water balance workshop - proceedings

Water Balance Workshop

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Black Creek Pioneer Village

Toronto, Ontario

Summary Notes

Water Balance Workshop 2 February 20, 2007


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Black Creek Pioneer Village

8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

SUMMARY NOTES

1.0 Welcome and Introductions A list of meeting participants can be found in Attachment A. All participants were recommended to review the following information prior to the meeting:

• Agenda (Attachment B); • Water Budget Discussion Paper by Gartner Lee; • Stormwater Management and Watercourse Impacts: The Need for a Water Balance

Approach by Aquafor Beech; and • Action Plan for Sustainable Practices by Freeman Associates.

The three reports were made available on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) website at http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/. Adele Freeman, Director of Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), welcomed participants to the workshop and thanked the speakers for coming. Ms. Freeman introduced the concept of water balance, and stressed the importance of water management to TRCA in projects such as this development of integrated watershed management plans and the role of the Authority in source water protection. Slides from the speakers’ presentations outlined below can be found in Attachment C. Slides from Hans Schreier’s presentation were unavailable.

2.0 Water Budget Overview Joe Puopolo, Senior Water Resources Engineer, Gartner Lee Limited, spoke on TRCA’s development of a policy for a balanced water budget approach to watershed management. This presentation was based on the water budget discussion paper previously made available to workshop participants. See Section 3.0 for questions on this presentation.


3.0 Need for a Water Balance Approach Dr. Craig MacRae, Aquafor Beech, spoke on the need for a water balance approach. Current practice has focused on end-of-pipe solutions to stormwater management. However, a new approach is needed which incorporates ponds, green roofs, reuse of rainwater, etc. The amount of stormwater runoff seen in urban areas is now more greatly affected by frequent small storm events than by the infrequent large events that were the main focus of flood control projects. Water that was once absorbed now runs off, due to the huge increase in impermeable surfaces in the urban environment. Sediment particle size was highlighted as an important issue in Dr. MacRae’s talk, as it is important to determine where permeable surfaces would best be placed. Clay soils will not absorb water whereas soil with larger particles, such as gravel, will be able to absorb stormwater. Questions on Water Balance Overview and Need for a Water Balance Approach: Q. Are you aware of any case studies using low impact development at densities

contemplated in the GTA? A. (JP) No, I’m not aware of any. (CM) I do not know of any either. Q. Are there examples of current technology implemented now or planned to be in the

near future that would meet the targets for permeability that are identified here? A. (CM) Yes, there are methods to reduce volume, such as downspout disconnection,

changes in top soil use, roadside biofilters, etc. Q. The soil in my area is clay. Are there examples of studies done in such areas, and how

much change was seen? A. (CM) There are only a few studies that I know of, but these methods were very effective

in those studies. (JP) In the U.S., it was determined that the footprint of development also needed to be

taken into account. Clay soils are definitely a greater challenge, but the cost of ignoring the volume aspect of stormwater is extremely high. Pilot projects in clay soil areas are needed.

Q. Could you comment on the idea that our streams are relatively young compared to

those studied by Leopold? Could the failure of our stormwater ponds be due to this? A. (CM) I see it was a physics problem – the amount of energy transported is the main

factor, rather than the age of the streams. We found channels from various geographic locations that still had similar properties.

4.0 Hydrogeological Perspective Don Ford, Manager – Geoenvironmental, TRCA, spoke on groundwater in the TRCA’s jurisdiction. A geological map of the area shows that it is 80% till, which is a relatively impervious material. Some water does penetrate through till. Only a small portion of the jurisdiction has bedrock that contains a fair amount of groundwater. Most bedrock is marine


shale containing little water; what water there is in these rocks tends to be very saline. Stormwater usually infiltrates to the bedrock through fractures in the till. The recharge rates are being determined, but are still being refined based on links between groundwater and surface water. Present estimates for recharge on the south side of the Oak Ridges Moraine are relatively low, but higher than expected in areas near Lake Ontario. Groundwater was tracked to determine where the particles within it originated, and it was determined that groundwater originates in various areas, including the Moraine but also including areas outside the jurisdiction of TRCA. Groundwater flows very slowly. The transit time from the Moraine to the Lake is a few days for surface water and 3,000 years for groundwater. To monitor groundwater, TRCA has only 22 wells in 19 locations throughout its jurisdiction. Also, these wells will generally be drilled only to the shallowest aquifer, and there may be deeper ones below. It is important to understand that mitigation measures involving increased permeability of surfaces may not be effective in some areas. We need to identify these locations, to focus on other measures, such as green roofs, that do not depend on increased perviousness. There were no questions on this presentation.

