Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Stormwater management trade-offs for Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC McGarvey, Niall 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_november_mcgarvey_niall.pdf [ 7.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0167622.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167622-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167622-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167622-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167622-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167622-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167622-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0167622-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0167622.ris

Full Text

   STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS FOR PORTLAND, SEATTLE AND VANCOUVER, BC  by  NIALL McGARVEY B.La., University of Guelph, 2005    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PLANNING  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER) October, 2014     © Niall McGarvey, 2014  iiABSTRACT  The separation of stormwater from the sewage waste stream has been implemented in many cities to minimize combined sewer overflows (CSOs) during periods of heavy rain.  In the absence of treatment, discharges from separated sewer/stormwater outfalls are also very damaging to aquatic environments as they typically carry numerous nonpoint source pollutants and alter the delicate geomorphology of natural watercourses.  A new strategy has emerged during the past few decades that focuses on absorbing, infiltrating and detaining stormwater to reduce peak flows and filter out nonpoint source pollution, thereby addressing CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding at the same time.  An increasing number of cities in the United States and Canada have devised comprehensive plans to incorporate these methods into their overall wastewater management strategies.  In an effort to eliminate CSOs and build resilience against flooding the City of Vancouver has committed over $1 billion to separate all of its remaining combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure by 2050.  In contrast, Seattle and Portland (Oregon), two cities with similar rainfall patterns and levels of urbanization are following strategies that utilize a combination of targeted conventional stormwater infrastructure upgrades and GI to minimize CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding.  As the City of Vancouver moves forward with its city-wide Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, this thesis contends that its sewer separation project should be revised to also include a comprehensive network of GI.  The primary investigatory goal of this thesis is to identify and analyze the social, institutional, economic and technical barriers encountered by Portland and Seattle to the implementation of GI and the key factors that enabled its implementation.  This is accomplished through interviews conducted with key staff members from Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), supported by a review of recent literature.  It was found that Portland and Seattle overcame a variety of social, institutional, economic and technical barriers through the use of cost effective pilot projects, extensive public consultation, slowly changing the internal culture towards  iii GI within municipal departments, offering financial incentives and through increasing the profile of their projects through awards and competitions.                               ivPREFACE  This master’s thesis is an original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Niall McGarvey and lead investigator, Maged Senbel.  The fieldwork in Chapters 1, 2, 3 and in the Discussion and Conclusion are covered under UBC Ethics Certificate # H13-01395                            v TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Dilemma of Stormwater Management .............................................................................. 7 Combined Sewer/Stormwater Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 8 Separated Sewer/Stormwater Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 10 Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 16 GI Type 1) Vegetated Stormwater Absorption and Infiltration G ........................................................ 16 GI Type 2) Permeable Hard Surface GI ............................................................................................... 22 GI Type 3) Trees in the Urban Environment ........................................................................................ 25 GI Type 4) Rainwater Harvesting ......................................................................................................... 25 GI Type 5) Extended Detention Basins ................................................................................................ 27 Reduced Energy Use and GHG Emissions ............................................................................................... 28 Flood Mitigation........................................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 2: A Tale of Three Cities .............................................................................................................. 34 Seattle Public Utilities and Natural Drainage Systems ............................................................................. 46 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services ............................................................................................. 55 Chapter 3: Lessons from Portland and Seattle ......................................................................................... 68 Barriers to the Implementation of GI ........................................................................................................ 69 Social Barriers ...................................................................................................................................... 69 Institutional Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 70 Economic Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 73 Technical Barriers................................................................................................................................. 75 Key Enabling Factors ................................................................................................................................ 77 ROWs and Pilot Projects ...................................................................................................................... 77 Public Engagement is Critical .............................................................................................................. 79 Provide a Tangible Reason, Incentives and Rebates............................................................................. 83 Changing the Internal Culture .............................................................................................................. 84 A Little Recognition Goes a Long Way ............................................................................................... 86 Conclusion and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 88 Bibliography................................................................................................................................................. 91 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 101  viLIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. difference in stormwater peak flows from developed to undeveloped watersheds. ....................... 11 Figure 2. typical green roof stormwater retention rates. ................................................................................ 17 Figure 3. estimated reductions in stormwater runoff for different GI in Washington DC. ............................ 18 Figure 4. nonpoint source pollutants removed by green roofs from stormwater based on Intensive Greening Scenario. ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 5. permeable pavement stormwater retention case studies. ................................................................ 23 Figure 6. permeable pavement nonpoint source pollutant removal case studies.. ......................................... 24 Figure 7. GHG reductions attributed to Portland’s GI.. ................................................................................. 30 Figure 8. CO2 sequestration attributed to Portland’s GI. .............................................................................. 31 Figure 9. increasing flood discharges caused by increased watershed imperviousness. ................................ 32 Figure 10. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for SEA Street, Seattle Washington. .................. 41 Figure 11. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Auburn Hills subdivision, Wisconsin. .......... 42 Figure 12. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for parking lot retrofits in Bellingham, Washington.. .................................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 13. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Gap Creek subdivision in Arkansas. ............. 44 Figure 14. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Mill Creek mixed-use community, Illinois. .. 44 Figure 15. before and after aerial photos of SEA Street in Seattle. ............................................................... 48 Figure 16. 110 Cascade Street in Seattle. ...................................................................................................... 49 Figure 17. nonpoint source pollutant removal at 110 Cascade Street. ........................................................... 50 Figure 18. Madison Valley Stormwater Park. ............................................................................................... 52 Figure 19. plan of GI installations at Northeast Siskiyou Street in Portland. ................................................ 57 Figure 20. picture of GI installation at Northeast Siskiyou Street in Portland. ............................................. 58 Figure 21. picture of Glencoe Elementary School Rain Gardens.. ................................................................ 59 Figure 22. picture of GI installation at SW 12th Avenue in Portland. ............................................................ 60 Figure 23. map of Tabor to the River project area in Portland.. .................................................................... 61 Figure 24. Government of Canada, Budget 2013 graph showing the magnitude of municipal funding increase due to TNBCP. ................................................................................................................................ 65    1 INTRODUCTION  The rapid urbanization of cities in North America, particularly since World War II has presented many environmental challenges as the needs of expanding populations are balanced against the health of the ecosystems they impact.  In order to accommodate population growth while maintaining public safety and comfort, urban watersheds have been transformed from landscapes that absorb, infiltrate and detain rainwater into artificial environments that mainly collect it on impervious surfaces for disposal into subsurface pipes.  Historically this was performed to prevent flooding and disease (Novotny et al, 2010).  In Canada this development formula has resulted in urban areas that are often covered by more than 50% impervious cover.  The central business districts of major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary are comprised of up to 96% impervious cover (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  As urban watersheds become increasingly impenetrable, rainwater that would have otherwise been absorbed, infiltrated and detained by natural landscapes accumulates in urban environments and can pose a serious threat to aquatic ecosystems as well as public health and safety.  This occurs in two ways depending on the type of subsurface infrastructure being used to manage rainwater, or stormwater as it is referred to in this thesis.  Combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure, more common in older parts of cities, combines stormwater with domestic sewage in one pipe.  These systems often exceed their operational capacities during wet weather, forcing the release of untreated effluent directly into natural water bodies.  Referred to as a combined sewer overflow (CSO), the environmental and public safety consequences are very serious.  During the past several decades separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure has been installed in many cities as a solution to the capacity problems inherent with combined systems.  Such infrastructure conveys stormwater via a separate system of pipes for deposition directly into nearby watercourses.  Unfortunately in the absence of treatment, stormwater from urban environments carries hundreds of poisonous nonpoint source pollutants such as oil, grease, PCBs, solvents, ammonia, synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals that build up on streets, parking lots, building surfaces and other impervious areas.  The  2 elevated peak flows associated with urban hydrology also cause considerable damage to stream and river geomorphology.  Cumulatively, the consequences for aquatic ecosystems receiving stormwater runoff from separated sewer/stormwater systems can be very severe, many become so degraded they can no longer support fish populations (Porter-Bobb et al, 2011).  Over the past two decades there have been promising advancements in stormwater management methods in response to the environmental problems associated with both combined and separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure.  Many municipalities, particularly in the United States, where the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been actively regulating discharges from separated sewer/stormwater systems since 1990, and CSOs since 1994, began to experiment with alternative stormwater management methods.  Recognizing that stormwater can be a serious environmental threat when managed by either combined or separated sewer/stormwater systems, these efforts focused on developing techniques that reduce stormwater volumes at the surface.  A group of resulting methods, which are collectively referred to as “green infrastructure” (GI) in this thesis, mimic the hydrologic processes of natural watersheds to reduce stormwater volumes.  This typically entails directing stormwater into planted and/or permeable areas where it can be retained, detained, infiltrated and absorbed.  Numerous examples of GI throughout North America, including green roofs, bioretention areas (also called rain gardens), bioswales, detention ponds, wetlands, rainwater harvesting and permeable pavements have proven to be remarkably effective at reducing surface stormwater volumes as well as filtering it of many harmful substances.  In addition, they collectively possess several other important secondary environmental benefits including reduced energy consumption in urban areas, reduced GHG emissions and flood mitigation.  Two of the most successful examples of cities that have employed GI as part of an integrated strategy to minimize CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding are situated in the Pacific Northwest; Seattle and Portland.  Both cities were facing considerable pressure from independent environmental organizations, the public and their respective state environmental protection agencies in the early 1990s to address CSOs  3 and stormwater runoff pollution.  Using a combination of green roofs (called ecoroofs by Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services), green streets with bioswales, bioretention areas (also called rain gardens), flow-through bioretention planters, downspout disconnections, street sumps and sedimentation manholes, targeted sewer separations and detention tunnels, Portland has reduced the volume of CSO discharges into the Columbia Slough and Columbia River by 99% and 94% respectively (City of Portland, 2014).  In addition, the regular monitoring of many different installations has proven their effectiveness at filtering stormwater of numerous nonpoint source pollutants (City of Portland 7, 2014).  Until more recently Seattle’s use of GI has been focused in areas where streams are being used as stormwater conveyance systems, resulting in aquatic ecosystem degradation.  Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) implemented a series of successful GI street retrofits in the early to mid 2000s, followed by an entire community using these methods in 2010.  Based on their documented ability to reduce stormwater volumes SPU incorporated GI as an integral part of its 2010 CSO Reduction Plan.  A preliminary investigation of six neighbourhoods targeted by the plan estimated that GI could reduce stormwater entering these combined sewer/stormwater systems by 80% (SPU 9, 2013).  Portland and Seattle have recently bolstered their commitment to using GI on a city-wide basis by requiring most new developments to employ these techniques to the “maximum extent feasible”.  Both cities have produced detailed technical guidelines to assist owners and developers in this regard.  Portland and Seattle also plan to continue proliferating GI throughout their public works.  For example, Portland’s 2011 Public Facilities Plan includes over 2,200 new GI installations (Garrison et al, 2011).  In addition, both cities have recognized GI as a major component of their respective climate change adaptation strategies.  In Vancouver, British Columbia a different stormwater management strategy is being pursued.  The city has elected to fully separate its remaining combined sewer/stormwater system, comprising approximately half of its service area, by 2050.  This constitutes a considerable economic commitment to conventional infrastructure, costing $35 million a year (Vancouver Observer, 2011), and expected to cost $1 billion to complete (Vancouver Sun, 2013).  Three main benefits have been offered by the City of Vancouver  4 as justification for sewer separation: “eliminates combined sewer overflow, prevents flooding by increasing capacity, allows stormwater to be used as a resource” (City of Vancouver 2, 2013).  However, this plan does not currently address stormwater runoff pollution.  In fact, in the absence of nonpoint source pollution mitigation measures, sewer separations can potentially make the problem more widespread (BIEAP, 2010).  For several reasons this is a critical time for the City of Vancouver regarding its investment in wastewater infrastructure and the sustainability of the area’s aquatic resources.  Metro Vancouver’s population is projected to grow 54% by 2041 (Metro Vancouver 2, 2011).  This expanding human footprint is expected to place tremendous additional strain on the region’s valuable aquatic ecosystems, the services of which are vital to the economic prosperity of the South Coast and the quality of life of its residents.  According to a report published by the David Suzuki Foundation and Earth Economics in 2012, the aquatic ecosystem services of the Lower Mainland are worth between $30 billion and $60 billion per year.  This range only covers 30% of the known ecosystem services, making it a conservative estimate.  Stormwater runoff pollution and sewage were both identified by the report as major sources of aquatic ecosystem degradation in the Lower Mainland (Molnar et al, 2012).  Under The New Building Canada Plan (TNBCP), part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan (EAP), investment in municipal infrastructure will be significantly increased for the next ten years (Government of Canada, 2013).  It is critical that municipalities in the Lower Mainland invest in effective and sustainable wastewater infrastructure during this time, and moving forward, to prevent further damage to the area’s aquatic resources as our population grows.   Based on the success of Portland and Seattle’s respective Integrated Stormwater Management Strategies (ISMSs), which utilize both conventional infrastructure and GI to address CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and flooding, it is the position of this thesis that Vancouver should consider revising its sewer separation project to incorporate an integrated system of GI where feasible.  As was the case in Portland and Seattle, such a proposition will undoubtedly be met with vigorous opposition, from the public, politicians, developers and internal city departments, among others.  The City of Vancouver is currently taking the first step towards encouraging the use of GI through its  5 city-wide Integrated Stormwater Management Plan (ISMP), which is to be completed by the end of 2014.  The main purpose of this thesis is to illuminate the barriers encountered by Portland and Seattle as they navigated the implementation of GI and how they were able to overcome them.  Portland and Seattle were chosen for several reasons in addition to their relatively high levels of success with implementing GI.  Both are of similar size and levels of urbanization to Vancouver, they are situated in the Pacific Northwest and have comparable climates, both cities maintain a tandem of separated and combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure and both have addressed serious issues with CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution.  However there is one principle limitation to this comparison; To date, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have provided much less support than their American counterparts for the implementation of GI.  That being said, there are still numerous valuable lessons that can be learned from a thorough analysis of Portland and Seattle’s stormwater management programs that are transferable across national boundaries.  In order to build the case that Vancouver aught to consider evolving its sewer separation project into one that utilizes targeted conventional infrastructure upgrades with an integrated system of GI, this thesis explores the integrated stormwater management strategies (ISMSs) of Portland and Seattle in depth to demonstrate their high levels of success.  The term ISMS is used to describe their cumulative stormwater management plans, manuals and initiatives, of which there are several.  For GI to function properly as a legitimate component of an ISMS it must be implemented on an aggregate scale using a full spectrum of types because different GI installation are suited to different locations and situations.  In addition it is highly beneficial to plan an ISMS on a watershed scale, taking into account the specific drainage and pollution reduction requirements of each one.  Implementing a comprehensive network of GI on the scale suggested requires a considerable commitment from a municipality to methods that are not familiar to many.  Consequently such policies routinely come up against a multitude of social, institutional, economic and technical barriers.  The principal investigation this thesis aims to conduct is to identify what those barriers were, and still are in Portland and Seattle, and how they were overcome.  To accomplish this, key contacts within Portland’s Bureau of  6 Environmental Services (BES) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), who were integrally involved in their respective ISMSs, were approached and asked the following questions:  1) What social, institutional, economic and technical, or other barriers did your organization and municipality encounter while trying to encourage and implement green infrastructure? 2) What were the key factors that allowed you to overcome these barriers? 3) What challenges are you currently facing with respect to implementing green infrastructure? 4) Have you seen attitudes towards green infrastructure change over time from the public, developers, within your municipality or others? How?  From this data, supplemented by a review of recent literature, a set of recommendations is discussed in the context of Vancouver’s current stormwater management position.                   7 CHAPTER 1: The Dilemma of Stormwater Management  The process of rapid urbanization in North America, particularly post World War II, has placed tremendous strain on many of the natural systems that we ultimately depend on for survival.  In Canada and the United States the sustainability of water resources has been increasingly called into question.  Many urban watersheds and coastal areas are grappling with declining water quality and biodiversity loss.  These are not just issues of environmental quality, such degradation also has serious environmental and social repercussions (Molner et al, 2012).  One fundamentally important issue facing urban areas with respect to water resource sustainability is the management of rainwater.  Over time, watershed urbanization has resulted in the distortion of the hydrologic cycle.  As far back as ancient Greece many watercourses were covered and diverted away from populated areas because they were being used to dispose of human wastes (Novotny et al, 2010).  When industrialized cities began growing rapidly in the latter half of the nineteenth century, essentially the same strategy was used.  Urban rivers and streams, often polluted with human and industrial wastes, were perceived as serious public health risks.  Periodic flooding also represented a major public safety concern in low-lying areas and flood plains.  The prevailing wisdom was to once again cover these watercourses when possible, or divert and channelize them (Novotny et al, 2010).  During this same time period automobile transportation had become increasingly prevalent and important to industrialized economies.  Cities embarked upon comprehensive street paving campaigns, utilizing curb and gutter systems to quickly convey precipitation towards surface drains, connected to underground pipes.  Rainwater from public spaces and exposed building surfaces also became managed in this way.  Cumulatively, this is the system that defines urban hydrology today in North America and it is extremely successful at rapidly shedding precipitation from urban environments.  In Canada, impervious surfaces now comprise over 50% of land cover in many cities.  Heavily urbanized city centres such as downtown Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal are covered by up to 96% impervious surfaces (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  Unfortunately there is a fundamental problem with this artificial hydrology; much of the rainwater, or stormwater as it is referred to in this thesis, which would have otherwise been infiltrated,  8 detained and absorbed by natural landscapes, builds up on impervious surfaces in significantly elevated volumes where it collects and carries nonpoint source pollutants and becomes difficult to manage.  Cities in North America typically dispose of stormwater from the urban environment into either a combined sewer/stormwater system, where it joins the domestic sewage waste stream, or into a separated sewer/stormwater system where it is transported by a separate set of pipes and discharged into local water bodies.  It is common to find both types of infrastructure in an urban area depending on the age of the neighbourhoods being serviced.  Each presents a set of difficult trade-offs and environmental challenges.  Combined Sewer/Stormwater Infrastructure  Combined sewer/stormwater systems are more common in older parts of cities and as the name suggests, carry both untreated sewage and stormwater.  Historically these all-purpose pipe systems terminated at water bodies without any treatment.  Part of the rationale was based on an assumption that stormwater would effectively dilute the sewage and make it less harmful.  However, after experiments in the United States linking this practice to disease outbreaks in the late nineteenth century, combined sewer/stormwater effluent slowly started to receive treatment.  By the mid twentieth century the severe environmental consequences of dumping raw sewage into aquatic ecosystems were becoming clear.  The United States addressed the problem in its CWA of 1972, requiring end-of-pipe treatment for water pollution point sources (Novotny et al, 2010).  In Canada, the Federal Government, provinces and municipalities share responsibility for this issue.  Many municipalities had recognized the effects of dumping raw sewage into natural water bodies by the early twentieth century and began building treatment facilities (CPHA, 2013).  Although many of these facilities, both in Canada and the United States, provide advanced treatment to remove harmful substances, combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure increasingly faced serious capacity problems as urbanization intensified into the late twentieth century.  Combined sewer/stormwater systems routinely become  9 overwhelmed with stormwater during heavy rain events and/or snowmelts and are forced to discharge untreated or partially treated effluent into natural water bodies, termed a “combined sewer overflow” (CSO).  In some cities, even relatively light rain events can cause CSOs.  For example, Washington DC’s combined sewer/stormwater system has been reported to overflow during 5mm (0.2”) of rainfall (Garrison et al, 2011).  Rapid urbanization in North America coupled with increasingly tight municipal infrastructure budgets has exacerbated the problem considerably.  By 2002 the 772 municipalities in the United States with combined sewer/stormwater systems were reporting 43,000 CSOs per year, representing over 3.2 trillion liters (850 billion gallons) of raw sewage and stormwater (Garrison et al, 2011).  