Fusion Landscaping - Region of Peel · 2017. 9. 1. · Region-wide Fusion Landscaping program, and its current Water Smart Irrigation Profession (WSIP) program. Below is a discussion

May 2017

Fusion Landscaping:Environmental benefits for residential properties

Prepared by Tracy Patterson, Freeman Associates and Bill Gauley, Gauley Associates

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Peak Water Demand ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Municipal Water Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 2

2.3 Market-based Programming ......................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Market Research Findings ............................................................................................................. 5

2.5 Re-positioning Water Smart Peel .................................................................................................. 7

3.0 FUSION LANDSCAPING PILOT STUDY .................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Pilot Study Area – Community of Clarkson ................................................................................... 8

3.2 Rationale for the Selection of the Study Area ............................................................................. 10

3.3 Pilot Study Structure .................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Fusion Landscape Demonstration Homes ................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 1930 Davebrook Rd. ............................................................................................................ 13

3.4.2 1824 Delaney Drive .............................................................................................................. 15

3.4.3 818 Barsuda Drive ................................................................................................................ 17

3.4.4 1066 Welwyn Drive .............................................................................................................. 19

3.4.5 1189 April Drive ................................................................................................................... 21

3.5 Non-Residential Fusion Landscaping Demonstration Sites ......................................................... 23

3.6 Resident Engagement and Fusion Landscape Promotion ........................................................... 23

3.7 Retail Joint Venture and Local Business Promotional Support ................................................... 25

4.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Evaluation of Residential Water Use ........................................................................................... 26

4.2 Landscape Consultations ............................................................................................................. 27

4.3 Physical Changes to Home Landscapes ....................................................................................... 27

4.4 Resident Satisfaction ................................................................................................................... 28

4.5 Stormwater Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 29

4.5.1 Water Quality Treatment and Pollution Prevention .................................................................. 29

4.5.2 Water Quality Treatment and Pollution Prevention ............................................................. 30

4.5.3 Peak Flow Reduction ............................................................................................................. 30

5.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Table of Appendices APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 34

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................. 55

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Over the period 2010 to 2015 the Regional Municipality of Peel undertook a pilot study to investigate the efficacy of a new approach to driving uptake of water efficient landscaping practices by single-family homeowners. The pilot study tested a new landscape concept known as Fusion Landscaping™ and the use of alternative marketing and engagement mechanisms to secure uptake of Fusion Landscaping by residents. This report provides the rationale for the pilot study, a description of the project, a summary of the findings from the monitoring and evaluation and a discussion of the implications for future water efficient landscaping programming in the Region of Peel.

2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The Regional Municipality of Peel has a projected population growth of more than 300,000 by 2031 bringing the total population to over 1.6 million residents. Meeting increasing water demands associated with population growth while ensuring the sustainable management of water resources are the priorities of the Region’s water efficiency program. Understanding how customers use water, the implications of such water use now and in the future, and determining the most cost-effective means of maximizing water savings are the primary goals of water efficiency planning and programming at the Region. In 2012, the Region developed a Water Efficiency Strategy (WES). The strategy built on the 2004 Water Efficiency Plan and aligned programming to reflect Regional priorities, marketplace and legislative changes, and to meet water saving targets. The WES identified five primary objectives as follows:

1. Reduce peak day water demands

2. Meet legislation requirements and goals for water efficiency

3. Keep Regional residential per capita water demands in line with other leading GTA municipalities

4. Help business customers manage their water demands more effectively

5. Manage system water loss

2.1 Peak Water Demand

Peak day demand is the highest volume of daily water production during the calendar year, typically caused by an increase in customer irrigation after extended periods of hot, dry weather. These demands typically produce less than 1% of annual water sales revenues1, but are the most expensive demands for a municipality to meet as they often drive the need for infrastructure expansion as many infrastructure elements are designed and sized to meet peak day demands.

1 Ontario Water Works Association, Outdoor Water Use Reduction Manual (June 2008)

2

The Region currently completes infrastructure planning activities based on a Peak Day Ratio of 1.55. The Peak Day Ratio is the ratio of the highest daily water production volume in a year to the average daily water production volume in the same year. A lower Peak Day Ratio allows a water provider to operate their systems more efficiently. Figure 1 below shows the peak day demand, peak day ratio and average annual daily demand for the years 2001 through 2015. Note the significant fluctuations in peak day demands from year to year.