5.0 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) Glenn MacMillan, Senior Manager, Water & Energy, TRCA, spoke on the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP). The program was initiated about one year ago. Components include monitoring of the York University Computer Science building green roof, a permeable pavement study at Seneca College in King City, a study on rainwater harvesting and evaluations of clean air initiatives such as solar panels, windmills, and biowalls. The York University green roof was monitored for three years and compared with a control section of the same roof. Average runoff volume was reduced by 63% in spring-fall months and 54% overall compared to the control. Water quality also improved, except for phosphorus levels, which increased due to phosphorus in the growing medium. The average additional cost of 21 green roofs across the GTA was found to be $10.45/square foot. The permeable pavement study found that a granular sub-base was needed under the pavement and soils were not very permeable. Sand bases cannot be used, since the sand collects between the stones and permeability is decreased. It is also important to avoid sanding of snow on this pavement. For more information about the STEP Program, please visit http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/.


Questions on STEP: Q. Was any government funding provided for the construction of the green roof at York? A. No. The study was part of the recommendations made by a consultant, but no

government funding was provided for it. Q. What are your next projects? Are you working on front/backyard monitoring? A. We are listing are prioritizing technologies for future study. We are also working on a

sustainable house at Kortright. One of the goals of this project is zero water runoff. Q. How do you maintain the vegetation on the green roof under dry conditions or in

winter? A. Maintenance is needed for green roofs and needs to be considered in the costs, usually

maintenance amounts to $1 – 2/square foot annually. Vegetation is not replanted each year, and native plants requiring minimal watering should be used. The York roof does require watering, although this is not ideal for a green roof.

Q. For the bioswale, were sediments running off from the parking lot an issue? A. Monitoring is ongoing, but to date we have not seen this problem.

6.0 Wet Weather Flow Stormwater Management Guidelines Ted Bowering, Manager – Policy and Program Development, City of Toronto – Toronto Water, spoke on the stormwater management guidelines under the City’s Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Master Plan. Urban runoff is a main concern for Toronto’s sewer infrastructure. Although combined sewer outflow is also an issue, even in areas were there aren’t any CSOs, volume and water quality issues are seen due to runoff. The WWF Master Plan views rainwater as a resource and requires hierarchical management of it. The guideline document was released in November 2006 (view it online at: http://www.toronto.ca/water/protecting_quality/wwfmmp/pdf/wwfm_guidelines_2006-11.pdf) and documents what is expected on-site for construction projects. The Green Development Standard is a voluntary standard adopted last year by City Council. Besides stormwater management initiatives, it offers recommendations for development that reduces energy use, helps maintain biodiversity, reduces bird collisions, etc. It can be accessed here: http://www.toronto.ca/environment/pdf/gds_standard_jan07.pdf. There were no questions on the Wet Weather Flow presentation.

7.0 Water Balance Model Demonstration Project Mike Hulley, Associate, XCG Consultants Ltd., spoke on the study for TRCA on whether this model, developed for use in B.C., was appropriate for use in the GTA. The model will be an online tool at www.waterbudget.ca (the website is not active at this time). This tool would allow users to define their parcel, store information online, impose low-impact development on a parcel and view the results. It may be a problem for the novice user, in that some of the default parameters are based on B.C. data and would need to be altered for use in the GTA. The next


generation of the model was a vast improvement and is scheduled for release in the next two to three months. Questions on the demonstration project: Q. Is a water balance approach consistent with an engineering approach? That is, in a

disturbed environment, can we continue to rely on hydrology models of infiltration based on natural till areas? Is it true that if water filtrates in a natural environment, we can expect it to do so in an engineering environment?

A. Recharge is based on fractured flow. There are some limitations to this approach. Permeability may differ on a site-specific basis from the regional average. Targets should be based on a larger area rather than on a site. It does represent a challenge.

