Planning For Water (2009) Contemporary Planning Issues

Contemporary Planning Issues March 19, 2009
Contemporary Planning Issues
Applied Land Use Planning
Government Studies – University of Alberta
Applied Land Use Planning 1

Housekeeping
y Welcome
y Emergencies (Exits and Muster)
y Washrooms
y Course Length
y Breaks/Lunch
y Cell phones
y Student Discretion
y Examination/Grading
y Introductions
y Other Instructors
y Darwin Durnie and Alf Durnie
y The Applied Land Use Planning Certificate Program
(ALUP). The ALUP program involves the completion
of a minimum of thirteen courses of university level
instruction in the theory, tools, techniques and
polices of sound land use planning.
y The goal of this course is to address contemporary
planning issues with an introduction to the important
role that adequate water supplies and wastewater
management play in contemporary planning.


y This course will address three areas of contemporary
planning:
y Alberta Land‐use Framework as it applies to
cumulative effects – specifically dealing with water
and wastewater.
y Regional water and wastewater planning.
y Private Sewage Treatment


Land Use Framework (LUF)

Alberta Land Use Framework

“The Land‐use Framework ushers in a new era of
stewardship for Alberta’s air, land, water and wildlife,”
“It ensures that the development of our resources will be
responsible and sustainable.”
Ted Morton
Sustainable Resource Development Minister

Sustainable Development
“Sustainable Development meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.“1
Applied Land Use Planning 1987 Brundtland Commission
10
y Develop six regional land‐use plans based on six new land‐use
regions.
y Create a Cabinet Committee supported by a Land‐use
Secretariat and establish a Regional Advisory Council for each
region.
y Develop a strategy for conservation and stewardship on private
and public lands.
y Establish an information, monitoring and knowledge system to
contribute to the continuous improvement of land‐use planning
and decision‐making.
y Inclusion of aboriginal peoples in land‐use planning.
y Cumulative effects management will be the instrument used at
the regional level to manage the impacts of development on
land, water and air.
y A new strategy—the Efficient Use of Land—to reduce
the human footprint on the land.
y New names for the planning regions that would
represent the major watersheds to better reflect
integrated land‐use and watershed planning.
y A new priority—legislation to support the framework,
including regional land‐use planning.
y A new region the Red Deer Region to better address
southern Alberta’s significant population, its number
and size of municipalities, and the diversity of its
landscapes.
Development Officer’s View
Northern Alberta: Extremely low-density,
Resource-based uses
(Forestry/Bitumen)
Grand Prairie: Medium Density Resource-
based, Residential/Industrial
Ft. McMurray: Low density Residential
Resource-based uses
(Bitumen extraction),
Residential/Industrial High
Density Industrial
Rockies: Recreational/Residential
Corridor: High density Residential,
Commercial and Industrial
Prairies: Low density residential and
High density Agricultural
Southern Alberta: Medium density Residential
and Agriculture 13



History of Water/Wastewater
Planning
y About 70% of the earth is covered in water.3
y The total amount of water in the world is approximately 1.4 billion km3, of
which 97.5% is saltwater and 2.5% is fresh water.4
y Of the 35 million km3 of freshwater on earth, about 24.4 million km3 are
locked up in the form of glacial ice, permafrost, or permanent snow.
Groundwater and soil moisture account for 10.7 million km3.4
y Freshwater lakes and marshlands hold about 0.1 million km3. Rivers, the most
visible form of fresh water account for 0.002 million km3 or about less than
0.01% of all forms of fresh water.4
y Ninety‐nine percent of surface freshwater by volume is in lakes and only one
percent in rivers.5
y Brazil is the country with the most renewable fresh water. Canada is third
after Russia.4
Environment Canada Website1

Five thousand years ago settlements in the Indus Valley were built with pipes for
water supply and ditches for wastewater. Athens and Pompeii, like most Greco‐
Roman towns of their time, maintained elaborate systems for water supply and
drainage.
As towns gradually expanded, water was brought from increasingly remote sources,
leading to sophisticated engineering efforts, such as dams and aqueducts. At the
height of the Roman Empire, nine major systems, with an innovative layout of pipes
and well‐built sewers, supplied the occupants of Rome with as much water per person
as is provided in many parts of the industrial world today.
During the industrial revolution and population explosion of the 19th and 20th
centuries, the demand for water rose dramatically.
Thanks to improved sewer systems, water‐related diseases such as cholera and
typhoid, once endemic throughout the world, have largely been conquered in the
more industrial nations.
Food production has kept pace with soaring populations mainly because of the
expansion of artificial irrigation systems that make possible the growth of 40 percent
of the world's food.
Nearly one fifth of all the electricity generated worldwide is produced by turbines
spun by the power of falling water. 6
Applied Land Use Planning Peter Gleick
18
History of Water/Wastewater
Planning

Aqueducts Roman & Modern

London
y 1853‐1854 Cholera Epidemic
strikes London.
y The 'Great Stink' of 1858, caused
by pollution in the River
Thames reached such
proportions that sittings at the
House of Commons at
Westminster had to be
abandoned.