Figure 1: Region of Peel Peak Day Demand, Peak Day Ratio and Average Annual Day Demand

Due to variations in weather, the discretionary nature of supplemental landscape irrigation, and a project population growth in Peel of about 35,000 people per year, it is important that the Region target irrigation demand reductions to keep the Peak Day Demand and Peak Day Demand Ratio as low as possible.

2.2 Municipal Water Efficiency

Municipal water efficiency programming has typically focused on broad-based initiatives such as toilet and fixture rebate programs and residential outreach and education. Such programs remain commonplace in North America, but leading jurisdictions are moving more toward market-based programming. The rationale for this move to a market-based approach to water efficiency programming is the inherent limitations of generic (non-targeted) rebate and customer engagement initiatives. These limitations may be summarized as follows:

3

• Program participants are volunteers and are, therefore, unlikely to be ‘water wasters’;

• Offering rebates for commonplace or preferred products can result in a high level of ‘free ridership’ where a customer receives a rebate to undertake an action they would have done even without a rebate;

• High water users may not be reached;

• May require continuous and/or increasing investment with an ever-decreasing return in water savings as the program approaches saturation;

• Impact, in terms of water savings, can be questionable and/or difficult to quantify with some initiatives, such as landscaping audits and informational/educational resources.

The Region of Peel has taken the lead in moving toward a market-based approach. It was the first municipality in Canada to pilot test market-based initiatives to address excessive peak season water use in the residential sector. Pursuing a marketing-based approach continues the Region’s efforts to focus resources where the greatest water savings will be achieved. The Region’s primary goal for taking a market-based approach to water efficiency programming is to generate transformative, sustained changed in the water use practices of residential and ICI customers. In other words, to progressively move the marketplace toward more water efficient products and practices such that water efficiency becomes imbedded or standard practice in the marketplace. Securing water efficient practices in the marketplace will ensure the Region continues to meet its water saving targets despite its significant population growth.

2.3 Market-based Programming

Market-based programming involves strategic intervention in the marketplace to drive uptake of desired practices and measures amongst target customers. In the case of water efficiency, a market-based approach targets high water users - customers with high average annual demands and/or high seasonal demands. A market-based approach utilizes the marketplace as a delivery mechanism for water efficiency. The service and product supplier sectors are large and trusted2 providers whose services are sought out and paid for by end-users. Strategically engaging this network of delivery agents can magnify the impact of municipal water efficiency programming and leverage limited resources. Market-based programming is about knowledge. An effective water efficiency program requires a sound understanding of the marketplace, e.g., what is driving the unsustainable water use practices of customers and who are the key “influencers” - landscapers, irrigation contractors, plumbers, etc. Understanding the marketplace and strategically targeting specific market segments for greater penetration is a more effective means of reaching priority customers than the generic, broad-

2 Single-family resident respondents consistently identified garden centres and nurseries, landscape contractors and designers and hardware retailers (including box stores) as “trusted sources” of landscape related products and services in market research conducted by Freeman Associates for Halton Region (2005), Toronto Region Conservation Authority (2006), City of Mississauga (2008), and the City of Toronto (2009)

4

based programming commonplace in most municipalities. Figure 2 below provides an outline of a market-based approach to programming.

Figure 2: Market-Based Approach

Market-based programming initially requires more effort and larger investments versus broad-based programs but, over the longer-term, market forces begin to take over and program costs decline. The advantages of market-based programming over broad-based initiatives are significant and may be summarized as follows:

• Enable the Region to focus on its core business instead of managing and administering ancillary programs such as fixture rebates.

• Declining costs over time as the marketplace takes over vs. broad-based programs where a continued (and growing) influx of Regional resources is required to sustain initiatives.

• Share the responsibility for conservation and efficiency with the marketplace. • Utilize market intelligence and expertise to cost-effectively deliver conservation and

efficiency initiatives with transformative impact. • Build valuable relationships between the Region and key players in the marketplace. • Provide a Regionally-based economic stimulus by creating opportunities for water

efficient products and services in the marketplace. • Imbed water efficiency in the marketplace with long-term change throughout the supply

chain. • Self-fulfilling – builds momentum and commitment over time.