In Canada, CSOs from cities in the Great Lakes region have become particularly frequent.  According to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, approximately 10.8 billion liters of untreated effluent and 7.5 billion liters of partially treated effluent entered the Great Lakes in 2006 due to CSOs from Ontario alone (MacDonald & Podolsky, 2009).  CSO discharges contain a toxic mixture of wastes from toilets, sinks, showers, washing machines, dishwashers, discarded cleaning products and waste from commercial and industrial operations as well as hundreds of nonpoint source pollutants found in untreated stormwater runoff.  CSOs often carry many disease causing viruses and bacteria like Fecal Coliform, Giardia and Cryptosporidium along with suspended solids, oxygen depleting substances (also called Biological Oxygen Demand), nutrient pollutants such as phosphates (often carried in fertilizers), personal care product and pharmaceutical chemicals, synthetic organic chemicals (such as flame retardants and PCB’s), plasticizers, oil, grease, toxic heavy metals (such as cadmium, lead, mercury, silver, zinc and arsenic), antifreeze, herbicides, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, solvents and road salts (Barlow, 2011).  Many of the 120 different viruses present in raw sewage can cause a number of serious ailments such as salmonella infection, shigella, E. coli infection, giardiasis, hepatitis, pinworms, polio, toxoplasmosis, adenovirus, tapeworms rotavirus, asthma, Weil’s disease and children’s diarrhea as well as other gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases (McGuire et al, 2010).  Ingesting Giardia or Cryptosporidium can even be fatal (NRDC 2, 2013).  The foul cocktail of water, chemicals, viruses and  10bacteria described above conspire to make CSO discharges one of the most damaging water pollution sources in North America (Government of Canada 3, 2013) (US EPA, 2012).  Separated Sewer/Stormwater Infrastructure  Particularly in regions that receive high levels of annual precipitation, stormwater makes up a substantial portion of combined sewer/stormwater effluent during periods of wet weather.  For example, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) recently measured that stormwater comprises 90% of the CSO mixture being emptied into Salmon Bay (SPU 4, 2014).  As a result separating stormwater from sewage does a great deal to alleviate the capacity problems inherent with combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure.  Separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure significantly reduces CSO discharges and builds resilience against localized flooding.  However, confining stormwater to a separate pipe is by no means a panacea for urban water quality issues.  Separated sewer/stormwater systems discharge stormwater at numerous locations directly into local water bodies.  The dramatic hydrologic alterations made to urban watersheds, described earlier in this chapter, carry two fundamental consequences for receiving aquatic ecosystems.  First, piped stormwater enters these water bodies over much shorter periods of time and in significantly greater volumes than in the natural environment.  Having been conveyed to catch basins by impervious surfaces that have become inundated with urban pollutants from the air, automobiles, households and building surfaces, among many others, this stormwater runoff is also laden with hundreds of acutely harmful and poisonous nonpoint source pollutants.  The United States Geological Survey (USGS) displays a telling example of the different stormwater flows experienced by developed and undeveloped watersheds on their website.  The study, conducted in 2000, compares two watersheds in western Washington State.  One has experienced a moderate amount of urbanization and suburban development (Mercer Creek), the other is relatively undeveloped (Newaukum Creek).  Stormwater runoff data was collected for both, the results are shown in figure 1 (Konrad,  112013).    Figure 1. difference in stormwater peak flows from developed to undeveloped watersheds. Source: Konrad, Christopher, P. (January, 2013). Effects of Urban Development on Floods. Retrieved June 7, 2013, from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/  Such conspicuous changes in the hydrologic cycle have serious ecological and geomorphological effects on rivers and streams that receive these artificially increased flows (McGuire et al, 2010).  Their alluvial channels and stream banks are repeatedly eroded resulting in the transport and deposition of fine sediments into granular material that provides cover for small fish and invertebrates, in addition to being vital for spawning fish (Matlock & Morgan, 2011).  These sediments also restrict photosynthesis for aquatic plants and act as vehicles for many nonpoint source pollutants (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).   Stormwater that has been conveyed using impervious surfaces in urban environments collects and carries hundreds of toxic nonpoint source pollutants from streets, building surfaces, parking lots, households and businesses, among others.  These commonly include; oil, grease, toxic heavy metals (such as cadmium, lead, mercury, silver, zinc and  12arsenic), excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), sediments, synthetic organic chemicals (such as flame retardants and PCB’s), antifreeze, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organic matter, bacteria, solvents and road salts (Barlow, 2011).  Nonpoint source pollution is quickly becoming one of the most serious threats to water quality in North America (US EPA 3, 2013) (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  In fact, the US EPA asserts the following on their website (US EPA 3, 2013):  “The most recent National Water Quality Inventory reports that runoff from urbanized areas is the leading source of water quality impairments to surveyed estuaries and the third-largest source of impairments to surveyed lakes.”  The interactions between nonpoint source pollutants and aquatic ecosystems are very complex.  It is a subject that still requires more research (Hlavinek et al, 2006).  An important concept to understand is that most of the pollutant loading is carried by the first half inch (13mm) of runoff, which is referred to as the “first flush”.  This phenomenon is particularly severe following periods of dry weather (Matlock & Morgan, 2011) because pollutants will have built up on urban surfaces in higher concentrations.  First flush events can result in toxic levels of heavy metals, ammonia, chlorides and organic contaminants, among others, which can lead to mass die-offs of fish, invertebrates and other organisms.  However, nonpoint source pollutants do not have to appear in lethal concentrations to cause serious ecological problems.  For example, the slow accumulation of heavy metals in aquatic environments has been linked to high rates of lesions, deformities and tumors in fish and invertebrates.  Copper has been shown to be particularly disruptive to the health of Salmonids and other fish species even at low concentrations due its degenerative effects on fish olfactory systems, negatively impacting behaviors such as feeding, migration, spawning and social cues (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  Excessive nutrient (Nitrogen and Phosphorous) loading from sources such as domestic fertilizers and animal wastes results in accelerated eutrophication, leaving aquatic ecosystems deprived of oxygen.  This has been a serious and ongoing problem associated with agricultural runoff, but increasingly nutrients from  13domestic sources are finding their way into stormwater runoff (Brown and Froemke, 2012).  Road salts and de-icing products are steadily making surface and underground freshwater ecosystems more saline because they persist in watersheds.  For example in Minneapolis it was measured that only 25% of the salts used on highways and roads leave the metropolitan area’s watersheds via the Mississippi River (Novotny et al, 2010).  Stormwater originating from urban areas is also often warmer than the water bodies that receive it due to the capacity of urban materials to retain heat.  This is especially prevalent during warmer months for smaller stormwater runoff flows.  The disparity has been measured to be as high as 10 degrees in some cases.  Heated stormwater runoff can have serious effects on the biology of cold water aquatic ecosystems, disrupting a host of organism life cycle and behavioral processes.  If the problem persists, these ecosystems may eventually give way to those more tolerant of warm water and are much more prone to eutrophication (Hlavinek et al, 2006).   The combination of nonpoint source pollution, elevated temperatures and increased peak flows associated with discharges from untreated separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure has severe environmental consequences even at relatively low levels of watershed urbanization.  Studies have shown that watercourses receiving stormwater runoff from these drainage systems become poor habitat for fish after only 10% to 15% of the watershed area is converted to impervious surfaces (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  Unfortunately, most urban areas in North America are comprised of much higher percentages than 10% to 15%.  As stated earlier in this chapter, cities in Canada are often made up of over 50% impervious surfaces in most cases.  The downtown cores of larger cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal are covered by up to 96% impervious surfaces (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  Those devising stormwater management strategies for urban areas in North America are faced with difficult trade-offs.  Combined sewer/stormwater systems terminate at treatment facilities, but many only perform primary and secondary treatment that does not address many of the nonpoint source pollutants found in urban stormwater runoff.  Stormwater also routinely overwhelms combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure during  14wet weather, causing CSOs.  Separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure minimizes CSOs and builds system capacity against localized flooding but does not address stormwater runoff pollution.  If fact, municipalities arguably need to be more vigilant about mitigating this problem when being serviced by separated systems because stormwater runoff is disposed into local watercourses at many locations (BIEAP, 2010).  The above dilemma has spurred serious debate about the adequacy of combined sewer/stormwater or separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure, which are also referred to collectively as conventional infrastructure in this thesis, as a complete solution to stormwater management, particularly from an environmental standpoint.  In the United States this investigation has been particularly active since the creation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under the CWA (Garrison et al, 2011).  In 1987 untreated stormwater runoff discharges became regulated under the NPDES, leading to the first phase of discharge permit requirements by the US EPA in 1990 for separated sewer/stormwater systems serving over 100,000 people and industrial sites over five acres.  By 1999, separated sewer/stormwater systems serving under 100,000 people and industrial sites between one and five acres were added (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  CSO discharges became regulated by NPDES permits in 1994 (US EPA, 2002).  Catalyzed by legal pressure to meet the requirements of NPDES permits a growing number of experts and municipalities began to recognize the potential of managing stormwater in urban areas using alternative methods.  This experimentation has been forged into several complimenting strategies:  1) stormwater can be directed into vegetated areas where it is filtered, absorbed and infiltrated.  2) stormwater can be directed onto permeable hard surfaces for subsurface retention and infiltration 3) increasing the amount of trees in the urban environment reduces stormwater runoff volumes considerably.  4) stormwater can be collected and stored for later use.  5) stormwater can be detained in ponds or wetlands for treatment and to reduce peak flows.  These alternative methods have been referred to as “best management practices” (BMPs), “stormwater control measures” (SCMs), “green infrastructure” (GI) and “sustainable drainage systems” (SuDS).  In this thesis they are referred to collectively as green infrastructure (GI).  The general rational behind GI is to slow down, retain, detain and filter stormwater as much as possible before it reaches conventional infrastructure and if possible, upon exiting, but before reaching natural  15water bodies.  This satisfies two main goals: 1) a large portion of stormwater is consequently kept out of combined sewer/stormwater systems, preventing CSOs and localized flooding.  2) stormwater runoff, and particularly the first flush (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008) is filtered of many nonpoint source pollutants, while peak flows are concurrently minimized.  A growing body of case studies and literature is proving such methods to be remarkably effective at achieving these goals.  However, each type has inherent limitations.  Some perform better at filtering contaminants from stormwater runoff, others work well where space is an issue.  Some types are capable of managing large volumes of stormwater while others are better suited to long periods of lower intensity precipitation.  In order for GI to serve as an effective component of an urban stormwater management strategy a diverse spectrum of these methods must be implemented as a series of controls so that the strengths of each type can maximize the performance of the whole system (Marsalek & Schreier, 2009).  In their 2008 report, “Urban Stormwater Management in the United States”, the Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution explain this important aspect (SCM stands for stormwater control measures) (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008, pg 9):  “Individual controls on stormwater discharges are inadequate as the sole solution to stormwater in urban watersheds. SCM implementation needs to be designed as a system, integrating structural and nonstructural SCMs and incorporating watershed goals, site characteristics, development land use, construction erosion and sedimentation controls, aesthetics, monitoring, and maintenance. Stormwater cannot be adequately managed on a piecemeal basis due to the complexity of both the hydrologic and pollutant processes and their effect on habitat and stream quality”  In the next section this thesis examines GI from the five strategies described above, explains how they function and provides a few examples of each.  In Chapter 2, more context specific examples are explored.      16Green Infrastructure  GI Type 1: Vegetated Stormwater Absorption and Infiltration GI  This type of GI encompasses a wide range of facilities that temporarily hold water for infiltration and absorption by the plants and soil.  Included are green roofs, bioswales, bioretention areas (also called rain gardens) and flow-through bioretention planters.  In densely urbanized areas and commercial districts, where roofs cover as much as 70% of the surface area and land is very expensive, green roofs are an especially important GI type (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  There are two categories of green roofs, extensive and intensive.  The former typically involves smaller, low maintenance plants supported by 20mm to 100mm of soil.  Intensive green roofs employ a much wider variety of plants, and use more than 100mm of soil.  Green roofs can be installed on existing roofs or be incorporated into new building designs making them very versatile.  With their rise in popularity many pre-grown modular systems are now available throughout North America.  Green roofs are capable of absorbing a tremendous amount of roof runoff and are have the ability to filter stormwater of toxins from building materials and air pollution.  Studies have shown that green roofs can reduce the amount of metals from roof runoff by 95%, nitrate by 80% and phosphates by 68%.  Their efficacy at intercepting roof runoff is closely related to the depth of soil used and the climate.  Livingroofs.org, an independent international green roof organization, displays on its website that an intensive green roof is capable of absorbing over 90% of the annual rainfall reaching its surface (Livingroofs.org, 2013).  Figure 2 is a table from livingroofs.org showing the typical levels of annual rainwater absorption for green roofs based on different soil (referred to in figure 2 as substrate) depths.   17 Figure 2. typical green roof stormwater retention rates. Livingroofs.org. (2013). Storm Water Run Off. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from: http://livingroofs.org/stormrunoff  Numerous modeled scenarios and existing green roof installations from across North America have provided conclusive data supporting their efficacy at intercepting stormwater.  In 2001 a 1,886 square meter (20,300 square foot) demonstration green roof was built on Chicago’s city hall roof.  It has been measured to retain 75% of a 2.5cm (1”) rain event (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008).  In 2007 a study conducted by the Casey Trees Endowment Fund and Limno-Tech Inc. entitled “The Green Build-Out Model: Quantifying the Stormwater Management Benefits of Trees and Green Roofs in Washington DC”, sought to model the amount of rainfall green roofs and trees could keep out of Washington, DC’s overburdened sewer system, thus reducing CSOs.  Here, only the analysis and findings regarding the benefits of green roofs is discussed.  In the  18study, two scenarios were tabled, the “intensive greening scenario” assumed that green roofs would be installed wherever it was physically possible (ie. roofs without structural, slope or heritage issues).  The “moderate greening scenario” was based on including only those roofs that were currently felt to be practical.  It was assumed that each installation would cover 75% of a building’s roof area.  Rainwater data from 1990 was used, being a year where monthly volumes were closest to the average over the last 50 years.  A main reason for the study was the fact that three of the region’s major rivers; the Anacostia, Potomac and Rock Creek Rivers, did not meet minimum federal water quality standards, in large part due to CSO discharges (Deutsch et al, 2007).  Receiving 60% of the city’s CSO volume, the Anacostia River is one of the most polluted rivers in the United States.  A study by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 on the river’s bullhead catfish revealed that approximately 25% of the population had cancerous skin tumors and 50% were suffering from cancerous liver tumors (Garrison et al, 2011).  Figure 3, under the heading “Green Roof Only”, shows the predicted reductions in CSOs under each scenario that can be attributed to green roofs.    Figure 3. estimated reductions in stormwater runoff for different GI in Washington DC.  19Source: Note. Adapted from. Deutsch, Barbara, Whitlow, Heather, Sullivan, Michael, Savineau, Anouk, Busiek, Brian. (2007). The Green Build-out Model: Quantifying Stormwater Benefits of Trees & Green Roofs in Washington, DC. Proceedings from the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Toronto, ON, Canada: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.  Even using the moderate greening scenario, a 4.2% reduction in CSOs was expected, representing 360 million liters (95 million gallons) of untreated sewage.  In addition, under the intense greening scenario, green roofs were predicted to remove a significant amount of nonpoint source pollutants from the urban environment.  These results are shown in figure 4.    Figure 4. nonpoint source pollutants removed by green roofs from stormwater based on Intensive Greening Scenario. Source: Note. Adapted from. Deutsch, Barbara, Whitlow, Heather, Sullivan, Michael, Savineau, Anouk, Busiek, Brian. (2007). The Green Build-out Model: Quantifying Stormwater Benefits of Trees & Green  20Roofs in Washington, DC. Proceedings from the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Toronto, ON, Canada: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.  The report ultimately made the following assessment regarding the use of green roofs and trees to manage stormwater in Washington, DC (Deutsch et al, 2007, pg 2-1):  “It was expected that trees and green roofs on their own would not solve all of the stormwater problems that the District or other municipalities face or replace the need for storage tunnels. However, it was expected that they could make a significant environmental and economic contribution that is not being recognized and therefore not consistently implemented in policy, planning, permitting, and development.”  The Casey Trees Endowment Fund won a Research Honor Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) in 2007 for their Washington, DC Green Build-out Model.  Ryerson University in Toronto completed a similar study in 2005, seeking to monetize the benefits of green roofs when installed on a large scale.  Using average local rainwater absorption data, and the assumed scenario that every flat roofed building over 348 square meters (3,750 square feet) would be at least 75% covered with green roof (comprising 8% of Toronto’s total land area), it was found that over one billion gallons of rainwater would be retained annually.  The city would save an estimated $270 million in capital costs, $30 million in annual operating costs, and the estimated reduction in CSOs would result in 3 less beach closure days.  Bioswales, flow-through bioretention planters and bioretention areas (also called rain gardens) are all designed to capture and hold stormwater for up to two or three days for infiltration, evaporation, absorption and evapotranspiration by plants.  The capacity of these facilities to manage stormwater, particularly through infiltration and absorption is dependent on the type of soil used and the permeability of the native subsurface material.  Their storage capacities can be improved considerably by the inclusion of a subsurface sand layer, sometimes referred to as bioinfiltration.  Bioretention facilities can sequester a  21high degree of contaminants from stormwater, primarily through chemical interactions with the soil.  Suspended solids in stormwater are filtered of heavy metals, carbon and particulate nutrients in the top layers.  Ammonia, oil and grease are captured by the top organic layer in the soil while nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrates are more difficult to sequester, and chlorides often wash through unimpeded.  One of the main benefits of this GI type is that they can be adapted to fit into most urban and suburban conditions.  There are many examples of bioswales, bioretention areas and flow-through bioretention planters throughout North America that have been monitored on an ongoing basis and are proving to be remarkably effective at intercepting large volumes of stormwater while filtering out high levels of nonpoint source pollutants.  A 2011 study by the Centre for Urban Forest Research in Davis, California demonstrated  the importance of using soils as absorptive bioretention systems to increase stormwater retention and reduce nonpoint source pollutant loading.  In the experiment, part of an existing campus parking lot was divided into two demonstration sites, both directing stormwater runoff from eight parking spaces and a drive aisle into separate sections of a centre island containing the same size and species of tree.  In one test area, the control site, the tree was planted in native soil, which was found to be compacted and poorly draining.  The experimental site situated the tree within a 10.4 meter by 2.4 meter by 0.9 meter deep bioswale containing engineered soil made up of three quarters lava rock and one quarter soil.  This dramatically increased the experimental area’s porosity and water storage capacity.  In addition, the engineered soil provided a better environment for tree growth as well as being an ideal medium to host pollutant sequestering bacteria.  Both sites were monitored during fifty separate rain events, totaling 564mm.  The bioswale in the experimental site was found to reduce stormwater runoff from the parking area by 89% when compared to the control site.  Suspended solids were reduced by 95%, organic carbon was reduced by 95%, mineral pollutants were reduced by 95% and metals were reduced by 87% (Xiao & McPherson, 2011).  As part of Villanova University’s Urban Stormwater Project a large bioretention area was installed in a traffic island on campus.  Formerly surrounded by curb and gutter, two  22openings were created to divert stormwater runoff into the retention area from a catchment area of approximately 4645 square meters (50,000 square feet), 52% of which is impervious.  Except for a 1.5 meter grassed buffer, the island was excavated down to six feet.  The excavated soil was mixed with sand at a ratio of 1:1 to create a well-draining bioretention soil, then placed to a depth of four feet, leaving a two foot depression for stormwater to collect.  Plants were installed that are adapted to temporary flooding and drought conditions.  This bioretention area has been continually monitored since its completion in 2001.  It retains approximately 70% of the stormwater runoff reaching the entire catchment area.  An average of 80% to 85% of runoff reaching the bioretention area is infiltrated.  Only once has a rain event of 50mm (2”) or less created an overflow.  This was far above expectations, the design aimed to capture the first 25mm (1”) of stormwater reaching the bioretention area, which represents 96% of the area’s annual rainfall events.  Villanova University’s Urban Stormwater Project is currently monitoring the site for nonpoint source pollutant removal, reduction percentages are expected to be very high due to the installation’s ability to retain stormwater runoff (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  The above represent two well documented and successful bioretention facilities.  This thesis explores several more from Portland and Seattle in chapter 2.  GI Type 2: Permeable Hard Surface GI  As the name suggests, these installations use porous paved or aggregate surfaces such as gravel, cast-in-place concrete, asphalt or pavers that allow precipitation to infiltrate through to the subsurface material.  Typically permeable pavements are constructed over a granular subsurface layer allowing stormwater runoff to be stored as it infiltrates.  A specialized layer of microbial fabric can also be installed between granular drainage layers to filter out oil and grease.  Permeable paving performs best in pedestrian areas or vehicular areas with slow traffic such as parking lots.  The principle advantage of this GI is that the surface function (pedestrian walkway, plaza, parking) is not disturbed.  It is important to understand that the success of permeable pavements is dependent on the ability of subsurface layers to infiltrate water, as this is their primary means of reducing  23stormwater volumes (Novoty et al, 2010).  Figures 6 and 7, taken from the US EPA’s website, demonstrate the ability of permeable pavement installations from around the world to retain stormwater runoff and filter out nonpoint source pollutants.    Figure 5. permeable pavement stormwater retention case studies. Source: US EPA. (September, 2009). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Porous Asphalt Pavement. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=135  24  Figure 6. permeable pavement nonpoint source pollutant removal case studies. Source: US EPA. (September, 2009). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Porous Asphalt Pavement. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=135  Villanova University’s Stormwater Research and Demonstration Park features a large porous concrete pedestrian walkway and plaza constructed over three sequentially draining subsurface granular storage bays, see figure 8.  It was installed in 2002 as part of the Villanova Urban Stormwater Project.  This installation also receives roof runoff from the surrounding buildings, overflow is discharged into the municipal sewer system.  During rain events of up to 50mm (2”), which represents the vast majority, there is almost no stormwater overflow from this site into the municipal system.  The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Centre recently retrofitted a campus parking lot with porous asphalt and monitored its performance for four years.  It is so effective at retaining and infiltrating stormwater that during this time no stormwater  25overflows were recorded, even during a 100-year storm event (Novotny et al, 2010).  GI Type 3: Trees in the Urban Environment  Trees are an essential stormwater management tool in urban areas and should be incorporated into GI whenever possible.  A mature tree can store over 380 liters (100 gallons) of water before becoming saturated (Arbor Day Foundation, 2010).  A considerable amount of precipitation is also temporarily stored externally on leaves, significantly dampening stormwater peak flows.  This was confirmed by a study conducted in Sacramento, California, which found that large broadleaf and coniferous trees intercept approximately 36% of rainfall with their canopies before it hits the ground.  