Vibrio cholerae ‐ the cholera bacterium

Snow’s Broad Street Pump

London
y A concerted effort
to contain the
city's sewage by
constructing
massive sewers on
the north and
south river
embankments
followed, under
the supervision of
engineer Joseph
Bazalgette. The Old Abbey Mills Pumping Station Image by Atelier joly
London
y Meanwhile, similar
huge undertakings
took place to ensure
water supply, with
the building of
reservoirs and
pumping stations on
the river to the west
of London. The
embankments in
London house the
water supply to
homes, plus the
sewers, and protect
London from flood. Illustrated London News 1865.

What does it mean and how does it effect planning?

Cumulative Effects
“Cumulative effects are changes to the environment
that are caused by an action in combination with
other past, present and future human actions.” 8
Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide
“Cumulative effects occur because of a mismatch in the
scale at which impacts accumulate and the scale at
which decisions are made.”9
Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide

Identifying Projects and Activities to
Include in the CEA component of an EIA
What to look for Explanation
Effects of past, present and future If the effects of those projects and
developments and activities that activities overlap those of the project
might interact with the effects of the under review in space or in time, they
proposed project. should be included.
Disturbances similar to those related For an activity creating atmospheric
to the proposed activity, regardless emissions, for example, this would
of their source. include other sources of emissions. For an
activity causing habitat loss, this would
include other kinds of habitat
disturbance.
Interactions among dissimilar kinds This might include, for example, the
of disturbance. combined effects of physical disturbances
such as habitat fragmentation and
chemical pollution
What are Cumulative
Environmental Impacts?
y Single effects almost never occur in isolation, but
occur together with many other influences.10
y Long‐term changes may occur not only as a result
of a single action but the combined effects or
impacts of each successive action on the
environment.10

What are Cumulative
Environmental Impacts?
y Individually, minor actions that are insignificant
on their own can collectively result in significant
impacts over a period of time. 10
y Cumulative impacts result from the accumulation
of human‐induced changes across space and over
time. 10

FARM
INDUSTRY
Effluent
Discharge
Run-off (e.g., pesticides)
RIVER
Sewage
CITY

How Do Cumulative Effects Occur? 10
y The same kind of activity recurs too
frequently through time.
y The same kind of activities recur too
densely through space.
y Different kinds of activities impose
similar consequences on a valued
resource .
Types of Cumulative Impacts 10
y Additive:
equal to the sum of individual effects
y Interactive:
greater than the sum of individual effects
y Magnification
y Synergistic


Biomagnification 10
Water
Sediment = contaminant

Contaminant Synergism 10
+ =

Major Cumulative Impact Situations 10
Repeat Offences:
y repeated occurrences of the same small‐scale
events at the same place .
Nibbling:
y similar small‐scale events happening
simultaneously .
(Duinker, 1994)9

Major Cumulative Impact Situations
Multiple Effects:
y several different responses of an ecosystem to one
single action.
(e.g., forest harvesting results in loss of habitat
for birds and wildlife, soil erosion, increased
sedimentation to rivers)
(Duinker, 1994)11

Examples of Cumulative Effects at the
Regional Scale10
Air: Combined SO2 emissions within a regional
airshed from several natural gas processing
plants.
Water: Combined reductions in flow volumes
within a river resulting from irrigation,
municipal and industrial water
withdrawals.
Resource
Use: Continual removal of timber from a
management area.

Water In Alberta 11
y Where does Alberta’s water
go?
y87% flows north
y13% flows east
y0.1% flows south
y On average, Alberta
“generates” about 60 billion
cubic meters of surface
runoff annually
y equivalent to 90 mm, if it
were spread over the entire
province
Allocations by Basin,
vs. Natural River Flow (2001) 11


Groundwater Allocation
by Purpose (2004)


Water for Life
y North America’s most comprehensive water
management plan
y Renewal required to reflect current Alberta
pressures
y Review will include opportunities for
stakeholders
y Continuing with implementation of the current
WfL priorities