5

Market segmentation and analysis is a critical component of a market-based approach to water efficiency programming. The Region has drawn on available market research for its peak water use reduction pilot in Clarkson and its Region-wide Fusion Landscaping™ program. The findings from this leading market research informed the design and structure of Clarkson pilot project, the Region-wide Fusion Landscaping program, and its current Water Smart Irrigation Profession (WSIP) program. Below is a discussion of the market research findings the Region drew upon to develop the Clarkson Fusion Landscaping pilot project and the Region-wide program.

2.4 Market Research Findings

Following a market-based approach, the Region reviewed market research studies undertaken with single-family homeowners in the Greater Toronto Area, including the community of Clarkson in Mississauga, to determine the ways and means of securing uptake of water efficient landscaping practices amongst residents. Key findings from the market research studies with single-family homeowners identified motivational drivers for water efficient landscaping amongst homeowners, the trusted “influencers” or service providers utilized by these residents, and the constraints or barriers to securing uptake by homeowners of water efficient landscape designs and maintenance practices. The market research clearly showed that homeowners are concerned primarily with aesthetics when it comes to their home landscape. Homeowner respondents provided an average rating of 7.7 out of 10 for the importance of their home landscape. When asked to describe the reason for the rating they provided, homeowners used words such as “beautiful”, “a reflection of me”, and “pride”. Chart 1 provides a summary of homeowners’ responses showing the deep emotional connection they have with the aesthetic aspect of their home landscape. Chart 1: What does your home’s landscape mean to you?

6

In market research studies, homeowners were asked to draw pictures of an ideal front yard landscape for their home and then to draw an ideal “water efficient” (Halton Region Study3), and “sustainable” (City of Mississauga study4) front yard landscape for their home. Figure 3 provides a sample of the homeowner respondents’ drawings and the corresponding percentage of homeowners the drawings represent for each of the research samples.

Halton Region Homeowner Research Sample – Drawing representative of 100% of Homeowners 1. Ideal Landscape 1. Ideal Water Efficient Landscape Mississauga Homeowner Research Sample – Drawing representative of 46% of Homeowners 2. Ideal Landscape 2. Ideal Sustainable Landscape Figure 3: “Ideal” Front Yard Landscape vs “Water Efficient” and “Sustainable” Front Yard Landscape

3 Regional Municipality of Halton. 2006. Residential Summer Peak Demand Reduction Program Marketing Study. Authored by Freeman Associates. 4 City of Mississauga. 2010. Market Research and Marketing Strategy: Lot-Level Stormwater Control in the Residential Sector. Authored by Freeman Associates.

7

These drawings clearly reflect homeowners’ belief that a water efficient or sustainable landscape represents a loss of aesthetic value. Given the expressed importance of the home landscape as a reflection of the homeowner, the barrier to promoting water-efficient landscapes is significant.

2.5 Re-positioning Water Smart Peel

Recognizing the intrinsic negative perception homeowners hold of water efficient and sustainable landscapes, the Region embarked on a re-positioning of its Water Smart landscaping program to focus on aesthetics and reflect the values of homeowners. Regional programming for water efficient landscaping shifted to the concept of a new landscape paradigm. This new paradigm evolved from an examination of trends in interior design, fashion and food which highlighted the concept of “Fusion” or a combining of styles. In terms of landscaping, Fusion refers to a melding of the deeply held traditional landscape aesthetic with a new Best Management Practice (BMP) integrated aesthetic. Fusion Landscapes are transitional – moving the homeowner from a landscape aesthetic involving excessive irrigation to one that requires little or no supplemental irrigation, but meets all the aesthetic and emotional needs of the homeowner. Based on the consistency of findings and the scope of market research at that time – over 200 single-family homeowners in GTA communities – the determination to re-position Water Smart Peel on a region-wide basis was made. Figure 4 provides a schematic of the key components of the new Water Smart Peel Fusion Landscaping program.

