland Flow Surface Roughness .......................... 35
Table E4.4 Green-Ampt Model Infiltration Parameters ...................................................... 35
Table E4.5 Average Monthly Evaporation Data at City Centre Airport ............................... 36
Table E4.6 Conventional Neighbourhood Conveyance (Pipe) Elements ........................... 36
Table E4.7 Conventional Neighbourhood Stormwater Pond Minimum Required Area
(Footprint) ....................................................................................................... 39
Table E4.8 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Stormwater Pond Minimum Required Area
(Footprint) ....................................................................................................... 39
Table E4.9 Summary of LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept – LID-BMP Facilities and
Associated Model Parameters ........................................................................ 41
Table E4.10 Characteristics of Modelled Single Storm Events ............................................ 42
Table E4.11 Summary of 2-year Rainfall Event Runoff Results........................................... 42
Table E4.12 Summary of 5-year Rainfall Event Runoff Results........................................... 43
Table E4.13 Total Observed Seasonal (April through October) Rainfall Depth (mm) .......... 47
Table E4.14 Total Computed Seasonal (April through October) Rainfall Depth (mm) ......... 48
Table E4.15 Computed Seasonal (April through October) Peak Runoff (m3/s) .................... 50
Table E4.16 Comparison of Computed Total Flow Durations (hrs) for Channel Forming
Discharge (Q2-YR = 0.05 m3/s).......................................................................... 55
Table E4.17 Treatment Efficiency on Flows Passing Through LID-BMP Controls ............... 57
Table E5.1 Base Capital Costs (Without Land Costs) for Commonly Used LID-BMPs ...... 60
Table E5.2 Representative Annual O&M Costs of Different Types of Stormwater LID-
BMPs .............................................................................................................. 61
Table E5.3 Costs Summary .............................................................................................. 63

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page (iii)

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure E2.1 Rain Event Histograms for Edmonton Area Rainfall .......................................... 7
Figure E2.2 Hydrologic Processes Concept ......................................................................... 8
Figure E3.1 Conceptual Section of a Typical LID-BMP Facility........................................... 19
Figure E3.2 Options for Placement of LID-BMP Controls ................................................... 21
Figure E3.3 Comparison of Total Inflow (Runon) Hydrographs for: Option 1 –
LID-BMP Control Displacing a Portion of a Subcatchment, and Option 2 –
Single LID-BMP Control Occupying Entire Catchment .................................... 24
Figure E4.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept Plan.................................................... 29
Figure E4.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept Plan .......................................................... 30
Figure E4.3 Conventional Neighbourhood SWMM Model Layout Screenshot .................... 33
Figure E4.4 LID-BMP Neighbourhood SWMM Model Layout Screenshot .......................... 34
Figure E4.5 2-year Rainfall Runoff Hydrographs from Development to Creek. ................... 44
Figure E4.6 5-year Rainfall Runoff Hydrographs from Development to Creek. ................... 45
Figure E4.7 1960-1993 Seasonal Total Rainfall and Computed Runoff (Expressed as
Total Depth over Development Area) .............................................................. 52
Figure E4.8 1980-2010 Seasonal Total Rainfall and Computed Runoff (Expressed as
Total Depth over Development Area) .............................................................. 53

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page (iv)

 E1. INTRODUCTION

E1.1 About the Comparative Modelling Study

This report presents the results of a comparative modelling
exercise conducted to assess and compare the hydrologic
characteristics of a conventional and Low Impact Development
(LID) neighbourhood stormwater servicing design.

This modelling study informs those interested in modelling LID-BMP

systems by introducing important hydrologic considerations for
modelling, a brief assessment of the applicability of a variety of
common modelling tools and a modelling example using a widely
accepted public domain modelling tool that is well suited to
simulating LID-BMP components.

E1.2 Limitations of the Study Report

This document does not provide a prescriptive approach to
modelling LID-BMP facilities. The stormwater management system
servicing a particular development site is unique and has specific
characteristics that require thoughtful consideration during the
conceptual modelling and design stages.

The techniques and procedures for modelling LID-BMP systems

are not well established. Those tasked with modelling these
systems should complement their experience of modelling
conventional systems with an awareness of the hydrologic
processes important to LID-BMP systems. Determining the level of
detail required for a suitable analogue requires discretion of an
experienced modeller that is knowledgeable on the hydrologic
considerations relevant to LID-BMP systems.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

stormwater management model (SWMM5) was adopted for
application in this particular study. However, the City does not
promote, endorse, or specifically recommend any particular model
as a preferred tool.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 1

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 2

 E2. HYDROLOGIC MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS

The following provides context for the hydrologic modelling

considerations in simulating LID-BMPs. Modelling LID-BMPs does
not require a paradigm shift in the approach to hydrologic
modelling. However, it does warrant revisiting some fundamental
hydrologic considerations to ensure adequate representation of the
most significant physical processes. The recent emphasis on
control of total pollutant loadings has also introduced new
hydrologic aspects to consider during the development of models
that represent LID-BMPs.

E2.1 Conventional versus LID-BMP

The approach to managing water quantity differs between
conventional and LID-BMP stormwater management. The
conventional stormwater management approach is to maintain
peak runoff rates to pre-development conditions associated with a
specified design storm event or to capacity of downstream
facilities. The design event is associated with a large infrequent
storm event such as the 5 year or 100 year return period storm.
The conventional approach does not control storms that are more
frequent than the design event.

The peak runoff rate is usually predetermined by:

■ capacity of the downstream receiving stream / system

(engineered or natural);
■ pre-development conditions; or
■ an applicable stormwater management plan criterion.
Design Event –
Hypothetical rainfall event Design of LID-BMP based stormwater management systems
used for design. The considers frequent events. These smaller, more frequent storms
magnitude and duration of
the design event is usually represent the vast majority of rainfall events in terms of both the
based on observed number of rain events and the total runoff volume. While the
historical data. LID-BMP approach controls runoff peaks it also addresses
stormwater runoff volume. The conventional approach to
stormwater management rarely gives consideration to total runoff
volume control.

Table E2.1 provides a comparative summary of key concepts that

impact hydrologic design of conventional and LID-BMP based
stormwater management systems.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 3

 Table E2.1 Comparative Summary of LID-BMP Stormwater Management Concepts Impacting
Hydrologic Design

Conventional Stormwater Management LID-BMP Stormwater Management

Centralized end-of-pipe control. Distributed source control.

Integrate LID-BMP facilities throughout site to

Collect and convey stormwater quickly away from provide retention and treatment near source.
site. Consider stormwater as a valuable resource for
use on site.
Most stormwater management facilities designed to
LID-BMP facilities control total volumes, reduce
control peak outflow rates to predevelopment peak.
peak outflows for all storms, and reduce duration of
Duration of peaks at and below outlet control rates
peak outflows.
increase.
Water quality controlled throughout site. Small
Water quality controlled at end-of-pipe facilities. storms treated by retention of stormwater near
source.

E2.1.1 Small Storm Hydrology Concepts

Interception – rainwater The following provides a brief introduction to the concepts of small
held by plants as the water
falls onto leaves, stems storm hydrology. A more comprehensive review of these concepts
and branches. is provided by Pitt (2005) and in the US EPA Stormwater Best
Management Practice Design Guide (USEPA, 2004).

The addition of regulatory requirements on total pollutant loadings

has introduced new aspects to traditional hydrologic design
considerations. These new aspects are largely the result of an
increased emphasis on the importance of runoff resulting from
smaller, more frequent, rainfall events. The smaller more frequent
events (less than 2 year return period) tend to dominate hydrologic
design of systems aimed at improving water quality. These smaller
storms generate most of the annual runoff from an urban
watershed. Thus, systems designed to capture and provide
treatment for the more frequent smaller storms provide a significant
reduction in total annual pollutant loadings.

For a given rainfall event, the total precipitation is abstracted by

Depression Storage –
interception, depression storage, infiltration and evapotranspiration.
water retained in puddles
and other surface The remaining, excess precipitation ultimately runs off to receiving
depressions of the ground. water bodies. For large rain events, only a small portion of the total
rainfall is abstracted and most runs off. However, for small rain

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 4

 events, the percentage of rainfall abstracted in a natural landscape
can be very significant. Therefore, a better accounting of the
abstraction processes is required to accurately assess systems
designed to accommodate small storms. Accounting of runoff
resulting from rain events can be done using a hydrologic model.

The computational procedures used to estimate or compute runoff

Antecedent Moisture –
soil moisture level prior to a
for large storms are well established. Tools used to simulate runoff
rainfall event. resulting from small storms must provide for more detailed
accounting of the abstraction processes that are often neglected in
large storm simulation. Existing tools may provide the means to
Continuous Simulation – accurately capture these hydrologic processes; however, greater
modeling using
precipitation records over a attention should be given to methods accounting for abstractions.
number of years in order to Further, the antecedent moisture conditions prior to an event are of
account for: antecedent greater importance when considering small storms. Therefore, it is
conditions; seasonal recommended to conduct continuous simulations to assess
variations; and inter-event performance of systems designed to accommodate small storms.
processes.

E2.1.2 Water Quality Capture Volume

Runoff generated by small storms carry the bulk of total pollutant
loading to the receiving water body because the vast majority of
the total runoff volume (that transports pollutants) is generated
from these smaller storms. LID-BMP facilities, designed to capture
these smaller storms, will provide treatment to runoff resulting from
all small storms and treatment to the first portion of larger storms.
This provides treatment for a significant portion of the total annual
runoff.

The water quality capture volume provides a practical means for

establishing an appropriate hydrologic design basis for LID-BMP
systems. Analysis of the long-term rainfall record provides
guidance on selecting an appropriate water quality capture volume.
The capture volume is effectively represented by rainfall depth
since it is not possible to specify a finite volume as runoff volume
will vary with catchment size and characteristics. An analysis of
Edmonton rainfall data was conducted to determine an appropriate
rainfall depth that is representative of the water quality capture
volume.

Local rain gauge data were analyzed to characterize rainfall within

the Edmonton Area. A simple statistical analysis was applied to
the rainfall event data set to better understand the distribution of

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 5

 rainfall events in terms of depth. Figure E2.1 presents a summary
of the distribution of rainfall events corresponding to each of three
95th Percentile Storm – Environment Canada stations in the Edmonton area. A fourth
95% of all storms are less
distribution (“All Stations Combined”) provides the distribution for
than or equal to the 95th
percentile storm. the collective rainfall event population for all data sets. All data
were normalized by the total rainfall depth over the period of
record. A cumulative total percentage of all events was plotted to
determine the depth of the 95th percentile storm, which was
between 22 mm and 28 mm, depending on the station.

The initial runoff from larger storms is significant in that it picks up

First Flush – during a rain and carries pollutants that are washed off impervious surfaces
event, the initial surface (e.g., pavements). This initial volume is commonly referred to as
runoff from impervious
surfaces which contains the first flush. In practice, many jurisdictions specify a depth of
elevated pollutant loads rainfall (typically 2.5 cm or 1 inch) to capture the first flush
accumulated during the component (USEPA, 2004). The amount of pollutants carried by
preceding dry period. the first flush depends on a variety of factors including:

■ the pollutants available for wash off;

■ the time between storm events;
■ the storm characteristics; and
■ characteristics of the subwatershed

It is interesting to note that the City of Edmonton 2-year, 4-hour

design storm depth of 25.6 mm well approximates both the
95th percentile storm of all rain gauges and a commonly used first
flush capture requirement of 25 mm. For design purposes, it may
be practical to define a water quality capture volume equivalent to
the City’s existing 2-year rainfall design event. This provides a
familiar design event size and distribution that is consistent with
existing drainage design standards.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 6

 Namao Airport: 535 events (1965 to 1995) City Centre Airport: 585 events (1960 to 1993)
100% 100%
90% 95% of events less than 28 mm 90% 95% of events less than 27 mm

80% 80%
Percentage of Events

Percentage of Events
70% 70%
60% 60%
Discrete Percentage for Specified Rainfall Depth Discrete Percentage for Specified Rainfall Depth
50% 50%
Cumulative Total Percentage of All Events Cumulative Total Percentage of All Events
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm)

International Airport: 869 events (1961 to 2008) All Stations Combined: 1989 events
100% 100%
90% 95% of events less than 22 mm 90% 95% of events less than 25 mm

80% 80%
Percentage of Events

Percentage of Events
70% 70%
60% 60%
Discrete Percentage for Specified Rainfall Depth Discrete Percentage for Specified Rainfall Depth
50% 50%
Cumulative Total Percentage of All Events Cumulative Total Percentage of All Events
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%

0% 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm)

Figure E2.1 Rain Event Histograms for Edmonton Area Rainfall

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 7

 E2.2 Hydrologic Abstractions
To successfully model LID-BMPs it is important to represent all
significant hydrologic abstractions for both small and large storms.
The relative importance of hydrologic abstractions is greater for
small storms than for large storms. It is also important to represent
those processes that continue between rainfall events. Figure
E2.2 provides an illustrative concept of precipitation (rainfall),
surface runoff, and hydrologic abstractions within the LID-BMP
footprint and upstream areas serviced by the LID-BMP. The
salient hydrologic abstraction processes are described in the
following sections.