How much water does a person need?
Use
Gallons/Litres Percentage of
per Capita Total Daily Use
Showers 10/44 16.8%
Clothes Washers 12.5/57 21.7%
Dishwashers 1.0/4.5 1.4%
Toilets 15/70 26.7%
Baths 1.0/4.5 1.7%
Leaks 8.0/36 13.7%
Faucets 9.0/41 15.7%
Other Domestic Uses 1.3/6 2.2%
Total 57.8/263
Who’s in charge?
y Federal regulations
y Provincial regulations
y Interprovincial and International responsibilities


Regional Water
y Co‐operatives
y Inter‐municipal Agreements
y Inter‐municipal Cost Sharing
y Regional Water Initiatives


Capital Region Egremont

Thorhild
Radway
Thorhild Water
Services Commission
Service Area 12
Redwater Capital Regional Northeast

Legal Water Services Commission
Capital Region Vegreville Corridor

Riviere Bon Accord Water Services Commission
Qui Barre Gibbons
Morinville Bruderheim Lamont
Alexander Andrew
County
First Nation Cardiff
Lamont
Namao
Sturgeon County
Chipman
Fort Saskatchewan
Villeneuve
St. Albert Josephburg &
Parkland County Water Co-Op Hilliard
Spruce Mundare
Stony Grove Highway 14 Water
Plain Ardrossan Services Commission
Antler
Lake
Sherwood Park North Cooking Vegreville
Capital Region Parkland Lake
Water Services
Commission Strathcona Beaver County
City of County Tofield
Edmonton Collingwood
Cove Ryley
International Beaumont
Airport Truckfill Holden
Nisku
Calmar Leduc County
Pipeline
Bruce
City of Leduc Pipeline Under Construction
Edmonton and
Capital Region Southwest Surrounding Communities
Regional Water Water Services Commission
Treatment Plant
Viking
Customers Group Applied Land Use Planning 52
Regional Water




FAQs
y What are the challenges of regionalization?
y Are the regulations better met with
regionalization?
y Will infrastructure be maintained and upgraded
sufficiently?
y Will costs decrease and efficiency increase?
y What are the short‐term and long‐term effects of
regionalizing?
y What are the benefits of regionalizing water
treatment and distribution?
Regulatory Changes 12
y Regionalization Pitfalls:
y Time / program management
y Operator training requirements (CEU’s)
y Regionalization Benefits:
y Large pool of experienced operators
y No additional regulations – Codes of Practice
y Easy code implementation across the region
y Funding availability

Infrastructure Management 12
y Priority setting
y Lower operator input (reduced specialization)
y Regional system design and commissioning
y Access to new equipment & technology
y Funding Availability
y Strategic Planning

Demand & Emergency Management 12
y Tailoring to different needs
y One source / treatment plant
y Coordinated approach across the region
y Mutual aid
y More resources
y Prevents escalated emergencies

Customer Relations 12
y Regional affect
y Sensed loss of autonomy
y Consistent messages
y More accountability for quality and quantity
y Rate stabilization

Watershed Management 12
y None
Regionalization Benefits:
y Obtain diverse input
y Coordinate approach
y Communicate a consistent message

Conservation 12
y Conveying message to larger group
y Obtain diverse input
y Coordinate approach
y Communicate a consistent message
y Sharing resources & templates

Changes in the Workforce 12
y Discomfort with outsiders
y Less specialization
y Time management
y More flexibility, versatility
y Easy certification management
y Succession planning

Kneehill Regional Water Services
Commission (KRWSC) a case history

KRWSCII

Alf Durnie
Administrator, Onsite Sewage Systems
Municipal Affairs, Public Safety Division

Onsite sewage treatment systems
• Onsite sewage treatment systems are used to manage wastewater
generated by developments not serviced by municipal wastewater
collection systems. With the level of growth occurring outside urban
areas, the use of these systems is increasing.
• New technologies are being used in these systems to treat sewage and
return it to the environment. Research on the soil‐based component of
these systems has increased providing additional scientific
considerations to apply to the design of onsite systems.
• Onsite systems can be an effective wastewater management if used
appropriately and designed with consideration for the site soil
conditions. They form a key part of a rural municipalities wastewater
management strategy.
• Although most often privately owned, onsite wastewater treatment
systems form part of a municipality’s wastewater infrastructure.
Onsite sewage treatment systems
• The Provincial government, along with partners and
stakeholders, is developing a management framework for
onsite sewage systems and the septage produced by these
systems.
• This presentation discusses:
• what an onsite system is and the scope of use in Alberta
• the management framework being developed,
• new technologies available in the onsite industry,
• the management of septage,
• interconnections with the municipal planning process, and
• challenges and opportunities with onsite sewage systems.
Private Onsite Sewage and Land Use Planning –
What is the connection. Why a connection?
y Private Sewage Systems are regulated under the Safety Codes Act.
y Land Use Planning, Subdivision and Development are regulated by
the Municipal Government Act and Municipal Bylaws.
y Why does a municipal government need to be concerned with Private
Onsite Sewage Systems?
y Lets find out…
Applied Land Use Planning 70 70

What is an Onsite Private Sewage Systems?
y Septic tank or small wastewater treatment plant
discharging wastewater effluent to a soil‐based
wastewater treatment component that completes
treatment of wastewater.