Medium sized broadleaf and coniferous trees were found to intercept 18% (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  A similar study, investigating the ability of trees in North Vancouver, British Columbia to intercept rainfall found that on average the canopy of a Douglas Fir intercepted 49.1% of rainfall and the canopy of a Western Red Cedar intercepted 60.9%.  The study also discovered that the trees monitored in urban areas intercepted twice as much rainfall as those in forest stands, which was attributed to higher temperatures in urban environments, the isolation of these trees and their resulting wider canopies (Asadian & Weiler, 2009).  Cumulatively, trees have a profoundly positive effect on the hydrology of urban watersheds.  The Halifax Regional Municipality’s Urban Forest Master Plan, completed in 2012, points out, “trees play a key role in mitigating the effects of water on our urban landscape. It is estimated that for every 5% increase in overall canopy cover, total city run-off is reduced by 2%” (Urban Forest Planning Team, 2012, pg 4).  New York City recently completed a study that quantified the benefits of their trees with respect to stormwater management savings.  It valued the stormwater retention services of trees at $36 million annually (Odefey et al, 2012).  GI Type 4: Rainwater Harvesting  The act of collecting rainwater for future use is a very basic concept. However, due to the diversity of site conditions and available collection areas, the differing scales of  26collection devises and the range of future uses, among other factors, this is quite a diverse group of GI.  Rainwater harvesting is a tremendously beneficial practice from two water management perspectives; collecting rainwater at its source from impervious surfaces can significantly dampen peak runoff flows from properties, and collected rainwater decreases, and in some cases even eliminates the need for publically supplied water.  It is important to understand that in order for rainwater harvesting to also perform as an effective stormwater runoff abatement strategy, the rainwater must be used for functions that draw down the supply on a regular basis.  The scope of rainwater harvesting ranges from household rain barrels for gardening, to huge underground cisterns that provide large buildings with water for non-potable uses like toilet flushing, irrigation and washing vehicles.  In some cases collected rainwater is also purified for potable uses.    There is a growing number of examples, particularly from dryer climates, where stormwater is collected from developments and utilized by adjacent land uses.  For example, in Irvine California, the Pelican Hill development, resort and golf course designed an extensive stormwater collection system into the project that captures the first inch (25mm) of stormwater runoff from its streets, parking areas and buildings.  It is stored in five underground cisterns, totaling over 6 million litres (1.2 million gallons), then filtered and used to irrigate the resort’s golf course.  The project’s goals were to dramatically reduce water consumption while protecting the nearby coastal sage scrub from nonpoint source pollution.  It was a resounding success, selected as one of Golf Magazine’s Eco-friendly Green Hall of Fame Award winners in 2012/2013 (The Orange County Register, 2013).  However, rainwater harvesting projects certainly do not have to be built at the scale of Pelican Hill to be successful.  The city of Guelph, Ontario is one of the pioneers of household rainwater harvesting programs.  Their initiative began in 2005 with an initial investigation into the measurable benefits residential rainwater harvesting.  Researchers from the University of Guelph found that households employing rainwater harvesting used 47% less publically supplied water, and the properties produced 89% less stormwater runoff.  Convinced by the findings, Guelph launched a subsidized retrofit  27program in 2010 (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  GI Type 5: Extended Detention Basins  There are several different types within this group, but generally their function is to hold stormwater for short to extended periods, 24 hours or more, to reduce peak flows and provide treatment through settling and contact with vegetation and microbes.  They typically take the form of ponds or wetlands, some are designed to hold a constant volume of water while others will sit dry for extended periods.  Specific types include wet detention ponds, dry detention ponds and constructed wetlands.  Usually extended detention basins are situated at the end of a stormwater management facility chain.  Stormwater is conveyed to these installations in most cases via subsurface pipes.  If serving as part of an integrated system of GI the stormwater will have ideally also passed through some form of biofiltration from GI Type 1, or perhaps permeable pavement described in GI Type 2 (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  Extended detention basins are excellent at retarding stormwater peak flows because they hold large volumes of water relative to other forms of GI.  Their effectiveness in this regard is dependent on the surface area of the facility, many are designed to receive significant flood volumes.  Extended detention basins treat stormwater in two different ways, typically they are designed with a sedimentation forebay that receives the entering flow and allows sediments to float to the bottom.  This allows larger particles to be removed first and facilitates effective maintenance and sediment removal.  Numerous additional nonpoint source pollutants are then removed in the main body of these facilities, through interactions with specially selected plants and naturally occurring microbes.  Wet and dry detention ponds are designed with a deeper storage area in the middle surround by a meandering shelf with emergent plants to maximize their contact with stormwater.  If the facility remains dry by design when not accepting stormwater runoff these plants have to be selected to endure periods of drought.  Constructed wetlands are slightly different in that they focus on stormwater/plant interaction in shallow water, and less on storage.  Stormwater usually exits extended detention basins  28through a flow dampener then via an outflow pipe, or directly into a receiving watercourse.  An added benefit to these installations is that they provide habitat for many organisms and if well designed can also serve as attractive natural areas for communities.  However, some of the biodiversity created by ponds and wetlands are unwanted pests such as mosquitoes.  Extended detention basins can also be difficult to incorporate into urbanized areas due to their relatively high land requirements (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008), although there are some successful examples of these facilities being designed into public parks.  A study conducted in Greenville, North Carolina in 1996 demonstrated the ability of extended detention basins to capture stormwater runoff peak flows and filter them of nonpoint source pollutants.  The 1.7 acre (0.7 ha) dry detention pond examined accepts the first half inch (13mm) of stormwater runoff, the volume typically associated with first flush events, from a 200 acre (81 ha) watershed which is mostly residential and comprised of 31% impervious surfaces.  The study tested stormwater entering and leaving the installation for eight rain events finding a median reduction of 71% for total suspended solids, approximately 45% for particulate organic carbon, 33% for particulate phosphorous and 22% to 55% for metals (Stanley, 1996).  An integrated system of GI is not only valuable for improving the health of aquatic ecosystems in urban areas by reducing stormwater runoff peak flows and nonpoint source pollution, one of the most compelling cases for its use on a widespread scale is the potential such methods demonstrate for building resilience against climate change in urban areas.  GI accomplishes this is several different ways, it has been shown to reduce energy consumption and green house gas (GHG) emissions in addition to building resilience against flooding, an issue which is projected to become more frequent due to climate change.  Reduced Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions  GI reduces energy use and GHG emissions in urban areas both directly, through  29microclimate modification, and indirectly due to an overall decrease in stormwater runoff.  Green roofs are proving to be particularly effective at insulating buildings, resulting in decreased air conditioner use.  A 2003 study in Toronto demonstrated the surface temperature disparities between a conventional and green roof.  The peak temperature recorded on the conventional roof soared to 70ºC.  On the same day, the green roof temperature rose to only 25ºC (Novotny et al, 2010).  A related study in Toronto found that 70% to 90% less heat flows through green roofs than conventional roofs (Odefey et al, 2012).  As a result of this insulation, interior building temperatures are on average 5ºC to 7ºC cooler under green roofs in the summer.  This means building occupants need significantly less air conditioning, and building use less energy.  In fact, a study by Canada’s National Research Council found that energy demands for building cooling decreased by 75% after a 150mm deep green roof was installed (Grant, 2012).  The City of Toronto instituted a green roof bylaw in 2009, resulting in 111,484 square meters (1.2 million square feet) of new green roof area.  The associated energy savings are predicted to be around 1.5 million kWh (Cirillo & Podolsky, 2012).  Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) produced a detailed report in 2010 entitled, “Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy, and Community Livability Benefits”.  The report concluded that the insulating and shading properties of green roofs save Portland 6,800 kWh/acre.  Such energy use reductions can translate into significant cost savings for larger buildings.  For example, the Federal Expresses sorting facility at O’Hare Airport in Chicago features a 16,258 square meter (175,000 square foot) green roof.  In addition to retaining 7.6 million liters (2 million gallons) of rainwater annually, it also is expected to save Federal Express $35,000 a year due to reduced energy use.  The 10,498 square meter (113,000 square foot) green roof atop Target Centre Arena in Minneapolis retains 3.8 million liters (1 million gallons) of rainwater annually as well as reducing the building’s energy costs by $300,000 per year (Odefey et al, 2012).  The ability of trees to improve air quality in urban areas has long been recognized, however, they are also capable of significantly reducing heating and cooling energy demands.  During hot sunny weather, large trees provide shade and lower ambient air  30temperatures through evapotranspiration.  Many studies have shown their ability to mitigate the effects of “urban heat islands”, leading to decreased energy consumption.  One such study published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service in 1994 sought to measure the energy saving attributed to trees in Chicago in neighborhoods with up to three story brick buildings and up to two story wood frame buildings.  The energy savings were measured to be between 5% and 10% respectively (McPherson, 1994).  A similar, but more recent experiment conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Sacramento Municipal Utility District found the savings from trees in residential neighborhoods reached as high as 47% in some cases.  Portland’s BES measured the insulating and shading capacity of trees to reduce energy consumption in Portland by 11 kWh per tree.  Another study seeking to quantify the value of trees in select American cities found that, on average each tree in Berkeley, California reduces the city’s energy consumption by 15$, in Cheyenne, Wyoming the savings were measured at 11$ per tree (Odefey et al, 2012).  Trees are also capable of producing energy savings in cold weather by shielding and insulating buildings from cold winds (Odefey et al, 2012).  Portland’s BES quantified the reductions in CO2 that can be attributed to energy savings from the city’s GI in a report called, “Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy and Community Livability Benefits”.  They are shown in figure 9.  The right-most column represents GHG emission reductions based on “Grey to Green” target green roof square footages, not actual totals.    Figure 7. GHG reductions attributed to Portland’s GI.  31Source: Cardno Entrix. (2010). City of Portland Envrironmental Services: Grey to Green Report. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/52055  GI also reduce GHG emissions in a more direct way.  Plants and trees naturally sequester huge volumes of CO2.  The more established they become, the more CO2 they absorb.  In the aforementioned report by Portland’s BES, the amount of CO2 sequestered by plants and trees in the city’s GI installations was also calculated, these are displayed in figure 10.     Figure 8. CO2 sequestration attributed to Portland’s GI. Source: Cardno Entrix. (2010). City of Portland Envrironmental Services: Grey to Green Report. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/52055  Flood Mitigation  In the natural environment tremendous amounts of water is retained in the landscape, in soils, wetlands, plants and trees, among others.  The loss of these absorptive ecosystems through urbanization results in excessive volumes of stormwater runoff that needs to be managed.  When aggregated across entire urban watersheds this hydrologic regime can, and often does, place communities at a greater risk for flooding (Odefey et al, 2012).  This can happen in one of two ways, separated or combined sewer/stormwater systems in  32local catchment areas can become inundated with stormwater runoff, forcing it back to the surface or into the basements of houses, called localized flooding.  Alternatively, a watercourse receiving collected and piped stormwater runoff can exceed its channel capacity, overflow and flood adjacent lands, termed riverine flooding.  Both are symptoms of the same root problem.  When watersheds become covered with impervious surfaces they generate much larger peak runoff flows during shorter time periods than those experienced in the natural environment.  A study from Southern California proved this phenomenon occurs even at modest levels of increased imperviousness.  A two-year storm peak flow was found to increase by 5% at 5% watershed impervious cover, by 100% at 10% watershed impervious cover, and by 500% at 20% watershed impervious cover (Odefey et al, 2012).  On average, Canadian urban areas are made up of 50% impervious surfaces (Porter-Bopp et all, 2011).  In these types of watersheds, rain events that would produce small amounts of flooding in their undeveloped state become significant flood risks as the watershed loses its capacity to absorb and store access water.  Figure 11 below, from the USGS, displays this amplification effect.    Figure 9. increasing flood discharges caused by increased watershed imperviousness. Source: Konrad, Christopher, P. (January, 2013). Effects of Urban Development on Floods. Retrieved June 7, 2013, from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/  Floods are the most frequent and costly natural disasters in both the United States and Canada (Odefey et al, 2012) (Kovacs et al, 2010).  Between 1900 and 2005 there have been almost five times as many floods in Canada than any other type of natural disaster (Kovacs et al, 2010)  33 Climate change is poised to exacerbate this issue.  The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency published a groundbreaking report in July of 2013, “The Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program Through 2100”, which confirmed speculation that flooding is expected to increase due to climate change.  One of the major findings in the report is that the amount of “at risk” areas in the United States (area’s with a 1% or greater chance of experiencing a 100-year flood annually) is expected to increase by 45%, largely due to climate change (AECOM, 2013).  In Canada we already receive twenty more days of rain per year on average than in 1950 (CBC, 2013), a trend that is not expected to reverse.  The British Columbia Ministry of Environment displays this on their website in a section entitled, “Climate Change Impacts” (BC Ministry of Environment, 2013):  “The trend in catastrophes caused by weather, water, or climate has increased over the last 30 years. A 2012 report from the Insurance Bureau of Canada states that “climate change is likely responsible, at least in part, for the rising frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as floods, storms and droughts, since warmer temperatures tend to produce more violent weather patterns.” Payouts from Canadian insurance companies for damages caused by natural disasters – including those related to weather and water – have doubled every five years since 1983. The extreme weather events of greatest concern in B.C. include heavy rain and snow falls, heat waves, and drought.”  GI shows tremendous promise in building resilience against localized and riverine flooding in urban areas when implemented as part of an integrated system because these installations cumulatively mimic the functions of a natural watershed, significantly dampening stormwater peak flows.  Their individual effectiveness in this regard, as demonstrated through the examples earlier in this chapter, are more appropriate for managing rain events associated with 25-year flood events or less (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  However, two examples are explored in chapter 2 from Portland and Seattle where GI has been used in an integrated system to deal with even the most serious of floods.  34CHAPTER 2: A Tale of Three Cities  This thesis now shifts its focus to the Pacific Northwest of North America, where three of the region’s major cities, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia are in various stages of addressing major stormwater management challenges.  The latter two are the largest cities found within the Georgia Basin, one of ten Large Aquatic Ecosystems (LAE) designated by the US EPA, meaning that it is a significantly large and ecologically important aquatic ecosystem requiring additional attention and environmental governance.  Unfortunately this once tremendously productive regional ecosystem has suffered greatly due to water pollution, a major portion of which has been caused by urban stormwater runoff (McGuire et al, 2010).  The metropolitan area of Seattle provides a particularly extreme example of stormwater runoff pollution.  Home to over 4.4 million people, the city is situated on the banks of Puget Sound, the second biggest marine estuary in the United States.  Due to Seattle’s conventional infrastructure an inordinate amount of toxic chemicals and untreated human wastes wash into Puget Sound and Lake Washington during wet weather.  70% of the area’s ecologically important saltwater marshes, eelgrass beds and estuaries have been lost or degraded in large part due to urban water pollution (Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 2013).  According to the deputy director of Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), nonpoint source pollution is the largest contributor to water pollution in Puget Sound (The Guardian, 2012).  Approximately one third of Seattle is serviced by a combined sewer/stormwater system, consequently, stormwater is also responsible for CSO discharges into Puget Sound (Karvonen, 2011).  In fact, one billion gallons of untreated sewage and stormwater enter Puget Sound as a result of CSOs every year (King County, 2013).  The resulting proliferation of toxins from CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution has taken a serious toll on aquatic species living in the area.  For example, Killer Whales inhabiting northern Puget Sound decreased in numbers by 7% between just 1997 and 2003.  Its southern population fell by 17% between 1995 and 2001.  Experts attribute  35their decline in part due to the contamination of their primary food source, salmon, with PCB’s and other toxic chemicals, largely transported to Puget Sound by stormwater runoff (US EPA, 2006) (McGuire et al, 2010).  The seven species of salmon native to Puget Sound have seen their populations decimated in the past half-century.  Chinook Salmon have experienced a 90% drop in population from historic numbers.  Habitat contamination from urban stormwater runoff was identified as one of the main factors, along with wetland/saltwater marsh habitat losses, river damming, climate change and overfishing (Puget Sound Partnership, 2010).  The Georgia Basin’s Coho Salmon originate almost completely in streams and rivers that are now surrounded by urban development.  Studies have shown these fish are very sensitive to the pollution and morphological effects associated with urban stormwater runoff.  In fact, Coho Salmon are rarely found in streams where watersheds are comprised of more than 10% to 15% impervious surfaces.  Taken together with overfishing, logging and climate change, Coho Salmon runs from the Georgia Strait have decreased by 80%.  In fact, the future existence of the species in the area is in question if mitigation measures are not taken to reduce their losses (McGuire et al, 2010).  Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Washington State, the municipalities around Puget Sound and numerous environmental organizations have launched several programs to reverse this trend.  One such program, “The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan” acknowledged the importance of minimizing urban stormwater runoff pollution, stating (PSP, 2005, pg 13):  “Nonpoint source pollution is a major cause of water pollution in Washington and poses a major health and economic threat. In general, untreated stormwater is unsafe for people and for fish. It contains toxic metals, organic compounds, and bacterial and viral pathogens. Virtually all of our urban embankments, creeks, streams, and rivers are harmed by urban stormwater, making it the leading contributor to water quality pollution of urban waterways. Pollutants from nonpoint and point sources can also end up trapped in sediments in our rivers and marine areas. Exposure to contaminated marine sediments also pose significant health risks to juvenile salmon and other marine species, including favorite seafood such as shellfish enjoyed by humans.”  36 The report goes on to describe the problem in greater detail (PSP 2, 2005, pg 81):  “The toxic mix of oil, grease, pesticides and other pollutants carried by stormwater runoff alters the chemical processes of urban streams and creates dramatic shifts in their flow patterns. Recent studies by NMFS and the Seattle Public Utilities have also documented high rates of outright mortality to adult salmon still full of eggs and sperm, even in a creek where habitat had been restored. While the restoration of these urban creeks is essential to allowing greater numbers to spawn, the studies suggest that the control of polluted runoff from urban streets, lawns and parks and restoration of chemical balance is imperative to fish productivity”  Portland, Oregon sits at the confluence of the Columbia River and Willamette River, both have been degraded considerably from several sources including CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution.  The US EPA’s 2009 State of the River Report for Toxics for the Columbia River identifies four contaminants of concern, Mercury, DDT, PCBs and PBDE flame retardants.  For all but DDT, which is a legacy pollutant that continues to leach into the river from agricultural runoff, urban stormwater runoff was identified as a major pathway (US EPA, 2014).  According to the Oregon Environmental Council the Willamette River has been more acutely affected by stormwater runoff than any other river in Oregon due to the relatively high level of urbanization in its drainage basin.  Although both the Columbia and Willamette Rivers are on the path to recovery, it is estimated that it will be another twenty years before the Willamette River meets water quality standards for bacteria, twenty to fifty years before the river’s temperatures return to those necessary for its endangered salmon population, and fifty to one hundred years before fish from the river will have mercury levels low enough to be edible (OEC, 2014).  Portland and Seattle are currently in different stages of a stormwater management transformation in order to deal with the above environmental problems.  Both have committed to an ambitious ISMS that utilizes a high degree of GI to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and nonpoint source pollution before it reaches natural water bodies.  They have chosen to optimize their existing sewer/stormwater systems through  37maintenance and upgrades, Portland electing to separate combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure in a few select neighbourhoods (City of Portland 5, 2014).  The ISMSs of Portland and Seattle have been met with very promising results.  In Portland CSO discharges have been reduced by 99% into the Columbia Slough and by 94% into the Columbia River (City of Portland, 2014).  Currently over 35% of the city’s stormwater runoff in combined sewer/stormwater drainage basins is managed with GI, this number is projected to rise to 43% by 2040 (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  This extensive network of GI has also removed a considerable amount of nonpoint source pollution from the city’s stormwater runoff.  Seattle’s CSO Reduction Plan estimates that GI will reduce stormwater runoff volumes in targeted combined sewer/stormwater drainage basins by 80% (SPU 9, 2014).  To Date GI has been strategically installed in select neighbourhoods that drain directly into natural creek basins, significantly reducing stormwater runoff peak flows and nonpoint source pollution.  Portland and Seattle are now sufficiently confident with the ability of GI to manage stormwater that both cities have recently required it be used to the “maximum extent feasible” on most new developments.  This bold municipal policy and other aspects of their respective ISMS are explored in greater detail later in this chapter.  Vancouver, British Columbia is also faced with significant wastewater management issues.  The Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, which receives wastewater from its combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure is increasingly encountering capacity problems.  According to the City of Vancouver, CSOs are becoming a pressing issue as the city continues to grow (City of Vancouver 2, 2013).  Iona Island’s facility, which currently only performs primary treatment has been expanded six times since opening in 1963 (Metro Vancouver, 2014) and recently has been the subject of several controversies.  In 2009 Metro Vancouver was sued over an unauthorized CSO into the Burrard Inlet (The Vancouver Sun, 2013).  The following year a formal complaint was filed under the Fisheries Act by Fraser Riverkeeper and the David Suzuki Foundation regarding discharges of raw sewage from the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant into the Fraser River (Fraser Riverkeeper, 2011).  Metro Vancouver has been working hard to find resources to upgrade the Iona Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, $1.4 billion will  38reportedly be invested over the next twenty years to address the inadequacy of this plant as well as the Lions Gate facility in North Vancouver (The Vancouver Sun 2, 2013).  Metro Vancouver and its three member municipalities with combined sewer/stormwater drainage basins, Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster, have also committed to separating these remaining areas.  Vancouver aims to separate all of its existing combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure by 2050.  Approximately half of the city is still serviced by this type of infrastructure.  $35 million per year has been allotted to fund the project (Vancouver Observer, 2011) and its completion will cost an estimated $1 billion (Vancouver Sun, 2013).  According to the City of Vancouver, sewer separation will eliminate CSOs and build system capacity against flooding while allowing stormwater to be used as a resource (City of Vancouver, 2013).  These are important goals, but the project does not address stormwater runoff pollution.  According to the now decommissioned Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan, we need to become more vigilant about mitigating stormwater runoff pollution when separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure is being utilized because the problem becomes more diffuse (BIEAP, 2010).  Concerns over the environmental damages caused by conventional wastewater management practices were also raised by Waterbucket.ca in 2011, a Vancouver-based NGO promoting alternative stormwater management strategies, in a report that summarized the “Course Correction Series”, originally produced by the Water Sustainability Action Plan for British Columbia.  The series provides advice to Metro Vancouver’s municipalities as they draft their ISMPs, as required by Metro Vancouver’s 2010 Integrated Liquid Waste and Resources Management Plan (ILWRMP).  Waterbucket.ca’s report warned that a “business as usual” approach, using impervious surface conveyance and pipe systems to manage stormwater would result in immense aggregate costs down the road for Metro Vancouver due to the externalizing nature of this type of infrastructure (Waterbucket.ca, 2011).  It is my belief that a sewer separation project of the scale being carried out in Vancouver, without a clear plan to address stormwater runoff pollution is a business as usual approach.  