Figure 4: Key Components of Water Smart Peel Fusion Landscaping Program

NEW LANDSCAPE PARADIGM

DEMONSTRATION COMMUNITY

Transitional front yard landscapes (compilation of

BMPs) at feature homes in a select neighbourhood

MARKETING CAMPAIGN Image-based

advertising and peer influence marketing

focused on high water users and new landscape aesthetic

PROMOTION AND

ADVERTISING

INCENTIVIZED JOINT VENTURES

LANDSCAPE ADVISORY SERVICE

“FUSION” LANDSCAPE

WORKSHOPS

KEY MESSAGES & IMAGES

WEB-BASED RESOURCES &

TOOLS

8

3.0 FUSION LANDSCAPING PILOT STUDY Key components of a market-based approach, specifically peer influence marketing, residential front yard Fusion Landscape demonstrations, and incentivised joint ventures with influencers (e.g., garden centres, landscape designers and contractors, etc.) had not yet been employed or tested by any North American municipality. For this reason it was decided that the Region would test the impact of Fusion Landscapes on peak season water use and evaluate the effectiveness of market-based programming in driving uptake of Fusion Landscaping measures by homeowners. The community of Clarkson in the City of Mississauga was selected for the pilot study of Fusion Landscaping and the use of market-based programming.

3.1 Pilot Study Area – Community of Clarkson

The Community of Clarkson located in the southeast portion of the City of Mississauga and approximating Lake Ontario as indicated in Figure 5.

9

Figure 5: Location of the Community of Clarkson in the Region of Peel

10

3.2 Rationale for the Selection of the Study Area The Clarkson community was selected for the pilot study of Fusion Landscaping and market-based programming for the following reasons:

• Homes in the area are of mixed age (1950s through 1990s) typical of many communities in Peel Region.

• Contains a mixed demographic of single-family homeowners representing a range of age, ethnicity, income, marital status, households with/without children, level of education, type and market value of home typical of the majority of suburban communities in Peel Region.

• Several schools and churches and a GO Train station are located in the community providing opportunity for demonstration gardens.

• A large garden centre (Sheridan Nurseries) is located in the community.

• Contains two large transportation routes with significant community traffic, specifically Lake Shore Road West (intersects Clarkson on the south) and Southdown Road (borders Clarkson on the west).

• Businesses in the Village of Clarkson serve the surrounding community and provide promotional opportunities to reach area homeowners.

The pilot study area is comprised of 1,456 single-family detached and semi-detached homes.

3.3 Pilot Study Structure The Clarkson Pilot Study was conducted over the five year period 2010 to 2015. This timeframe enabled the collection of water demand data over a sufficient period to determine the impact of Fusion Landscaping and market-based programming on peak season water use in the study area. The Fusion Landscaping pilot study consisted of four primary components which may be summarized as follows:

1. Demonstration Sites

• Residential lot-level demonstration and test sites utilising Fusion Landscape designs and water efficient BMPs to reduce or eliminate water use for irrigation.

• A Fusion Landscape Demonstration site was established at a church along a main street (Mississauga Road) in the residential study area. Strategic use of native plants at demonstration sites to increase biodiversity in residential landscapes.

• Increase permeable surfaces at demonstration sites to increase infiltration of stormwater, reducing the need for supplemental irrigation and mitigating stormwater runoff.

2. Resident Engagement and Fusion Landscape Promotion

• Development of resident communications materials and determination of outreach and engagement vehicles.

• Development of targeted Fusion Landscaping marketing and promotional resources and supporting advertising.

11

• Targeted Fusion Landscaping assessments via on-going promotion and direct engagement of residents

3. Retail Joint Venture and Local Business Promotional Support

• Secured a joint venture with the area garden centre (Sheridan Nurseries) to deliver Fusion Landscaping point-of-purchase marketing and promotions, and to provide Fusion Landscaping design and installation services to area residents.

• Secured participation of local retailers and businesses in marketing and promotion of Fusion Landscapes.

• Secured City of Mississauga’s co-operation in replacing the high water demand annual plants typically used in the decorative containers located in the Village of Clarkson business area with Fusion plants and to include signage with the container displays.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation

• Benchmarking of residential water use, evaluation of AADD and peak water use, and calculation of energy use associated with an increase or decrease in water use.

• Photographic catalogue prior to, during, and subsequent to the start of the pilot study to monitor any changes to front yard landscapes involving a reduction in ‘hardscaped’ and turf grass areas.

• Monitoring the water demands of both participating homes and control (non-participating) homes for the duration of the project.