Figure E2.2 Hydrologic Processes Concept

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 8

 E2.2.1 Interception and Depression Storage
Interception describes the process by which rainfall is abstracted
by vegetation or other forms of cover above the ground.
Depression storage is the process by which rainfall is retained in
surface depressions and small puddles on the ground. These two
hydrologic abstractions are similar in that water is retained by
absorption or returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. A
practical approach to modelling these abstractions is to combine
them into a single parameter describing depression storage.

E2.2.2 Infiltration
Infiltration describes the process where rainfall is abstracted by
seeping into the ground through the soil surface. After water
enters the soil matrix it will continue to move through interstitial
spaces by forces of gravity and differential pressures
(e.g., capillary or advective action). The rate at which water
infiltrates depends on several factors including: soil type,
antecedent moisture, organic matter, rainfall intensity, vegetation
cover and depth to groundwater table. Deep infiltration describes
water movement through deeper soils and percolation refers to
water moving vertically down into aquifers. Infiltration represents a
significant portion of total hydrologic abstraction.

E2.2.3 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration (ET) is a term that includes the combined effect
of evaporation of water from surfaces (vegetative, soil, and free
water) and transpiration of water by plants. It is the process by
which all water is converted to vapour and returned to the
atmosphere. Water in the soil can be taken up by plants and
returned by ET.

ET rates are influenced by meteorological factors (solar radiation,

air temperature, vapour pressure and wind speed) and the nature
of the evaporating surface. The amount of ET during a rain event
is comparatively small and is often neglected when estimating
runoff due to a single rainfall event. However, the effect of ET
becomes significant during continuous event simulations where
accounting of antecedent conditions is important. ET represents
an appreciable total amount of abstraction over longer periods. It

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 9

 should therefore be accounted for in long term simulations.

As mentioned previously, ET rates vary depending on a variety of

factors. A practical modelling approach is to use pre-determined
evaporation rates based on historic local data. These rates may be
represented by daily or monthly average values. A time series can
also be specified when high temporal resolution evaporation data is
available. Under unique circumstances, a more sophisticated
approach may be required for a detailed accounting of ET.

E2.3 Design Rainfall

The primary input to a hydrologic model is rainfall and the primary
output is runoff. The runoff volume and runoff rate present key
parameters for design of conveyance systems, storage facilities,
and LID-BMP facilities. The design basis for LID-BMP systems
must provide a level of service consistent with City of Edmonton
Design Standards. Table E2.2 presents the design basis
applicable to all stormwater management drainage systems
(including systems that incorporate LID-BMP facilities).

Table E2.2 Design Basis – Rainfall / Level of Service

System Elements Design Basis (rainfall return period)

Minor drainage system components servicing
5 years.
areas of 30 ha and less.
Minor drainage system trunk sewers servicing
5-year runoff rate plus 25%.
areas greater than 30 ha.

Major drainage system conveyance elements. 100 years.

Generally, designs are to be based on elements

providing the volume equivalent of a 120 mm depth
of water over the total catchment area. Designs
Major drainage system storage.
are to be evaluated considering the most critical
storage event as may result from selected design
and historical rainfall events.
Note: Adapted from City of Edmonton Design Standards (2012)

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 10

 The design basis provides modelling guidance on the type of
rainfall event to use for assessing the hydrologic performance of a
stormwater management concept. The design basis listed above
refer to single large storm events and are not well suited to
assessing performance of systems that capture and treat runoff
resulting from smaller more frequent events. Further, LID-BMP
systems are also designed to return water back to the hydrologic
cycle through processes of infiltration and evapotranspiration.
Single event analysis fails to adequately capture these processes.
For this comparative study, the design rainfall inputs listed below
were modelled. These design rainfall series are consistent with the
current design basis (Table E2.2) and are suitable for assessing
hydrologic performance of LID-BMP systems.

■ City of Edmonton 2-year 4-hour Chicago design storm;

■ City of Edmonton 5-year 4-hour Chicago design storm;
■ July 10-11, 1978, recorded storm;
■ Continuous hourly rainfall 1960-1993 (EC City Centre Airport);
and,
■ Continuous 15-minute rainfall 1980-2010 (City Edmonton Rain
Gauge No. 19 – near City Centre Airport).

The 2-year Chicago storm has a depth that is representative of the

95th percentile storm. The 5-year Chicago storm was used to
assess the conveyance system. The 1978 recorded storm event
was used to assess the major storage elements as it was found to
be the most critical / extreme design event for the modelled
systems presented in this study.

The continuous data series enabled assessment of long term

impacts and total average annual volume reductions. The total
annual volume reduction provides a reasonable approximation on
the total annual pollutant loading reduction.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 11

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 12

 E3. MODELLING LID-BMP FACILITIES

E3.1 Model Review

A brief review of available hydrologic models was conducted to
determine a suitable modelling tool for use in this comparative
study. There are a vast number of hydrologic modelling tools
available. Tables E3.1 and E3.2 provide a listing of the models
identified during the model review process. While the list is not
exhaustive, it provides a representative cross section of the various
hydrologic tools that one may consider for application in LID-BMP
modelling. The tables provide a qualitative assessment of each
model’s capacity to model various hydrologic processes (Table
E3.1) and their suitability to model LID-BMPs (Table E3.2). The
assessments are subjective and readers are urged to further
investigate the applicability of these tools to suit their needs. The
tables provide a useful starting point for those unfamiliar with the
variety of tools available. The following is a list of acronyms used
for each model:

EPA SWMM5: U.S. EPA Storm Water Management Model

Version 5
HEC-HMS: Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic
Modeling System
HSPF: Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN
LIFE: Low Impact Feasibility Evaluation
MUSIC: Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement
Conceptualization
P8: Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage
through Pits, Puddles and Ponds
PGC – BMP: Prince George’s County Best Management
Practice
SET: Site Evaluation Tool
SLAMM: Source Loading and Management Model
STORM: Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model
SWMHYMO: Storm Water Management Hydrologic Model
TR: Technical Release
WBM: Water Balance Model
WMS Watershed Modeling System

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 13

 Table E3.1 Model Review: Summary of Capacity to Model Various Hydrologic Processes

Rainfall -
Pollutant Water Sizing of
Toolbox - Snowmelt Evapo -
Model Infiltration accumulation & quality storage -
Features Runoff transpiration
washoff simulation treatment units
simulation

EPA SWMM 5 ● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ●
HEC-HMS Х ○ ○ ○ Х Х Х
HSPF
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
(RCHRES Module)
LIFE ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
MIKE URBAN*
● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ●
(Mouse)
MUSIC ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Х
P8 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
PGC – BMP Module ● ○ ● ● ● ● ○
RECARGA ○ ○ ○ ○ Х Х ○
SET ○ ○ Х Х Х ○ Х
SLAMM ○ ○ ○ Х ○ ○ ○
STORM ○ ○ ○ Х ○ ○ ○
SUSTAIN ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
SWMHYMO ○ ○ ○ Х Х Х ○
TR-20/TR-55 Х ○ Х Х Х Х Х
WBM ● ○ ○ Х Х Х ●
WMS Х ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Х

Notes: ● Well-suited for LID-BMP modelling.

○ Less well-suited for LID-BMP modelling but maybe customized for LID-BMP modelling.
Х Not suitable for LID-BMP modelling.
* At time of this investigation, MIKE URBAN was recently updated to include LID-BMP controls within the SWMM module.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 14

 Table E3.2 Model Review: Summary of Suitability to Model LID-BMP Systems
Multi feature Single
Single Continuous Overall
Model (treatment event Remarks
feature modelling applicability
train) modelling
New version of SWMM has LID-BMP controls. Requires knowledge
EPA SWMM5 ● ○ ● ● ●
of application.
Infiltration swales can be modeled with reach routing using the
HEC-HMS ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Muskingum-Cunge routing procedure.
HSPF (RCHRES
○ ○ Х ○ ○ Accurate representation of particular BMPs possible with skilled user.
Module)
LIFE ○ ○ Х ○ ○
Recently updated to include LID-BMP controls within SWMM
MIKE URBAN ● ○ ● ● ●
module. Integrated GIS (ESRI) user interface.
MUSIC ○ ○ ○ ○ Х Applied mainly in Australia as a conceptual design tool.
P8 ● ● ○ ○ ○ Limitations with hourly timestep temporal scale.
PGC – BMP Applicable at the screening and planning levels. Not suitable for
● ● ○ ○ ○
Module BMP design purposes.
RECARGA ○ Х ○ ○ Х Used only for Bioretention / rain garden sizing
SET ○ ○ ○ Х Х Planning / scoping level tool.
SLAMM ○ ○ Х ○ ○ More useful as a planning tool.
Huge data requirements and little parameter flexibility for model
STORM ○ ○ Х ○ ○
calibration.
Version 1.0 model has some minor bugs that should be resolved in
SUSTAIN ○ ● Х ● ● future versions. The tool is best used for network analysis and BMP
sizing optimization based on continuous simulation performance.
SWMHYMO ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
TR-20/TR-55 Х Х ○ Х Х Assessment of impacts at watershed scale
WBM ● ● Х ● ○ Lack of flexibility in applied precipitation data
WMS ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Requires high level of expertise for application.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 15

 E3.2 Adopted Model (EPA SWMM5)
SWMM5 was adopted for this modelling study for, the following
reasons, among others:

■ facilitates inclusion of LID-BMP facilities directly into the model

through built in LID-BMP control modules;
■ relative ease of use;
■ well established and widely used model;
■ freely available public domain model;
■ many commonly used and economical commercially available
models with advanced utilities and interfaces are built on and or
include the SWMM5 computational engine (e.g., MIKE URBAN,
PCSWMM, XPSWMM);
■ comprehensive supporting documentation (manuals, guides,
sample applications, etc.); and
■ well-supported and active online user community.

The choice of the SWMM5 model does not necessarily suggest it is

the optimal tool for all applications. Other models are also
appropriate for modelling LID-BMPs.

E3.3 LID-BMP Facilities Representation

LID-BMP facilities are engineered to enhance the natural processes
of rainfall abstraction. A particular LID-BMP facility can be
conceptualized into vertical layers where each layer provides a
unique function. The configuration of a particular LID-BMP facility
varies and the modeller should review conceptual design sections
to determine how best to simulate the hydrologic processes
captured by a particular design. Models may require some level of
customization to adequately describe the physical processes
associated with an LID-BMP facility.

Development of a computational analogue of LID-BMP facilities

presents a unique challenge to modellers. This section is provided
as a starting point to assist modellers in their development of suitable
computational analogues that assess the performance of these
systems. It should not be interpreted as a standardized approach.

The SWMM5 model provides several built in LID-BMP control

modules designed to capture the key hydrologic processes
associated with typical LID-BMP facilities. Methods used by the
SWMM5 model are described in this report to illustrate an approach

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 16

 to modelling LID-BMP systems. This study also demonstrates an
approach to modelling LID-BMP facilities that are not explicitly
represented by a built in control module (i.e., vegetative swale with
check dam). Much of the approach to modelling LID-BMP facilities
presented in this report follows the concepts presented in SWMM
model documentation. For a more detailed description the reader
is referred to the most recent and complete SWMM documentation
available for download on the US EPA website
(http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/models/swmm/).