Types of Systems
• Holding Tanks
• Disposal Fields or Treatment Fields
• Treatment Mounds
• Open Discharge

Holding Tanks
y Simply, a tank that holds wastewater until it is removed by a
pumper truck
y Where will the waste be taken?
y Is there a wastewater facility that will accept the hauled sewage?
y Has a impact on municipal infrastructure
y Roads can be impacted by volume of heavy traffic

Disposal Fields or Treatment Fields

Treatment Mounds

Treatment Mounds

Treatment Mounds

Open Discharge

Scope and Size of Industry
y 15 ‐ 20% of Alberta’s population
y 200,000 to 250,000 systems estimated
y > 30 million gallons of sewage per day treated
y 7000 new systems per year ($15,000 ea average)
y $105 million per year

What kind of development is served by
onsite systems
y Residential development y Motels and hotels
y Campgrounds y Schools
y Tourism facilities y Restaurants and gas
y Remote lodges stations
y Others?

What are the objectives of an Onsite
Private Sewage System Design?
y Effectively treat the wastewater.
y Protection of ground waters.
y Protection of surface water.
y Minimize risk to public health (disease).
y For homeowner, reliable method of managing and treating
wastewater.
y For municipality, support sustainable development.

Can an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System be
Effective in Treating Wastewater?
y An onsite system can treat effluent as effectively as a municipal
wastewater treatment systems.
y It needs to be effectively designed and used only in locations
that are suitable.
y US EPA report to congress – “Onsite systems can provide an
effective method of long term wastewater management.”
y An onsite system can be a total failure in a short time if used
where it is inappropriate, where soil treatment capacity is
limited or where the design is not effective.

What is the treatment effectiveness?
y Reduction of Pathogens ‐ 99% to 99.99% as it moves
through the soil.
y Adsorption and immobilization of phosphorus in soils that
contain clay – iron and aluminum content (not in sands).
y De‐nitrification in many soil conditions but it is limited.

Recent history of Onsite sewage systems
y pre‐1970’s
y 1970‐1990
y 1990‐1999 (open discharge clearance to property line
increases to 300 ft.)
y 1999‐2009 (new technologies available)
y New 2009 standard to be adopted spring of 2009( new
design standards with more focus on treatment in soil
as opposed to a method focused on disposal)

Scope of Private Sewage Disposal
Systems Regulation
y Systems:
y Serve developments that generate less than 25 m3
(5,500 gal.) sewage per day, and
y Serve only one property
y Systems that may potentially serve more than 5.7 m3 (1,250
imp gal) per day require professional design.

Private Sewage System Standard of Practice
– some key proposed revisions for 2009
y Remove minimum ½ acre parcel size for private sewage
systems.
y municipal permission required to use holding tank and
municipality may specify holding tank only.
y Recognizing that the standard cannot anticipate all of the
varying receiving environments and density of development;
additional requirements may need to be applied.
y Septic tank size increases to more effectively manage sludge

y Percolation test removed as acceptable design criteria, soil
texture and structure are now used
y A linear effluent loading concept introduced
y Effluent loading rates on sandy, coarse textured soils are
reduced as a result of the focus on treatment
y Additional requirements are included to facilitate
maintenance
y Additional requirements are specified for systems over 5.7
cubic meters per day.
y Detailed requirements for site evaluation are included
(this forms the basis of a good design).
y Drip dispersal systems are introduced – sub‐surface
irrigation of highly treated wastewater enabled.
y Open discharges are limited to four per quarter plus one
on the remnant of the quarter section.

Principals of treating wastewater in soil
y Slow flow of effluent through the soil.
y Film flow around the soil particles to maximize contact
with soil organisms and increase the chemical reactions.
y Film flow causes pathogens to become stuck on the soil
particles or allows hostile organisms to kill of pathogens.
y The flow of effluent down through the soil is slow enough
that before it reaches a treatment boundary, such as
saturated soil, treatment is complete.

Soil Beetles
A Collembolan (spring tail)
a nematode

Some get stuck;

Some Die off;
Predators kill them.
Rapid change in onsite wastewater
science and available technologies
• Innovative
technologies and
advancement in
science
• What’s new and
what’s coming?