Thankfully the city is currently drafting its ISMP, which is to be completed by the end of 2014 unless Metro Vancouver’s Regional Manager decides to exercise his/her optional extension to 2016.  It has the potential to be a hugely influential and important document.  Among the  39strategies Metro Vancouver has asked municipalities to address with their ISMPs are (Metro Vancouver, 2011):  1.1) Reduce liquid wastes at their source 1.2) Reduce wet weather overflows 1.3) Reduce environmental impacts from liquid waste to a minimum 2.1) Pursue liquid waste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context 3.1) Manage assets and optimize existing sanitary sewerage operations 3.2) Use innovative approaches and technologies 3.3) Monitor the performance of the liquid waste system and impacts on the receiving environment 3.4) Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term needs 3.5) Use collaborative management to address evolving needs.  This thesis contends that goals 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.2 and 3.4 would be directly addressed by an integrated system of GI, a conclusion that is supported by the successful case studies of Portland and Seattle.  In this thesis I argue that goals 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.2 and 3.4 listed above, from Metro Vancouver’s ILWRMP would be directly addressed by an integrated system of GI.  I assert that City of Vancouver should look closely at the examples set by Portland and Seattle, and consider revising its sewer separation project so that it coordinates targeted conventional infrastructure upgrades and separations with a comprehensive network of GI as these cities have done.  The City of Vancouver already has a few notable GI installations under its belt, launching two GI pilot projects in 2002/2003, Country Lanes and Crown Street.  Its Country Lanes Project converted three laneways from asphalt into a combination of permeable pavers, reinforced grass and two concrete wheel strips.  The project was a runaway success, winning the 2003 Technical Innovation Award from the American Public Works Association as well as being an honourable mention for the 2003 Environmental Award from the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators.  Favorable infiltration rates and surface porosity resulted in the lanes being capable of draining their catchment areas  40without needing subsurface pipes (although two of the lanes had pre-existing sewer connections).  The residents next to the three country lanes were reportedly very happy with the results, in fact 52% of those surveyed claimed they would pay an extra 50% to have a country lane installed instead of asphalt (Government of Canada 5, 2013).  Unfortunately this promising pilot project appears to have drifted into obscurity.  In fact, three articles, all published in July of 2013 have asked the question; what happened to this tremendously hopeful experiment?  The National Post made this conclusion (National Post, 2013):  “Money is the biggest reason the country lanes experiment didn’t take off in Vancouver. The city funded the entire $225,000 demonstration project. New lanes built to the same design would cost affected ratepayers about $5,000 each, according to the city’s 2008 project evaluation. The amount would be spread over 10 to 15 years of property tax bills.”  The Vancouver Observer made this consideration (Vancouver Observer, 2013):  “Why were the Country Lanes abandoned after only a few years? The short answer is lack of political will. A Country Lane obviously costs more to install than a plain ol' concrete alleyway, and its installation doesn't bring in any money for the City in return. The project cost the City nearly a quarter of a million dollars: to expand the program would mean passing that cost to affected homeowners in the form of property taxes.”  The City of Vancouver’s next pilot project, Crown Street, called Vancouver’s first sustainable streetscape, was completed in 2005.  It involved a retrofit of three blocks with a meandering width-reduced roadway, reinforced grass shoulders, a network of drainage swales and bioretention ponds and a new pedestrian walkway.  The project is a stunning achievement from an aesthetic standpoint and designed to retain a 10-year design storm.  However, the costs were reported to be significantly higher than a conventional street with curb and gutter, serviced by subsurface pipe infrastructure (waterbucket.ca, 2006).  A report from City of Vancouver Engineering had this to say about the eventual costs of  41Crown Street and its assessment of future projects like it (waterbucket.ca, 2006, pg 9):  “Construction costs of the demonstration project were significantly higher than the estimated costs of a standard curb and gutter treatment. While partial cost premiums can be attributed to new construction materials and methods, it is expected that this innovative treatment will still retain a cost premium over the traditional curb and gutter treatment. However, many of the indirect benefits are difficult to cost quantify, and with replication, the construction process and materials selection would be refined to make the process more affordable for implementation across a greater area. Widespread implementation could produce additional cost savings through the reduction in stormwater pipe sizes, water treatment costs, and reparation of stormwater-related environmental damage.”  It would appear that both of Vancouver’s GI pilot projects were hindered by high costs, which may be serving as a strong deterrent to further experimentation.  Conversely, as is discussed at length in Chapter 3, the pilot projects in Portland and Seattle were found to be effective from a cost and function standpoint, which catalyzed further experimentation.  Northeast Siskiyou Street in Portland cost a mere $15,000 to build and the entire project was installed in two weeks (Garrison et al, 2011).  Despite its humble beginnings it is a highly successful project and it widely citied in stormwater management literature.  SEA Street in Seattle not only performed way above expectations as a pilot project, it also cost less to build than a conventional street with curbs, gutters and subsurface pipes.  Figure 21 shows the comparison, in all, using GI saved SPU $217,255 (US EPA, 2007).   Item Conventional Development Cost SEA Street Cost Cost Savings* Percent Savings* Percent of Total Savings* Site preparation $65,084 $88,173 –$23,089 –35% –11% Stormwater management $372,988 $264,212 $108,776 29% 50% Site paving and sidewalks $287,646 $147,368 $140,278 49% 65% Landscaping $78,729 $113,034 –$34,305 –44% –16% Misc. (mobilization, etc.) $64,356 $38,761 $25,595 40% 12% Total $868,803 $651,548 $217,255 –– –– * Negative values denote increased cost for the LID design over conventional development costs.  42 Figure 10. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for SEA Street, Seattle Washington. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved September 6, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm  A growing number of examples from around North America are proving GI can reduce overall infrastructure costs.  The following are several more case studies from the US EPA that support this claim.   Auburn Hills Subdivision, Wisconsin, USA  This residential subdivision was designed using “conservation design principles”, where 40% of the site is reserved for open space and natural landscapes.  The residences were sited in clusters to accommodate open space targets without having to reduce density.  Bioswales and bioretention areas were used to retain and absorb stormwater runoff.  A post-construction comparison was conducted between what was built and a typical subdivision of the same size using conventional stormwater management infrastructure to determine if there were cost savings.  The comparison is shown in figure 22, the savings attributed to using GI were considerable.    Figure 11. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Auburn Hills subdivision, Wisconsin. Source: Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm  Table 4. Cost Comparison for Auburn Hills Subdivision Item Conventional DevelopmentCost Auburn Hills LID Cost Cost Savings* Percent Savings* Percent of Total Savings* Site preparation $699,250 $533,250 $166,000 24% 22% Stormwater management $664,276 $241,497 $422,779 64% 56% Site paving and sidewalks $771,859 $584,242 $187,617 24% 25% Landscaping $225,000 $240,000 –$15,000 ?7% ?2% Total $2,360,385 $1,598,989 $761,396 — — * Negative values denote increased cost for the LID design over conventional development costs.  43Parking Lot Retrofits, Bellingham, Washington, USA  Two public parking lots in Bellingham, Washington were retrofitted with bioretention areas in lieu of underground storage vaults as part of an effort to improve water quality in the area’s watershed.  The city converted three out of the sixty parking stalls into a bioretention area at City Hall, and installed a 51 square meter (550 square foot) bioretention area in a parking lot at nearby Bloedel Donovan Park.  Both featured native planting adapted to being periodically flooding and a drain rock base layer for additional stormwater storage.  They were also fitted with overflow drains connected to the city’s existing sewer system for heavy rain events.  After construction was complete the city compared the final bill to cost estimates received for conventional stormwater management infrastructure, including underground vaults.  The savings were significant, they are shown in figure 23.    Figure 12. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for parking lot retrofits in Bellingham, Washington. Source: Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm  Gap Creek Subdivision, Arkansas, USA  Originally designed as a conventional subdivision, Gap Creek’s layout was changed to make use of the natural drainage areas present on the site for stormwater management.  Lots were clustered, conventional stormwater facilities were eliminated and road widths were narrowed from 11m (36’) to 8.2m (27’) to save space.  The revised design resulted in an additional 22 acres of natural and open space, and an additional 17 lots were accommodated.  Not only did this result in a savings of $4,800 per lot, the lots also sold Project Conventional Vault Cost Rain Garden Cost Cost Savings Percent Savings City Hall $27,600 $5,600 $22,000 80% Bloedel Donovan Park $52,800 $12,800 $40,000 76%  44for $3,000 more than those from a comparable subdivision utilizing conventional design and stormwater management techniques.  See figure 24 for a comparison.    Figure 13. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Gap Creek subdivision in Arkansas. Source: Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm   Mill Creek Mixed Use Community, Illinois, USA  This 1,500 acre mixed-use subdivision was planned using conservation design principles.  Lots were clustered and 40% of the site area was reserved for natural and open space.  A network of bioswales as well as the site’s existing low-lying natural areas was used to manage stormwater.  A per-lot economic comparison was conducted using a 40 acre section of Mill Creek and a 30 acre section of a nearby conventional subdivision with a similar density.  Mill Creek’s stormwater infrastructure proved considerably cheaper, largely attributed to reductions in site preparation and costly conventional stormwater infrastructure such as stormwater pipes, connections, catch basins, clean-outs and sump pumps.  The total savings are shown in figure 25.  The preserved natural areas also translated into increased property values, lots with views onto open space and natural landscapes sold for an additional $10,000 to $17,500.    Figure 14. conventional infrastructure vs. GI comparison for Mill Creek mixed-use community, Illinois. Total Cost of Conventional Design Gap CreekLID Cost Cost Savings Percent Savings Savings per Lot $4,620,600 $3,942,100 $678,500 15% $4,800 Item Conventional Development Cost per Lot Mill Creek LID Cost per Lot Cost Savings per Lot Percent Savings per Lot Percent of Total Savings Site preparation $2,045 $1,086 $959 47% 28% Stormwater management $4,535 $2,204 $2,331 51% 68% Site paving and sidewalks $5,930 $5,809 $121 2% 4% Total $12,510 $9,099 $3,411 — —  45Source: Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm.  A tremendously promising project currently underway in Portland, Tabor to the River, which is explored in more detail in Chapter 3, is demonstrating the cost savings potential for GI at a comprehensive neighbourhood scale.  The project, which encompasses an entire urban watershed (about 6 square kilometers (2.3 square miles)), incorporates 500 green street retrofits, 100 small GI installations on private properties, 5,300 new trees, 24,690 meters (81,000 feet) of replaced combined sewer/stormwater pipe and an underground overflow storage facility in a long-term integrated solution to the area’s localized flooding and CSO problems.  The City of Portland forecasts a total cost savings of $63 million as a result of using this strategy as opposed to only using conventional infrastructure and storage tunnels (City of Portland 6, 2014).  On a broader scale, the economic and environmental consequences of making unsustainable water resources management decisions in the near future are threatening to cost the Lower Mainland of British Columbia dearly.  With Metro Vancouver’s population expected to grow 54% by 2041 (Metro Vancouver 2, 2011) the region’s highly valuable aquatic ecosystems will be placed at considerable risk if issues such as stormwater runoff pollution are not earnestly addressed soon (Molnar et al, 2012) (waterbucket.ca, 2011).  According to a report published by the David Suzuki Foundation and Earth Economics in 2012, the aquatic ecosystem services of the Lower Mainland are worth between $30 billion and $60 billion per year.  This range only covers 30% of the known ecosystem services making it a conservative estimate.  This was called a “significant underestimate” because only 30% of the known ecosystem services were used to calculate it.  When quantified in 2005, the area’s seafood industry was found to have directly contributed $790 million to British Columbia’s provincial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (this number is 70% higher when indirect impacts are added) and provided $495 million in employee earnings.  Ocean recreation, which includes saltwater angling (including fishing lodges, charters, and shellfish harvesting), boating, sailing,  46cruise ship visitation, ferry travelers, whale watching and guided kayak trips, contributed $3.8 billion to British Columbia’s GDP and provided $1.2 billion in employee earnings (Molnar et al, 2012).  Stormwater pollution and sewage were both identified by the report as major sources of aquatic ecosystem degradation in the Lower Mainland (Molnar et al, 2012).  In order to address these problems as the area’s population grows it is critical that we invest in effective, integrated and sustainable wastewater management infrastructure today.  The urgency to do so is heightened due to the recent intensification of federal investment in municipal infrastructure under The New Building Canada Plan (TNBCP).  $53 billion has been committed over the next 10 years, $47 billion of which is said to be “new funding” to replace and expand municipal infrastructure in Canada (Government of Canada, 2013).  $6.7 million of TNBCP funding has already been used to separate combined sewers in East Vancouver (Government of Canada 4, 2013).  It is crucial that stormwater management infrastructure be built during this time of increased spending that addresses the long-term sustainability of the region’s aquatic resources.  This must entail a coordinated effort to minimize CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution using methods that do not create residual environmental damage.  Portland and Seattle are presented in the next section as two municipalities that are implementing an integrated system of GI to accomplish this goal.  Seattle Public Utilities and Natural Drainage Systems  Seattle presents a very interesting and diverse study of stormwater management.  There were three distinct periods of stormwater and sewer construction in the city as it expanded.  Like many cities in North America, most older neighbourhoods in Seattle, comprising about a third of its land area, are serviced by aging combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure.  Another third of the city is served by a separated sewer/stormwater system, the remaining third, mostly situated in north Seattle, annexed in the 1950s, uses ditch and culvert systems to convey stormwater to the district’s many creeks.  As a result most have become so degraded they can no longer support many aquatic species.  In fact, only four of Seattle’s over forty creeks still support Salmon (Karvonen, 2011).  As explored earlier in this chapter, Puget Sound suffered a similar  47fate.  Once one of the most productive marine habitats in the world, by the 1990s many species of fish, shellfish, birds and whales were in steep decline in large part due to urban water pollution.  Grassroots movements to restore Puget Sound and Seattle’s urban creeks gained attention by the mid 1990s as more residents and experts began to understand the scope of metro Seattle’s growing water pollution problem (Karvonen, 2011).  Concurrently, Washington State’s Department of Ecology aggressively pursued the establishment of NPDES permits for urban areas in an effort to reduce CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution (Hoornbeek, 2011).  These issues gained a political champion in Seattle with Mayor Paul Schell, taking office in 1998.  Schell, keenly interested in urban sustainability, understood the importance of healthy ecosystems to the quality of life of Seattle’s residents.  His government initiated the Urban Creeks Legacy Program, dedicating $15 million for the restoration of four major urban watersheds; Piper’s Creek, Thornton Creek, Longfellow Creek and Taylor Creek.  The program immediately recognized the need to significantly reduce the amount of polluted stormwater runoff entering these creeks, as it was determined to be the main source of degradation.  Soon afterwards the SPU, Natural Drainage Systems (NDS) initiative was created to coordinate and carry out this task (Karvonen, 2011).  Its pilot project, a street retrofit named SEA (Street Edge Alternatives) Street was completed in 2001.  The 201m (660’) right-of-way (ROW) features a full-length bioswale on both sides, one sidewalk instead of two, and a decreased road width of 4.3m (14’) from 7.6m (25’).  To increase the installation’s absorptive and pollutant filtering capacities as well as the aesthetic quality of the bioswales, 1,100 shrubs/grasses and 100 evergreen trees were planted (US EPA, 2007).  Figure 12 shows an aerial view comparison.   48  Figure 15. before and after aerial photos of SEA Street in Seattle. Source: Note. Adapted from. Jennings, Lee. (2007). Green Urbanism and Ecological Infrastructure: Seattle: Sustainable Streets and Policies. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from: http://courses.umass.edu/greenurb/2007/jennings/sustainablestreets.htm  The project was a resounding success, far outstripping its original stormwater runoff retention target of 19mm (3/4”) per rain event.  In fact, while being monitored between 2001 and 2003 by the University of Washington’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering the bioswales retained an incredible 99% of stormwater  49runoff from the (ROW) and properties to the east of the street, totaling 2.3 acres (SPU 3, 2013).  In 2003 SEA Street gained regional and national recognition as “an innovative approach to sustainable urban stormwater management.” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 140).  The Puget Sound Regional Counsel awarded the project and the SPU’s NDS program with the Vision 2020 award for “promoting a livable Pacific Northwest region.” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 140).  In 2004 the NDS program was awarded the coveted American Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, including $100,000 in prize money.  The success of SEA Street resulted in more funding for SPU’s NDS and more ambitious projects.  In 2003 the 110th Cascade project was built, accepting street drainage from 4 blocks (21 acres) before discharging the overflow into Piper’s Creek.  Due to the street’s 6% grade, its bioswale was designed with twelve stepping, sequentially draining sections (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008), figure 13 shows one of the eleven check weirs.      Figure 16. 110 Cascade Street in Seattle. Source: Note. Adapted from. Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution National Research Council (CRSDCWPNRC) (2008). Urban Stormwater  Management in the United States. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.  50 Over the monitoring period the bioswale was found to retain half of the area’s annual rainfall, any rain event of 25mm (1”) or less was entirely retained.  Only 49 of the 235 measured storm events produced an overflow into Piper’s Creek and most of these were found to have greatly reduced peak flows.  One of the most encouraging aspects of 110 Cascade St. was the reduction in pollutant loads carried by outflows into Piper’s Creek when compared to that of a traditional curb and gutter drainage system (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  These results are shown are shown in figure 14.    Figure 17. nonpoint source pollutant removal at 110 Cascade Street. Source: Note. Adapted from. Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution National Research Council (CRSDCWPNRC) (2008). Urban Stormwater  Management in the United States. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.  Broadview and Pinehurst Green Grids followed in 2005 and 2007 respectively.  The Broadview Green Grid uses bioswales and small bioretention areas to collect, filter and infiltrate stormwater from 15 blocks (32 acres) before it enters Pipers Creek.  Pinehurst Green Grid is a similar project, managing stormwater from 12 blocks (49 acres) prior to its discharge into Thornton Creek (Karvonen, 2011).  The Broadview Green Grid was monitored through a University of Washington study for two years following its completion.  It was found to have reduced the amount of stormwater runoff discharged into Pipers Creek by 71% from the previously existing ditch and culvert system.  The discharges were also found to carry significantly reduced pollutant loads (Horner & Reiners, 2009).  Stormwater runoff reductions attributed to the Pinehurst Green Grid are  51estimated to be slightly higher, at 82% (SPU 4, 2013).  In 2010 the SPU team, along with the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) and several consultants completed the second phase of an entire community, 34 blocks (129 acres), utilizing GI to manage the majority of the site’s stormwater.  This opportunity, comprising fully 10% of the Longfellow Creek watershed, was the result of some fortuitous timing and persistence.  The SHA had decided to redevelop this former public housing site in the early 2000s with a mix of new public housing and market units at a relatively high density, using new urbanist design principles.  The SPU team managed to negotiate the use of GI due to the ecologically sensitive location of High Point and the proven ability of SEA Street to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and nonpoint source pollution loading.  However, despite the fact this project did not require consultation with residents, it presented SPU staff with some of its toughest challenges to date.  A strict requirement from the new urbanist designers that High Point look like a “regular neighbourhood” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 142) presented several problems.  To create the desired historical and walkable feel, street ROWs were reduced from 9.8m (32’) to 7.6m (25’).  Ultimately the increased density and new urbanist design interventions limited the space available for surface infiltration GI such as bioswales and bioretention areas.  High Point’s designers also felt it was important to have mown grass, curbs and clean straight lines to portray an adequate amount of neighbourhood prosperity.  As a result the network of GI included curb and gutter conveyance to direct stormwater to strategically placed installations.  In the end, 65% of High Point remained impervious, higher than most single family neighbourhoods.  However, it remains a compromise between increased density and natural drainage.  The site is predicted to retain 80% of a 25mm (1”) design storm.  SPU staff recognized that a lack of understanding existed among the consultants, contractors and SHA regarding the function of surface infiltration GI.  In addition, during the design of High Point, Washington State’s Department of Ecology disputed the ability of the community’s GI to deal with larger storm events.  They required the development to include a backup system of catch basins, pipes and a stormwater detention pond.  The project team predicts this infrastructure will remain unused and the detention pond will end up being developed (Karvonen, 2011).  SPU claims the site would have required a detention pond five times the size if GI had not been used (SPU 4, 2013).  52 In January of 2013 SPU completed its first integrated flood mitigation project using GI in Madison Valley, Seattle.  This neighbourhood was historically prone to frequent and costly localized flooding, prompting SPU to devise an integrated long-term strategy to reduce stormwater runoff volumes in the area.  The first phase of the plan involved designing a park that serves as a temporary retention area for surging stormwater volumes, capable of holding 6.4 million liters (1.7 million gallons) of stormwater when the area’s combined sewer/stormwater system is at capacity.  A portion of the excess stormwater is absorbed by the park’s plants and soil, and the rest is released back into the sewer stormwater system as it clears.  When the park is not serving this function it is an attractive open space with grass and a network of paths, see figure 15.    Figure 18. Madison Valley Stormwater Park. Source: Madrona, Seattle. (December, 2010). Madison Valley Storm Drain. Retrieved November 16, 2013, from: http://madronaseattle.com/madison-valley-storm-drain-30th-and-john/  53 Phase two of Seattle’s Madison Valley flood mitigation project involved the installation of a partially below-ground stormwater holding tank and an additional above-ground stormwater retention facility, both situated in nearby Washington Park, capable of holding 4.9 million liters (1.3 million gallons) and 3.4 million litres (0.9 million gallons) of water respectively.  This new integrated system is capable of handling the amount of excess stormwater which had caused Madison Valley’s two largest floods over a 157 year time period (SPU 8, 2013).  Seattle began to implement its CSO Reduction Plan in 2010, which will run until 2015.  It targets eleven areas of Seattle whose combined sewer/stormwater systems are still prone to CSOs (SPU 9, 2014).  In addition, the city has committed itself to a long-term water quality plan called, “The Plan to Protect Seattle’s Waterways”, running from 2016 until 2025, which identifies areas of Seattle where CSO reduction projects are required, evaluates solutions for reducing CSOs in affected areas, selects a preferred alternative for each affected area and recommends a schedule for designing and constructing projects.  Both plans follow a core strategy that prioritizes the reduction of stormwater at its source, maintaining and fixing the existing system and storing overflow in underground storage facilities.  One of the first CSO reduction projects to launch was in Ballard, an older neighbourhood in the northwest of Seattle where 89 CSOs were recorded in 2012, totaling 216 million liters (57 million gallons) of raw sewage and stormwater.  This represented 37% of the total CSO volumes measured across Seattle that year.  As the CSO mixture was found to be on average 90% stormwater, an aggressive plan was drawn up to retrofit 20 blocks in Ballard with GI, including street retrofits similar to SEA Street and the Broadview and Pinehurst Green Grids as well as an incentivized downspout disconnection program called “RainWise” (SPU 4, 2013).  Under this initiative, homeowners in designated areas that are strategic to the reduction of CSOs can have a rain barrel and/or bioretention area installed to receive precipitation from their roof and other impervious surfaces.  Once installed they can apply for a rebate from the city, these have been approximately four thousand dollars on average according to SPU.  To further decrease the amount of stormwater entering the combined sewer/stormwater system,  54Ballard’s CSO reduction project is also retrofitting lanes in the area with permeable materials where possible.  Ultimately the goal is to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff entering its combined sewer/stormwater system by 95% through the use of GI.  To handle overflow volumes a large underground storage vault is being constructed near the CSO outfalls in Salmon Bay (SPU 4, 2013).  Seattle’s CSO Reduction Plan constitutes a truly integrated solution, combining GI and conventional sewer/stormwater infrastructure to minimize CSOs while building resilience against localized flooding, without creating the residual problem of stormwater runoff pollution.  It stands as a promising alternative to Vancouver’s sewer separation project.   