3.4 Fusion Landscape Demonstration Homes

The work-plan for the Fusion Landscape pilot study was developed beginning in the spring of 2009. In October of 2009, residents of Clarkson were invited to an open-house to discuss the pilot study and to learn about Fusion Landscaping. Residents attending the open-house had the opportunity to speak with a leading landscape designer about Fusion Landscaping, book a Fusion Landscape consultation, and leave with information and inspiration to transition their home’s property toward a Fusion Landscape. The open house also provided a vehicle to present residents with the opportunity to apply for a Fusion front yard makeover. Application forms for the Fusion Landscape makeover were provided to homeowners and at the close of the open house the Region received forty applications. Five residential demonstration sites (Figure 6) were selected for a front yard Fusion Landscape installation. These homes were selected based on the following criteria:

• representation of housing types in the community of Clarkson and in residential areas across the Region of Peel;

• location within the neighbourhood to maximize visual impact and distance to other demonstration sites

• agreement by the homeowner that the home would not be sold for five (5) years

• agreement by the homeowner that the Fusion Landscape would be put on title with the home property

• agreement by the homeowner that the Fusion Landscape would be properly maintained (kept neat and tidy)

12

Figure 6: Location of demonstration sites

13

Each successful recipient received an individualized, professionally designed and installed front yard Fusion landscape. The process entailed several consultations amongst the homeowner, the Region of Peel, the landscape architect, and the landscaper. The consultations provided an open dialogue throughout the entire process to ensure design and installation of the garden met the residents’ wants and needs as well as the Region’s vision and definition of Fusion. The completed designs were spectacular transformations, clearly representing homeowners’ unique perspectives of their property. Landscape transformation did not occur on the city owned portion of the front yard landscapes. The changes made to the front yard landscapes of the five demonstration homes are highlighted below. All five landscapes were located north of Lakeshore Blvd in the pilot area.

3.4.1 1930 Davebrook Rd.

This property is located on a corner property in the north end of the pilot area. Prior to the landscape transformation, the front yard landscape consisted mainly of lawn, with some planting beds around the immediate perimeter of the residence and a small garden with birch tree off the corner of the front of the residence. The maintenance of the large lawn area was one of the driving forces for the homeowners to incorporate a Fusion Garden on their property. The design created for this landscape included extensive plantings along the entire front and side of the property and mulch. An expanded gravel walkway with a bench for seating allows the homeowners to meander and enjoy their garden.

Figure 7: 1930 Davebrook Road Landscape Design

14

1930 Davebrook Road BEFORE

AFTER

15

3.4.2 1824 Delaney Drive

1824 Delaney Drive is located within the north end of the pilot area on a pie-shaped lot. The residence on this property is a two-story building, with large driveway and two mature front yard trees – one on the boulevard and one on the front lawn. Prior to the installation of the Fusion garden, little had been done in terms of landscaping. A major factor in the homeowners’ application was the desire to reduce the amount of grass on the property and replace it with more low maintenance native plants. The final landscape design included gravel walkways with stone slabs for steps, Fusion plantings, mulch and armour stone. Many of the plantings below the large Honey Locust were selected for their ability to handle dappled shade as well as their low growing characteristics so as not to obscure the view from the front door.

Figure 8: 1824 Delaney Drive Landscape Design

16

1824 Delaney Drive

BEFORE

AFTER

17

3.4.3 818 Barsuda Drive

818 Barsuda Drive is located near the middle of the study area, north of Balsam Drive. A bungalow residence is located on the property. Prior to the Fusion Garden installation, the homeowners had plantings along the property line and a mature tree adjacent to the driveway. Living an active lifestyle, the homeowners wanted a landscape that did not require intensive watering and maintenance. The final landscape design included Fusion plantings, mulch, stepping stones and a small sitting area. The large Honey Locust, as well as the shadow cast from the accompanying neighbours mature Maple, indicated most of the plants needed to be shade tolerant.

Figure 9: 818 Barsuda Drive Landscape Design

18

818 Barsuda Drive

BEFORE

AFTER

19

3.4.4 1066 Welwyn Drive

1066 Welwyn Drive is located near the middle of the study area, north of Balsam Drive. A bungalow residence is located on the property. Before the Fusion garden was installed, the front yard landscaping consisted of large lawn and a couple of shrubs adjacent to the front walkway and porch. The installed Fusion garden consisted of an expanded gravel walkway, mulch, additional trees and shrubs and Fusion plants capable of handling the hot southwest exposure. The usage of salvia and coneflower was also incorporated, as attracting pollinators, was mentioned to be something the homeowners enjoyed. Of the five demonstration properties, 1066 Welwyn had the largest portion of city owned property. The maintenance of the large lawn area was one of the driving forces for the homeowners to incorporate a Fusion Garden on the property. With the large amount of lawn, and with a full sun exposure, the homeowners found watering and manual weeding a challenge. Seeing as sitting on the porch, overlooking their property, was something enjoyed by the homeowners, the Fusion garden was able to facilitate their desire for aesthetics and reduced maintenance.

