Water Balance Workshop

Water Balance Workshop
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Black Creek Pioneer Village
Toronto, Ontario
Summary Notes
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.
Water Balance Workshop 2

February 20, 2007
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

February 20, 2007
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/.

February 20, 2007
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

February 20, 2007
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

February 20, 2007
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”.

February 20, 2007
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

February 20, 2007
• 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).
Issue # of Responses
1 2 3 4 5
Lack of technical understanding within TRCA 15 10 8 9
jurisdiction
Limited experience with enhanced on-site 5 4 19 15
stormwater management (LID) techniques
Slow municipal approvals process for new 1 2 7 20 11
designs
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 3 6 8 15 11
much land
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?

February 20, 2007
• 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

February 20, 2007
• 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

February 20, 2007
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).
Issue #of Responses

1 2 3 4 5
Strategy sessions with municipal, development, 1 2 7 10 21
and other stakeholders to tackle specific issues
A TRCA guidelines for implementing the water 1 1 11 8 20
balance approach
A computer model/tool to help with the design 1 3 13 13 11
and planning of a water balance approach
Expansion of STEP as a virtual clearinghouse for 1 1 9 15 11
information
Demonstration projects and case studies 3 1 19 19
Additional technical and scientific studies within 1 1 5 21 13
TRCA jurisdiction
Education outreach to stakeholders 1 2 4 13 18
Design competitions / corporate leaders 1 2 11 16 10
program – to enhance profile
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

February 20, 2007
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

February 20, 2007
• 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)

February 20, 2007
Attachment A: List of Participants

February 20, 2007
List of Participants
Contact Organization 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 Sandra Kok Environment Canada
Housing
Sandra Baynes Canadian Mortage and Carlo Stefanutti Fieldgate Developments
Housing
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

February 20, 2007
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 Conservation Halton Geoff Nicholson Sabourin, Kimble and
MacPherson 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- Halton Region CA
Leung
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 Town of Richmond Hill Nadine Simpson Stantec
Zawadowsky
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- Charles Wakefield Ministry of the Environment
Stouffville
Frank Ierfino Town of Whitchurch- Myron Zurawsky Ministry of the Environment
Stouffville
Jane Underhill Township of King Ted Belayneh Ministry of the Environment
Adele Freeman TRCA John Antoszek Ministry of the Environment
Carolyn TRCA Khalid Hussain Ministry of the Environment
Woodland
Mary-Ann Burns TRCA Parsa Pezeshkpour Ministry of the Environment
Deb Martin- TRCA Zhiping Yang Ministry of the Environment
Downs
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

February 20, 2007
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 Gary Wilkins TRCA
Advisory Committee
Michael Hough Caledon Environmental Vicky Liu TRCA
Advisory Committee
Irene Jones Caledon Environmental Tom Dole TRCA
Advisory Committee
Bill Wilson Caledon Environmental Tim VanSeters TRCA
Advisory Committee
Brenda Lucas Caledon Environmental
Advisory Committee

February 20, 2007
Attachment B: Agenda

February 20, 2007
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 Stormwater Management & Water Dave Maunder, Aquafor Beech
course impacts: Need for a Water
Balance Approach
10:15– 10:35 Hydrogeological Perspective Don Ford, TRCA
10:35 - 10:50 BREAK
10:50 -11:10 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Glenn MacMillan, TRCA

Program
11:10 -11:35 Wet Weather Flow SWM Guidelines Ted Bowering, City of Toronto
11:35 -12:00 Water Balance Model Demonstration George Zukovs, XCG

Project
12:00 – 12:45 LUNCH
12:45 – 1:25 Stormwater Management Challenges Hans Schreier, UBC

on the West Coast
1:25 – 2:05 Action Plan for Sustainable Practices Tracy Patterson, Freeman Assoc.
2:05 - 2:30 Discussion - Next Steps Adele Freeman, TRCA

February 20, 2007
Attachment C: Presentation Slides

February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
February 20, 2007
Attachment D: Participant Questionnaire

February 20, 2007
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:

February 20, 2007
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?

February 20, 2007

Water Balance Workshop - Proceedings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Balance Workshop - Proceedings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Black Creek Pioneer Village

8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

1.0 Welcome and Introductions

Adele Freeman, Director of Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation

2.0 Water Budget Overview

See Section 3.0 for questions on this presentation.

Water Balance Workshop 2

Q. Are there examples of current technology implemented now or planned to be in the

4.0 Hydrogeological Perspective

Water Balance Workshop 3

It is important to understand that mitigation measures involving increased permeability of

There were no questions on this presentation.

5.0 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP)

For more information about the STEP Program, please visit

Water Balance Workshop 4

6.0 Wet Weather Flow Stormwater Management Guidelines

There were no questions on the Wet Weather Flow presentation.

7.0 Water Balance Model Demonstration Project

Water Balance Workshop 5

Questions on the demonstration project:

Q. Is a water balance approach consistent with an engineering approach? That is, in a

8.0 Stormwater Management Challenges on the West Coast and

9.0 Action Plan for Sustainable Practices

Water Balance Workshop 6

Questions on the Action Plan for Sustainable Practices:

Q. Were the homeowner participants given a definition of the term “naturalization”?

Q. There appears to be a disconnect between engineering design and homeowner

Q. How much definition of terms was given to the homeowners?

Q. We need to get the engineering component involved.

Water Balance Workshop 7

• Economics. If fixing erosion costs $90 million and implementation of stormwater

Water Balance Workshop 8

3. What do we need to do to move forward?

• Draw together Conservation Authorities, municipalities, the Province, development

11.0 Participant Questionnaire

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

Water Balance Workshop 9

Water Balance Workshop 10

Water Balance Workshop 11

Issue #of Responses

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

• Confirming the results with cost/benefit analysis

Water Balance Workshop 12

Water Balance Workshop 13

Water Balance Workshop 14

Attachment A: List of Participants

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Water Balance Workshop 15

Rick Gerber Central Lake Ontario CA Hazel Breton Credit Valley CA

Water Balance Workshop 16

Ted Bowering City of Toronto Mark Head Region of Peel

Water Balance Workshop 17

Water Balance Workshop 18

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Water Balance Workshop 19

BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE

TIME TOPIC SPEAKER

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

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

10:15– 10:35 Hydrogeological Perspective Don Ford, TRCA