LID-BMP controls / facilities are designed to simulate key

hydrologic processes. They are conceptualized as a separate
“control” that shares many of the processes attributed to a
catchment. SWMM 5 can model five different generic types of
LID-BMP facilities:

1. Bioretention Cells: surface depressions covered with mulch and

planted with vegetation in an engineered soil mix placed on a
gravel storage bed. They store, infiltrate and evapotranspire
surface runoff. The bioretention cell LID control can be used to
model rain gardens, green roofs and street planters. These are
all considered variations of the bioretention unit.
2. Infiltration Trenches: infiltration trenches or narrow ditches filled
with gravel that intercept runoff from upstream impervious
areas. They provide storage volume and time for captured
runoff to infiltrate the native soils below.
3. Porous Pavement / Block Pavers: excavated areas filled with
gravel and covered with a hard porous surface (porous asphalt,
concrete, or pavers). Porous pavements are characterised by
high surface infiltration rates that quickly pass rainfall and
surface runon to the underlying storage layer where they
infiltrate into the native soil below. Block pavers consist of
modular units of paver blocks placed on a layer of sand or pea
gravel overlying a storage bed. Direct rainfall and runon
infiltrate through the spaces in the blocks into the storage bed
and native soils below.
4. Rain Barrels / Cisterns: capture runoff from impervious
surfaces (e.g., roofs) during storm events. The captured runoff
is stored prior to release or re-use during dry periods (for
example, for lawn watering).
5. Bioswales: open channels planted with grass and other
vegetation. They offer resistance to flow and allow for runoff to
infiltrate into the native soils below.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 17

 Bioretention cell units, infiltration trenches and porous pavements
can contain optional underdrain systems in the gravel storage beds.
These are perforated pipes that convey excess water in the storage
beds away to a storm sewer or other appropriate outlet. They may
be applied where it is desirable to keep adjacent sub-soils dry
(e.g., next to pavements) or where sub-soils have very low
infiltration rates. Underdrains are required when storage beds are
lined with impermeable barriers. Porous pavement systems and
gravel storage beds can experience decreasing hydraulic
conductivities over time due to clogging.

LID controls are represented by a stack of vertical layers whose

properties are defined on a per unit area basis. During a
simulation, SWMM performs a moisture balance of water stored
within or transmitted between layers. An example of a typical
LID-BMP unit, illustrating various hydrologic processes, is provided
in Figure E3.1.

The following description of each layer is an excerpt from the

SWMM User’s Manual (Revised July 2010). It is provided here for
convenience:

■ “The Surface Layer corresponds to the ground (or pavement)

surface that receives direct rainfall and runon from upstream
land areas, stores excess inflow in depression storage and
generates surface outflow that either enters the drainage
system or flows onto downstream land areas.
■ The Pavement Layer is the layer of porous concrete or asphalt
used in continuous porous pavement systems, or is the paver
blocks and filler material used in modular systems.
■ The Soil Layer is the engineered [or amended] soil mixture
used in bioretention cells to support vegetative growth.
■ The Storage Layer is a bed of crushed rock or gravel that
provides storage in bioretention cells, porous pavement, and
infiltration trench systems. For a rain barrel it is simply the
barrel itself.
■ The Underdrain System conveys water out of the gravel storage
layer of bioretention cells, porous pavement systems and
infiltration trenches (typically with slotted pipes) into a common
outlet pipe or chamber. For rain barrels it is simply the drain
valve at the bottom of the barrel.”

Table E3.3 summarizes the combination of these five layers used

to represent typical LID-BMP control features.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 18

 Rainfall

ET Overflow
Runon to Outlet

Surface

Infiltration

Engineered Soil

Percolation
Storage

Deep Infiltration

Underdrain
Flow to Outlet

Figure E3.1 Conceptual Section of a Typical LID-BMP Facility

Table E3.3 Layers Representation for Typical SWMM LID-BMP Controls

LID-BMP Control
Layer Porous Infiltration Vegetative
Bioretention Rain Barrel
Pavement Trench Swale
Surface √ √ √ √
Pavement √
Soil √
Storage √ √ √ √
Underdrain o o o √

Notes: √ denotes layers are required and user must apply input parameters; o denotes layers that are optional; and
blank cells denote layer that are not simulated by the model for the respective LID-BMP Control (for
example, bioretention does not use a pavement layer).

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 19

 E3.4 LID-BMP Control Placement
LID-BMP controls can be treated independently as a single unit or
can represent a portion of the total footprint within a single
catchment. The utilization of LID-BMP controls in a study area
follows a two-step process. The first step is to create the required
set of scale-independent LID-BMP controls that can be deployed in
the study area. The second is to assign the desired mix of controls
created in the first step to selected subcatchments. When
LID-BMP controls are added to a subcatchment, the
subcatchment’s ‘area’ property is the total area of both the LID and
non-LID portions of the subcatchment. However the ‘percent
imperviousness’ and ‘width’ properties of the subcatchment apply
only to the non-LID-BMP portion. For each LID-BMP control added
to a subcatchment, the size of the control and the area of the
subcatchment it treats are specified.

LID-BMP controls can be placed in a subcatchment using one of

two options. One option is to place one or more controls directly
within an existing subcatchment that will displace an equal amount
of non-LID pervious area from the subcatchment. The other option
is to create a separate subcatchment fully occupied by a single
LID-BMP control. These options are illustrated in Figure E3.1.

For Option 1 it is important to note that runoff from impervious

areas only is directed to the LID-BMP facility. Runoff from pervious
areas reports to the catchment outlet. This approach has a limiting
aspect in that the total inflow to LID-BMP units from surface runoff
will be underestimated for cases where LID-BMP facilities service
excess runoff from pervious areas.

Option 1 allows for the placement of multiple LID-BMP controls (of

different types) within the subcatchment. However, is does not allow
for the linking of controls into a “treatment train” configuration.
Runoff from one LID-BMP control cannot be directed to another
LID-BMP control within the catchment. All LID-BMP controls share
the same outlet attributed to the catchment they reside in. The
runoff to each LID-BMP control is distributed / weighted according to
their area.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 20

 Option 1 Option 2

Impervious Impervious

LID LID

Pervious Pervious

Outlet Outlet

Option 1 – LID-BMP Control Displacing a Portion of a Subcatchment Option 2 – Single LID-BMP Control Occupying Entire Catchment

Figure E3.2 Options for Placement of LID-BMP Controls

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 21

 Another important consideration to note while using Option 1
relates to the assignment of impervious areas. The impervious
area assigned to a catchment defines the percent imperviousness
of all areas not occupied by LID-BMP controls. When adding
LID-BMP controls to a catchment it may be necessary to adjust the
effective catchment impervious area to account for those areas
displaced by the LID-BMP control.

Option 2 presents a more labour intensive approach but allows for

LID-BMP controls to act in series as a treatment-train. It also
enables runoff from several different catchment areas to a single
LID-BMP control. When a LID-BMP control fully occupies a
subcatchment, the surface properties of the LID-BMP control
(including imperviousness, slope, roughness and width) override
the associated subcatchment properties.

A simple test was conducted to illustrate the accounting of runon

from pervious areas by using the two options described above.
Figure E3.3 shows an example of the effect on total inflows
(runon) to LID-BMP units depending on the option of placing a
single LID-BMP control within a catchment (Option 1) or as a
separate catchment fully occupied by the LID-BMP control
(Option 2). The 2-year Chicago design storm event was used for
this illustrative test. The test represents a 1 hectare site with runoff
control provided by a bioretention unit occupying 7% of the site
area. The pervious area of the site is characterized by silt loam
soils with a hydraulic conductivity of 6.6 mm/hr.

Inflow hydrographs are expressed in terms of millimetres per hour

over the LID-BMP control surface area. Inflow includes both runoff
from contributing areas and direct precipitation over the LID-BMP
control. The 2-year Chicago design storm is also shown for
comparison.

The results of the test are summarized by percent imperviousness

as follows:

0% Impervious
For Option 1 and with 0% imperviousness, there is no runoff
directed from upstream areas to the LID-BMP control and total
inflow is represented solely by precipitation falling directly on the
LID-BMP surface area (note that the 2-year Chicago design storm
is coincident with inflow hydrograph for “Option 1 @ 0%

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 22

 Impervious”). For Option 2, inflow to the LID-BMP control includes
both direct precipitation and runoff from upstream pervious areas.

36% and 60% Impervious

Values of 36% and 60% imperviousness were simulated to provide
plausible percent imperviousness for residential and commercial
areas, respectively. As the percentage of impervious areas
increases, there is a reduction in the difference between total
inflows of Options 1 and 2.

100% Impervious
At 100% imperviousness the total inflow to the LID-BMP control is
the same for both Options 1 and 2. Note that hydrographs for
these options are coincident – “Option 1 @ 100% Impervious” is
not visibly apparent as it plots directly over Option 2 @ 100%
Impervious”.

For areas that are mostly impervious, the total runoff to the
LID-BMP control is insensitive to the choice of Option. However,
for LID-BMP controls designed to capture runoff from pervious
areas, the choice of Option becomes important.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 23

 Figure E3.3 Comparison of Total Inflow (Runon) Hydrographs for: Option 1 – LID-BMP Control Displacing a Portion of a
Subcatchment, and Option 2 – Single LID-BMP Control Occupying Entire Catchment

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 24

 E4. NEIGHBOURHOOD MODELLING COMPARISONS

The neighbourhood modelling comparison examines the following

conditions:

■ developed neighbourhood serviced by a conventional

stormwater management system; and
■ developed neighbourhood serviced by an LID-BMP stormwater
management system.

Implementation of LID-BMP systems begins at the planning stage.

Readers interested in the early stages of developing the basic
stormwater management concepts are referred to the Design
Guide for details on the design process / sequence for site designs.
The same neighbourhoods provided as examples in the Design
Guide were adopted for this modelling study.

The development scenarios presented in this study represent

hypothetical, yet plausible, development conditions. Stormwater
management elements (including LID-BMP facilities) are provided
at a concept level. This modelling study assumes that
development concepts are consistent with applicable standards
and criteria.

This modelling study examines Conventional and LID-BMP

neighbourhood concepts as would be provided to the modeller by
the planner / designer. Often the modeller is presented with a
concept and then tasked with constructing an appropriate
hydrologic / hydraulic analogue of the conceptual stormwater
management system. The analogue provides a tool for assessing
the hydrologic performance of the concept. In practice it may be
an iterative process where modelling assists in optimizing the
conceptual design. The analysis presented herein provides the
results of one of perhaps several iterations. The intent is not to
illustrate the full optimization process. Rather, it is to demonstrate
an approach to modelling LID-BMP systems. The modelling
exercise also provides an opportunity to compare the hydrologic
performance of a Conventional versus LID-BMP neighbourhood
stormwater servicing concept.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 25

 E4.1 Stormwater Servicing Concepts
Stormwater servicing concepts were based on two conceptual
plans for a Conventional and an LID-BMP neighbourhood
development (Figures E4.1 and E4.2). The LID-BMP plan utilizes
distributed stormwater management controls, providing natural
filtration and retention in a localized process that works to preserve
natural hydrological processes of abstraction, infiltration,
evaporation, transpiration, retention and storage close to the
source of runoff. The Conventional development relies on
centralized, end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities to
manage stormwater quantity and quality.

E4.1.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept

The Conventional design represents a mixed use development
comprising of single and multi-family residential as well as
commercial development. The site has three centralized
stormwater detention facilities for stormwater runoff control and
treatment. Runoff is conveyed around the site by a network of
storm pipes and their associated appurtenances, including
manholes and catch basins. The different land uses represented in
the Conventional development and their assigned percentage
imperviousness are shown in Table E4.1.

Table E4.1 Percent Imperviousness of Different Land Uses in Conventional Development Site
Plan
Total Area %
Land use Comments
(ha) Impervious
Park/Open Space 4.72 18
Institutional 4.25 24 Also includes areas denoted as Parking Lot
Weighted average between 'Residential'
Low Density Residential 48.88 45
and 'Roadway'
Multi-Family 4.15 51
Weighted average between 'Multi-Family'
Medium Density Residential 11.71 57
and 'Roadway'
Commercial 4.6 60
Stormwater Pond 2.22 100
Total % Impervious denotes the weighted
Total 80.53 44
average over entire site.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 26

 E4.1.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept
Like the Conventional site design, the LID-BMP site design is a
mixed-use type of development that offers a comparable mix of
commercial, residential and institutional areas. The LID-BMP site
design uses an integrated approach to stormwater management
combining distributed LID-BMP source controls with centralized
pond controls. The LID-BMP site plan has three ponds to capture
and treat bypass flows, produced by large storms, from the
LID-BMP source controls. Stormwater runoff is conveyed around
the site using vegetative swales and a limited number of storm
pipes and culverts. Table E4.2 shows the composition of various
land use types in the LID-BMP site design and their assigned
percentage imperviousness.