To address the sustainable stormwater management of future development projects Seattle enacted a requirement in 2009, prompted by its updated NPDES stormwater permit, to utilize GI to the “maximum extent feasible” (MEF) (SPU 6, 2013).  Falling under this requirement are; all single family residential projects and all other projects (parcel-based, roadway, trail or sidewalk) involving seven thousand square feet or more of site disturbance, or two thousand square feet or more of new/replaced impervious surfaces (SPU 7, 2013).  The City of Seattle has interpreted MEF as the following (SPU 7, 2013, pg 2):  “GSI (green stormwater infrastructure) to MEF (maximum extent feasible) target, constrained only by the: 1) physical limitations of the site 2) practical considerations of engineering design 3) reasonable considerations of financial costs and environmental impacts.”  Although this may seem hard to quantify, SPU has devised a series of checklists and calculators in order to streamline and simplify the process.  This, along with Seattle’s Stormwater Management Manual, which is filled with design and construction guidelines, has helped tremendously to legitimize GI with technical professions such as engineering (personal communication, June 14, 2013).   55Portland Bureau of Environmental Services  Portland is internationally known as a leader in innovative stormwater management policy (WERF, 2009).  The city’s network of GI is arguably the most extensive in North America.  Portland has had several successful municipal GI implementation programs including its green streets, ecoroofs and downspout disconnection initiatives.  Interestingly enough, despite the city’s reputation as an icon of sustainable planning, the process began quite precariously.  An environmental advocacy group sued the City of Portland in 1991 for violation of its NPDES permit due to unauthorized CSOs into the Willamette River and Columbia Slough (personal communication, June 27, 2013) (Lewis and Clark Law School, 2013).  Both bodies of water were severely degraded at this time, CSOs and stormwater runoff pollution were identified as major culprits.  To solve this problem, and come into compliance with NPDES permits for it combined and separated sewer/stormwater system Portland followed an integrated strategy of conventional wastewater infrastructure upgrades with stormwater source control measures using GI (Garrison et al, 2011).  One of the city’s first actions was a two year downspout disconnection pilot project, initiated in 1993.  Portland’s BES tested the safety and feasibility of directing roof drainage from private properties into GI installations instead of its combined sewer/stormwater system.  After adoption, the city offered a discount of up to 35% on annual stormwater utility fees to eligible homeowners that managing roof drainage on their properties using approved techniques from the city’s stormwater manual and building codes.  The project concluded in 2011 having disconnected over 56,000 downspouts on over 26,000 properties (WERF, 2009), keeping approximately 4.5 billion liters (1.2 billion gallons) of stormwater out of Portland’s combined sewer/stormwater system every year.  Downspout disconnection was part of Portland’s four initial “cornerstone” projects, enacted to specifically address CSOs.  Other projects included the installation of 2,800 stormwater infiltration sumps (1993 – 2001), removing 3.4 billion liters (900 million gallons) of stormwater from Portland’s combined sewer/stormwater system annually, an underground stream diversion project (1995 – 2005) and a series of small sewer separation projects (1993 – 2005), diverting over 1.1 billion liters (300 million gallons) and 757 million liters (200 million gallons) annually  56from its combined system respectively (City of Portland 5, 2014).  Several other pilot projects in the early 1990s opened peoples’ minds to the possibility of not only retaining stormwater on-site with GI, but also treating it.  The BES contact I corresponded with said (personal communication, October 25, 2013), “We feel that the legitimization really came from the early pilot projects or case studies of using green solutions.  The parking lot swales at Oregon Museum of Science and Industry was one of the early projects demonstrating effectiveness and cost savings”.  Indeed the project was a notable success, and Portland’s first on-site stormwater management and treatment facility.  Prior to its completion the complex’s six acre parking lot was draining 14.8 million liters (3.9 million gallons) of untreated stormwater, carrying many nonpoint source pollutants into the Willamette River every year.  Responding to new regulations from their separated sewer/stormwater NPDES permit, Portland’s BES saw an opportunity to test the merits of GI as a legitimate solution.  Completed in 1992, it uses ten large bioswales to accept drainage from four of the six acres of parking lot surface.  The BES monitored it continually for thirteen years and found the facilities can infiltrate about 150mm (6”) of rain per hour, resulting in very little overflow from the site even during heavy rainfalls.  It was also measured to remove half of the total suspended solids to which many nonpoint source pollutants attach, a number that is estimated to increase by 40% with the addition of small check dams and more curb cuts (Portland Online, 2005).  In 1996 Portland formed the Stormwater Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC), made up of engineering consultants, design consultants, stormwater treatment specialists and members of institutional organizations, convened to identify where planning and building standards needed to be challenged in order to improve stormwater management practices across the city.  The committee also produced a stormwater management manual that presents Portland’s integrated strategy and displays detailed standards and guidelines for GI installations.  It is now a living document, updated usually every two years.  In the early 2000s it was identified that more interdepartmental coordination regarding stormwater management was needed as well as further investigation into different types of GI.  The result was Portland’s Sustainable Stormwater Management Program (SSMP), imbedded within the BES.  Among the hugely beneficial actions carried out by its staff,  57they offer technical support to designers and developers utilizing GI, test and monitor GI projects, help public and private organizations/companies navigate funding, approvals and implementation processes and provide outreach services to raise the profile of GI.  A number of specific directives grew out of the SSMP in the early 2000s, including the immensely successful Portland green streets and ecoroofs programs.  Streets and roofs were targeted by the SSMP because they are the highest contributors to impervious cover in Portland, with streets comprising 35%.  Green street pilot projects have been carefully monitored to determine their performance and improve designs (WERF, 2009).  One of the most effective and best known examples is Northeast Siskiyou Street, a retrofit completed in 2003 using two inexpensive planted curb extensions, see figures 16 and 17.    Figure 19. plan of GI installations at Northeast Siskiyou Street in Portland. Source: American Society of Landscape Architects. (2013). Designing Our Future: Sustainable Landscapes: NE Siskiyou Street: Portland, Oregon, USA. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from: http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/greenstreet.html   58  Figure 20. picture of GI installation at Northeast Siskiyou Street in Portland. Source: American Society of Landscape Architects. (2013). Designing Our Future: Sustainable Landscapes: NE Siskiyou Street: Portland, Oregon, USA. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from: http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/greenstreet.html  It was found that in a 25-year storm event, 50mm (2”) in 6 hours, peak runoff flows are reduced by 88% because 85% of the stormwater runoff is retained within the planted curb extensions (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008).  Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects of the project is that the curb extensions, landscaping and subsurface material only cost $15,000 to build and the entire project was installed in two weeks (Garrison et al, 2011).  Another experimental project that opened many people up to the possibilities of GI was the Glencoe Elementary School Rain Gardens, built in 2003.  The catchment area includes two streets, the school’s driveway and a portion of the school’s parking lot.  The area’s aging combined sewer/stormwater pipes were causing frequent sewer back-ups and contributing to CSO problems due to inundation by stormwater runoff.  Portland’s BES opted to utilize GI instead of upgrading the sewer pipes.  The rain garden, at a total cost of $98,000, (including surveying, construction, management, engineering and inspection) was built on a small parcel of land provided by the school district.  The design, shown in  59figure 18 includes a sedimentation forebay and a segmented infiltration area with an overflow drain to the existing sewer system (City of Portland 9, 2014).    Figure 21. picture of Glencoe Elementary School Rain Gardens. Source: Portland Public Schools. (2014). Stormwater Management. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/facilities/3233.htm  After its completion it was monitored for two years, retaining almost 95% of the total inflow volume and found to retain 80% of a 25-year test storm, which was its performance goal.  Being situated in a residential area, next to an elementary school, the rain garden has proved to be a fantastic public outreach tool in addition to a well functioning piece of stormwater management infrastructure (City of Portland 9, 2014).  Another project, SW 12th Avenue green street, built on the University of Portland campus won a national design award from the American Society of Landscape Architects in 2006.  A selection of its flow-through bioretention planters and decorative curb cuts is shown in figure 19.   60  Figure 22. picture of GI installation at SW 12th Avenue in Portland. Source: Green Infrastructure Digest. (February 2010). Interview with Portland BES Part 3 of 3. Retrieved July 25, 2013, from: http://hpigreen.com/tag/green-streets/  Sufficiently impressed with the early achievements of the green streets program, Portland’s city council approved a city-wide Green Streets Policy in 2007 that required all new municipally funded developments involving streets to manage stormwater at the surface first using GI (Garrison et al, 2011).  This campaign has been so successful that 793 new green street facilities have built since 2008 (City of Portland 1, 2014).  Recently several new initiatives have further intensified the installation of GI within public ROWs.  In 2011 Portland’s Public Facilities Plan identified 2,200 streets and intersections as being suitable for GI retrofits (Garrison et al, 2011).  Another program stemming from Portland’s SSMP is the Ecoroofs initiative.  There are now 378 ecoroofs in Portland, 219 (10.7 acres) of which have been installed since 2008 (City of Portland 1, 2014).  A principal reason for the proliferation of ecoroofs is their clever incentivization.  At first, developers in Portland’s Central City Plan District (downtown) were offered density bonuses for installing ecoroofs.  600,000 square feet of  61additional floor space was awarded in return for 200,000 square feet of ecoroofs.  Then in 2006 Portland enacted a city-wide program to encourage ecoroofs, offering grants of up to $5 per square foot to selected ecoroof projects.  Also, it is currently a requirement to include an ecoroof, covering 70% of the roof area on all new city-owned buildings (Garrison et al, 2011).  Not unlike Seattle’s Ballard neighbourhood CSO reduction initiative, Portland’s “Tabor to the River” project, currently under construction, has targeted an entire urban watershed with an area of six square kilometers (2.3 square miles) for a comprehensive and integrated stormwater management retrofit.  This area is serviced by a century-old combined sewer/stormwater system that is easily overwhelmed with stormwater during heavy rains, contributing to CSOs and causing frequent basement back-ups and localized street flooding.  Instead of separating combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure the city devised a plan that included; repairing and replacing 24,689 meters (81,000 feet) of combined sewer/stormwater pipe, adding 500 new green street facilities, planting 5,300 hundred trees, installing 100 stormwater GI projects on private property and an invasive plant species removal program for the area’s parks.  Figure 20 shows a map of the project area.     62Figure 23. map of Tabor to the River project area in Portland. Source: City of Portland. (2014). Environmental Services: Tabor to the River. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/50868  This is truly an integrated solution.  This thesis contends it represents the most promising comprehensive stormwater management solution for minimizing CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution and for building resilience against flooding in the face of climate change.  It capitalizes on the strengths of several types of GI and is being carried out at a watershed scale.  In addition, Portland expects to realize significant cost savings through this strategy.  The Tabor to the River project is costing the city $81 million, using only pipes and storage tunnels was estimated to cost $144 million (City of Portland 6, 2014).  The final step in Portland’s twenty year plan to eliminate CSOs into the Willamette River and Columbia Slough (CSOs into the Columbia Slough were eliminated in 2000, as per a separate deadline) is a set of combined sewer/stormwater overflow tunnels, the last of which, called the “Big Pipe”, was completed in 2011.  Since then there have been only six CSOs recorded, a tremendous improvement from 2002 when fifty CSOs occurred, representing 10.6 billion liters (2.8 billion gallons) of untreated sewage and stormwater.  During the 1990s an average of 22.7 billion liters (6 billion gallons) of CSO effluent entered the Wilamette River annually (Tomlinson, 2013).  However, the near elimination of CSOs is not where Portland’s ambitions end.  The city plans to continue designing a high degree of GI into its public infrastructure.  Currently over 35% of the city’s stormwater runoff in combined sewer/stormwater drainage basins is managed with GI, this number is projected to rise to 43% by 2040 (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  In addition to the various programs and initiatives Portland and Seattle have rolled out, each city currently employs two important documents that guide the implementation of their respective stormwater management strategies and installations.  The first is a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), required by their state administered NPDES permits for separated sewer/stormwater infrastructure.  The SWMP is a comprehensive strategy for minimizing stormwater runoff pollution as per the CWA through the use of Best Management Practices.  There are specific goals and action items provided for  63public involvement, education and outreach, interdepartmental coordination, operations and maintenance, industrial and commercial controls, illicit discharge controls, new development standards, retrofitting conventional infrastructure, source control for target pollutants, restoring natural ecosystem functions and program management, among others (City of Portland 10, 2014) (SPU 6, 2013).  In conjunction with their SWMP Portland and Seattle are required to submit annual compliance reports to their respective state environmental agencies that outline how they have met the objectives of their separated sewer/stormwater NPDES permits (City of Portland 11, 2014) (SPU 6, 2013).  To compliment the SWMP Portland and Seattle each have a Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM), a much more technical document that outlines and details required stormwater management practices for all public (including ROWs) and private development and redevelopment projects.  The manual prioritizes the use of GI and provides detailed parameters for maximizing its use.  There is in-depth information on requirements and policies, facility design, operations and maintenance, and source control methods for targeted pollutants, among others (City of Portland 3, 2014) (City of Seattle, 2013).  Portland and Seattle serve as promising case studies of cities that are navigating a transformation from conventional stormwater management techniques to an integrated system that utilizes a high degree of GI.  They have been explored in this thesis because of their relatively high levels of success in this regard and because of their comparative significance to Vancouver, being similarly sized and situated in the Pacific Northwest.  In addition, all three cities utilize a combination of separated and combined sewer/stormwater infrastructure and are (and/or have been) devoting significant resources to minimize CSOs.  However, it cannot be left unsaid that Portland and Seattle have benefitted from a considerably more favorable governance context where they have received much more leadership and funding from the federal and state level than their Canadian counterparts.  This is one of the principal limitations of this research.  At the heart of the issue is the fact that our Federal Government still does not have an overall stormwater management strategy.  In the absence of high-level leadership, water resources and services, particularly in urban areas, are governed by a plethora of  64provincial and municipal agencies that often have conflicting goals.  As poignantly described by Brandes et al (2005) in, At a Watershed: Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada (Brandes et al, 2005, pg 1):  “Structurally, myriad public agencies share authority in ‘a bewilderingly complex administrative galaxy’ that fails to address the underlying problems. From coast to coast, Canada’s water management is in need of sober reform. The ultimate solutions are local in nature, yet those solutions are unlikely to be widely implemented unless situated within a broad national strategy.”  In recent years there have been several federal programs in Canada that appear to be directed towards funding GI in name, but in practice this has reportedly not been the case.  For example the 2009 Green Infrastructure Fund committed $1 billion over five years to encourage a more sustainable economy.  As of 2012 only conventional infrastructure projects had been awarded funding.  Similarly, very little funding from Canada’s EAP has been directed towards GI (Cirillo & Podolsky, 2012).  In March of 2013 the Federal Government unveiled, TNBCP, as part of the EAP.  It commits $53 billion over the next 10 years, $47 billion of which is said to be “new” funding, to replace and expand municipal infrastructure in Canada (Government of Canada, 2013).  Our Federal Transportation Minister, Denis Lebel, hailed the plan as “the largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history” (CBC, 2013).  Overstatement or not, the funding definitely represents a significant increase in federal money available to municipalities.  Figure 26 is a graph from the Government of Canada, Budget 2013 website showing the magnitude of municipal funding increase due to TNBCP and the EAP.   65 figure 24. Government of Canada, Budget 2013 graph showing the magnitude of municipal funding increase due to TNBCP. Government of Canada. (2013). Budget 2013: Chapter 3.3: The New Building Canada Plan. Retrieved August 27, 2013, from: http://livingroofs.org/stormrunoff  Unfortunately the plan is vague about it’s strategy for funding water and wastewater infrastructure.  This was first pointed out by CBC News journalist Lucas Powers in his article, Urban flooding likely to worsen, say experts.  He states (CBC 2, 2013)  “In March, the Federal Government announced that $53 billion would be put towards upgrading and replacing infrastructure throughout Canada over the next 10 years. But it remains unclear what portion of those funds will be spent specifically on water-related infrastructure like sewers and waste water management plants.”  Even more troubling; the term stormwater, storm water, or storm-water is completely absent from the TNBCP report and budget highlights on the Government of Canada’s Budget 2013 website.  In contrast, the word “road/roads” is used 25 times, “transit” comes up 18 times, “highway/highways” is used 27 times, “bridge/bridges” is used 40 times, “rail/rails” is used 26 times, and “airport” appears 8 times (Government of Canada, 2013).   66In the United States municipalities have received much more support for the implementation of GI.  The issuance of NPDES permits for stormwater runoff under the CWA is suggested to be the single biggest catalyst for the use of GI in American cities because it places regulatory pressure on municipalities to keep stormwater out of sewer/stormwater systems (Porter-Bopp et al, 2011).  Portland’s extensive network of GI was actually initiated in response to the city being sued over a violation of its combined sewer/stormwater NPDES permit in 1991 (personal communication, June 27, 2013) (Lewis and Clark Law School, 2013).  The CWA and the US EPA have also been instrumental in providing tangible guidance, funding and technical support to municipalities.  For example the Green Infrastructure Partnership, launched in 2007 as a collaboration between four national water quality organizations and the US EPA, has been providing assistance and leadership through its publications.  Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Action Strategy, produced in 2008, demonstrates how GI can be used as part of a cost effective strategy to prevent CSOs, and Strategic Agenda to Protect Waters and Build More Livable Communities, released in 2011, provides guidance to communities about how to navigate regulation, enforcement, funding sources and outreach, among other topics (Cirillo & Podolsky, 2012).  There are also numerous funding sources available through the United States Federal Government.  For example, under section 319 of the CWA, the Nonpoint Source Management Program, grants are available to local and state governments for a wide range of activities related to the prevention of nonpoint source pollution.  Between 2000 and 2014, an annual average of $201 million was awarded in grants (US EPA 4, 2013).  Another well established funding source is the Clean Water State Resolving Fund (CWSRF).  It is the largest water quality funding source in the United States, conceived to help communities achieve the goals of the CWA.  In recent years the CWSRF has provided an annual average of $5 billion in funding to communities (US EPA 2, 2014).  In December of 2009 the United States Federal Government took an unprecedented step forward by introducing the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act.  This legislation was set to significantly increase funding for GI and provide minimum standards (Cirillo & Podolsky, 2012).  Unfortunately it fell short and was not enacted.   67Despite the disparities in federal and state/provincial support for GI in the United States and Canada, an exploration of the barriers encountered by Portland and Seattle during the development of their ISMSs, and the factors that enabled the use of GI is very relevant to Vancouver.  As described earlier, the City of Vancouver is taking a very positive step by drafting its city-wide ISMP.  Its implementation will undoubtedly be met with opposition from many sources.  The intent of Chapter 3 is to present a detailed breakdown of the opposition experienced in Portland and Seattle, supported by an explanation of each barrier type.  This is followed by a set of recommendations describing how these barriers were overcome.                        68CHAPTER 3: Lessons from Portland and Seattle  The implementation of an ISMS that utilizes a high degree of GI requires an appreciable commitment to methods that are often unfamiliar to the public, politicians and many within municipal departments, among others.  Andrew Karvonen (2011) suggests in his book, Politics of Urban Runoff: Nature, Technology and the Sustainable City, that ultimately a paradigm shift is required, away from, “the Promethean Project of controlling urban water” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 193).  In other words, the conventional management of stormwater, using impervious surfaces and subsurface pipes is rooted within our culture.  As such there are significant social, institutional, economic and technical barriers to the implementation GI.  The primary investigatory aim of this thesis is to identify what those barriers were, and still are in Portland and Seattle, and to ascertain how they were eventually overcome.  To accomplish this, a key contact within Portland’s BES and SPU, who had been integrally involved in their respective ISMSs (both of these expert interviewees asked to remain anonymous), was approached and asked to answer the following questions:  1) What social, institutional, economic and technical, or other barriers did your organization and municipality encounter while trying to encourage and implement green infrastructure? 2) What were the key factors that allowed you to overcome these barriers? 3) What challenges are you currently facing with respect to implementing green infrastructure? 4) Have you seen attitudes towards green infrastructure change over time from the public, developers, within your municipality or others? How?  In this chapter the data is first used to identify many of the social, institutional, economic and technical barriers that existed, and still exist in Portland and Seattle to the implementation of GI.  Then the data, in conjunction with supplementary information provided by the two municipalities as well as recent literature, is analyzed to make  69recommendations to cities that are striving to implement a comprehensive system of GI about how these barriers can be overcome.  Barriers to the Implementation of GI  Social Barriers  In their paper, “An Assessment of Barriers to LID Implementation in the Pacific Northwest, and Efforts to Removing those Barriers”, Doberstein et al (2010) state (Struck & Lichten, 2010, pg 1098):  “Perhaps the greatest boost to LID implementation will come once the public recognizes the potential economic, environmental and aesthetic benefits of managing stormwater on-site using LID techniqies”  The fact is much of the public is not familiar with GI or their demonstrated ability to manage stormwater in a more sustainable way.  A 2008 study, “Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable, Watershed-Scale Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States”, found that these relatively new methods of managing stormwater are often perceived as messy and ineffective by the public (Brown, 2005).  This was evident when Seattle’s SEA Street was first built.  Residents in the area did not regard the installation as a legitimate upgrade from the existing ditch and culvert system (Karvonen, 2011).  A perceived lack of safety is another common grievance raised by the public, including concerns that surface infiltration/detention GI attracts pests, and that their sloped edges are unsafe.  In order to accommodate GI in ROWs, street widths often need to be reduced resulting in less parking and narrower access routes for emergency vehicles.  These issues, particularly street parking reductions, routinely impede the implementation of GI (Karvonen, 2011).  In Canada, the low cost of our publicly supplied water combined with a commonly held belief that the supply is near limitless has lead to a more indirect social barrier to the implementation of GI.  As Brandes et al (2005) state in their 2005 report, “At a Watershed: Ecological Governance  70and Sustainable Water Management in Canada”, “Too many Canadians view the supply of fresh water as limited only by the technology and infrastructure used to harness it” (Brandes et al, 2005, pg 1).  This socially constructed perception of abundance contributes to the attitude that stormwater in urban areas is not a resource, thereby diminishing the relevance of GI in the minds of public (Brandes et al, 2005).  The interview data I collected from my contacts at SPU and Portland’s BES revealed the following common concerns raised by the public:  Portland BES (personal communication, June 27 & October 25, 2013):  1) Concerns about public safety around bioswales and bioretention areas in ROWs because of possible increased pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and perceived health risks due to pests attracted by temporary standing water. 2) Concerns about loss of space in ROWs for parking and fire access. 3) Concerns about the aesthetics of plant material in bioswales and bioretention areas in ROWs. 4) Language barriers existed in some communities, which resulted in a few cases where residents altered the planting in bioswales and bioretention areas in ROWs because they did not understand their function. 5) Concerns about GI conflicting with other community initiatives such as urban agriculture, passive solar energy and community gathering spaces.  SPU (personal communication, June 4, 2013):  1) Concerns about changing uses within street ROWs  Institutional Barriers  Andrew Karvonen (2011) writes extensively in his book, Politics of Urban Runoff: Nature, Technology and the Sustainable City, about the, “Promethean Project of  71controlling urban water” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 193).  