Innovations in onsite and what’s
coming
y Packaged wastewater treatment plants
y Nutrient reduction – Phosphorus / Nitrogen
y Drip dispersal systems and subsurface irrigation
y Reclaimed water, water re‐use.

Science
y Movement of water through soil
y Horizontal movement of water through soil recognized as
critical design element
y Treatment capacities of various soil types
y Treatment capacity of soil improved as effluent applied
more uniformly

Contemporary Issues
y So that was an overview of private sewage systems, the
scope of the regulations, and some of the science related
to treatment of sewage.
y Now what causes any relationship with land use planning,
subdivision, and development?

Trends that are increasing the importance
of private sewage management
y Large amount of development occurring that is not
serviced by wastewater collections systems .
y Density of development increasing.
y Increasing development around recreational waters.
y Urban people moving to rural settings with same
expectations for wastewater services.

Current issues
y Investigation of the suitability of lands for Onsite Systems
not adequate in many cases.
y Planning and subdivision decisions not supported with
good sound information as related to use of onsite sewage
systems.
y Density of development increasing and needs to consider:
y Cumulative loading
y Groundwater mounding
y Minimal area available for replacement system

Current Issues
y Private sewage around lakes
y Many older systems
y Old systems did not follow regulations
y Meant for minimal seasonal use not current use
y May be in ground too deep and too close the water table –
treatment is not achieved ( cesspool)
y Sandy soils around the lake reduce treatment capability of the soil
y Nutrient loading on the lake – Phosphorus / Nitrogen
y How should proposals for new development around lakes be
addressed?

Current Issues
y Improper pumping of holding tanks – onto the surface
instead of removed by truck.
y Illegal installs, pump‐outs, leakage, improper disposal,
enforcement difficulties.
y How to address these issues?
y Combined Municipal Government and Safety Codes Issue

Current Issues
y Widespread sewage system failures in some unsuitable subdivisions.
y Owners had an expectation they could use an onsite system
y Unsuitable soils led to system failure at the density of
development.
y No area for a replacement system.
y Cost of hauling sewage not anticipated by owner.
y Cost of complex system required not anticipated by owners.
y Constituents go to Municipal government requesting sewer
servicing.
y Municipalities face with unexpected costs for infrastructure and
time in addressing concerns of constituents.
100
Could decisions made at the time
of subdivision address some of
these issues?
y Why couldn’t they be addressed by the safety Codes Act
Regulations and requirements sets out in the Standard of
Practice
y Standard of Practice addresses one property at a time – it
cannot anticipate the density of development.
y Subdivision must be suitable for the limits of the soil
treatment capability
y Decision under Safety Codes legislation to allow only holding
tanks has large impact on Municipal infrastructure.
101
Planning and Development Considerations
y Increased system density demands suitability of soil
and type of system be considered both on the
subdivision scale and lot by lot
y cumulative & environmental impacts
y onsite system not always appropriate
y Deferred service agreements and arrangement of
subdivision to enable cost effective wastewater
servicing
y sustainable/safe development is based on capacity
102

103
Related Legislation
{ Safety Codes Act
{ Private Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation
AR229/97
{ Alberta Private Sewage Systems Standard of
Practice
{ Municipal Government Act (MGA)
{ Subdivision and Development Regulation AR
43/2002
{ Municipal land-use bylaws
{ Area structure plansApplied Land Use Planning 104
104
The MGA
y 3 (c) Develop and maintain Safe and Viable communities.
y 617
y (a) To achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial
development, use of lands and patterns of human
development, and .
y (b) to maintain and improve the physical environment
within which patterns of human settlement are situated
in Alberta

105
The MGA
y Pursuant to Section 654(1)(a) of the MGA,
“… a subdivision authority must not approve an application
for subdivision approval unless the land that is proposed to
be subdivided is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority,
suitable for the purpose for which the subdivision is
intended.”

106
Subdivision & Development
Regulation AR 43/2002
Subdivision authority MUST
consider:
y 7(f) the availability and adequacy of water supply, sewage
disposal system & solid waste disposal

107
Authority must consider, cont…
y 7(g) in the case of land not served by a licensed water
distribution and wastewater collection system, whether
the proposed subdivision boundaries, lot sizes and
building sites comply with the requirements of the Private
Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation (AR229/97) in
respect of the size and distance between property lines,
buildings, water sources and private sewage disposal
systems as identified in section 4(4)(b) and (c) .

108
Authority must consider, cont…
y To effectively consider and make decisions regarding a
subdivision that will rely on private sewage systems the
Subdivision Authority needs reliable and correct
information .
y Where does that information come from ?