The LID-BMP Neighbourhood Plan maintains the same housing

and commercial density as the Conventional Neighbourhood Plan
while providing some additional unique characteristics:

■ connected green spaces throughout the site that allow

stormwater capture and conveyance;
■ LID-BMP facilities such as green roofs, permeable pavers, and
parking lot bioretention areas;
■ cisterns and residential rain gardens in select areas as a pilot
initiative;
■ swales with check dams as primary conveyance elements
throughout neighbourhoods and a large naturalized drainage
way with bioswales along its central boulevard; and
■ stormwater control facilities that serve a dual purpose of storage
for large events and treatment through bioretention for small
events.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 27

 Table E4.2 Percent Imperviousness of Different Land Uses in LID-BMP Development Site Plan

LID-BMP
Total Area Impervious
Land Use LID-BMP Facility Area Comments
(ha) (%)
(ha)
Dedicated bioretention areas not
Bioretention Area 0.15 0 Bioretention 0.15
including ponds.
All water reports to pond (100%
Bioretention
1.22 100 Bioretention Pond 2.10 impervious), infiltration modeled as
Ponds
storage element with bottom infiltration.
Assume 50% coverage on all roofs in
Green Roof 2.28 50 Green Roof 1.14 commercial, high-density residential, and
institutional areas.
Roads 12.24 85 None 0
Box Planter 0.09
Commercial 2.45 70
Pervious Paver 0.01
High Density Box Planter 0.03 Weighted average of pervious and
2.10 61
Residential Pervious Paver 0.03 impervious areas.
Medium Density 4.27 51 Weighted average of pervious and
Cistern 0.01
Residential impervious areas.
Low Density 38.84 36 Weighted average of pervious and
Rain Garden 0.18
Residential impervious areas.
2.79 30 Weighted average of pervious and
School Bioretention 0.132 impervious areas. Excludes areas
covered by LID-BMP controls.
Pervious Grass 9.15 18
Roadside Swales 4.22 0 Vegetative Swale 4.22
Naturalized 0.45 0
Vegetative Swale 0.45
Drainage Way
0.56 10 Heavily treed area (not included as part
Woodlot None 0
of conventional design).
80.7 43 10.5% of total area covered by
Total 8.5
LID-BMPs (including bioretention ponds).

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 28

 Figure E4.1 Conventional Neighbourhood Concept Plan

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 29

 Figure E4.2 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept Plan

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 30

 E4.2 Model Construction
This section describes major components of the models for the
Conventional and LID-BMP development scenarios.

Figures E4.3 and E4.4 provide model conceptual site layouts

illustrating catchment areas and key stormwater management
facilities represented in the Conventional and LID-BMP models,
respectively. These correspond to screen shots of the models as
viewed in the SWMM5 interface. A description of key elements of
the model construction is provided below.

E4.2.1 Catchment Areas

The total development area is approximately 80 hectares.
Catchment areas were delineated according to land use, and the
assumed final topography / grading. In general, the development
area slopes toward the east and discharges to a creek bounding
the east side of the development area. The development area
does not accept runoff from adjacent land areas. The stormwater
management system collects all runoff from the developed area
and discharges to the creek at a controlled rate.

A summary of the catchment areas corresponding to the

conventional and LID-BMP concepts is provided in Tables E4.1
and E4.2, respectively. Catchment areas are grouped by land use.
The adopted percent of impervious area for each land use is
provided in the tables. The total percent imperviousness (~40%) is
comparable for both concepts.

E4.2.2 Hydrologic Response Parameters

Catchment response parameter values were selected to be
representative of local Edmonton conditions. The same catchment
response parameters were used for the Conventional and
LID-BMP models. Table E4.3 provides a range of typical values
and the selected parameter value for catchment surface properties
(depression storage and overland flow roughness).

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 31

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 32

 07/10/1978 20:05:00

30030 10020 30040 NorthPipe PONDS_1-2_OUTFALL

S2_35 30310
Orif ice_2 S2_0 S3_105
S2_11 S3_108 32270 S3_104
32390
POND_2 S2_34
30140 30120
10890 S2_14 11350 LAKE_2 10780 30420
30410 30370
S2_36
11270
S2_4 10770 10760 10450 10470
11360 11370 S2_33 S2_38
30400 S2_37 30320
10790 30390
10800 30380 32370 32280
S3_107 32400
10880 30200 30440 S3_106
S2_21 S2_32
S2_22 S3_111
10810 11280 11070
10690 10720 S2_31
S2_10 30110 DUMMY _LINK_1-2
30130
10870 10460
S3_110 10480
S2_27
S2_13 30190 3029010710 3027010640 30430
10820 30360
S2_28
11290 30330 11080 3229010970
32380 3230010490 S3_109
32410
10860
S2_19 10960 11310
10700 S2_41 32000 10510
S2_9 30240 10930 30230 S3_114
S2_12 S2_20 10940 S2_25
30090 10850 30100
10680 30260
10950 11090
S2_30
30350 S3_113 S3_112
30280 S2_26 30250 3231010520 32305 10500 32420
10840 32010 S3_116
S2_39 11300
S2_6 10920 11100 10530
30080 S2_7
10830 30070 30340
30180
S2_18 S2_24 32020
10670 S3_115
11320 30170 30300 11110
11260S2_29 32320 S3_102
10660 S2_40
30160 32440 10400 32450
30210 S2_16 S2_23 32030 S3_103
S2_8 S3_5
10910 10540 10390
S1_79 S2_15 11120
S2_17 30150
31150 32050 32330 32430 DUMMY _NODE DUMMY _OU
S1_2 S3_99
S3_101
S1_80 10410
S1_42 S1_43 31160
11250 32110 32060 DUMMY _LINK_1-2-3
31120 10990 31110 10040 3120030060 S1_61 11130S3_92 32480
10420 32460
11190 31230 S3_83 10550 32340 S3_100
31170S1_64 S1_62
11050 31210 32070
11060 11210 11140
32120
S1_65 S3_96
11000S1_44 31140 10110
31130 10100 S1_47 31180 31310
S1_69
S1_73 11030 31240
S1_60 10560 32350 10430
Orif ice_1 S1_3 31330 32080 S3_98
11150 S3_91 32470
10200 S1_71 11220 S3_1
32130
POND_1
LAKE_1 11410 DUMMY _LINK_3
S1_50
S1_63 11380 10220 LAKE_3
POND_3 32490
S1_78 31320
11040 10600
31090 10080 31100 10090 31190 10240 11160 32090 11400
32360
31340 31250
S1_68 S3_95 S3_94
11390 11230 32140 Orif ice_3
10070 10180 S3_90
11170
11010
S1_75 10590 32260
EastPipe
11240 POND_3_OUTFALL
S1_52 10230
31080 S1_76 10250 S1_59 10620
S1_45 31070 10190 31060 3129010270 31280 10260 31270
11020 31260 32150 11180 32250
11200 32100 10580 S3_93 32240
S1_77 10570
S1_66 32230
S3_82 S3_89
10170 10330 10060 10350
11330 10380
S1_48
31010 10120 31000 31050
S1_67 3138010320 3137010280 31400
S1_72 32170 32190 S3_88 32220
S1_49 S1_74
S1_70 31300 11340
S3_87 GWF_Outlet
10130 10160 10310 32180 10370
10050
S1_53 S1_58
31020 31030 10150 31040 31390
10300 31360
S1_57 S3_81 S3_85
32210
S1_51 10140 S1_54 S1_55 10290 31350
S1_56 S3_84
32200
10360
S3_86
32160

Figure E4.3 Conventional Neighbourhood SWMM Model Layout Screenshot

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 33

 07/10/1978 20:05:00

Node_180
Node_181

Node_203 Node_204 Node_175 Node_176 Node_177

Node_207 Node_187

Node_168 Node_169
Node_197 Node_163

Node_206 POND_2 Node_196 Node_164

Node_211
Node_210
Node_209
Node_186
Node_174
Node_167
Node_165
Node_162 Node_160
Node_161

Node_199
Node_115 Node_159 Node_157
Node_158 Node_155
Node_116
Node_166
Node_170
Node_117 Node_172 Node_156
Node_195
Node_171
Node_198
Node_118
Node_205
Node_130 Node_208 Node_119
Node_37 Node_183
Node_73 Node_153 Node_194
Node_120
Node_0 Node_148 Node_189
Node_154
Node_121
Node_150
Node_145 Node_149 Node_193
Node_147
Node_146
Node_122 Node_144
Node_1 Node_152
Node_3 Node_151
Node_2 Node_123 Node_131
Node_71
Node_192
Node_72 Node_191
Node_143 GWF_Outlet
Node_201
Node_63 Node_124
Node_75
Node_111
Node_59
Node_62 Node_7 Node_132 Node_188
Node_60
Node_76 Node_142
Node_125
Node_182
Node_133
Node_4 Node_140
Node_70 Node_126 Node_134 Node_190
Node_141
Node_24 Node_5 Node_138
Node_6 Node_110 Node_135
Node_109
Node_42 Node_137
Node_105 Node_136 Node_139
Node_69 Node_104 Node_127
Node_58
Node_57
Node_128 Node_213 DUMMY _OUT
Node_8 Node_106
Node_38 Node_41 Node_107 Node_112
Node_56 Node_103
Node_23 Node_108
Node_9 Node_102
Node_74
Node_39 POND_3
Node_212
POND_1

Node_65 Node_100
Node_101
Node_54 Node_34
Node_35
Node_47
Node_33
Node_66
Node_43
Node_96
Node_97
Node_55Node_40 Node_98
Node_99 Node_95
Node_32 Node_68
Node_18 Node_64 Node_78 Node_129
Node_79
Node_80 Node_94 Node_113
Node_21
Node_20
Node_53
Node_36 Node_93
Node_29
Node_52
Node_12
Node_30 Node_51
Node_50 Node_17
Node_84 Node_91
Node_16
Node_92
Node_90
Node_45
Node_46 Node_19
Node_31
Node_28
Node_26

Node_25
Node_14 Node_67 Node_82 Node_89
Node_49
Node_48 Node_83
Node_44 Node_15 Node_85 Node_86
Node_27
Node_13 Node_81
Node_114 Node_87 Node_88

Node_22
Node_77

Figure E4.4 LID-BMP Neighbourhood SWMM Model Layout Screenshot

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 34

 Table E4.3 Depression Storage and Overland Flow Surface Roughness

SWMM
Typical Selected
Parameter Parameter Remarks
Range Value
Name
Depression Storage (mm)
Low permeable soils considered
Pervious areas Sperv 2.5 - 7.6 2.5 representative of Edmonton
area soils.
Representative of Edmonton
Impervious areas Simp 1.3 - 2.5 0.5
conditions.
Manning's n for overland flow
Pervious areas Nperv 0.05 - 0.80 0.15 Short grasses (lawns).
Representative of Edmonton
Impervious areas Nimp 0.011-0.024 0.015
conditions.

Pervious area infiltration was based on the Green-Ampt infiltration

method. This infiltration model was selected for practical
considerations as certain components in the SWMM model
(e.g., LID-BMP Controls and Storage Elements with infiltration) are
limited to the Green-Ampt model. This allowed for consistency in
the infiltration method used across all model elements. Table E4.4
summarizes the modelled infiltration parameters. Typical ranges of
values are provided for comparison.

Table E4.4 Green-Ampt Model Infiltration Parameters

SWMM
Selected
Parameter Parameter Typical Range Remarks
Value
Name
Silt Loam
Soil capillary suction (mm) Suction 49 - 320 170
(low permeable soil)
Soil saturated hydraulic Silt Loam
Conduct 0.25 - 120 6.6
conductivity (mm/hr) (low permeable soil)
Initial soil moisture deficit InitDef 0-1 0 Assume Saturated

Evapo-transpiration estimates were based on mean monthly

evaporation data reported by Environment Canada for the
Edmonton City Centre Airport. Table E4.5 lists monthly
evaporation data used for modelling.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 35

 Table E4.5 Average Monthly Evaporation Data at City Centre Airport
Evaporation Evaporation Evaporation Evaporation
Month Month
(mm/day) (mm/day) (mm/day) (mm/day)
January 0 May 3.6 September 1.8
February 0 June 4.2 October 0.7
March 0.7 July 4.6 November 0.1
April 2.3 August 3.6 December 0

E4.2.3 Conventional Conveyance Systems

The drainage system design for the Conventional development
neighbourhood is based on a minor system design for conveyance
elements and flood control for storage elements. The conveyance
system is made up of a network of local and trunk sewers and
manholes with enough detail for the design of the main collection
system and stormwater management ponds. Catchbasins and
catchbasin leads were excluded from the network for modelling
purposes. The minor system is designed to handle minor rainfall
events up to the 1:5 year Chicago design storm event. Model pipe
geometries were sized to meet the following criteria:

■ minimum pipe slope of 0.1%;

■ pipes do not surcharge during 5 year design event;
■ maximum velocities do not exceed 3.0 m/s; and
■ minimum velocities of 0.6 m/s are achieved.