During the explosion of technology that characterized the twentieth century, stormwater, along with many other natural resources and processes became tightly managed using increasingly complex and expansive networks of infrastructure.  The champion of this monumental project is undoubtedly the “engineer”, charged with utilizing and controlling natural resources for the good of the public.  This role is very well established within municipal departments and as such, engineers and other technical professionals responsible for public infrastructure carry a great deal of influence over the introduction of new methods (Karvoven, 2011).  GI is not only new; it also requires that we transfer some control of urban stormwater back to the natural environment, a stark contrast to the entrenched Promethian project.  There is a commonly held view within established municipal departments, particularly engineering, that GI is untested and cannot safely and effectively manage stormwater.  This institutional resistance continues to be a significant barrier to GI implementation in North America and around the world despite the proliferation of successful installations and monitoring data.  A paper from Australia, Impediments to Integrated Stormwater Management: The Need for Institutional Reform, identified this to be one of the main barriers in Sydney, Australia during their efforts in the 2000s to manage stormwater in a more sustainable way.  It was found that although there had been a great deal of positive change in the way stormwater management was viewed and understood since the early 1990s, those responsible for implementing stormwater management infrastructure were still largely dismissing GI and using conventional methods (Brown, 2005).   Here in Lower Mainland several private engineering companies have identified GI as a promising alternative to conventional methods and have encouraged municipalities to allow its implementation in new developments.  Kerr Wood Liedel of Burnaby designed and implemented a system of bioswales and rain gardens in lieu of a conventional system at Silver Ridge, in Maple Ridge in 2004.  Several staff involved in the project published an article in the BC Water & Wastewater Association’s Watermark Magazine in 2012, asking the question, “Why are stormwater rain gardens still landscape curiosities?”  (Craig Kelman & Associates, 2012, pg 26).  One of the main barriers they identify in the article is resistance within municipal departments to new types of infrastructure because of the time and resources  72needed for getting staff up to speed with these new methods (Craig Kelman & Associates, 2012).  The interviews I conducted with my contacts at SPU and Portland’s BES also pointed to several institutional barriers that have impeded and continue to delay the implementation of GI in Seattle and Portland:  Portland’s BES (personal communication, June 27 & October 25, 2013):  1) Perception from other city departments that GI is a nice gesture, or merely a set of pilot projects, but does not constitute a real form of infrastructure. 2) Conflicting internal priorities: BES was formerly “sewers bureau” for several decades, so changing the internal culture and funding priorities from that which focused only on sewers and treatment plants to one that includes overall watershed health has been difficult. 3) Resistance from Operations and Maintenance department due to the increased maintenance requirements of GI. 4) Maintaining political support between different mayoral administrations. 5) Difficulty collaborating with other public entities such as schools and highways due to incongruent planning policies and funding structures.  SPU (personal communication, June 4, 2013):  1) Resistance from Operations and Maintenance department due to the increased maintenance requirements of GI. 2) Resistance from Engineering department, where many still view GI as a second class form of stormwater management infrastructure.      73Economic Barriers  GI is often viewed as a secondary or optional form of public works by those within municipal departments, politicians, developers and the public, among others.  As a result it is difficult to find adequate funding for its implementation, especially at a scale where it can be effective.  In their 2008 report, Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, the Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution states, “Without a doubt, the biggest challenge for states, regions and municipalities is having adequate fiscal resources dedicated to implement the stormwater program” (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008, pg 110).  Although the United States Federal Government has provided leadership with its NPDES program, state and municipal agencies are mostly responsible for the funding and administration of the programs required to meet NPDES permit goals.  As a result, states and municipalities often struggle to fit the additional stormwater management expenses into their already tight budgets (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  The Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative produced a report in 2011 that surveyed the municipal governments of 25 member cities (cities are of varying size, 9 in Ontario, 9 in Quebec, 7 in the United States) regarding their stormwater management practices and the barriers they were encountering to the implementation of GI.  18 of the 25 cities identified a lack of funding as the main barrier.  In Canada in particular, this problem stems from the fact that municipal water and wastewater infrastructure is among the most expensive to build and maintain, and our user fees are far too cheap to recover the costs.  As a result, municipalities principally fund water and wastewater infrastructure, including GI, with property taxes.  15 out of the 18 Canadian cities surveyed in the aforementioned report identified property taxes as their main funding source for stormwater management infrastructure.  This means it is being drawn from the same pot as all other infrastructure public works that are typically seen as essential such as roads, water mains and sewers (Belisle & Bogert, 2011).  In most cases these essential services are underfunded themselves and there is rarely funds left over for projects that are not viewed as absolutely necessary (Mizra, 2007).  Another economic barrier impeding the use GI is the increased maintenance costs associated with the specific installations.  Municipal maintenance activities are already routinely  74underfunded.  So the prospect of additional maintenance, particularly that which personnel do not have training to handle, is very unappealing (Karvonen, 2011).   The contacts I interviewed from SPU and Portland’s BES brought forth a multitude of specific economic barriers their respective programs encountered as they attempted to implement GI:  Portland BES (personal communication, June 27 & October 25, 2013):  1) Claims from developers, more so in the earlier years of the program, that a combination of GI and conventional infrastructure would cost more than just using conventional infrastructure in private developments. 2) Eligibility of GI to be financed by capital funds was called into question in the early years of the program and required clarification.  3) Difficulty competing with other more familiar infrastructure types for funding, especially when municipal budgets are tight, because GI is still often viewed as an “extra” despite often reducing the level of conventional infrastructure needed, and in some cases fully replacing it. 4) Difficulty competing for resources against more immediate problems that have direct public safety implications such as sewer line breaks, because GI is more of an incremental long-term sustainability approach. 5) Significant public and political pressure to stop sewer/stormwater user rate increases:  These were expected to increase in order to pay for the City’s CSO reduction projects and implement more GI installations. 6) Finding funding for long-term maintenance is a significant issue, it is politically more attractive to spend money on building things then it is to allocate money towards maintenance, which is not readily visible to the public. 7) Lack of public educated about the full spectrum of economic trade-offs between GI and conventional infrastructure.  758) Economic trade off valuations do not currently account for the additional benefits of having natural systems present in urban areas, only the direct drainage benefits of GI are being considered.  SPU (personal communication, June 4, 2013):  1) The economic downturn in the United States has resulted in tighter budgets, this has made GI an easier target for those opposed to its implementation.  Technical Barriers  There is inevitably a lag time between theory and practice following the introduction and development of new infrastructure types, this has certainly been the case for GI.  Traditional stormwater management education and practices were historically geared towards managing quantities of stormwater for public safety, with little concern for its quality.  Although GI is becoming more widely used, many municipal building codes and construction methods still reflect the goals of traditional stormwater management (CRSDCWPNRC, 2008).  In addition, many designers, policy makers and contractors struggle to keep their knowledge current because the standards for GI are continually changing as more monitoring data becomes available and designs are improved (Struck & Lichten, 2010).  The clear advantage of conventional stormwater management techniques is that curbs, gutters and pipes always behave the same, regardless of the climate, soil conditions and other natural perimeters.  GI installations need to be tailored to fit and perform properly in each given site condition (Struck & Lichten, 2010).  The failure of poorly executed facilities is not only costly, it can easily diminish the credibility of GI as a whole for those involved (WERF 2, 2009).  The US EPA considered the gap in GI technical expertise to be enough of an issue that it launched a technical assistance program in 2012.  Communities are invited to apply for in-depth technical consultations to help overcome barriers to GI implementation such as outdated stormwater management policies and building code impediments.  14 communities received $860,000 in the form of technical assistance in 2014.  76 My contact with Portland’s BES described the following specific technical barriers to the implementation of GI in Portland. (personal communication, June 27 & October 25, 2013):  23) Neighbourhoods in Portland have different soil profiles and infiltration rates, so a one size fits all approach does not work. 24) Erosion problems have been encountered where GI facilities have steeper slopes. 25) Difficulty finding space for GI at the ground level in the central business district because zoning requirements mandate full site coverage in these areas. 26) Concerns over the quality of GI installations that have been built by private contractors and turned over to the city after an establishment period.  The above barriers represent one of the principle drawbacks to utilizing a comprehensive network of GI to manage stormwater.  There is a great deal of unfamiliarity and uncertainty surrounding the ability of this infrastructure to actually manage stormwater effectively and its compatibility with a variety of existing urban functions.  There is an inherent level of experimentation that goes along with implementing GI because, as the contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES put it, “we have very different topographies and soil conditions in different neighborhoods in Portland, so ‘one size fits all’ approaches do not work.” (personal communication, June 27, 2014).  However, both Portland and Seattle concluded that the benefits of using GI, explored in Chapters 1 and 2, outweighed the drawbacks.  This is evident in the longevity of their respective ISMSs.  The contact I interviewed from Portland’s BES contends that the decision to utilize GI in conjunction with conventional infrastructure upgrades ultimately came down to the desire to build a system that most effectively and efficiently protects human and environmental health (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “The objective of the Portland CSO Program is to protect human health and aquatic health by ensuring the wet weather discharges have acceptable water quality (meets regulations) in terms of bacteria (pathogens), toxicity and heavy metals. Full sewer  77separation was ruled out because it increased the discharge of toxics and metals (stormwater runoff pollutants) compared to the "Existing or pre-Program" conditions, was highly disruptive, and was significantly more expensive. The costs for separation at that time did not include the eventual stormwater treatment systems which were later required by EPA's stormwater regulations and would have caused even higher costs if had we separated the system. We performed cost-benefit and feasibility analyses and implemented focused or strategic partial separation in locations that were far from the central CSO facilities (tunnels and pump stations). "Partial separation" entailed using green infrastructure approaches to reduce stormwater onsite or close to the source, and then separated the street runoff by installing stormwater pipes to collect only inlets. The new pipes direct that stormwater to engineered, natural treatment ponds before discharging the treated water to the river.”  In order for GI to form an integral part of Portland and Seattle’s ISMSs, the public, politicians, developers and those within municipal departments, among others, had to be convinced that such methods were worthwhile.  Through an analysis of the interview data collected, supplementary information provided by Portland’s BES and SPU, and a review of recent literature, this thesis presents five key enabling factors that were instrumental in Portland and Seattle for overcoming many of the above social, institutional, economic and technical barriers to the implementation of GI.  Key Enabling Strategies   ROWs and Pilot Projects  The resistance to utilizing GI in ROWs, particularly within the engineering community, can be very hard to overcome.  However, because they are city property in most cases and represent such a large portion of urban land (35% in Portland), ROWs are an extremely important component to any ISMS (WERF, 2009).  In Seattle and Portland the process began with a few small but visible pilot projects that demonstrated the ability of GI to retain stormwater from ROWs and their cost effectiveness.  Seattle’s first pilot  78project, SEA Street, was a notable success in this regard, as described in Chapter 2.  Having been the subject of a competition for its location and an award winning project it became a tremendously useful marketing tool for SPU’s NDS team.  Retaining 99% of precipitation from the ROW and the properties to the east of the street, and having cost $217,255 less than a conventional street with new utilities (US EPA, 2007), it became a very attractive option for future projects.  Ultimately, it gave the NDS team enough credibility to launch larger retrofits like the Broadview and Pinehurst Green Grids and allowed them to negotiate the use of GI at High Point.  According to SPU, this is where they were ultimately able to successfully challenge established urban drainage codes (Karvonen, 2011).  A similar process of experimentation unfolded in Portland, opening the door for further implementation of GI and giving way to its now hugely successful green streets program.  The contact I interviewed at Portland’s BES stressed the importance of pilot projects several times, saying (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “Piloting is key...  Two early projects, the Siskiyou Green Streets & Glencoe School Rain Gardens (2003) helped demonstrate the approaches in visible projects in residential neighborhoods and show people that there were multiple benefits.”  “We feel that the legitimization really came from the early pilot projects or case studies of using green solutions.”  “The successful Downspout Disconnection Program (part of the Combined Sewer Overflow effort) opened the door for other green / LID approaches, both in demonstrating how much stormwater we could get out of the system that way instead of building bigger pipes, and in terms of educating homeowners and businesses about alternative solutions.”  A review of recent literature echoes the importance of pilot projects to the legitimacy of GI in the early stages of implementation.  One of the key lessons that emerged from Portland’s ROW retrofit pilots was that it pays to start small.  Northeast Siskiyou Street  79was the first of these pilot projects, built in 2003.  It was very effective, able to retain 85% of a 25-year storm event, 50mm (2”) in six hours (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008).  However, even more compelling to Portland’s City Council was its simplicity and low cost.  The curb extensions, landscaping and subsurface material only cost $15,000 to build and the entire project was installed in two weeks.  Two more similarly small ROW GI retrofits followed during the next two years (Garrison et al, 2011).  By starting with a small number of simple and inexpensive installations the BES was able to monitor and modify the pilots until they were performing at a level that made them attractive to install on a larger scale (WERF, 2009).  Ultimately the proven effectiveness and relatively low cost of Portland’s ROW pilot projects was convincing enough for city council to enact a city-wide green streets policy in 2007 (Garrison et al, 2011).   Public Engagement is Critical  Both Seattle and Portland’s efforts to implement GI would have been considerably less successful if they had not actively engaged the public about the compelling benefits of such methods and provided outreach and education during their various initiatives.  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES stated (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “Extensive public involvement and outreach was/still is critical.  Even though Portlanders are very “green,” a lot of effort goes into explaining the need, educating people about watershed health and the river, the stormwater/sewer system, and why LID is a responsible choice.  While pedestrian safety, traffic calming, air quality, heat island mitigation, energy savings and other benefits are not in the purview of our bureau, those multiple benefits are also what we talk about with the public and what many people are most interested in.”  When asked if he/she has observed a change in attitudes amongst stakeholders in Portland towards GI over time he/she underscored the significance of continuing outreach efforts (personal communication, June 27, 2013):   80“Again, that education and outreach is critical.  Even planting trees in front of a house (which is voluntary here), which seems to some of us like an obvious positive thing for many reasons, is still met with resistance by some homeowners and requires 1:1 conversations. We have a crew of summer canvassers who go out into the neighborhoods every year, in conjunction with a local nonprofit organization, to talk to people about stormwater and trees and convince them to plant trees. It takes a combination of mass-marketing type education (newsletters, brochures, etc.) and a lot of 1:1 conversations!”  The contact with SPU I corresponded with also stressed the importance of public consultation.  He/she explained that their program has recently been the subject of many visits from municipalities and organizations from around the world.  One group, a delegation from the UK Water and Sewer Company, made a thorough visit in November of 2011.  They visited Seattle and Portland on the logic that both cities had similar climates to the UK and were at the leading edge of sustainable stormwater management in North America.  The group produced a report named, An insight into the USA approach: Sustainable drainage systems in Portland and Seattle, which is not available in North America, but was provided to me by my contact at SPU.  In it the delegation applauds the public engagement efforts of Seattle and Portland, and concludes they were essential for the success of their respective ISMS.  There are several reasons for this, first of all the public ultimately pays for a large portion of stormwater management infrastructure.  Portland and Seattle charge separate stormwater drainage fees to private properties.  Residential rates are fixed, commercial and industrial rates are based on the amount of impervious cover on the property.  Portland relies heavily on this operating capital and consequently has some of the highest residential stormwater drainage and sanitary fees in the United States, increasing from an average of $30 per month in 2001 to $53 per month in 2011.  In order for the public to accept the separate charge, and increasing rates, outreach and education about the importance of sustainable stormwater management have been absolutely critical (Digman, 2012).  SPU and Portland’s BES both recognize there is a significant disconnect between the public and natural aquatic systems.  Both municipalities have gone to great lengths to foster community stewardship of stormwater management and stream restoration in order to improve this relationship.   81For example, Seattle’s Urban Creeks Legacy Program, which was ultimately responsible for the creation of the NDS program, was more a public relations campaign than it was an effective environmental initiative.  Andrew Karvonen (2011) explains this dichotomy in his book, Politics of Urban Runoff: Nature Technology and the Sustainable City, in reference to the controversial Northgate Mall project, which was seen as a compromise from an environmental standpoint, but a successful educational tool because of its visibility and accessibility (Karvonen, 2011, pg 156):  “the intent of the Urban Creeks Legacy Program and creek restoration more generally is not ecological restoration but public education and awareness. The biological and ecological goals of the Northgate Channel are secondary to larger, more elusive aims of creating new types of integrated social and environmental flows that cannot be measured with traditional economic or biological metrics. The emphasis on education and awareness does not negate the importance of these activities, nor does it suggest that the salmon is a false indicator of environmental health. Rather, this goal incorporates the ideology of salmon as a means to promote urban environmental activities and, in effect, to raise consciousness of residents about their hybrid surroundings.”  To help raise the profile of stormwater management issues SPU conducts continuing outreach, including holding meetings and forums, teaming up with advocacy groups like Sustainable Seattle to build engagement capacity, publishing articles in local magazines and conducting social media campaigns (Digman, 2012).  Portland’s BES places a great deal of emphasis on creating stormwater management ambassadors and stewards within communities to build outreach capacity from a grassroots level.  For example, the city’s Community Watershed Stewardship Grants Program has awarded almost $1 million since 1999 to 213 separate projects (to a maximum of $10,000 per project) run by schools, community groups, churches and businesses that involve people in the improvement of their watershed health.  A similar initiative designed to encourage local champions of sustainable stormwater management, called the 1% for Green Funding program, accepts applications from the public for green street proposals that aren’t already required by the city’s Stormwater Management Manual.  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES  82explained the benefits this novel outreach strategy, “These projects are not where the City may prioritize building facilities, but where neighbors have identified a localized problem.  Building some facilities where people actually want them and request them helps build visibility and support (personal communication, June 27, 2013).  The BES also provides free educational programs to schools (kindergarden to collage level) aimed at teaching people about stormwater runoff pollution, CSOs and the benefits of GI (City of Portland 2, 2014).  In fact, the organization’s outreach efforts have become so extensive that it now has a group of ten to twelve dedicated staff just for public engagement (Digman, 2012).  The contact I interviewed at SPU informed me that many GI projects in ROWs initially experience resistance from the public, stemming from concerns about parking losses, fire access, public health due to standing water, public safety and aesthetics, among others.  He/she explained that these common grievances are often solved in the early going through outreach and education before the project starts (personal communication, June 4, 2013).  SEA Street, described in Chapter 2, which has been a resounding success and responsible for enabling further implementation of GI in Seattle was certainly not viewed as a great achievement out of the gate.  The project experienced considerable opposition throughout the consultation and design process from residents and Seattle’s transportation, operations and maintenance, and public safety (Fire, Ambulance, Police) departments.  The consultation process began with a novel idea to get the public involved and informed from the start.  A competition was held between twenty different streets for the highest number of signatures supporting a stormwater management retrofit.  Once the winning street was chosen, consultation ensued with residents and city departments.  There were concerns over reduced parking area, access for safety vehicles due to the decreased road widths and the safety of children because of open bioswales.  In the end many of the alterations were approved because of support from the Mayor’s office and the designation of the project as a “demonstration”.  Residents of SEA Street initially did not perceive the installation as an upgrade because it was not viewed as “real” street infrastructure (Karvonen, 2011).  According to interviews conducted with residents by  83the aforementioned delegation from the UK Water and Sewer Company, most are now very happy with the street alterations and their performance (Digman, 2012).  Residents of SEA Street as well as those from nearby blocks have reportedly begun to view street environments in a different way.  The roadway in SEA Street has become an informal public space and a well used pedestrian route.  Parents have become comfortable letting their children play on the street.  Perhaps the most important aspect of this attitude shift is that residents of the broader area understand a great deal more about the importance of stormwater management and its effect of natural systems (Karvonen, 2011).  Considerable outreach efforts are now undertaken in both Portland and Seattle to find out what people want from their new infrastructure and to involve them in conceptual design.  For example, in Portland, residents of blocks receiving GI retrofits through the green streets program are approached to select plants from an approved list to be used in the facilities (Digman, 2012).  One of the most positive results of involving the public in the design and planning of GI facilities is the increased sense of responsibility residents respond with.  In many cases members of the public voluntarily maintain GI installations in ROWs because they feel connected to the project (Digman, 2012).  This has proven extremely important because maintenance is one of the main problems facing the long-term effectiveness of GI (Karvonen, 2011).    Provide a Tangible Reason, Incentives and Rebates  Incentives and rebate programs are another excellent way to not only educate residents about their impact on aquatic environments but also give them a tangible reason to act.  During Portland’s highly successful downspout disconnection initiative homeowners were offered a 35% discount on their stormwater utility fees for managing roof runoff on their properties.  The program also involved an extensive outreach effort by Portland’s BES to inform people about its purpose and to help them install infiltration GI.  Ultimately the combination of outreach and monetary incentives proved to be very convincing, 56,000 downspouts were connected between 1993 and 2011 (WERF, 2009).  In 2006 Portland turned it into a city-wide program called “Clean River Rewards”.   84Under this plan single family and duplex residential stormwater drainage fee discounts remained at a 35% maximum, but commercial, industrial and multifamily properties of three units or more are eligible for up to a 100% discount for managing their stormwater on-site (City of Portland 8, 2014).  In Seattle a similar program, called “RainWise”, offers discounts of up to 100%, depending on the square footage of land being drained, for the installation of a rain barrel and/or rain garden (biofiltration area) on residential properties that fall within targeted CSO basins.  In the end, the effect of these rebate programs goes beyond removing stormwater from sewer systems, it also gives people ownership of their stormwater management, ultimately making them stewards of their regional aquatic environments (Digman, 2012).  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES described the social aspect of incentives this way (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “While these may be modest in how much stormwater volume is managed, they are incredibly valuable in their education potential and building “good will” with utility ratepayers. It fits into an “everyone has a part to do” message about solving stormwater problems.”  