8.0 Stormwater Management Challenges on the West Coast and Climate Change

Professor Hans Schreier, University of British Columbia, spoke on the challenges of water management both in B.C. and around the world, within the context of changes in anticipated changes in water management due to climate change. A distinction was made between “blue water” (rainfall) and “green water” (water absorbed by vegetation and soil). The latter has not been managed at the site level and a paradigm shift is needed. Variability in temperature and precipitation is becoming more important than averages for either factor. Climate change will need to be considered even if emissions were held to today’s levels, as temperatures are predicted to increase until 2050 at the same rate as if emission increases continue at the present rate. Management will be more needed for frequent small storms rather than for infrequent large events. B.C. has had great successes in stormwater management. In Chilliwack, absorption rates of 85 – 90% were achieved in new subdivisions built on slopes. These measures are necessary to help protect the valleys below. Examples of projects in Sao Paolo, Brazil, B.C. and Australia were highlighted. Collection of roof water for gardening was recommended, and it was noted that in Australia, 1.5 million people collect roof water for drinking purposes. There were no questions on the water management under climate change presentation.

9.0 Action Plan for Sustainable Practices Tracy Patterson, Freeman Associates, spoke on the study on barriers in the marketplace to sustainable practices conducted on behalf of TRCA by Freeman Associates. The study contained both a homeowner component and a commercial one. Open-ended questions were asked during market research, and it was concluded that most homeowners surveyed viewed the term “naturalized” with negative connotations. None


identified their “ideal” landscape as a naturalized one. When presented with photos of naturalized landscapes, many felt more positively about the term and were much more likely to consider naturalized elements in their yard. The recommendation was made for an advertising campaign to associate the term “natural” with a beautiful landscape. Commercial interviews centered on areas with low roof-store area ratios and large impermeable surface areas (e.g. big box stores with large parking lots). Barriers identified here included approval time and capitol costs. Approval time for new designs was seen as higher than that for standard designs. Also, capitol costs were seen to increase in favour of reduced operating costs. However, operating costs were usually passed on to tenants, whereas the developer would be covering the increased capitol costs without recourse to recoup these costs. Questions on the Action Plan for Sustainable Practices: Q. Were the homeowner participants given a definition of the term “naturalization”? A. TRCA provided a one-sentence definition. It included the elements of reduced rainwater

runoff and an increase in species diversity. Q. The present building code is objective-based. What specific aspects of the code need

to be changed? A. The building code is not designed for green construction, so municipalities do not feel

the need to exceed its guidelines in their own plans. Q. There appears to be a disconnect between engineering design and homeowner

acceptance, when we do not know how to design “green”. We need to involve landscape and design professionals, how to you suggest approaching them?

A. There is an opportunity for various groups to work together and to involve the landscape and design professionals. Budget limitations of many NGOs mean few collaborative efforts and many small-scale projects. Homeowners get overwhelmed with small bits of information instead of having one large central resource that combines the initiatives. If people act and their action gets a positive return, they will move on to the next action.

Q. How much definition of terms was given to the homeowners? A. We tested their understanding of terms such as infiltration and watershed –

understanding was low. Few native species could be named. Otherwise, to avoid bias we did not define terms.

Q. We need to get the engineering component involved. A. I agree, more people need to see naturalized landscapes. A contest for designers may

work well, with homeowners applying to have their properties “done”.


10.0 Discussion and Next Steps Adele Freeman and Tracy Patterson then led a discussion of the next steps for water balance. Responses were based on three questions (see below) and are summarized here. 1. What are the key issues to adopting a water balance approach to stormwater

management?

• Economics. If fixing erosion costs $90 million and implementation of stormwater management source control costs $10 billion, it will not occur

• Government needs to show leadership • Aesthetics. Honour the public’s values, work within the aesthetic values they hold

(e.g. manicured lawns). • Consider ramifications if we don’t do this, what are the real costs of inaction? • Intensification. The GGH plan calls for an increased footprint, how do we manage

water balance with more dense development? • Can watersheds be graded according to degradation? Is it worthwhile to spend

money to rehabilitate a very degraded system versus concentrating on protecting undeveloped areas?

• Understanding; how do we get the public to understand the issues and the need? • Competition between developers. If the development next door did not need these

measures, how do we explain why they do? A level paying field is needed. • Disparity between new development and retrofits. • Existing stormwater management is not sufficient • Slower approvals procedures for innovative designs

2. What are the solutions to help encourage greater acceptance of a water balance

approach to stormwater management?