Table E4.6 provides a listing of the different sizes of storm pipes in

the constructed network for the Conventional development
neighbourhood.

Table E4.6 Conventional Neighbourhood Conveyance (Pipe) Elements

Size of Pipe Total Length

(mm) (m)
375 896
450 1790
600 3298
750 2332
900 2148
Total 10464

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 36

 E4.2.4 LID-BMP Conveyance Systems
The conveyance network for the LID-BMP concept is largely made
up of vegetated swales with only a limited number of storm
conduits. All swales were represented by trapezoidal sections with
base width of 0.5 meters and side slopes of 2H:1V.

Incorporating swales as LID-BMP controls presented a unique

challenge with respect to the hydraulic routing of flows through the
collection network. A practical limitation for representing swales as
LID-BMP controls relates to a SWMM model restriction on
connectivity between model elements. That is, once flows enter
the hydraulic network (e.g., manhole, storage node, pipe, etc.) they
cannot be redirected back onto a catchment or LID-BMP control.
For example, flows could not be routed along a vegetated swale
(represented as an LID-BMP control), through a culvert and then
back into a swale.

The following approach was used to overcome this limitation. First

flows from a subcatchment were directed into a vegetated swale
(represented as an LID-BMP control). Then, flows from the
vegetated swale were sent into a SWMM “Conduit” (represented by
an open channel cross section). By this approach, a more
appropriate representation of the hydraulic routing was achieved.
The exception to this approach was for swales directly connected
to the central naturalized drainage way. Runoff from these nearby
swales was directed into the naturalized drainage way
(represented by an LID-BMP control).

This approach also helped to reduce some of the limitations

associated with the hydraulic routing of flows along vegetated
swales represented by an LID-BMP control. Some simple tests
were conducted to examine the difference between how flows are
routed through swales represented by an LID-BMP control (“LID
swale”) versus flows through swales defined by a hydraulic
element or “conduit” (“conduit swale”). Tests on representative
vegetated swale segments found that flows routed through LID
swales produced peaks that were approximately 20% lower than
for flow routed through a conduit swale.

Further, the adopted approach for routing flows through swales

enabled the simulation of check dams. Small, 200 mm high, check

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 37

 dams were introduced at the end of each major swale segment.
The check dams were simulated by storage nodes with infiltration.
The storage upstream of each check dam was determined by a
depth area relationship based on the corresponding ditch
geometry.

For the modelling exercise, all LID swales were assigned a

constant slope of 0.5%. Runoff from these swales was then
directed into conduit swales that had slopes more representative of
surface grades. The average slope of the conduit swales was
0.6%.

E4.2.5 Storage Systems (Ponds)

For both the Conventional and LID-BMP models, stormwater
management ponds were represented as cylindrical storage units
with outflows controlled by a circular orifice. Criteria applied for
sizing ponds to handle the most critical design rainfall event – the
July 10–11, 1978 storm event recorded at the Edmonton Municipal
Airport - were:

■ maximum allowable storage depth of 3.0 m;

■ maximum allowable peak discharge to creek of 4.0 m3/s (based
on a maximum unit peak rate of 5.0 L/s/ha); and
■ adequate drawdown of pond levels to achieve 90% of active
storage volume within 96 hours.

The cross-sectional area of the ponds was adjusted until these

criteria were met. This area provides a guide on the minimum
footprint required to accommodate each pond. Required pond
areas for the Conventional model are summarized in Table E4.7.
Required pond areas for the LID-BMP model are summarized in
Table E4.8. Total footprint required for the storage ponds for the
modelled LID-BMP concept was approximately 80% of that
required for the Conventional concept.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 38

 Table E4.7 Conventional Neighbourhood Stormwater Pond Minimum Required Area
(Footprint)

Uniform Cross-Sectional Area

Pond
(m²)
POND 1 7,960
POND 2 7,040
POND 3 7,410
Total 22,410

Table E4.8 LID-BMP Neighbourhood Stormwater Pond Minimum Required Area (Footprint)

Uniform Cross-Sectional Area

Pond
(m²)
POND 1 4,550
POND 2 3,670
POND 3 10,090
Total 18,310

E4.2.6 LID-BMP Stormwater Management Facilities (Controls)

Table E4.9 provides a summary of the LID-BMP controls used in the
LID-BMP neighbourhood concept plan. The LID-BMP properties are
defined on a per unit area basis. The placement of controls were
opportunistic in nature, utilizing existing building roof tops for green
roof applications, landscaped areas for rain gardens and planned
parking lots for porous pavement applications. The total area
represented by all the SWMM LID-BMP controls is equal to 6.44 ha
(8% of the total site area). Bioretention ponds (simulated as storage
elements with infiltration) offer an additional 2.1 ha (2.6% of total
area). Therefore, the total footprint of LID-BMPs occupies
approximately 11% of the development area.

E4.3 Model Application and Results

E4.3.1 Single Rainfall Events

Single design storm event simulations were conducted to assess
the performance of stormwater management systems during and
immediately after short periods of rainfall. These simulations test
the hydraulic design capacities of minor system components for

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 39

 conveyance when small storm events are applied. The
July 10-11, 1978 storm event recorded at the Edmonton Municipal
Airport was used for sizing stormwater management facilities.
Table E4.10 provides a summary of characteristics of the single
design storm events used for model simulations.

Tables E4.11 and E4.12 provide a summary of computed peak

runoff rates and volumes for the 2-year and 5-year rainfall events,
respectively.

Figures E4.5 and E4.6 provide a comparison of runoff

hydrographs discharging to the creek for the 2-year and 5-year
rainfall events, respectively.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E– Page 40

 Table E4.9 Summary of LID-BMP Neighbourhood Concept – LID-BMP Facilities and Associated Model Parameters
LID-BMP Facility Modeled as SWMM LID-BMP Control
Rain Garden/Box Permeable Vegetative Naturalized
Bio-retention Green Roof Cistern
Planter Pavement Swales Drainage Way
Layer Layer Properties
SWMM 5 LID-BMP Control (Type)
Bio-retention cell Bio-retention Porous Pavement Vegetative Vegetative Swale Bio-retention cell Rain Barrel
(BC) cell (BC) (PP) Swale (VS) (VS) (BC) (RB)
StorHt (mm) 150 150 25 2000 1000 25 not applicable
VegFrac 0 0 0 0 0 0 not applicable
Surface

Rough 0 0 0.03 0.035 0.035 0 not applicable

Slope 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 not applicable
Xslope not applicable not applicable not applicable 2 3 not applicable not applicable
Thick (mm) not applicable not applicable 150 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
Pavement

Vratio not applicable not applicable 0.15 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
FracImp not applicable not applicable 0 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
Perm (mm/h) not applicable not applicable 500 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
Vclog not applicable not applicable 0 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
Thick (mm) 500 500 not applicable not applicable not applicable 150 not applicable
Por 0.44 0.44 not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.58 not applicable
FC 0.11 0.11 not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.34 not applicable
Soil

WP 0.05 0.05 not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.04 not applicable
Ksat (mm/h) 30 30 not applicable not applicable not applicable 64 not applicable
Kcoeff 10 10 not applicable not applicable not applicable 5 not applicable
Suct (mm) 61 61 not applicable not applicable not applicable 75 not applicable
Height (mm) 300 10 300 not applicable not applicable 25 1000
Storage

Vratio 0.66 0.66 0.66 not applicable not applicable 0.66 not applicable
Filt (mm/h) 1 1 1 not applicable not applicable 0 not applicable
Vclog 0 0 0 not applicable not applicable 0 not applicable
Coeff (mm/h) 0.36 0 0.34 not applicable not applicable 50 1.23
Underdrain

Expon 0.5 0.5 0.5 not applicable not applicable 0.5 0.5
Offset (mm) 100 0 100 not applicable not applicable 0 0
Delay (h) not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 12
Total Area (ha) 0.28 0.30 0.04 4.22 0.45 1.14 0.01

Edition1.1 Appendix E– Page 41

 Table E4.10 Characteristics of Modelled Single Storm Events
Total Depth Peak Intensity
Storm & Duration Application
(mm) (mm/hr)
Test performance of LID-BMP systems
2-Yr 4-hr Chicago 25.5 45.6
under frequent storm events.
Test level of service for conveyance
5-Yr 4-hr Chicago 37.2 68.1
system.
July 10-11, 1978 recorded storm Used for sizing / testing performance of
event at the Edmonton Municipal 133.6 105.6 large stormwater management facilities
Airport (ponds).

Table E4.11 Summary of 2-year Rainfall Event Runoff Results

Service Peak Runoff Runoff

Runoff Rainfall Unit Peak
Area Inflow Volume Depth
Destination (mm) 3 (L/s/ha) 3
(ha) (m /s) (m ) (mm)

Pre-Development
Creek 25.5 80.5 0.04 0.5 1,560 1.9
Conventional Development
Pond 1 25.5 25.5 1.70 66.7 4,129 16.2
Pond 2 25.5 28.2 1.49 52.9 3,606 12.8
Pond 3 25.5 26.9 1.37 50.9 3,731 13.9
Creek 25.5 80.5 0.14 1.7 10,793 13.4
Low Impact Development
Pond 1 25.5 23.2 0.55 23.6 2,764 11.9
Pond 2 25.5 16.1 0.28 17.6 1,631 10.1
Pond 3 25.5 80.7* 0.63 7.7 4,044 5.0
Creek 25.5 80.7* 0.07 0.8 2,600 3.2

* Service areas for Pond 3 and Creek are same since all runoff reports to Pond 3 prior to release to Creek.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 42

 Table E4.12 Summary of 5-year Rainfall Event Runoff Results

Service Peak Runoff Runoff

Runoff Rainfall Unit Peak
Area Inflow Volume Depth
Destination (mm) 3 (L/s/ha) 3
(ha) (m /s) (m ) (mm)

Pre-Development
Creek 37.2 80.5 0.10 1.2 2,690 3.3
Conventional Development
Pond 1 37.2 25.5 2.80 110.1 6,849 26.9
Pond 2 37.2 28.2 2.52 89.2 6,034 21.4
Pond 3 37.2 26.9 2.24 83.5 6,269 23.3
Creek 37.2 80.5 0.19 2.4 18,231 22.6
Low Impact Development
Pond 1 37.2 23.2 1.07 46.0 4,989 21.6
Pond 2 37.2 16.1 0.64 39.7 3,106 19.3
Pond 3 37.2 80.7 1.32 16.4 7,920 9.8
Creek 37.2 80.7 0.16 1.9 9,458 11.7

* Service areas for Pond 3 and Creek are same since all runoff reports to Pond 3 prior to release to Creek.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 43

 Figure E4.5 2-year Rainfall Runoff Hydrographs from Development to Creek.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 44

 Figure E4.6 5-year Rainfall Runoff Hydrographs from Development to Creek.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 45

 E4.3.2 Continuous Long Term Rainfall
Long term continuous simulation allows for consideration of:

■ antecedent soil moisture conditions;

■ evapo-transpiration losses;
■ varying patterns of rainfall duration and intensity, variation of
time between storms and changing storage conditions within
the watershed; and
■ impact of back-to-back storm events on capacity of storage
elements and LID-BMP controls.

Infiltration capacities of soils are dependent on their moisture

content. Using long term continuous simulations, effects of
changing infiltration capacities on the overall water balance are
taken into account.