As described in Chapter 2, Portland’s developers were given a tangible reason to install ecoroofs in the form of density bonusing in the city’s Central City Plan District.  By 2006, 600,000 square feet of additional floor space was awarded in return for 200,000 square feet of ecoroofs (Garrison et al, 2011).    Changing the Internal Culture  According to the contacts I corresponded with in Portland’s BES and SPU one of the biggest challenges facing the implementation of GI is their lack of credibility within established municipal departments such as transportation, operations and maintenance, sewers and engineering (personal communication, June 4 & 27, 2013).  Many still view GI as pilot projects, or commendable, but not a legitimate form of public utilities.  However, this attitude is steadily changing in Seattle and Portland due to a few key  85enabling factors.  In the past the effectiveness of GI was often questioned due to a lack of conclusive monitoring data.  Over the last ten to fifteen years this perception has been slowly eroded within Seattle and Portland’s internal departments because GI installations of all types have been monitored extensively with very positive results.  In addition, Portland’s BES and SPU have been transparent about their findings and display monitoring data on their respective websites.  Portland’s BES publishes an exhaustive GI monitoring report every two years displaying the performance of a broad range of ecoroofs, green streets, private infiltration GI (bioswales and bioretention areas on private property), and flow-through GI (City of Portland 7, 2014).  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES underscored the importance of monitoring, saying (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “Monitoring data showing these facilities work.  We have ongoing effectiveness monitoring for green street facilities, ecoroofs, and stream restoration projects.  We have test plots on one of our properties where we test new soil mixtures.”   He/she went on to point out that in order to require private developers to use GI, particularly to the maximum extent feasible that is now mandated by both Portland and Seattle, there had to be enough monitoring data to show conclusively that they worked.  Monitoring, outreach and many other actions necessary to legitimizing GI would not be possible without dedicated staff.  Both Portland and Seattle have a core group of full-time employees working solely on implementing GI in addition to several engineers and other professionals at their disposal for specific directives.  Staff members within these organizations are reportedly very passionate and have worked hard to improve the internal culture surrounding GI through effective communication and patience.  In Portland, it was reported to have taken six years for their dedicated staff to see positive changes in the perceptions from other departments towards their work (Digman, 2012).  Both Portland’s BES and SPU stressed the importance of fostering key political champions for GI (personal communication, June 4 & 27, 2013).  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES explained that in the early going they gained the support  86of chief engineers from the Bureaus of Environmental Services and Transportation, which leant credibility to Portland’s Sustainable Stormwater Management Program.  Then in 2008 a newly elected city commissioner (in Portland there are four elected city commissioners and a mayor, no city manager) who had become very interested in the potential of GI conceived the “Grey to Green” initiative, which invested $55 million to increase the implementation of GI around the city (personal communication, June 27, 2013).  The contact I interviewed with SPU also stressed the importance of gaining support from other departments early in the process (personal communication, June 4, 2013):  “For our early projects a united front between the City’s public utility and transportation departments allowed us to overcome some of the public opposition.  Often times the resistance to change is driven by the private use of the public space for parking of excess motor vehicles and recreational items (boats and campers).  A united front explaining parking codes and land-use codes helped in the early stages.”  A Little Recognition Goes a Long Way  Never underestimate what a little friendly competition can do.  This message was touched on by both contacts I interviewed (personal communication, June 4 & 27, 2013).  SPU’s interview contact explained that Seattle has recently been the subject of numerous visits from municipalities around North America and abroad (personal communication June 4, 2013).  As described earlier, one of the latest visits was by a delegation from the UK Sewer and Water Company.  Their report, provided to me by SPU, commended the policies and efforts of Portland and Seattle with regard to implementing GI.  The contact I interviewed with Portland’s BES had this to say about domestic and international praise (personal communication, June 27, 2013):  “Getting national and international recognition also helps this work stay politically attractive and in the forefront, as does a little “friendly competition” with other cities.  Local political leaders here want to “stay ahead of” Seattle and Chicago.”   87 He/she also explained that BES staff are encouraged to enter their projects into design competitions because it provides positive reinforcement and raises the profile of GI within city departments and political circles (personal communication, June 27, 2013).  As described in Chapter 2, Seattle’s SEA Street was awarded the Vision 2020 award for “promoting a livable Pacific Northwest region.” (Karvonen, 2011, pg 140), and the American Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, securing $100,000 in prize money and a great deal of recognition for the city’s efforts (Karvonen, 2011).                        88CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION   The City of Vancouver is at a critical crossroads with respect to the future of its stormwater management strategy.  Its $1 billion sewer separation project constitutes a considerable monetary commitment to the use of conventional stormwater infrastructure for the purpose of eliminating CSOs and building resilience against flooding.  In this thesis I argue that the City of Vancouver should look closely at the examples set by Portland and Seattle and consider revising its sewer separation project so that it coordinates targeted conventional infrastructure upgrades and separations with a comprehensive network of GI.  A growing number of examples, as explored in Chapters 1 and 2, are demonstrating the effectiveness of GI, which collectively have the ability to address CSOs, stormwater runoff pollution, peak flow reduction and flooding.  The presence of this infrastructure in urban areas has also been shown to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, making it an important aspect of climate change adaptation.  In particular, I assert that Portland’s Tabor to the River project constitutes a tremendously promising case study, demonstrating the coordinated use of GI and conventional infrastructure upgrades, implemented at a watershed scale.  One of the most exciting aspects of this example is that it will be saving the City of Portland a reported $63 million when compared to conventional infrastructure supported by storage tunnels (City of Portland 6, 2014).    However, Tabor to the River represents the culmination of two decades of experimentation, analysis, policy changes and building code updates.  Vancouver is taking an important step forward with the completion of its ISMP.  The primary purpose of this thesis is to identify and analyze the impediments encountered in Seattle and Portland to the implementation of GI and the factors that eventually enabled its use on a comprehensive scale.  My hope is that such a discussion would benefit those in charge of implementing Vancouver’s ISMP.  However, there is a great deal more research that needs to be conducted on this topic.  The contacts that I interviewed with SPU and Portland’s BES, one per city, suggested that they act as the mouthpiece of their respective organizations in order to cut down on redundancies in the data, and to save time on their  89end.  Ultimately this limited the breadth of the research considerably because the data was subject to the opinions of those two people.  In addition, my contact with SPU was extremely busy and did not provide a great deal of data in comparison with his/her counterpart at Portland’s BES.  As a result the analysis of barriers to GI and enabling factors is heavily weighted towards the data from Portland.  This thesis also would have benefitted considerably from interviews with professionals outside of the public sector.  These professionals; engineers, landscape architects, architects and ecologists, among others, are designing and overseeing the construction of many GI installations and would have invaluable insights.  However, this research has revealed numerous important lessons regarding the implementation of GI.  One of the most important lessons from Portland’s pilot projects is the value of starting small.  NE Siskiyou Street, now widely cited and celebrated, and integrally responsible for the explosion of green streets in Portland, cost $15,000 and took two weeks to build (Garrison et al, 2011).  Ultimately this opened people’s minds to the possibilities of GI without forcing the city to commit substantial resources.  Perhaps this is why Crown Street and the Country Lanes were not replicated, their scale and cost may have been too much for the City of Vancouver to digest in one portion, resulting in an uncomfortable introduction to GI in public ROWs and lanes.  The social aspects of both projects were very positive however.  Crown Street required a majority vote from the street’s residents to go ahead.  The City of Vancouver held three public meetings, distributed a survey and conducted individual resident consultations to deal with similar concerns to those listed at the beginning of Chapter 3.  Residents had concerns about parking, aesthetics, possible effects on property values and increased wildlife.  Many of these were successfully addressed during the public consultation and conceptual design phase (waterbucket.ca, 2006).  The Country Lanes project was a resounding success from a social standpoint, 52% of those surveyed in the community claimed they would pay an extra 50% to have a country lane installed instead of asphalt (Government of Canada 5, 2013).  Vancouver’s pilot projects portray an encouraging attitude towards GI from its residents.  However, opposition to these methods can be expected to vary from project to project.  As demonstrated in Portland and Seattle, public consultation and outreach is  90critical to both the initial and continuing success of GI implementation programs.  In both municipalities using a variety of methods increased the success of their respective public consultation and outreach efforts.  Ultimately, involving the public in the design and planning of GI gives them a sense of ownership over the resulting facilities and also serves as an excellent educational tool.   There is a considerable amount of promise for enabling GI through financial incentivization.  Reducing utility rates or taxes commensurate to the amount of impervious cover one eliminates from their property has proven to be a very successful strategy in Portland and Seattle.  This was particularly the case during Portland’s downspout disconnection program, which disconnected 56,000 downspouts from its combined sewer/stormwater system (WERF, 2009).  Density bonusing proved to be an effective financial incentive for Portland’s developers.  By 2006, 600,000 square feet of extra floor space was awarded in its Central City Plan District in return for 200,000 square feet of ecoroofs (Garrison et al, 2011).  Changing the perceptions of GI in the minds of staff within municipal departments such as engineering, transportation and operations and maintenance continues to be a difficult task in Portland and Seattle.  Successful pilot projects, monitoring data and technical manuals have reportedly helped a great deal to legitimize GI with many people from these departments.  In addition, receiving national and international recognition for the design and function of GI installations raises their profile internally and politically.  One issue that has been difficult to address to date is the ongoing maintenance required for GI facilities.  The addition of plants and natural systems to urban areas typically translates into more time and personnel needed for upkeep.  Because it is not an overly visible form of public expenditure these activities are often not prioritized and pressed for funding.  Although there are reports of residents maintaining GI themselves (Digman, 2012), which is an encouraging trend, finding resources for the long-term maintenance of GI is a topic that requires more research in the view of this author.    91BIBLIOGRAPHY  AECOM. (2013). The Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program Through 2100. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Asadian, Yeganeh, Weiler, Markus. (2009). A New Approach in Measuring Rainfall Interception by Urban Trees in Coastal British Columbia. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(1), 16-25.  Barlow, Maude. (2011). Our Great Lakes Commons: A People's Plan to Protect the Great Lakes Forever. Ottawa, ON, Canada. Council of Canadians.  BC Ministry of Environment. (2013). Climate Change Impacts. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/impacts/index.html  Belisle, Simon, Bogert, Reid. (2011). Stormwater Management in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin: Cities Charting the Way Forward. Chicago, IL, USA, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.  Brandes, Oliver M., Ferguson, Keith, M’Gonigle, Michael. (2005). At a Watershed: Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada. Victoria, BC, Canada: POLIS Project on Ecological Governance.  Brown, C. Thomas, Froemke, Pamela. (February, 2012). Nationwide Assessment of Nonpoint Source Threats to Water Quality. BioScience, 62(2), 136-146.  Brown, Rebekah R. (August, 2005). Impediments to Integrated Stormwater Management: The Need for Institutional Reform. Environmental Management, 36(3), 455-468.  Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP). (2010). Who Knows Where the Stormwater Goes: A pilot Project to Promote Best Management Practices in Vancouver. Vancouver, BC, Canada: BIEAP.  Canada’s Economic Action Plan. (2013). Creating a New Building Canada Plan. Retrieved August 25, 2013, from: http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/creating-new-building-canada-plan  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). (June, 2013). Not all mayors swayed by $53B federal promise: Federation of Canadian Municipalities meets in Vancouver for annual convention. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/02/bc-municipal-infrastructure-funding.html    92Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC 2). (June, 2013). Urban Flooding Likely to Worsen, Experts Say. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/07/10/f-floods-rain-engineering.html  Cirillo, Colleen, Podolsky, Liat (2012). Health, Prosperity and Sustainability: The Case for Green Infrastructure in Ontario. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Ecojustice Canada.  City of Portland. (2014). Environmental Services: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Retrieved August 3, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/316721  City of Portland 1. (2014). Environmental Services: What is Grey to Green?. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/321331  City of Portland 2. (2014). Environmental Services: Services. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/255004  City of Portland 3. (2014). Environmental Services: 2014 Stormwater Management Manual. Retrieved August 4, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/64040  City of Portland 4. (2014). Sustainable Stormwater Management: Monitoring. Retrieved September 8, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/34598  City of Portland 5. (2014). Environmental Services: Combined Sewer Overflow Control: Portland CSO Program Final Report. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/31030  City of Portland 6. (2014). Environmental Services: Tabor to the River. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/47591  City of Portland 7. (2014). Environmental Services: Monitoring. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/36055  City of Portland 8. (2014). Environmental Services: Program Overview: Portland’s Clean River Rewards. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/390568  City of Portland 9. (2014). Environmental Services: Glencoe School Rain Garden Report. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from: www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/147510  City of Portland 10. (2014). Environmental Services: Stormwater Management: Stormwater Permit: 2011 Stormwater Management Plan. Retrieved August 6, 2013, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/31892  City of Portland 11. (2014). Environmental Services: Annual Compliance Reports. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/50289   93City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability & Multnomah County Sustainability Program. (2009). City of Portland and Multnomah County Climate Action Plan. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/268612  City of Seattle. (2013). Department of Planning and Development: Stormwater Code & Rule Update: Project Documents. Retrieved July 17, 2014, from: http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/codesrules/changestocode/stormwatercode/projectdocuments/defaul.htm  City of Vancouver. (July, 2013). Greenest City: 2020 Action Plan. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from: http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/greenest-city-2020-action-plan.aspx  City of Vancouver 2. (March, 2013). Separating Sewage from Rainwater. Retrieved October 26, 2013, from: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/separating-sewage-from-rainwater.aspx  Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution National Research Council (CRSDCWPNRC) (2008). Urban Stormwater  Management in the United States. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.  Craig Kelman & Associates. (Winter, 2012). Why are Stormwater Rain Gardens Still Landscape Curiosities?. Watermark, 21(4), 26-28.  Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA). (2013). Sewage and Sanitary Reformers vs. Night Filth and Disease. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from: http://www.cpha.ca/en/programs/history/achievements/05-he/sewage.aspx  Deutsch, Barbara, Whitlow, Heather, Sullivan, Michael, Savineau, Anouk, Busiek, Brian. (2007). The Green Build-out Model: Quantifying Stormwater Benefits of Trees & Green Roofs in Washington, DC. Proceedings from the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Toronto, ON, Canada: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.  Digman, C. (2012). An insight into the USA approach: Sustainable drainage systems in Portland and Seattle. UK: anglianwater, Yorkshire Water, Wessex Water, MWH, ARUP.  Emerson, C. H. (2003). Evaluation of the Additive Effects of Stormwater Detention Basins at the Watershed Scale. MS thesis, Department of Civil,  Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.  Fraser Riverkeeper. (December, 2011). FRK Pursues Sewage Violations With CEC. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from: http://www.fraserriverkeeper.ca/frk-pursues-sewage-violations-with-cec/     94Forum for Leadership on Water POLIS Project (University of Victoria) Canadian  Water and Wastewater Association. (2008). Clean Water, Green Jobs: A Stimulus Package for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investments. Toronto, ON, Canada: Gordon Water Group of Concerned Scientists and Citizens.  Garrison, Noah, Hobbs, Karen, Berzins, Anna, Clifton, Emily, Levine, Larry, Hammer, Rebecca. (2011). Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. Retrieved July 15, 2013, from: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsII/default.asp  Government of Canada. (April, 2013). Infrastructure Canada: The New Building Canada Plan: $53 Billion, including over $47 billion in new funding, over the next 10 years. Retrieved August 24, 2013, from: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/plan-eng.html  Government of Canada 2. (June, 2013). Environment Canada: National Inventory Report 1990-2009: ES.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Climate Change. Retrieved September 16, 2013, from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=72E6D4E2-1#X-201103211149451  Government of Canada 3. (July, 2013). Environment Canada: Wastewater Management. Retrieved September 2, 2013, from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/eu-ww/default.asp?lang=En&n=0FB32EFD-1  Government of Canada 4. (2013). Infrastructure Canada: British Columbia Infrastructure Projects. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/regions/bc/isf-fsi-proj-eng.html  Government of Canada 5. (2013). Government of Canada Publications: Country Lanes: Greening Local Transportation. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/419372/publication.html  Grant, Gary. (2012). Ecosystem Services Come to Town: Greening Cities by Working with Nature. Somerset, NJ, USA: Wiley.  The Guardian. (August, 2012). How cities are using nature to cut pollution. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/23/how-cities-nature-cut-pollution  Hlavinek, Petr, Kukharchyk, Tamara, Marsalek, Jiri. (2006). Integrated Urban Water Resources Management. Dordrecht, NLD: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  Hoornbeek, John A. (2011). Water Pollution Policies and the American States : Runaway Bureaucracies or Congressional Control?. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.    95Horner, Richard R., Reiners, Jennifer. (2009). Broadview Green Grid Natural Drainage System. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.  Karvonen, Andrew. (2011). Politics of Urban Runoff : Nature, Technology, and the Sustainable City. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.  King County. (August, 2013). Combined Sewer Overflow Control. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/CSO.aspx  Konrad, Christopher, P. (January, 2013). Effects of Urban Development on Floods. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/  Kovacs, Paul, Ludlow, Sharon, Sandinik, Dan. (2010). Making Flood Insurable for Canadian Homeowners: A Discussion Paper. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.  Lewis and Clark Law School. (2013). Environmental Advocates v. City of Portland (NWEA II). Retrieved November 5, 2013, from: http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/natural_resources/environmental_advocates_v_city.html  Livingroofs.org. (2013). Storm Water Run Off. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from: http://livingroofs.org/stormrunoff  MacDonald, Elaine, Podolsky, Liat. (2009). Flushing Out the Truth: Sewage Dumping in Ontario. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Ecojustice Canada.  Marsalek, Jiri, Schreier, Hans. (2009). Overview of the Theme Issue: Innovation in Stormwater Management in Canada: The way forward. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(1), v-x.  Matlock, Marty D., Morgan, Robert. (2011). Ecological Engineering Design: Restoring and Conserving Ecosystem Services. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.  McGuire, Gordon, Wyper, Neil, Chan, Michelle. (2010). Re-inventing Rainwater Management: A Strategy to Protect Health and Restore Nature in the Capital Region. Victoria, BC, Canada: Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria.  McPherson, E. Gregory. (1994). Chapter 7: Energy Savings Potential of Trees in Chicago. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186. Davis, CA, USA  Metro Vancouver. (2011). Integrated Liquid Waste and Resources Management Plan. Retrieved November 9, 2013, from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/wastewater/Pages/default.aspx   96Metro Vancouver 2. (2011). Regional Growth Strategy. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx  Metro Vancouver. (2014). Iona WWTP. Retrieved February 15, 2014, from: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/wastewater/treatment/TreatmentPlants/Pages/Iona.aspx  Mizra, Saeed. (2007). Danger Ahead: The Coming Collpse of Canada’s Municipal Infrastucture. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Federation of Canadian Municipalities.  Molner, Michelle; Kocian, Maya; Batker, David. (2012). Valuing the Aquatic Benefits of British Columbia's Lower Mainland: Nearshore Natural Capital Valuation. Vancouver, BC, Canada: David Suzuki Foundation.  National Post. (July, 2013). Forgotten ‘country lane’ experiement could be the answer to Vancouver’s desire for more green space. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/02/forgotten-country-lane-experiment-could-be-answer-to-vancouvers-desire-for-more-green-space/  Ng, Garrick, Felder, Melissa, Popova, Izabela. (2010). Water and the Future of the Canadian Economy. Toronto, ON, Canada. The Innovation Group Inc.  Novotny, Vladimir, Ahearn, John, Brown, Paul. (2010). Water Centric Sustainable Communities : Planning, Retrofitting and Building the Next Urban Environment. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.  Odefey, Jeffrey, Detwiler, Stacey, Rousseau, Katie, Trice, Amy, Blackwell, Roxanna, O’Hara, Kevin, Buckley, Mark, Souhlas, Tom, Brown, Seth, Raviprakash, Pallavi. (2012). Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-wide. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from: http://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=31301  The Orange County Register. (August, 2013). Pelican Hill honored as green golf resort. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/golf-340850-water-pelican.html  Oregon Environmental Council (OEC). (2014). Willamette River. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from:  http://www.oeconline.org/our-work/water/cleaner-rivers-for-oregon-report/willamette-river  Podolsky, Liat, MacDonald, Elaine. (2008). Green Cities, Great Lakes: Using Green Infrastructure to Reduce Combined Sewer Overflows. Vancouver, BC,Canada: Ecojustice Canada.     97Porter-Bopp, Suzanne, Brandes, Oliver M., & Sandborn, Calvin. (2011). Peeling Back the Pavement: A Blueprint for Reinventing Rainwater Management in Canada’s Communities. Victoria, BC, Canada: POLIS Project on Ecological Governance.  Portland Online. (January, 2005). Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OSMI) Parking Lot Swales. Retrieved August 12, 2013, from: www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/78489  Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). (December, 2005). Salmon Recovery Plan: Executive Summery. Retrieved July 21, 2013, from: http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php  Puget Sound Partnership (PSP 2). (December, 2005). Salmon Recovery Plan: Chapter 3: Factors Affecting Puget Sound Salmon and Bull Trout. Retrieved July 21, 2013, from: http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php  Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment. (2013). Seattle Climate Action Plan. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from: https://www.seattle.gov/environment/climate_plan.htm  Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). (2013). 110th Cascade Project. Retrieved July 20, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/CompletedGSIProjects/110thCascadeProject/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 2 (SPU 2). (2013). Stormwater Code Compliance. Retrieved July 23, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/StormwaterCode/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 3 (SPU 3). (2013). Measuring Success. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/CompletedGSIProjects/MeasuringSuccess/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 4 (SPU 4). (2013). Ballard Natural Drainage: 3rd Public Meeting – June 5, 2013: Review the public display boards. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/Projects/DrainageSystem/SewageOverflowPrevention/CSOReductionProjects/BallardBasin/BallardNaturalDrainage/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 5 (SPU 5). (2013). RainWise Rebates for Cisterns and Rain Gardens: RainWise Rebates Flyer. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/DrainageSewer/Projects/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/RainWise/Rebates/index.htm    98Seattle Public Utilities 6 (SPU 6). (2013). Stormwater Management Plan. Retrieved July 19, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/Documents/Plans/StormwaterManagementPlan/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 7 (SPU 7). (2013). Stormwater Code: Read the Code: Director’s Rule 15-2012. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from: http://seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/codes/stormwater/  Seattle Public Utilities 8 (SPU 8). (2013). Madison Valley Stormwater Project. Retrieved November 16, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/Projects/DrainageSystem/MadisonValleyProject/index.htm  Seattle Public Utilities 9 (SPU 9). (2014). CSO Reduction Projects: CSO Reduction Plan. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from: http://www.seattle.gov/util/myservices/drainagesewer/projects/sewageoverflowprevention/csoreductionprojects/  Stanley W., Donald. (Sepember - October, 1996). Pollutant Removal by a Stormwater Dry Detention Pond. Water Environment Research, 68(6), 1076-1083.  Stephens, Kim A., Graham, Patrick, Reid, Dave. (2002). Stormwater Planning: A Guidebook for British Columbia. Victoria, BC, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.  Struck, Scott, Lichten, Keith, (eds.). (2010). Low Impact Development 2010: Redefining Water in the City. Reston, VA, USA: ASCE. Doberstein, C., Kirschbaum, R., Lancaster, A. (2010). An Assessment of Barriers to LID Implementation in the Pacific Northwest, and Efforts to Removing those Barriers. Seattle, WA, USA: Herrera Environmental Consultants Inc.  Suzuki, Hiroaki; Dastur, Arish; Moffatt, Sebastian. (2010). Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. Herndon, VA, USA: World Bank Publications.  Tomlinson, Stuart. (November 8, 2013). The Big Pipe: Portland’s sewer and stormwater project shows it can handle Big Rain. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/11/post_381.html#incart_m-rpt-1  Urban Forest Planning Team. (2012). Halifax Regional Municipality Urban Forest Master Plan. Halifax, NS, Canada: Halifax Regional Municipality.   US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (September, 2002). Combined Sewer Overflows CSO Control Policy. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm?program_id=5   99US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2006). Puget Sound Georgia Basin Transboundary Ecosystem Indicator Report. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from: http://www.epa.gov/pugetsound/indicators/index.html  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (December, 2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and  Practices. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/costs07_index.cfm  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (June, 2011). Puget Sound - Georgia Basin: Large Aquatic Ecosystem (LAE). Retrieved June 27, 2013, from: http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch?querytext=Georgia+Basin+Puget+Sound+LAE&fld=&areaname=&areacontacts=&areasearchurl=&typeofsearch=epa&result_template=epafiles_default.xsl&filter=sample4filt.hts  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (February, 2012). Combined Sewer Overflows. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (April, 2013). Green Infrastructure. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 2). (July, 2013). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 3). (February, 2013). Urban Nonpoint Source Fact Sheet. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban_facts.cfm  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 4). (July, 2013). Water: Polluted Runoff: Clean Water Act Section 319. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/cwact.cfm  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (February, 2014). Columbia River: Columbia River Basin: State of the River Report for Toxics - January 2009. Retrieved January 4, 2014, from: http://www2.epa.gov/columbiariver/columbia-river-basin-state-river-report-toxics-january-2009  US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 2). (March, 2014). Water: Clean Water State Resolving Fund. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/cwsrf_index.cfm     100Vancouver Observer. (June, 2011). City Hall: Major sewer upgrades to replace aging pipes and separate flows Dunbar-SW Marine Dr. intersection to close for two weeks. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/cityhall/2011/06/30/major-sewer-upgrades-replace-aging-pipes-and-separate-flows-dunbar-sw  Vancouver Observer. (July, 2013). Country Lanes: Vancouver’s forgotten urban gardens. Retrieved February 1, 2014, from: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/real-estate/country-lanes-vancouvers-forgotten-urban-gardens   Vancouver Sun. (August, 2013). It may take decades to stop sewage from leaking into Burrard Inlet: Metro Vancouver is taking the matter ‘very, very seriously’, but it is a long, expensive process. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from: http://www.vancouversun.com/take+decades+stop+sewage+from+leaking+into+Burrard+Inlet/8765926/story.html  Washington State Dept. of Ecology. (2013). Saving Puget Sound: Threats to Puget Sound. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/threats.html  Washington State Dept. of Ecology. (2011). Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound: Assessment of Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA and King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Ecology Publication No. 11-03-055. Retrieved June 15, 2013, from: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1103055.html  Waterbucket.ca (2006). City of Vancouver: Crown Street. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from: www.waterbucket.ca/gi/sites/wbcgi/documents/media/39.pdf  Waterbucket.ca (February, 2011). Convening for Action in MetroVancouver to Green the Urban Landscape and Protect Watershed Health: Unintended Consequences. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from: http://waterbucket.ca/cfa/2011/11/30/convening-for-action-in-metro-vancouver-to-green-the-urban-landscape-and-protect-watershed-health/  Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). (2009). Case Studies: Portland, Oregon. Retrieved August 14, 2013, from: http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_port_or.htm  Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF 2). (2009). Strategies for Success: Overcoming Obstacles. Retrieved July 30, 2014, from: http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/tool_strat.htm  Xiao, Qingfu, McPherson, Gregory. (August, 2011). Performance of Engineered Soil and Trees in a Parking Lot Bioswale. Urban Water Journal 8(4): 241-253. Retrieved August 7, 2013, from: http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38807   101APPENDIX A  Email interviews with anonymous key contact with Portland Bureau of Environmental Services: 1) What political/institutional, social, technical, economic or other barriers did your organization and municipality encounter while trying to encourage and implement LID stormwater practices/BMP's. (personal communication, June 27, 2013) Social: Particularly around green street facilities, people had safety fears (car, pedestrian, vector control), concerns about competing uses of the right-of-way and reducing parking space, and fire access.  We still encounter some of these concerns and all projects require at least some education and outreach in advance.  Some concerns then and now are also about aesthetics and maintenance.  In some neighborhoods, especially where there are more immigrant communities and language is a barrier, we have had some residents plant ornamental or garden plants in the facilities or, in at least one case, cut down the tree in the swale so that it didn’t shade their garden. This relates to competing uses in the right-of-way, too, as our city is simultaneously promoting urban agriculture, solar energy, community gathering spaces, etc., so sometimes stormwater management is seen as competing with those goals.  Institutional: resistance to a different way of doing things, belief they wouldn't work.  This is where pilot projects and cultivating key champions of green infrastructure helps both internally, with other agencies (like Transportation), and with the general public.  Some of our projects are still considered “pilots,” or at least that helps get things started by approaching them as such.  Also, within our agency, the Bureau of Environmental Services, we have multiple responsibilities and “missions.”  We are the sewer/wastewater agency, as well as being responsible for stormwater, surface water and watershed health.  While those things are all related, the agency was “the sewer bureau” for several decades and it remains a challenge to shift internal planning, prioritization and funding to reflect  102natural systems approaches and multi-benefit projects.  Even today, there are some who feel that the green infrastructure approaches are “nice” but not essential, and are competing with limited resources for maintenance of the sewage treatment plant, replacement of aging sewer pipes, etc.  Some of our internal processes, such as ranking and prioritizing new capital project proposals, are still built to rank sewer system rehabilitation much higher than surface (green) stormwater management or stream restoration projects. One interesting institutional and political dynamic we have here is that Portland does not have a “strong mayor” form of government where a mayor oversees a city manager who manages city business across all departments.  Instead, we have a mayor and four elected commissioners who each oversee their own portfolio of departments (bureaus).  So one commissioner may be in charge of Environmental Services and the fire bureau, while another one is in charge of parks, planning or development services, and still another in charge of the transportation bureau.  This can be both beneficial and a barrier.  On one hand, there is not always coordinated direction between, say, Environmental Services and Transportation about priorities (and funding) for managing stormwater from streets, or what street design should include.  On the other hand, it has allowed some city commissioners individually to champion green infrastructure and sustainable development and direct their portfolio of bureaus to go forward with this work, and the barriers are addressed project- by-project with other bureaus. Economic: Early on, the barriers were claims from developers that it would be more expensive (for private development-related LID).  We also needed to clarify eligibility of funding the public works green infrastructure projects with capital funds (the Bureau of Environmental Services’ funding comes from sewer/stormwater utility rates and capital bonds).   In the past, funding was also constrained because a majority of our capital program was for the 20-year slate of projects to control Combined Sewer Overflows ($1.4 Billion).   Now that it is complete, one view is we should turn towards more and larger-scale green infrastructure implementation.  However, there is public and political pressure for sewer rates to not continue to increase. But, the plan always was that rates would have to increase a certain amount every year to pay off the debt from the  103Combined Sewer Overflow projects as well as to then focus on replacing and maintaining other aging sewer infrastructure.  Much of our system is over 80 years old and pipes are coming to the end of their lifespan.  We have a huge challenge with educating the public (ratepayers) about that and re-gaining their support for rate increases.  In many cases, green street facilities and other green approaches can help replace or upgrade this existing infrastructure, but internally within the bureau sometimes it is seen as “extra” or competing for the same pot of resources as those other needs.  When there are budget pressures, it is hard for municipalities to focus on building the city you want for the next 100 years versus repairing/addressing immediate problems, such as sewer line breaks that can risk human health and safety.  We haven’t yet really engaged with the public broadly on this issue of balance, tradeoffs (real or perceived) and what they’re willing to pay for. Technical: infiltration rates, landslide hazard, proximity to buildings and utilities, and design challenges regarding the previously-mentioned concerns for parking and safety. (I think designers consider those “opportunities,” though!). On infiltration and landslides, we have very different topographies and soil conditions in different neighborhoods in Portland, so “one size fits all” approaches do not work.   2) What were the key factors that allowed you to overcome these barriers?  (personal communication, June 27, 2013) One big one, simply, was a regulatory mandate (stemming from a lawsuit) to deal with Combined Sewer Overflows.  The demands of that, and also the need to provide basement sewer backup relief, and the effectiveness of LIDs in helping with both of those issues, helped move Portland forward ahead of other cities who are just now starting to address combined sewer problems.  The successful Downspout Disconnection Program (part of the Combined Sewer Overflow effort) opened the door for other green / LID approaches, both in demonstrating how much stormwater we could get out of the system that way instead of building bigger pipes, and in terms of educating homeowners and businesses about alternative solutions.    104Piloting is key- “Water Quality Friendly Streets” (working with developers on stormwater solutions) was one early effort. Two early projects, the Siskiyou Green Streets & Glencoe School Rain Gardens (2003) helped demonstrate the approaches in visible projects in residential neighborhoods and show people that there were multiple benefits.  Monitoring data showing these facilities work.  We have ongoing effectiveness monitoring for green street facilities, ecoroofs, and stream restoration projects.  We have test plots on one of our properties where we test new soil mixtures. Having the support of the chief engineers at Environmental Services and the Bureau of Transportation.  And, as stated above, getting political support from a few key champions.  Although our entire city council is very “green” and supportive of sustainability efforts, early support by 1-2 commissioners helped.  We then had a very activist commissioner, who became mayor from 2008-2012, who championed the next “push” of shifting funding to green solutions.  He is the one who started the Grey to Green initiative and ordered Environmental Services to invest $55 Million to ramp up specific green infrastructure BMPs.  So, that one individual’s leadership was critical to help increase the scale of implementation. While the bureau was already planning and constructing green streets and stream restoration, Grey to Green added some funding to those, and spurred creation of new programs: the first large street tree planting program with public funds in decades, a big push for acquisition and protection of natural area lands to prevent future stormwater problems and resource degradation, and providing incentive funds for ecoroofs.  Getting national and international recognition also helps this work stay politically attractive and in the forefront, as does a little “friendly competition” with other cities.  Local political leaders here want to “stay ahead of” Seattle and Chicago.  Staff also apply for various landscape design and urban design awards to try to keep the positive reinforcement coming. We also have a very strong environmental activism community that has really led the way on recognizing and supporting nature in the city and realized very early on that stormwater management was a key opportunity for “greening” the city  105as well as addressing water quality problems.  They haven’t just acted on “traditional” environmental issues.  Every election, candidates here are put to the test answering community questions about their commitment to habitat protection in the city, green building, etc.  The advocates then are very active in the city’s budget process.   Extensive public involvement and outreach was/still is critical.  Even though Portlanders are very “green,” a lot of effort goes into explaining the need, educating people about watershed health and the river, the stormwater/sewer system, and why LID is a responsible choice.  While pedestrian safety, traffic calming, air quality, heat island mitigation, energy savings and other benefits are not in the purview of our bureau, those multiple benefits are also what we talk about with the public and what many people are most interested in.   Use of life cycle costs to compare LID and traditional alternatives.  The Tabor to the River program is our best example of demonstrating that large scale green infrastructure implementation—in combination with pipe repair and upgrade—costs less. Incentives for developers—tax abatement, floor area ratio bonuses, ecoroof incentive, etc.  While our housing tax abatement programs for multifamily and mixed use development haven’t been solely for the purpose of encouraging LID (that I know of), for many years it has been a requirement of various tax incentive programs to meet certain green building and stormwater criteria (beyond the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual). This helped institutionalize some of the LID approaches more in the local development community.  We have also provided incentives for homeowners and other existing property owners: subsidized trees, ecoroof incentive, and the Clean River Rewards Program (a discount on your stormwater fees if you manage stormwater on-site).  While these may be modest in how much stormwater volume is managed, they are incredibly valuable in their education potential and building “good will” with utility ratepayers. It fits into an “everyone has a part to do” message about solving stormwater problems.  We also have a small bit of funding called “1% for Green” and had some other funding through Grey to Green where citizens can propose green street projects in their neighborhoods.  These projects are not where the City may prioritize building facilities,  106but where neighbors have identified a localized problem.  Building some facilities where people actually want them and request them helps build visibility and support. (personal communication, October 25, 2013) We feel that the legitimization really came from the early “pilot” projects or case studies of using green solutions.  The parking lot swales at Oregon Museum of Science and Industry was one of the early projects demonstrating effectiveness and cost savings: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/78489.   We had to know that green solutions worked before we asked private developers to use them.  The Downspout Disconnect program, as part of our CSOs solutions, helped prove that on-site stormwater management was acceptable and effective.  The larger scale of use of green street facilities in Portland to manage stormwater from the right-of-way then became more of a focus, both to get more volume out of the combined system to reduce CSOs and to solve other problems we have, particularly basement sewer back ups in some areas.    We’ve done a lot of monitoring to continue to show that facilities do provide volume reduction and peak flow reduction.  (Monitoring reports: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/36055 ). So, I think we’ve succeeded in convincing most people that they’re an effective tool in the combined sewer system, for capacity/volume purposes.  The struggle, or debate, now is often more about maintenance funding, and also zooming down at the project-specific scale to do analysis on whether gray or green is the appropriate solution to a very specific problem at that location.  Some want green always to be the solution, others are going into engineering analyses and looking at green as one alternative (one tool in the tool box) and to see what the best cost/benefit solution is.  The problem is that we don’t have all the benefits of green quantified (in dollars) to inform that equation, so there’s still a bit of a “faith based” debate about whether green is always better.  We have a $ figure for a “value” of stormwater removed from the combined system (at last check it was $3 per gallon), but we don’t have a $ value for water quality benefits of green streets in the separated stormwater system (where we’re not sending combined flows to the treatment plant).   1073) What challenges are you currently facing with respect to implementing LID stormwater practices/BMP's?  (personal communication, June 27, 2013) Long-term maintenance funding is a significant issue. As we build more public facilities and take on more natural area property, support for increased operating funds has not kept pace (see utility rate issue above).  Building new things is often more politically attractive than finding funding for ongoing maintenance, and maintenance needs compete for the same pool of funds as other stormwater and sewer infrastructure.  This is becoming more of an institutional barrier, as our maintenance division has concerns about building more projects.   Evaluating the cost/benefit of lined stormwater facilities (where stormwater is not infiltrated, but rather slowed down, filtered and then discharged).  Most of our facilities to-date have been in areas with good infiltration and a primary objective has been keeping stormwater volume out of the piped system.  Evaluating that cost/benefit is so far easier than evaluating the cost/benefit of facilities that provide water quality benefits before the water is discharged to a stream.  The objective of the Portland CSO Program is to protect human health and aquatic health by ensuring the wet weather discharges have acceptable water quality (meets regulations) in terms of bacteria (pathogens), toxicity and heavy metals. Full sewer separation was ruled out because it increased the discharge of toxics and metals (stormwater runoff pollutants) compared to the "Existing or pre-Program" conditions, was highly disruptive, and was significantly more expensive. The costs for separation at that time did not include the eventual stormwater treatment systems which were later required by EPA's stormwater regulations and would have caused even higher costs if had we separated the system. We performed cost-benefit and feasibility analyses and implemented focused or strategic partial separation in locations that were far from the central CSO facilities (tunnels and pump stations). "Partial separation" entailed using green infrastructure approaches to reduce stormwater onsite or close to the source, and then separated the street runoff by installing stormwater pipes to  108collect only inlets. The new pipes direct that stormwater to engineered, natural treatment ponds before discharging the treated water to the river. Valuing additional benefits.  It is challenging to quantify some of the benefits of natural systems, and it is an institutional challenge to have those recognized in cost/benefit evaluations. Much of the ecosystem services valuation work to-date has been for non-urban areas (mountain watersheds, forests, etc.). Our bureau project evaluation and prioritization systems are still set up to recognize only direct benefits to our stormwater pipe system, so that doesn’t include the additional benefits of green solutions.   The quality of private development facilities.  Facilities that are built by private development but treat runoff from the right-of-way are transferred to public responsibility after an initial “establishment” period, and the plant health and function of inlets for these facilities have been some of the concerns.  We are constantly fine-tuning performance - soil specs, water quality characteristics, reduced inlet clogging, adjusting plant selections, etc.  We have challenges in developing plans and customizing the tools to geographies in the city where we haven’t done as much work yet, including the steeply-sloped, poorly-infiltrating southwest hills neighborhoods, which are not on the combined sewer system and have different development patterns (lack of curbed streets and sidewalks, some lack of paved streets).  Maintaining ongoing political support and educated elected officials through election cycles.  The 5-year catalyst of the Grey to Green initiative did not institutionalize some programs and approaches as much as anticipated, and as new leaders come in to office, there is a need to educate them about the complicated utility funding issues and needs and get their support to help overcome the institutional and economic barriers.   Retrofitting existing development that is not street right-of-way. Our funding sources and policies do not allow us, in many cases, to work with private property owners or other public but non-City property owners (state highway department, schools, etc.) to address some of the high priority stormwater problems.  We have new planning in place that is  109pointing to the need to do things differently, but we haven’t yet figured out the best funding approaches for this work.   Design, stormwater requirements, and zoning code challenges. In our central city, zoning codes require full site coverage by buildings, so well-designed space for green stormwater management has been a challenge. We are looking at things like Seattle’s Green Factor code as a way to allow more design flexibility for developers in meeting stormwater requirements—focusing on the performance needed rather than how that should happen.  4) Have you seen attitudes towards LID stormwater practices/BMP's change over time from the public, developers, within your municipality or others? How? (personal communication, June 27, 2013)  Yes. I think that is covered or inferred from above.  Generally, the public and developers have become more accepting, and it helps every time another visible project is built and people get used to seeing these. Again, that education and outreach is critical.  Even planting trees in front of a house (which is voluntary here), which seems to some of us like an obvious positive thing for many reasons, is still met with resistance by some homeowners and requires 1:1 conversations. We have a crew of summer canvassers who go out into the neighborhoods every year, in conjunction with a local nonprofit organization, to talk to people about stormwater and trees and convince them to plant trees. It takes a combination of mass-marketing type education (newsletters, brochures, etc.) and a lot of 1:1 conversations! Also allowing flexibility in design and things like what plants are planted in a stormwater facility, taking neighborhood characteristics and aesthetic preferences into consideration.  Giving people input on what gets built in front of their homes or businesses is very important.  110 Email interviews with anonymous key contact with Seattle Public Utilities:  1) What political/institutional, social, technical, economic or other barriers did your organization and municipality encounter while trying to encourage and implement LID stormwater practices/BMP's. (personal communication, June 4, 2013) SPU encountered all of the above barriers in the early stages of our NDS program development and early project implementation.  With the exception of several large scale redevelopment projects, our projects have likewise remained marginalized to pilot-type projects, with the exception of the past several years.  In about 2008 the City of Seattle adopted a policy of GSI to the MEF (Green Stormwater Infrastructure to the Maximum Extent Feasible) which has jump started the wider scale adoption of the GSI or NDS technology.  Nonetheless there is still resistance in certain communities to the changes to the street scape that are inherent in the GSI technology, there is resistance from our Operations and Maintenance Division (since GSI typically has greater maintenance requirements), and there is resistance within our Engineering department (where many of our engineers consider this technology to be second class as compared to more traditional, gray infrastructure).  As the workforce ages however, a new breed of engineer is being increasing retained by the City where this attitude may be shifting. 2) What were the key factors that allowed you to overcome these barriers?
 (personal communication, June 4, 2013) For our early projects a united front between the City’s public utility and transportation departments allowed us to overcome some of the public opposition.  Often times the resistance to change is driven by the private use of the public space for parking of excess motor vehicles and recreational items (boats and campers).  A united front explaining  111parking codes and land-use codes helped in the early stages.  Since then, though, SPU has attempted an installation in a more formal streetscape with some increased public opposition.  This installation was in an area where formalized use of the street was established, as opposed to the early projects where the streetscape consisted of paved street with unpaved shoulders that offered informal uses such as longer term accessory parking.  For operations and maintenance, this is still an ongoing conversation, and as noted above, the engineering community is in transition by this writer’s reckoning.  
3) What challenges are you currently facing with respect to implementing LID stromwater practices/BMP's? (personal communication, June 4, 2013) The economic downturn has many Americans backed into a corner and feeling under siege on many levels.  Implementation of GSI projects has been more contentious in the past several years, eliciting in some cases vociferous opposition (writers opinion that GSI projects are an easy target in the current climate).  Additionally, we still have to figure out how to build the projects so that they function well, while minimizing maintenance. 

4) Have you seen attitudes towards LID stromwater practices/BMP's change over time from the public, developers, within your municipality or others? How?
 (personal communication, June 4, 2013) We get a lot of inquiries from other municipalities, and the building and development communities have been enthusiastic supporters (opinion likely because GSI often offers a smaller utility footprint requirement and also it is an effective marketing tool).  The public generally supports the effort, but the answer comes with a few more caveats, when it is proposed for a particular street (this has always been the case).  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0167622/manifest

Comment

Related Items