• Need set back/buffer zones along streams. Government should own – cheaper for government to acquire properties than for an engineered approach and nature works better than engineering

• Address policy limitations within government • There is a lack of demonstrated examples (small and large-scale) to achieve 20 mm

control. Need Ontario examples. • Education across the spectrum • Tailored approach needed, actions homeowners can take on their own landscape to

be provided • Use home/garden design shows on TV to highlight infiltrated/naturalized redesigned

gardens and yards • A level playing field for developers needs to be made through regulation (unless/until

the market asks for it) • Requirements need to be in place for retrofits, the burden is presently all on new

development • Municipalities could bring in stormwater utility fees as an economic incentive for

developers to install onsite stormwater management measures


• Simplify the tools to demonstrate ability to meet water balance targets and requirements

• Front-line staff need accessible tools and training to deal with “outside-the-box” plans • Any initiatives such as this need to be incorporated into other planning objectives;

ensure no conflicts with targets such as the Province’s density objectives 3. What do we need to do to move forward?

• Draw together Conservation Authorities, municipalities, the Province, development industry to discuss measures (Participants in this workshop, please provide contact information if you wish to be involved in meetings such as these)

11.0 Participant Questionnaire At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire (Attachment D). Forty-five (45) responses were received. The responses are summarized below. 1. Based on your experience, what do you think are the key issues to adopting a water

balance approach to stormwater management? Participants were asked to rank the following issues using a scale of 1 (not an issue) to 5 (a significant issue).

# of Responses Issue

1 2 3 4 5

Lack of technical understanding within TRCA jurisdiction

15 10 8 9

Limited experience with enhanced on-site stormwater management (LID) techniques

5 4 19 15

Slow municipal approvals process for new designs

1 2 7 20 11

Added construction and operating costs 3 7 12 21 Cost/benefits not understood 1 2 5 16 20 On-site techniques (e.g., bioswales) take up too much land

3 6 8 15 11

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

• Solid scientific based assessments combined with a total cost-benefit approach is necessary prior to requiring implementation of LID/BMPs

• Seems to have not mentioned that WB is a good approach, needs overarching model to provide some guidance to developing regulations/guidelines and in providing scenarios to politicians and public to encourage decision making at an influential level

• Create momentum and provincial leadership. There is a lot of existing experience from other jurisdictions on BMPs; too much hesitancy in Ontario and lack of provincial leadership and funding program needs to be addressed – incentives also needed

• More integration of municipalities – maybe forced via Places to Grow Act?


• Conflict with development form and municipal standards • Homeowner expectations • Cost benefits of implementation • Soil conditions in GTA generally unsuited to infiltration • Is it realistic to have good fish and benthics in urban streams? • Two most important aspects of SWM in a water balance approach are infiltration and

evapotranspiration. Today we have spoken at length on infiltration; however, ET also needs some attention. Biggest issue for private landowners is cost; cost of land and cost of construction. In an uncontrolled economy, government should do more to reduce the burden on private parties.

• We need to identify practical solutions that are applicable to the GTA • Mechanism to ensure that on-site SWM and infiltration techniques and measures are

maintained in the long term by the private property owner • Municipalities do not have the financial resources to operate, maintain and ultimately

replace complex infiltration systems • Sustainable funding must be put into place so these new infiltration and green

building initiatives can be implemented and maintained • Funding • Costs to developers/municipality allocation - $/area standard, can be spent on on-site

controls or given to municipality S.B. for no controls or increased municipal requirements

• Understand the soils suited for water balance • Better education for benefits of water balance • Need a good model to deal with the water balance itself, which includes both surface

and groundwater to actually estimate all components of the water balance • Soil requirements for dry wells and soak away pits; history of success and failure • Look at what has been happening in Waterloo Region where the community depends

on groundwater and these planning initiatives have been in place at least for 2 or more years. What are the successes and failures? What is experience of GRCA regarding urbanized development and success/failure with enhanced stormwater management?