Continuous simulations were used to evaluate and compare annual

runoff volumes. Seasonal rainfall time series were developed
based on continuous rainfall data recorded by Environment
Canada (EC) and the City of Edmonton. Rainfall data were
available for the period from April through October. Two long term
time series data sets were generated. The first data set was
developed from EC hourly rainfall data recorded at the City Centre
Airport (EC Station No. 3012208) for the period of record 1960 to
1993. The second set of long term time series was created from
5 minute rainfall data collected by the City of Edmonton at the City
Centre Airport (City Rain Gauge No. 19). Table E4.13 provides a
summary of seasonal rainfall data for these two records. Seasonal
rainfall based on EC daily data is provided for comparison. For
most years, there is good agreement on seasonal totals between
gauges. Data based on short intervals were typically less than the
reported daily data. This is in part due to daily data being
corrected to account for undercatch. Those years where there is
poor agreement between the continuous time series data (hourly or
5-minute interval) and daily total are highlighted in the table. Poor
agreement was defined, qualitatively, as differences larger than
25%.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 46

 Table E4.13 Total Observed Seasonal (April through October) Rainfall Depth (mm)
EC City EC City EC City EC City
City of City of
Rain Centre Centre Rain Centre Centre
Edmonton Edmonton
Gauge Station Station Gauge Station Station
Gauge 19 Gauge 19
3012208 3012208 3012208 3012208
Recording Recording
(5 min) (Hourly) (Daily) (5 min) (Hourly) (Daily)
Interval Interval
Year Year
1960 375.0 401.9 1986 342.6 352.8 386.6
1961 205.3 207.5 1987 264.8 373.4 387.9
1962 314.7 322.1 1988 439.8 455.7 476.9
1963 201.9 221.5 1989 162.6 207.9 324.9
1964 315.0 311.3 1990 222.8 343.0 363.3
1965 393.4 402.5 1991 344.2 345.2 367.5
1966 286.5 297.9 1992 186.2 176.4 197.6
1967 225.3 237.0 1993 308.2 322.2 346.6
1968 228.9 261.8 1994 362.4 429.3
1969 257.7 372.2 1995 209.8 239.7
1970 269.5 330.1 1996 333.8 401.0
1971 262.8 264.8 1997 336.8 399.8
1972 334.8 346.6 1998 346.0 423.4
1973 425.6 420.2 1999 263.0 349.8
1974 373.7 374.6 2000 251.8 333.0
1975 37.9 310.5 2001 100.2 329.4
1976 290.7 316.7 2002 64.4 149.8
1977 375.1 416.2 2003 306.2 311.2
1978 478.8 509.8 2004 372.6 376.0
1979 353.7 357.2 2005 216.6 241.7
1980 146.0 370.9 406.6 2006 325.6 375.5
1981 229.8 308.6 310.5 2007 230.0 238.5
1982 396.4 305.3 305.9 2008 233.8 235.5
1983 400.0 325.5 343.0 2009 119.8 189.0
1984 288.0 294.2 339.6 2010 306.6 349.0
1985 266.6 308.3 308.4
Note: Highlighted cells indicate values that vary by more than 25% from seasonal totals based on reported daily data.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 47

 Tables E4.14 and E4.15 provide long term seasonal summaries of
computed total runoff and seasonal peaks, respectively.
Figures E4.7 and E4.8 provide charts comparing total computed
runoff volumes for the hourly long term time series (1960-1993)
and 5-minute long term time series (1980-2010), respectively.
Runoff depths are expressed as an equivalent depth, in mm, over
the total development area. The modelled rainfall denotes the time
series rainfall data input to the model (based on recorded rainfall
data provided by EC and the City of Edmonton).

Table E4.14 Total Computed Seasonal (April through October) Rainfall Depth (mm)
Conventional Low Impact % Reduction
Pre-Development
Simulation Development Development Conventional to
Rainfall Depth (mm)
Period / Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm) LID-BMP
Season 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960-
2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993
1960 20 157 42 73%
1961 8 74 8 89%
1962 10 112 1 99%
1963 8 78 10 87%
1964 12 114 3 97%
1965 20 155 40 74%
1966 12 107 14 87%
1967 11 92 20 78%
1968 9 81 4 95%
1969 13 99 22 78%
1970 12 105 13 88%
1971 11 95 7 93%
1972 13 124 5 96%
1973 23 169 41 76%
1974 19 152 47 69%
1975 1 12 0 100%
1976 14 118 27 77%
1977 17 141 16 89%
1978 25 201 48 76%
1979 19 146 43 71%

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 48

 Table E4.14 (cont’d)
Total Computed Seasonal (April through October) Rainfall Depth (mm)

Conventional Low Impact % Reduction

Pre-Development
Simulation Development Development Conventional to
Rainfall Depth (mm)
Period / Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm) LID-BMP
Season 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960-
2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993
1980 6 16 53 139 4 9 92% 94%
1981 13 16 99 128 27 27 73% 79%
1982 55 15 237 118 193 29 19% 75%
1983 19 17 161 136 50 49 69% 64%
1984 12 14 100 111 8 14 92% 87%
1985 9 13 92 115 9 9 90% 92%
986 16 17 127 136 27 18 79% 87%
1987 11 19 102 157 25 49 75% 69%
1988 22 24 174 185 54 53 69% 71%
1989 3 7 48 72 0 5 100% 93%
1990 7 19 73 141 5 50 93% 65%
1991 18 19 150 150 60 54 60% 64%
1992 5 5 57 59 1 1 98% 98%
1993 13 15 112 125 15 16 87% 87%
1994 17 139 29 79%
1995 7 68 10 85%
1996 14 117 14 88%
1997 14 120 17 86%
1998 18 154 44 71%
1999 10 93 5 95%
2000 9 80 4 95%
2001 4 35 2 94%
2002 2 21 0 100%
2003 21 136 48 65%
2004 19 156 48 69%
2005 6 68 0 100%
2006 12 119 5 96%
2007 8 78 8 90%
2008 8 82 7 91%
2009 3 38 1 97%

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 49

 Table E4.15 Computed Seasonal (April through October) Peak Runoff (m3/s)

Conventional Low Impact % Reduction

Pre-Development
Simulation Development Development Conventional to
Rainfall Depth (mm)
Period / Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm) LID-BMP
Season 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960-
2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993
1960 0.175 0.207 0.188 9%
1961 0.044 0.147 0.1 32%
1962 0.025 0.105 0.012 89%
1963 0.089 0.165 0.123 25%
1964 0.031 0.109 0.032 71%
1965 0.082 0.209 0.183 12%
1966 0.042 0.138 0.097 30%
1967 0.115 0.195 0.169 13%
1968 0.034 0.124 0.055 56%
1969 0.038 0.153 0.113 26%
1970 0.034 0.144 0.094 35%
1971 0.031 0.111 0.06 46%
1972 0.027 0.117 0.052 56%
1973 0.054 0.167 0.149 11%
1974 0.197 0.249 0.234 6%
1975 0.007 0.039 0 100%
1976 0.187 0.241 0.226 6%
1977 0.062 0.154 0.127 18%
1978 0.151 0.259 0.249 4%
1979 0.163 0.217 0.198 9%
1980 0.026 0.031 0.112 0.124 0.053 0.058 53% 53%
1981 0.242 0.207 0.244 0.231 0.231 0.213 5% 8%
1982 1.075 0.065 0.448 0.187 0.452 0.169 -1% 10%
1983 0.068 0.07 0.199 0.198 0.175 0.174 12% 12%
1984 0.027 0.033 0.117 0.118 0.04 0.092 66% 22%
1985 0.035 0.036 0.132 0.129 0.081 0.075 39% 42%
1986 0.077 0.065 0.175 0.161 0.14 0.075 20% 53%
1987 0.197 0.288 0.216 0.242 0.199 0.119 8% 51%
1988 0.073 0.082 0.218 0.228 0.199 0.229 9% 0%

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 50

 Table E4.15 (cont’d)
Computed Seasonal (April through October) Peak Runoff (m3/s)

Conventional Low Impact % Reduction

Pre-Development
Simulation Development Development Conventional to
Rainfall Depth (mm)
Period / Rainfall Depth (mm) Rainfall Depth (mm) LID-BMP
Season 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960- 1980- 1960-
2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993 2010 1993
1989 0.012 0.044 0.081 0.139 0.006 0.214 93% -54%
1990 0.027 0.15 0.113 0.271 0.065 0.078 42% 71%
1991 0.206 0.16 0.22 0.211 0.205 0.267 7% -27%
1992 0.025 0.029 0.106 0.11 0.028 0.192 74% -75%
1993 0.051 0.056 0.132 0.137 0.085 0.032 36% 77%
1994 0.104 0.175 0.144 18%
1995 0.037 0.13 0.085 35%
1996 0.041 0.149 0.11 26%
1997 0.062 0.168 0.126 25%
1998 0.09 0.179 0.172 4%
1999 0.025 0.107 0.047 56%
2000 0.033 0.122 0.039 68%
2001 0.025 0.112 0.038 66%
2002 0.013 0.073 0 100%
2003 0.59 0.301 0.303 -1%
2004 0.134 0.2 0.177 12%
2005 0.016 0.085 0.005 94%
2006 0.031 0.103 0.025 76%
2007 0.036 0.138 0.091 34%
2008 0.045 0.145 0.102 30%
2009 0.021 0.102 0.015 85%
2010 0.033 0.13 0.068 48%

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 51

 Figure E4.7 1960-1993 Seasonal Total Rainfall and Computed Runoff (Expressed as Total Depth over Development Area)

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 52

 Figure E4.8 1980-2010 Seasonal Total Rainfall and Computed Runoff (Expressed as Total Depth over Development Area)

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 53

 E4.3.3 Flow Durations (Potential Erosion Impacts)
Annual flow durations were analyzed to provide an assessment on
potential erosion impacts on the receiving stream. The analysis
does not provide measures of actual erosion rates but does
provide a means for comparing incremental impacts on erosion for
the Conventional and LID-BMP stormwater management
scenarios.

As a stream develops over an extended period of time it tends

toward a stable regime where the channel is able to transport its
natural sediment load without incurring any appreciable
aggradation or degradation. While this channel may undergo
lateral migration or undergo rapid local channel shifts
(e.g., meander loop cut-offs), its reach-averaged hydraulic
parameters tend to remain nearly constant.

Erosion of stream beds and banks are affected by the magnitude,

frequency, and duration of stream flow discharges. Urbanization
results in increased duration and frequency of higher energy flows
that cause erosion of stream bed and bank materials. Stream
erosion occurs naturally, but the rate at which erosion occurs can
be accelerated as a result of urbanization. A natural stream is
generally in a state of equilibrium between erosion and deposition
within an engineering time scale, although it may be weighted
slightly more towards erosion over a geological time scale.

The cumulative sediment transported by more frequent smaller

magnitude events is greater over an intermediate to long term
period of time than the infrequent large magnitude floods. Hence,
the smaller more frequent events tend to form geometric
dimensions of the channel. As a result, many jurisdictions consider
the 1:2-year to 1:5-year runoff events to be the events responsible
for forming and shaping the channel regime.

Erosion in stream channels actually occurs for a range of flows that

exert forces on bed materials which exceed the critical forces
necessary to initiate motion of those materials. Flows that occur at
about mid-bankfull to bankfull level are responsible for forming and
shaping stream channels. However, due to increases in runoff
volumes caused by urbanization, the bankfull event often shifts to
events smaller than the pre-development 1:2-year event. Smaller
rainfall events that did not generate runoff under pre-development

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 54

 conditions are now generating runoff, draining rapidly to ponds and
discharging into receiving streams. Frequency of occurrence of
mid-bankfull to bankfull events typically increases following
urbanization.

The continuous model simulations provided a means for estimating

potential impacts on stream erosion for the LID-BMP and
Conventional development scenarios. The following steps were
applied for the assessment:

1. estimate the channel forming discharge under pre-development

conditions;
2. compute total duration of runoff at or exceeding the channel
forming discharge for the pre-development, LID-BMP, and
Conventional development conditions; and
3. compare total duration of flows exceeding the pre-development
channel forming discharge.

A simple frequency analysis on the annual peak runoff rates for the
pre-development condition provided an estimate for the 2-year
discharge of Q2-YR = 0.05 m3/s. This discharge was then adopted
as the channel forming discharge for the total duration analysis.

The total duration (in hours) of runoff for pre- and post-
development conditions was then calculated from long term
continuous simulations. Table E4.16 provides a summary of the
results. The total duration of events exceeding the adopted
channel forming discharge increases significantly for both the
Conventional and LID-BMP scenarios. However, the analysis
suggests that a 70-75% reduction in the total duration of channel
forming discharges can be achieved through implementation of
LID-BMP as compared to Conventional development.