109
The Subdivision Authority has the
authority to require the applicant to:
y Submit plans
y 4(3)(d) showing the approximate location and boundaries of the bed
and shore of any river, stream, watercourse, lake or other body of
water that is contained within or bounds the proposed parcel of land,
y 4(3)(e) if the proposed lots or the remainder of the titled area are to
be served by individual wells and private sewage disposal systems,
showing
y (i) the location of any existing or proposed wells, and
y (ii) the location and type of any existing or proposed private
sewage disposal systems, and the distance from these to existing or
proposed buildings and property lines,
110
Regulation, cont…
The Subdivision Authority has the authority to require the applicant to submit:
y 4 (4)(a) if a proposed subdivision is not to be served by a water distribution
system, a report that meets the requirements of section 23(3)(a) of the Water
Act,
y Also go the Water Ministerial Regulation section 9(1) “Subject to subsection (2), a
type of subdivision of land for the purposes of section 23(3) of the Act is a
subdivision that results in 6 or more parcels of land in a quarter‐section or in a
river lot.
y 4(4)(b) an assessment of subsurface characteristics of the land that is to be
subdivided, including but not limited to susceptibility to slumping or
subsidence, depth to water table and suitability for any proposed on‐site sewage
disposal system.

111
Regulation, cont…
The Subdivision Authority has the authority to require the
applicant to submit:
y 4(4)(c) if a proposed subdivision is not to be served by a
wastewater collection system, information supported by the
report of a person qualified to make it respecting the
intended method of providing sewage disposal facilities to
each lot in the proposed subdivision, including the
suitability and viability of that method.

112
Assessing the Suitability and
Viability of Onsite Systems
y Who is a qualified person?
y They have training / competency related to Private Sewage
systems.
y Hold formal certification.
y Professional Engineers.
y Professional Agrologist.
y Certified Private Sewage Installer.
113
y Intended method of Private Sewage.
y The report should clearly identify the type of system
required for the properties.
y Information regarding the estimated cost of the proposed
systems can impact the viability of using onsite systems.
y The level of maintenance and monitoring required, and
risk created if not carried out, can affect the viability.

114
y The suitability of an onsite system is dependant on the
subsurface characteristics [section 4(4)(b)] and limiting
features such as ground water, surface waters and wells.
y Section 4 (4) (b) (an assessment of subsurface
characteristics of the land that is to be subdivided,
including but not limited to susceptibility to slumping or
subsidence, depth to water table and suitability for any
proposed on‐site sewage disposal system)

115
y What should an assessment include?
y Suitability of soil
y Not a percolation test only.
y Not a geotechnical report intended to assess the soil stability
and load bearing capabilty
y Determination of soil texture and soil structure down through
the soil profile to a depth of at least 5 feet.
y Depth of investigation deeper if using traditional treatment
fields.
116
y Soil profile investigation identifies:
y Limiting hydraulic capacity of soil layers in the profile – soil
texture & structure.
y Soil colors and characteristics that show seasonal saturation of the
soil – the water table.
y Water table is not determined by a monitoring well and obtaining
a measure to free water depth.
y Water tables can vary by one or more meters from season to
season and year to year.
y Soil characteristics show long term high water levels in soil.
117
y Landscape considerations.
y Slopes can cause problems with onsite systems.
y Does the subdivision plan include grading of the lots?
y Grading of the lots change the soil conditions and often
make the site unsuitable for onsite sewage systems.
y the soil investigation and assessment is often irrelevant
once the site is graded and the soils investigated are
removed.

118
Suitability and Planning
Considerations continued…
y Layout of lots on subdivided area may affect available system
locations.
y Layout of individual lot – preserve suitable site area.
y Location of access roads and other services may affect
suitability.
y Investigation of a raw piece of land may show suitability but
after roads and underground utilities are installed the
suitable areas of land may be gone.
y Is there enough room on the lot for the size of system required
once the house garage and access road are included?
119
Suitability and Planning
Considerations continued…
y Arrangement of lots to accommodate deferred service
agreements requiring connection to collection systems
planned over long term
y As the layout of subdivision begins to restrict system
types, generally more expensive sewage treatment systems
required

120
y Underlying
restrictive soil
layer
y Near surface
seasonal
saturated soils
y Road location
on west edge
covers most
suitable area for
onsite systems

121
Re‐design with 19 lots
•communal onsite
sewage system at
location of suitable soil
•treated effluent line
back to road at south to
connect to later regional
system
•treated effluent to each
lot for irrigation, reduced
water use.
•lot grading is possible.