• I think more a case of not wanting to accept the long-term environmental costs if we don’t adopt a water balance approach

• Challenge above should not hinder moving forward on improved stormwater (i.e., volume)

• Participation by approval agencies and development industry on an equal basis is key rather than an us against them mentality – cooperation though discussions like to day are great

• I think all of these issues contribute. Also, I think these sustainable practices need to be bundled and put out to the public/businesses. There are too many messages going out from too many NGOs, governments, and agencies

• Municipalities may be reluctant to deviate from typical development standards for residential lots, we know this because plan review area already asking for post to pre WB and it is more the municipalities that resist than the proponents

• Developers will ask: what’s in it for them? Not like energy saving urban design where the financial benefits are relatively short term

• Presents yet another constraint limiting a parcel’s net developable area


• Who will maintain the lot level controls? Municipalities? We can not rely on private residents. Municipalities are resistant to taking on this responsibility

• Lack of recognition of synergy between natural heritage objectives and water balance objectives. We needed some ecologists at this workshop to tell us how a larger, more diverse natural heritage system means less effort is required to achieve the natural water balance in post development. This works both ways, i.e., the natural water balance is necessary in order to sustain natural features, they rely on it to survive and thrive

• Needs to be incorporated into federal and provincial building codes • Policies not guidelines in official plans • What are the incentives to the development industry? E.g., tax reductions • Public buy-in • The prime issue appears to be that the science and engineering regarding the water

balance does not appear to be well understood. For example, is the objective to reduce water flow in creeks or to stabilize it? Which areas require more or less flow?

• The erosion issue due to excessive flows from SWMPs should have been recognized a long time ago. Are these proposed changes going to result in more problems down the road? Several people have mentioned density issues – this relates to urban sprawl – which could actually make the situation even worse e.g., higher density means more runoff – but lower density would or could increase the land area which is urbanized, hence, more run-off

• Lack of public understanding/education • “Water balance” is a theoretical construct. The issue is surplus water volume and

rates – what does it matter where it goes or how, provided that the systems that depend on it get what they need? Water balance is not directly relevant, it’s just trying to tie the CAs’ new and unaccustomed role under the Clean Water Act and its water budget requirements to the CAs’ traditional role

• With the PPS recommending intensification and increasing densities, we as professionals need to determine how much water balance can be reasonably achieved. I believe that we need to approach the Province to revisit their approach to increasing densities by first consulting with the professionals (from a water balance approach) and then set the densities

• Land owner acceptance of facilities • To increase pervious areas in subdivision, decrease in building area is required and

needs support from municipal leaders • Provide incentives for home owners, developers, etc. to implement these

technologies. As Glenn indicated there are increased costs for implementation and maintenance for particular technologies that people will not want to incur

• Political will – must get buy-in and endorsement from municipal councils (use them also to drive the environmental agenda)

• Re: slow municipal approvals – this can be a red herring OPAs and ZB-LHs are tied to council meetings. Building permits are requested and processed quickly, faster than Chicago’s “green team”

• Intensification, climate change, aesthetic perceptions


2. What are the solutions to help encourage greater acceptance of a water balance approach to stormwater management?

Participants were asked to rank the following solutions using a scale of 1 (not a solution) to 5 (a good solution).

#of Responses Issue

1 2 3 4 5

Strategy sessions with municipal, development, and other stakeholders to tackle specific issues

1 2 7 10 21

A TRCA guidelines for implementing the water balance approach

1 1 11 8 20

A computer model/tool to help with the design and planning of a water balance approach

1 3 13 13 11

Expansion of STEP as a virtual clearinghouse for information

1 1 9 15 11

Demonstration projects and case studies 3 1 19 19 Additional technical and scientific studies within TRCA jurisdiction

1 1 5 21 13

Education outreach to stakeholders 1 2 4 13 18 Design competitions / corporate leaders program – to enhance profile

1 2 11 16 10

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

• Confirming the results with cost/benefit analysis • There needs to be consultation with the area municipalities with respect to identifying

the challenges associated with implementing these SWM/groundwater balance measures, and practical solutions

• Policies rather than guidelines • Tax incentives/penalties • Post development monitoring/retrofitting • Information regarding corporate developer environmental records available to public • A completed demonstration project of water balance approach used for stormwater

management, including monitoring to show the approach is better/sustainable/cost effective for development and environment

• Ultimately it is a shift in social paradigm approach as to how we are willing to live and why

• Re: technical/scientific studies: so the “answers” are available when the public is ready to receive

• The work that has been done is very thorough and necessary. There is a real need to incorporate the design and social issues into the work that’s being done