Table E4.16 Comparison of Computed Total Flow Durations (hrs) for Channel Forming
3
Discharge (Q2-YR = 0.05 m /s)
Total Duration of Flows at or Above Q2-YR (hrs)
Simulation
Period Pre- Conventional Low Impact
Development Development Development
1960-1993 172 4,533 1,193
1980-2010 128 3,445 1,013

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 55

 E4.3.4 Treatment Efficiency of LID-BMP Scenario
The modelling results clearly suggest a significant improvement in
water quality with the LID-BMP development compared with the
Conventional development. This is demonstrated by the total
reduction in runoff quantities reaching the downstream water
course (recall Tables E4.14 and E4.15). The total reduction in
runoff quantity provides a tangible representation of the
improvement in water quality. However, an improved assessment
on benefits offered by LID-BMPs can be achieved by quantifying
the fate of total precipitation as it passes through various
hydrologic processes. A rigorous accounting of the fate of all water
for the long term continuous simulations was conducted to provide
a more detailed assessment of the benefits received through
implementation of LID-BMPs. Two pollutants were considered:
total suspended solids (TSS); and total phosphorus (TP).

The analysis examined the relative treatment efficiency of the

Conventional and LID-BMP scenarios under the following
assumptions:

■ an equal amount of pollutant loading is generated for both

Conventional and LID-BMP scenarios since they have
equivalent percentages of impervious area;
■ conventional stormwater ponds and LID-BMP bioretention
ponds provide a comparable level of treatment (this
conservatively underestimates the treatment benefit of LID
bioretention ponds); and
■ total area serviced by LID-BMPs represents the incremental
improvement (benefit) in treatment efficiency over the
Conventional development scenario.

Table E4.17 presents a detailed accounting of the treatment

efficiency for TSS and TP, for stormwater passing through all
simulated LID-BMP controls. It is reasonable to assume that the
portion of runoff abstracted by evaporation and infiltration receives
full treatment. Runoff that passes through the underdrain or
overflows the LID-BMP during larger events receives partial
treatment. The pollutant removal efficiency was estimated by
applying removal rates for each treatment process. Removal
efficiencies presented in the table are consistent with values

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 56

 reported in the Design Guide. Cumulative removal efficiency
represents incremental improvement (or benefit) offered by the
LID-BMP stormwater servicing concept.

Through long term continuous simulations and a rigorous

accounting of the fate of runoff through each LID-BMP control, the
cumulative treatment efficiencies for TSS and TP were estimated
to be 88% and 57%, respectively. These values represent an
average of the two long term simulation periods (1960-1993 and
1980-2010).

Table E4.17 Treatment Efficiency on Flows Passing Through LID-BMP Controls

Treatment
Treatment Total Treated Volume
Efficiency
Process Volume
TSS TP TSS TP
For Simulation Period 1960-1993
Evaporation 192,205 100% 100% 192,205 192,205
Infiltration 1,130,296 100% 100% 1,130,296 1,130,296
Underdrain Flow* 220,446 60% 0% 132,267 -
Overflow/By-pass** 1,034,083 80% 20% 827,266 206,817
Total Cumulative 2,577,030 89% 59% 2,282,035 1,529,318
For Simulation Period 1980-2010
Evaporation 161,947 100% 100% 161,947 161,947
Infiltration 790,718 100% 100% 790,718 790,718
Underdrain Flow* 168,508 60% 0% 101,105 -
Overflow/By-pass** 1,005,767 80% 20% 804,614 201,153
Total Cumulative 2,126,940 87% 54% 1,858,383 1,153,818

* flows passing through soils to drain and then to collection system

** flows overtopping LID-BMP controls when maximum ponding level is exceeded

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 57

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 58

 E5. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Life cycle cost (LCC) is the present worth of the total cost of a
project or device over its life span. These include costs of design,
construction, operation and maintenance (O & M) and closeout
activities. Costs of constructing structural stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs) depend on several factors
including: time of year of construction; site conditions and
topography; accessibility of equipment; economics of scale; and
government regulations. Land cost is another major cost variable
in the construction cost of structural BMPs, which will not be
included in the analyses in this report. There are four basic
methods of cost estimation:
■ bottom-up method;
■ analogy method;
■ expert opinion method, and
■ parametric method.

Two of the above cost estimation methods have been used in the
costs analyses in this report: the bottom-up method and the
parametric method. The bottom-up method relies on quantity take
offs and compiled sources of unit cost data. It is used for
estimating costs on an item by item basis and has been used
where unit cost data are available. The parametric method relies
on statistically-based or model-based relationships between cost
and design parameters. This method has been used where direct
cost data are not readily available.

A perpetual lifespan is assumed for public utility installations for the

analyses in this report with routine annual maintenance and
periodic major rehabilitation / replacement. To compare
stormwater management for the Conventional development and
the LID-BMP development, the capitalized cost method is used.
The capitalized cost is the present worth of a project with infinite
life.

Intangible and non-economic benefits have not been accounted for

in this study as it is a life-cycle cost analysis rather than a cost-
benefit analysis. The social and environmental benefits of
stormwater LID-BMPs are extensive and have been documented
for each type of LID-BMP facility used in this study in the Design
Guide.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 59

 E5.1 Total Costs

E5.1.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs include both construction and land costs.
Construction costs of stormwater LID-BMPs include labour,
material and equipment, excavation and grading, outlet control
structures, erosion and sediment control, landscaping and
appurtenances. The cost of professional / technical services
necessary to support the design and construction of an LID-BMP
facility are also included in the costs of construction. Actual
construction costs and land costs are variable and depend largely
on site conditions or the municipality.

Capital costs can typically be estimated using equations based on

the size or volume of water to be treated. The general form of
these equations is:

Where, C is the estimated construction cost ($), P is the

determinant variable (area or volume) and a and b are statistical
coefficients determined from regression analysis. The exponent b
represents an economics of scale factor. If b < 1, the unit cost
decreases as the size of the variable increases. Table E5.1 lists
cost estimating equations examined in this study for a range of
values for various LID-BMPs.

Table E5.1 Base Capital Costs (Without Land Costs) for Commonly Used LID-BMPs
1
LID-BMP Type Base Capital Costs ($)
Wet ponds/retention basins C=86.09V; V in m³
Vegetative swales C=(11 to 35)A; A in m²
Naturalized drainage ways C=(25 to 250)A; A in m²
Permeable pavement C=(340 to 500)A; A in m²
Bioretention C=(30 to 250)A; A in m²
Box planters C=(30 to 350)A; A in m²
Green roofs (extensive) C=(230 to 550)A; A in m²
Rainwater harvesting system C=(212 to 1000)V; V in m³
Notes: V=BMP volume; A=BMP surface area
1
Median values used in cost table calculations where cost data are given as a range

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 60

 E5.1.2 Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs
Design and permitting costs include site investigation, surveying,
planning and site and engineering design needed for regulatory
approval prior to LID-BMP installation. Contingency costs are
those unforeseen costs that occur during the development and
construction of an LID-BMP facility. The costs in this category of
the total cost are usually expressed as 25% of the base capital or
construction costs (Wiegand et. al., 1986; CWP, 1998; and
US EPA, 1999).

E5.1.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

O&M costs are post-construction costs needed to ensure
continued performance of LID-BMPs at design capacity. These
costs are usually estimated on an annual basis and include labour,
material, energy and equipment costs required for smooth
operation and functionality of an installation. Landscape, structural
and infiltration maintenance as well as sediment, basin debris and
litter removal are also included in the annual operating costs of
maintaining a facility. Like design, permitting and contingency
costs, O&M costs are often expressed as a percentage of the base
capital costs. Annual O&M costs are dependent on the type of
facility. A range of representative costs are presented in Table
E5.2.

Table E5.2 Representative Annual O&M Costs of Different Types of Stormwater LID-BMPs
1
Item Annual O&M Costs
Wet ponds/retention basins 3 – 6 % of construction cost
Vegetative swales $(0.20-1.00)/m²
Naturalized drainage ways $(<1.00-18.00)/m²
Permeable pavement $(0.15-0.30)/m²
Bioretention $(13.00-30.00)/m²
Box planters $(13.00-30.00)/m²
Green roofs (extensive) $(3.00-44.00)/m²
Rainwater harvesting system $25.00/each
1
Notes: Median values used in cost table calculations where cost data are given as a range

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 61

 E5.1.4 Land Costs
Land costs are a major component of the total cost of installation of
a stormwater management facility. Land costs are site specific
and highly variable depending on the region and adjacent land
uses. Where applicable and permitted by local land use
regulations, LID-BMPs can be installed in public spaces within a
development, such as boulevards, curb bump-outs and parks,
thereby reducing or eliminating the cost to be incurred in
purchasing or dedicating land specifically for LID-BMP installation.
Stormwater BMPs, especially LID-BMP techniques, may also be
incorporated into reserve areas required in each development,
thereby reducing extra land requirements for LID-BMPs. This
analysis assumes that LID-BMP facilities are implemented in public
and reserve land and do not have an identifiable associated land
cost. In other situations, costs of land dedicated specifically for
LID-BMP facilities, or where normal uses are precluded by the
installation of LID-BMP facilities, must be incorporated into the cost
analysis.

E5.2 Inflation and Regional Cost Adjustments

The costs used in this report are obtained from literature and
adjusted for inflation, regional differences and currency exchange.
Construction cost indices are used to convert the data obtained
from literature into current year dollars. The inflation adjusted cost
is further adjusted to account for regional cost variations. Regional
cost differences account for variations in costs of living, labour and
material costs in different jurisdictions. The final adjusted cost for
inflation and regional differences is calculated with the following
equation:

Where Rf is the factor to adjust for regional differences.

E5.3 Comparison of Alternatives

A comparison of the alternatives for stormwater management
(Conventional and LID-BMP) is done using the capitalized cost
method. The capitalized cost is the amount of money at t = 0

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 62

 needed to perpetually support a project on the earned interest
only. It is given by the following relationship:

Where i is the discount or interest rate.

A summary of costs for the development being evaluated in this

study is presented in Table E5.3. Detailed cost analyses and
breakdown are included in APPENDIX E-1.

Table E5.3 Costs Summary

Item Conventional LID-BMP

Initial cost $12,043,538.38 $16,594,015.78
Present Worth of:
Annual O & M $ 4,840,800.89 $ 9,812,859.60
Periodic maintenance $22,604.71 $ 406,758.70
Capitalized Cost $16,906,943.97 $26,813,634.07

The calculations in Table E5.3 are based on the following assumptions:

Cost Variables
Service lives 20, 25 and 75 years
Effective period 1 year
Effective annual interest rate 5%
Inflation rate 2.3%
Effective annual interest rate corrected for inflation 7.415

E5.4 Discussion of Life Cycle Costs

Based on the LCC analysis, the LID-BMP option is the more costly
alternative. LCC analysis provides an initial point of comparison
between Conventional and LID-BMP alternatives; however, it does
not provide a full accounting of potential benefits that are less
tangible or difficult to quantify. For example it is difficult to quantify
the benefits LID-BMPs offer in terms of total volume reduction and
mitigation of erosion impacts on the receiving stream. Some
potential benefits that consider water quality and stream health
include:

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 63

 ■ impact on potable water treatment costs;
■ preservation of aquatic life or habitat;
■ impact on costs of stream restoration; and
■ preservation or enhancement of recreational uses of water.

The costs associated with water quality improvements and erosion

control measures to downstream watercourses could be
substantial.

In other words, when water quality control or improvement is the

goal of stormwater management, LID-BMP technologies may
prove to be a more feasible option when a more comprehensive
cost benefit analysis is conducted. When the costs of managing
the impacts of Conventional stormwater management practices are
added to the costs of the Conventional development, it may well
exceed the costs of an LID-BMP alternative.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 64

 E6. CONCLUSIONS

The following sections summarize the key findings of this

comparative modelling study.

E6.1 Conceptual Models

The modelling exercise demonstrates that modelling a collection of
LID-BMP facilities is feasible. Long term continuous simulation
models were developed to provide a means of comparison
between an LID-BMP stormwater management concept versus a
Conventional stormwater management concept. These
simulations provide a measure of the total seasonal volume
reductions that can be achieved with an LID-BMP based
stormwater system.