Which subdivision scheme is better ?
y Higher density, on the same land area.
y Who owns and operates the sewage system(s)
y What if one fails, many fail or the communal system fails
y Who do the ratepayers turn to if multiple failures or if the communal
system fails
y Which provides the most benefit
y Which provides more opportunities
y Which is more challenging
y Which fits into long range planning best, why.
y Which is cost effective – what’s considered in cost.
y First parcel out with existing systems.
y Inspection – considerations of suitability – clearance to
property line.
New first parcel out
¼ section

124
Model Process for Evaluating
Subdivisions that rely on Onsite
Private Sewage Treatment Systems
y A reference guide for municipalities.
y Provides direction to the applicant on what an assessment
should include.
y Developed by AAMD&C with grant from Municipal
Affairs.

125
Model Process continued…
y Considerations and evaluations that should be made
regarding a proposed subdivision using private sewage.
y Suitability of the soil is the most important part of the
system ‐ determines the treatment capacity.
y Soil capacity to receive and treat effluent needs to be
considered along with system (lot) density.
y If soil capacity to receive and treat the sewage is limited
what are the alternatives.

126
Model Process for Evaluating
Subdivisions and Onsite Sewage Systems
y Evaluation includes determination of:
y Depth of suitable soil – limiting characteristics in soil profile
y Location of water bodies
y Surface water drainage characteristics
y Volume & strength of sewage
y Soil texture classifications and soil structure to establish type and
size of system
y Area required for installation and separation distance
requirements
y Where the effluent will flow in the ground.
y Ground water mounding below the system and capacity of the soil
to move the effluent horizontally
y The impact on the receiving environment.
127
Wastewater Management
Continuum
→ planning & development
→ design of specific systems
→ construction & installation
→ operation & maintenance
→ remediation
128
Opportunities and integration of
onsite and communal systems
y Water reuse – not yet but being considered ‐ risk and
opportunities
y Reduction of potable water use to extend development
opportunities for a municipality given a limited water
supply and reduce loading on municipal and regional
water supplies.
y Reduction of wastewater loading on the environment, on
municipal infrastructure, and regional collection lines by
reusing wastewater or enabling final dispersal of a portion
of the wastewater load into the soil.
y What are the opportunities? Are they good to pursue?
Poor…
‐ planning,
‐ system design,
‐ installation,
‐ inspection and/or
‐ operation
can result in failing private sewage systems

130

131

132
Biomat on trench bottom

133
Failed field

134
Planning is a key factor for the
long term success of onsite
sewage systems

135
Wrap‐up
y Other things to consider:
y Available Grants
y Costs Recovery
y AUC
y Rate Modeling & Design
y Multi Year Capital Replacement & Financing Plans
y Capital Asset Policies

QUESTIONS?

137
Jerry Brett
y Jerry Brett is the Senior Planner for Kneehill County and
former Development Officer for the Town of Drumheller.
y He is a graduate of the Applied Land Use Planning
Certificate Program and has worked in municipal
government for 10 years.
y Before entering municipal government as a Graphics Arts
and Corporate Communications Specialist with the Town
of Drumheller, Jerry was in the printing, publishing and
graphic‐design field for 20‐years.
y Born and raised in London, England, moved to Canada in
1981, Jerry has lived in Alberta for 28‐years.
Darwin Durnie
• Darwin Durnie is the President of the Alberta Public Works
Association and is the Commissioner of Certification for the
American Public Works Association. He works as a Senior
Associate and is the Managing Leader of Environmental
Infrastructure for Stantec Consulting Ltd in Red Deer, Alberta.
He has worked in the Alberta industry since 1981 on the
Consulting Engineering and Municipal Government side.
• Darwin has managed large scale Capital Projects in the 30 ‐65
million range, managed emergency responses to floods and
other emergencies and was the Site Manager for the Blue Zone
in the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis for the Canadian
Government.

Alf Durnie
y Alf leads the development of a management framework and technical standards for
onsite private sewage systems in Alberta.
y Alf was instrumental in the development of the 1999 Alberta Private Sewage Systems
Standard of Practice Handbook which has been widely acclaimed by the sewage
industry and teaches a portion of the onsite sewage contractors course. Alf continues to
guide legislative changes to sewage codes in Alberta as well as coordinate research into
new onsite wastewater treatment technology.
y He has established relationships with many industry representatives, regulators and
researchers in Alberta and across Canada. He has been a leader in the effort to establish
a national standard for Onsite Sewage Systems. He is currently Co‐Chair of the CSA
committee developing a Standard for the Design and Installation of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment systems.
y He often deals with issues involving land use and planning in municipalities as it relates
to wastewater management using onsite sewage systems. He has presented at numerous
conferences in Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Ontario and taught private sewage system
courses in Alberta and Manitoba. He is an active advisor to many researchers working
on private sewage system ‐related projects now underway at Alberta Universities.