• To coordinate with municipalities so we have their support in ensuring proponents’ compliance with our water balance policy

• I am not convinced that the TRCA has any idea about the connection between water balance and the quality of the streams within their jurisdiction on any scale, so I think getting development onside with something which is still not clearly understood by


the scientists and engineers would be a bit like putting the cart before the horse. A prime example is the disconnection of downspouts – which often as not spills water onto the road, from which it goes into the storm drain. What is the point of this? Typically this does not actually divert anything

• Site specific assessment of relevant water pathways • Municipalities/CAs/Province as a whole need to provide professionals a standardized

approach to achieve the necessary water balance within developments (e.g., such as the one used for SWM ponds, i.e., MOE SWMP design guidelines)

• Where possible, water balance analysis should be done at the earliest and broadest planning stage possible (e.g. MESP) rather than subdivision or site plan stage

• Demonstration, examples, education • Demonstration business/industry/institutional clusters, demonstration gardens,

garden make-over shows • Involve the Province – growth plan for GGH requires increased density and

imperviousness – potential conflict with water balance goals 3. Suggest the top 3 priority actions necessary to move towards a water balance policy.

• Clearly ID areas where it is feasible in TRCA and other CAs; Prove it works; Credit towards end-of-pipe design

• Establish scientific criteria (similar to MOE guidelines for SWM pond sizing); Establish practical infrastructure that can address criteria that includes a cost-benefit analysis; Establish clear maintenance and monitoring requirements; Final policy should have input/buy-in by developers, Town, conservation authorities, consultants (UDI)

• Practical municipally approvable solutions that integrate into development forms required by municipal and provincial policies; Cost benefit analysis of proposal; Setting realistic implementation timelines to moderate approval difficulties

• Public education and outreach to stakeholders; Explore funding to subsidize projects; Address the concerns of stakeholders related to additional capital and maintenance costs

• Provide guidance and motivation; Reduce the permit costs to provide relief to public; Research cost effective solution

• Strategy session; TRCA guidelines; Computer model/tool (as per question 2) • Determine direction – best results, long term feasibility; Justify financially – on-site

controls, less infrastructure required; Mandatory compliance – as built, performance targets in situ

• Development industry buy-in on new water balance policies • Financial evaluation of short term cost and long term benefits for various solutions by

independent professionals; Pilot projects development – green house • Educate public; Prove long term maintenance/operational issues; Engage

government • Need a guideline document/procedures with case studies • Development of an Ontario model for demonstration projects e.g., Mayfield West in

Caledon • Quicker adoption for secondary municipal planning of STEP approaches; Better

public outreach; Better cooperation and partnerships between municipal government and industry; Public awareness campaign through advertising – public and key messages


• Case studies; Guidelines and tools; Monitoring and performance evaluation • Expansion of STEP; Computer model/tool to have detail understanding of

surface/groundwater ; Research and additional technical studies • Secure natural lands that are high functioning (need to ensure we have something to

value and not lose the natural elements before any progress is achieved); Provide tax incentives or other economic incentives to developers to implement ST (short/term/intermediate measure but needed to kick-start the shift in development practices); Education of public and politicians

• Municipal capacity to support and approve charge quantity; Quick and simple tools to have normal folk identify and appreciate stormwater charges; Economics for municipalities and home owners and developers

• Confirm scientific support for policy to the extent possible; Draft policy with TRCA staff; Consult with stakeholders on draft policy and then finalize

• TRCA guidelines; Education outreach; Education on a “kiss” program on all green things, air, water, electricity, carbon, all in one spot, start one house at a time and move up home-building-university-etc

• Education of decision makers, developers and the public on water balance; Water reduction/efficiency programs; Design competition on porous pavements that are affordable; Change land use policies adjacent to river/streams/waterfront (no development in 60m, etc)

• Understand the water balance; Focus energies on changes to designed construction which will actually make a difference; Try to avoid developing regulations which are based on weak science and engineering

• Public awareness; Realistic public policy • Draft guidelines; Have guidelines accepted by all (municipalities and UDI); Educate

all on the guidelines and implementation by all • Need policies and regulations; Need design criteria/default values – keep them

simple; Need pilot and demonstration projects; Need public education and training • Understanding issue; Positive incentives to water balance; Regulation • Guidelines • Education; Sample projects; Agency coordination (municipal/provincial/CAs)