E6.2 Seasonal Volume Reduction

The modelling exercise clearly demonstrates that a significant
reduction in total seasonal runoff volumes is achieved through
implementation of LID-BMP systems. It is stormwater runoff that
carries pollutant loads to the receiving stream. Therefore, a
reduction in total runoff volume is a clear indicator of the relative
reduction in total pollutant loading (particularly sediment loadings).

E6.3 Detention Storage

For the concepts modelled in this exercise, it was found that a
marginal decrease (~20%) in detention storage requirements can
be achieved through implementation of LID-BMPs. While there
may be a significant reduction in total seasonal runoff volumes,
detention storage facilities are designed to accommodate very
large storms. LID-BMP facilities (e.g., bioretention) can be
incorporated into storage systems; however, they must still be
sized to meet City performance standards for very large storms.

E6.4 Flow Durations

An assessment of flow durations demonstrates another very
tangible benefit with implementation of LID-BMP systems: total
duration of runoff events that could contribute to erosion can be

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 65

 significantly reduced.

The modelling exercise demonstrates an approach for assessing

potential erosion impacts on the receiving stream. This
assessment can only be achieved through examination of the
population of runoff events from long term simulations.

E6.5 Treatment Efficiency

A rigorous accounting of flows passing through the simulated
LID-BMP facilities for long term simulations provided a means for
assessing the incremental treatment benefits of implementing
LID-BMPs. The analysis suggests that stormwater serviced by
LID-BMPs achieved removal efficiencies of 88% and 57% for
removal of TSS and TP, respectively. The analysis considered the
treatment of runoff through all source control LID-BMPs upstream
of centralized biotretention ponds. Through distributed LID-BMPs,
the net pollutant loading on centralized facilities is significantly
reduced.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 66

E7. APPENDIX E REFERENCES

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Cost and Benefit of Stormwater BMPs. Final
Report 9/14/98. EPA Contract 68-C6-0001 WA2-15, Task 6 Parson Engineering Science.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2012. Design and Construction Standards, Volume 3, Drainage.
May 2012. City of Edmonton, Alberta.
<http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Volume_3_Drainage_.pdf>.
Accessed December 2014.
Lindeburg, Michael R. 2006. Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam.
Pitt, R. 2005. Module 3b: Small Storm Hydrology and Why it is Important for the Design of
Stormwater Control Practices. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Stormwater Best
Management Practice Design Guide, Order No. 1C-R059-NTSX. Office of Research and
Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory – United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. The Use of Best
Management Practices
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Preliminary Data
Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. August.
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Wiegan, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of Urban Runoff Quality
Controls. Pp. 366-380. In: urban runoff quality. Engineering Foundation Conference.
ASCE, Henniker, NH. June 23 – 27.

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 67

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1 Appendix E – Page 68

 APPENDIX E-1

Detailed Life Cycle Cost Analyses Breakdown

Edition 1.1
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE COST ANALYSES BREAKDOWN

Capital Costs

TABLE E-1.1 Material and Construction Costs

Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount

1 Catchbasins 900 mm each $ 1,650.00 242 $ 399,300.00

2 Manholes
Manholes 1200 mm each $ 1,600.00 74 $ 118,400.00
Manholes 1500 mm each $ 2,300.00 56 $ 128,800.00
3 Concrete CB Leads 300 mm m $ 85.00 2350 $ 199,750.00
4 Storm pipes
375 mm 2-3 m deep m $ 250.00 896 $ 224,000.00
450 mm 3-4 m deep m $ 315.00 1790 $ 563,850.00
600 mm 4-5 m deep m $ 430.00 1690 $ 726,700.00
750 mm 3-4 m deep m $ 505.00 831 $ 419,655.00
900 mm 4-5 m deep m $ 685.00 1557 $ 1,066,545.00
5 SWM Ponds
POND_1 m³ $ 86.09 23880 $ 2,055,829.20
POND_2 m³ $ 86.09 21120 $ 1,818,220.80
POND_3 m³ $ 86.09 22230 $ 1,913,780.70
Total $ 9,634,830.70

Design, permitting and contingency costs (Estimated as 25% of the construction cost) $ 2,408,707.68

Total Capital Cost $12,043,538.38

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 1

 TABLE E-1.2 Detailed Annual O&M Costs

Maintenance
Estimated
Item Description Interval Unit Quantity Annual Cost Adjusted Cost
Cost/Unit
(times/year)
1 Mechanical cleaning of catchbasins 1 each $ 30.00 242 $ 7,260.00 $ 7,260.00
2 Manholes
Manholes 1200 mm 0.5 each $ 30.00 74 $ 1,110.00 $ 1,110.00
Manholes 1500 mm 0.5 each $ 30.00 56 $ 840.00 $ 840.00
3 Concrete CB Leads 300 mm 1 m $ 9.12 2350 $ 21,432.00 $ 23,021.18
4 Stormwater sewer mains cleaning & inspection
375 mm 1 m $ 9.12 896 $ 8,171.52 $ 8,777.44
450 mm 1 m $ 9.12 1790 $ 16,324.80 $ 17,535.28
600 mm 1 m $ 9.12 1690 $ 15,412.80 $ 16,555.66
750 mm 1 m $ 9.12 831 $ 7,578.72 $ 8,140.68
900 mm 1 m $ 9.12 1557 $ 14,199.84 $ 15,252.76
5 SWM Ponds
POND_1 1 visit $ 92,512.31 1 $ 92,512.31 $ 92,512.31
POND_2 1 visit $ 81,819.94 1 $ 81,819.94 $ 81,819.94
POND_3 1 visit $ 86,120.13 1 $ 86,120.13 $ 86,120.13

Total Annual O & M Cost $352,782.06 $358,945.39

Notes: Costs of manhole inspection and cleaning assumed equal to that of a catchbasin
Costs of CCTV inspection estimated at $0.32/m for clean sewers included in sewer mains cleaning and inspection
Tree root and grease control estimated at $2.80/m included in sewer mains cleaning and inspection

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 2

 TABLE E-1.3 Summary of Annual O&M Costs

Description Annual Cost

Storm sewer/catchbasin lead cleaning $ 85,031.43
Mechanical cleaning of catchbasins $ 7,260.00
Manhole inspection and cleaning $ 1,950.00
Ponds (4.5% of construction cost) $ 260,452.38
Total O & M Costs $ 354,693.81

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 3

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (LID-BMP) INFRASTRUCTURE COST ANALYSES
BREAKDOWN

Capital Costs

TABLE E-1.4 Material and Construction Costs

Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Adjusted Amount

1 LID-BMP Facilities
Bioretention m² $ 140.00 1965 $ 275,043.23 $ 295,437.69
Box planter m² $ 190.00 1255 $ 238,390.08 $ 256,066.70
Cistern m² $ 606.00 6 $ 3,636.00 $ 3,905.61
Green Roof m² $ 390.00 11381 $ 4,438,526.53 $ 4,767,643.27
NDW m² $ 137.50 4532 $ 623,201.12 $ 669,411.48
Permeable Pavement m² $ 420.00 314 $ 131,816.17 $ 141,590.34
Rain garden m² $ 190.00 291 $ 55,195.00 $ 59,287.71
Vegetated Swale m² $ 23.00 42207 $ 970,767.70 $ 1,042,750.12
2 Culverts/Pipes
900 mm 3-4 m deep m $ 660.00 1850 $ 1,220,736.00 $ 1,220,736.00
1200 mm 4-5 m deep m $1,065.00 84 $ 89,460.00 $ 89,460.00
3 SWM Ponds
POND_1 m³ $ 86.09 13650 $ 1,175,128.50 $ 1,175,128.50
POND_2 m³ $ 86.09 11010 $ 947,850.90 $ 947,850.90
POND_3 m³ $ 86.09 30270 $ 2,605,944.30 $ 2,605,944.30
Subtotal $12,775,695.52 $13,275,212.62
Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs Estimated as 25% of the construction cost $ 3,318,803.16

Total Capital Cost $16,594,015.78

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 4

 TABLE E-1.5 Detailed Annual O&M Costs

Maintenance Interval Adjusted

Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
(times/year) Amount
1 LID-BMP Facilities
Bioretention 1 /m² $ 21.50 1965 $ 42,238.78 $ 45,370.79
Box Planter 1 /m² $ 21.50 1255 $ 26,982.50 $ 28,983.25
Cistern 1 /each $ 125.00 6 $ 750.00 $ 805.61
Green Roof 1 /m² $ 23.50 11381 $ 267,449.68 $ 287,281.07
NDW 1 /m² $ 9.50 4532 $ 43,057.53 $ 46,250.25
Permeable Pavement 1 /m² $ 0.23 314 $ 72.19 $ 77.54
Rain Garden 1 /m² $ 23.50 291 $ 6,245.75 $ 6,708.87
Vegetated Swale 1 /m² $ 0.60 42207 $ 25,324.37 $ 27,202.18
2 Culverts/Pipes
900 mm 1 /m $ 9.12 1850 $ 16,868.35 $ 18,119.14
1200 mm 1 /m $ 9.12 84 $ 766.08 $ 822.88
3 SWM Ponds
POND_1 1 /visit $ 66,100.98 1 $ 66,100.98 $ 66,100.98
POND_2 1 /visit $ 53,316.61 1 $ 53,316.61 $ 53,316.61
POND_3 1 /visit $ 146,584.37 1 $ 146,584.37 $ 146,584.37

Total Annual Cost $720,018.43 $751,884.78

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 5

 TABLE E-1.6 Summary of Annual O&M Costs

Description Annual Cost

Culvert/pipes cleaning $ 18,942.03
LID-BMP Facilities $ 442,679.56
Ponds (4.5% of construction cost) $ 266,001.96
Total Annual O & M Costs $ 727,623.54

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 6

 TABLE E-1.7 Periodic Maintenance

Life
Quanti Adjusted Present Worth
Item Description Cycle Unit Unit Price Amount
ty Amount Amount
(Years)
1 LID-BMP Facilities
Bioretention 20 /m² $ 87.00 1965 $ 170,919.72 $ 183,593.42 $ 57,712.40
Box Planter 25 /m² $ 12.50 1255 $ 15,687.50 $ 16,850.73 $ 3,384.41
Cistern 25 /m³ $ 606.00 6 $ 3,636.00 $ 3,905.61 $ 784.43
Green Roof 25 /m² $ 16.00 11381 $ 182,093.40 $ 195,595.62 $ 39,284.69
NDW 75 /m² $ 137.50 4532 $ 623,201.12 $ 669,411.48 $ 3,146.73
Permeable Pavement 20 /m² $ 420.00 314 $ 131,816.17 $ 141,590.34 $ 44,508.78
Rain Garden 20 /m² $ 87.00 291 $ 25,273.50 $ 27,147.53 $ 8,533.80
Vegetative Swale 20 /m² $ 17.50 42207 $ 738,627.60 $ 793,396.83 $ 249,403.47
2 Culverts/Pipes
900 mm 3-4 m deep 75 m $ 660.00 1850 $ 1,220,736.00 $ 1,220,736.00 $ 5,738.37
1200 mm 4-5 m deep 75 m $ 1,065.00 84 $ 89,460.00 $ 89,460.00 $ 420.53

Total Cost $ 406,758.70

Edition 1.1 Appendix E-1 – Page 7

 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Edition 1.1
APPENDIX REFERENCES

Caraco, D. and R. Claytor. 1997. Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates.
Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
City of Edmonton (COE). 2012. Design and Construction Standards, Volume 3, Drainage.
May 2012. City of Edmonton, Alberta.
<http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Volume_3_Drainage_.pdf>.
Accessed December 2014.
Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG). 1983. Urban Runoff Quality in the
Denver Region. Denver, CO.
Environment Canada (EC). 2010b. Annex C Annual Report from City of Edmonton –
Roadway Maintenance for 2010. Edmonton, Alberta.
Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB). 2008. Advancing the Design of
Stormwater Biofiltration. Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration.
New Mexico State University. 1996. New Mexico Climate Center Irrigation Scheduling Model
Information. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. Las Cruses. New Mexico. USA.
<http://weather.nmsu.edu/models/irrsch/soiltype.html>. Accessed June 2010.
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban Best Management Practices. MWCOG. Washington, D.C.
Stewart, R.E. and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of Natural Ponds and Lakes in the
Glaciated Prairie Region. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Resource Publication 92. 57 pp.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1998. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity
Management. In: Texas Drought Management Strategies. The Texas A&M University System.
College Station, TX.

Edition 1.1