Resources
Legislation, Regulations Codes & Standards
y Municipal Government Act
y Water, Gas & Electric Companies Act
y Public Utilities Board Act
y Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act
y American Water & Wastewater Association
y Canadian Water & Wastewater Association
y Private Sewage Systems Standard of Practice and
Handbook
y Model Process
Resources
On‐line
y Cumulative Effects Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment
Reports Required under the Alberta Environmental Protection and
Enhancement:
y Actwww3.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/documents/cea.pdf
y Model Process available from
y AAMD&C www.aamdc.com
y Private Sewage Systems Standard of Practice and Handbook available
at:
y Learning Resources Center 780‐427‐2767
y Municipal Affairs Website
y www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/ss_PSDS.htm
y Drinking Water Regulation and Health, Frederick Pontius 2003
y Available at Open Library: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7616935M
Bibliography
1. Brundtland Commission, formally the World Commission on Environment and Development (United
Nations. 1987), "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.“ General Assembly
Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. Retrieved: 2007‐04‐12.
2. Sustainable Development chart by Johann Dréo.
3. Environment Canada “Did you know? Freshwater Facts for Canada and the World”:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/Water/en/info/facts/e_contnt.htm
4. Central Intelligence Agency “The World Factbook” www.cia.gov
5. The World's Water 2000‐2001, The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Peter Gleick, Island Press.
6. Making Every Drop Count ‐ Scientific American, February 2001, Peter Gleick.
7. Aqueduct Diagram, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (2006).
8. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999).
9. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Kingsley 1997).
10. Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Lao PDR.
www.mrcmekong.org/free_download/research.htm
11. Water Allocations and Drinking Water Facility Assessment Initiative by Pat Lang Drinking Water Branch of
Alberta Environment (June 8, 2005).
12. Water Utility Regionalization by Dan Rites, RWCG (June 8, 2005).

Acknowledgements
y Pat Lang, Program Manager in the Drinking Water Branch of Alberta
y Stantec Consulting Ltd. www.stantec.com
y Canadian Public Works Association www.publicworks.ca
y Paul Goranson, P.Eng., Public Works Manager, City of Red Deer

Planning For Water (2009) Contemporary Planning Issues

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Planning For Water (2009) Contemporary Planning Issues

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Contemporary Planning Issues March 19, 2009

Applied Land Use Planning 1

Applied Land Use Planning 3

Applied Land Use Planning 4

Applied Land Use Planning 5

Applied Land Use Planning 6

Applied Land Use Planning 7

Applied Land Use Planning 8

Applied Land Use Planning 9

“Sustainable Development meets the needs of the present without

Applied Land Use Planning 14

Applied Land Use Planning 15

Applied Land Use Planning 16

Applied Land Use Planning 17

Applied Land Use Planning 19

Applied Land Use Planning 20

Applied Land Use Planning 21

Vibrio cholerae ‐ the cholera bacterium

Applied Land Use Planning 22

Applied Land Use Planning 23

Applied Land Use Planning 25

Applied Land Use Planning 26

Applied Land Use Planning 27

Applied Land Use Planning 29

Applied Land Use Planning 30

Run-off (e.g., pesticides)

Applied Land Use Planning 31

Applied Land Use Planning 33

Applied Land Use Planning 34

Applied Land Use Planning 35

Applied Land Use Planning 36

Applied Land Use Planning 37

Applied Land Use Planning 38

Applied Land Use Planning 40

Applied Land Use Planning 42

Applied Land Use Planning 43

Applied Land Use Planning 44

Applied Land Use Planning 45

Applied Land Use Planning 46

Other Domestic Uses 1.3/6 2.2%

Applied Land Use Planning 48

Applied Land Use Planning 49

Applied Land Use Planning 50

Applied Land Use Planning 51

Capital Region Egremont

Redwater Capital Regional Northeast

Capital Region Vegreville Corridor

Applied Land Use Planning 53

Applied Land Use Planning 54

Applied Land Use Planning 55

Applied Land Use Planning 56

Applied Land Use Planning 58

Applied Land Use Planning 59

Applied Land Use Planning 60

Applied Land Use Planning 61

Applied Land Use Planning 62

Applied Land Use Planning 63

Applied Land Use Planning 64

Applied Land Use Planning 65

Applied Land Use Planning 66

Applied Land Use Planning 67

Applied Land Use Planning 70 70

Applied Land Use Planning 71 71