Attachment A: List of Participants



List of Participants

Contact Organization


Rick Gerber Central Lake Ontario CA Hazel Breton Credit Valley CA Dave Maunder Aquafor Beech Christine Zimmer Credit Valley CA Craig MacRae Aquafor Beech Alan Newall Credit Valley CA Bill de Geus Aqualogic Grace Tessa Dillon Consulting Suzanne Barrett Barrett and Associates Rob Muir Dillon Consulting Cate Soroczan Canadian Mortage and

Housing Sandra Kok Environment Canada

Sandra Baynes Canadian Mortage and Housing

Carlo Stefanutti Fieldgate Developments

Warren Coulter Central Lake Ontario CA Ron Bisaillon Filtrexx Perry Sission Central Lake Ontario CA Ken Chow G.M. Sernas Amber Langmuir Central Lake Ontario CA Derek Gray Greater Toronto Airport

Authority Alan Wu City of Brampton Randy McGill Greater Toronto Airport

Authority Karl Walsh City of Brampton Nicole Langton Halton Region CA David Kenth City of Brampton Cory Harris Halton Region CA Brian Chan City of Mississauga George Stojanovic Hamilton CA Lincoln Kan City of Mississauga Hans Schreier Institute for Resources

Environment Jeremy Blair City of Mississauga Tom Hogenbirk Lake Simcoe CA Mary Bracken City of Mississauga Lamoire Alexander Marhsall Macklin and

Monahan Grant McGregor City of Pickering Bruce Fischer Metrus Carla Pierini City of Pickering Michael Pozzebon Metrus Paal Helgesen City of Pickering Bryan J. Buttigieg Miller Thompson LLP Bob Starr City of Pickering Henry Jun Ministry of Natural

Resources David Dunn City of Pickering John Pisapio Ministry of Natural

Resources Allen Li City of Toronto Mark Heaton Ministry of Natural

Resources Alex Shevchuk City of Toronto Rob Fancy Ministry of Natural

Resources Roy Averill City of Toronto Nick Zeibots Municipal Infrastructure

Group Graham Moore City of Toronto Abe Khademi Municipal Infrastructure

Group Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto Dave Ashfield Municipal Infrastructure

Group Ilze Andzans City of Toronto Glen Switzer Nottawasaga CA Jane Welsh City of Toronto Tom Reeve Nottawasaga CA Les Arishenkoff City of Toronto Blair Wolk Orlando Corp Patrick Cheung City of Toronto Damian Albanese Region of Peel




Ted Bowering City of Toronto Mark Head Region of Peel Michael Frieri City of Vaughan Laura Meteer Region of York Michael Won City of Vaughan Sabourin Kimble Sabourin, Kimble and

Associates Steve Holysh Conservation Halton Alan Kimble Sabourin, Kimble and

Associates Dave MacPherson

Conservation Halton Geoff Nicholson Sabourin, Kimble and Associates

Dave Bizjak Smart Centres David Kellershohn Schaeffers Consulting Engineers

Leah Axt Smart Centres Jessica Annis Urban Development Institute

Tom Bosjnak Smart Centres George Zukovs XCG Sandra Kaiser Smart Centres Mike Hulley XCG Kevin Tryon Town of Ajax Joe Puopolo Gartner Lee Paul Neuman Town of Ajax Tracey Patterson Freeman Associates Geoff Hebbert Town of Caledon Jiri Marsalek National Water Research

Institute Andrew Pearce Town of Caledon Sherwin Watson-

Leung Halton Region CA

Lilli Duoba Town of Markham Ray Guther Halton Region CA Mavis Urquhart Town of Markham Bahar Habibullah Halton Region and

Hamilton Conservation Brian Lee Town of Markham Douglas McGill Stantec Soran Sito Town of Markham Amber Palmer Stantec Eugene Zawadowsky

Town of Richmond Hill Nadine Simpson Stantec

Dan Olding Town of Richmond Hill Sarah Kurtz SCS Consulting Group Ltd Jeff Walters Town of Richmond Hill Dave Leighton Urban Tech David Dunn Town of Richmond Hill Dan Joyce Ministry of the Environment Jack Boonstra Town of Whitchurch-

Stouffville Charles Wakefield Ministry of the Environment

Frank Ierfino Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Myron Zurawsky Ministry of the Environment

Jane Underhill Township of King Ted Belayneh Ministry of the Environment Adele Freeman TRCA John Antoszek Ministry of the Environment Carolyn Woodland

TRCA Khalid Hussain Ministry of the Environment

Mary-Ann Burns TRCA Parsa Pezeshkpour Ministry of the Environment Deb Martin-Downs

TRCA Zhiping Yang Ministry of the Environment

Dean Young TRCA Beata Golas Region of Durham Christine Tu TRCA Shelly Cuddy Region of Durham Don Ford TRCA David Leinster Region of Durham Allison Edwards TRCA Shahzad Khan TRCA Allison TRCA Kelly Montgomery TRCA




MacLennan Maggie Liu TRCA Laurian Farrell TRCA Gary Bowen TRCA Laurie Nelson TRCA Glenn MacMillan TRCA Ryan Ness TRCA David Love TRCA Sameer Dhalla TRCA David Burnett TRCA Sonya Meek TRCA Gavin O'Brien Caledon Environmental

Advisory Committee Gary Wilkins TRCA

Michael Hough Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee

Vicky Liu TRCA

Irene Jones Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee

Tom Dole TRCA

Bill Wilson Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee

Tim VanSeters TRCA

Brenda Lucas Caledon Environmental Advisory Committee



Attachment B: Agenda



WATER BALANCE WORKSHOP

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2007

BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE

AGENDA

TIME TOPIC SPEAKER 8:30 – 9:00 Registration

9:00 - 9:05 Introduction Adele Freeman, TRCA

9:05 - 9:35 Water Budget Overview Joe Puopolo, Gartner Lee

9:35 -10:15 10:15– 10:35

Stormwater Management & Water course impacts: Need for a Water Balance Approach Hydrogeological Perspective

Dave Maunder, Aquafor Beech Don Ford, TRCA

10:35 - 10:50 BREAK 10:50 -11:10

Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program

Glenn MacMillan, TRCA

11:10 -11:35 Wet Weather Flow SWM Guidelines

Ted Bowering, City of Toronto

11:35 -12:00 Water Balance Model Demonstration Project

George Zukovs, XCG

12:00 – 12:45 LUNCH 12:45 – 1:25 1:25 – 2:05

Stormwater Management Challenges on the West Coast Action Plan for Sustainable Practices

Hans Schreier, UBC Tracy Patterson, Freeman Assoc.

2:05 - 2:30

Discussion - Next Steps

Adele Freeman, TRCA



Attachment C: Presentation Slides




Attachment D: Participant Questionnaire



Water Balance Workshop - Participant Questionnaire Please complete the following questions prior to leaving today’s workshop.

1. Based on your experience, what do you think are the key issues to adopting a water balance approach to stormwater management? Using a scale of 1 (not an issue) to 5 (a significant issue), please circle the corresponding number:

Lack of technical understanding within TRCA jurisdiction

1 2 3 4 5 Limited experience with enhanced on-site stormwater management (LID) techniques.

1 2 3 4 5 Slow municipal approvals process for new designs.

1 2 3 4 5 Added construction and operating costs.

1 2 3 4 5 Cost / benefits not understood.

1 2 3 4 5 On-site techniques (e.g., bioswales) take up too much land.

1 2 3 4 5

Please use this space to add additional issues not addressed above:


2. What are the solutions to help encourage greater acceptance of a water balance approach to stormwater management? Using a scale of 1 (not a solution) to 5 (a good solution), please circle the corresponding number:

Strategy session(s) with municipal, development, and other stakeholders to tackle specific issues

1 2 3 4 5

A TRCA guidelines for implementing the water balance approach 1 2 3 4 5

A computer model / tool to help with the design and planning of a water balance approach

1 2 3 4 5 Expansion of STEP as a virtual clearinghouse for information

1 2 3 4 5 Demonstration projects and case studies

1 2 3 4 5 Additional technical and scientific studies within TRCA jurisdiction

1 2 3 4 5 Education outreach to stakeholders

1 2 3 4 5 Design competitions / Corporate leaders program – to enhance profile

1 2 3 4 5 Please use this space to add additional solutions not addressed above:

3. Suggest the top 3 priority actions necessary to move towards a water balance policy?

water balance workshop - proceedings

Documents