Figure 10: 1066 Welwyn Drive Landscape Design

20

1066 Welwyn Drive BEFORE AFTER

21

3.4.5 1189 April Drive

1189 April Drive is located near the middle of the study area, north of Balsam Drive. A two story residence is located on this property with double car driveway. The property is heavily shaded from mature trees. Prior to the Fusion garden installation, the heavy shade caused the homeowners to struggle to maintain the corner lot home with large patches of bare grass and ground cover. The Fusion design centred on incorporating the right plants for the right place. Both shade tolerant perennials and shade tolerant shrubs were selected to highlight this home. A long permeable walkway was used to connect one end of the garden to other providing the homeowners with a seating area as well access to the entire garden. An old antique bird house was incorporated into the design to emphasize their appreciation for wildlife.

Figure 11: 1189 April Drive Landscape Design

22

1189 April Drive

BEFORE

AFTER

23

3.5 Non-Residential Fusion Landscaping Demonstration Sites A Fusion Landscape demonstration site was created at a local church located in the study area. This demonstration sites were located in high traffic areas in easily visible locations increasing residents’ exposure to Fusion Landscapes and providing practical and aesthetically beautiful examples.

3.6 Resident Engagement and Fusion Landscape Promotion Initial pilot study resources, resident outreach and communications pieces, advertising, and Fusion Landscape consultation materials were developed over the 2009 pilot project planning and development period. Advertising and promotion was expanded during the operational period of the pilot study (2010 to 2015) to stimulate resident interest in Fusion Landscaping. All advertising, promotion and resident engagement resources drew on the market research findings as previously discussed in Section 2.4. The Region’s Water Smart program was re-positioned to first and foremost to focus on the beauty and aesthetic value of Fusion Landscapes and secondarily on their ecological value. Figure 7 provides some examples of how the Region modified Water Smart Peel to reflect the new Fusion Landscape concept.

Figure 7: Peel Region’s re-packaged landscape brochure (Water Wise Gardens to Fusion Landscaping)

Advertising and promotion of Fusion Landscaping in the Clarkson pilot study area included direct mail to residents, a door-to-door campaign, bus shelter and billboard advertising and widow posters located at some retail and entertainment businesses located in Clarkson Village along Lakeshore Road. Again, findings from market research studies informed the advertising content.

24

Images of beautiful flowers and landscapes were the key elements of the advertising campaign, focusing homeowners’ attention on the aesthetics of Fusion Landscapes. The goal of the advertising campaign was to instill in residents a desire for Fusion Landscapes. This change in approach represented a significant departure from conventional municipal water efficiency programs that seek to inform and educate residents to make changes. Peel Region’s approach focused first on creating desire for Fusion Landscapes and providing the resources and support to help residents install and maintain their new water efficient landscape. Figure 8 below provides an example of the advertising employed in the study area.

Figure 8: Billboard and Bus Shelter Advertising of Fusion Landscaping in the Study Area

In addition to advertising and promotion in the study area, the Region also undertook direct mail outreach, providing residents with information about the Fusion Landscaping consultation service available in their area. The landscape consultations were designed to assist homeowners in the study areas in making the transition to, or begin the process of transitioning to, a Fusion Landscape. Students from university and college landscape architecture and landscape design programs were trained in Fusion Landscaping principles and practices. The student landscape consultants received in-class and in-field training in Fusion Landscaping. They learned how to conduct a landscape consultation and how to interact with residents to provide them with workable Fusion Landscape designs that would meet their individual landscape ideal and needs. Students were furnished a Fusion plant list, copies of the new brochure, discount coupons for Fusion plants, and a sketch/note pad to provide basic design ideas and recommendations to homeowners. Over the course of the pilot study (2010 -2015), 282 Fusion Landscape consultations were conducted with Clarkson homeowners. This number of consultations represents 19.4% of the total residences in the study area.

25

3.7 Retail Joint Venture and Local Business Promotional Support

Sheridan Nurseries is located in the southwest end of the Clarkson study area. It is a large garden centre providing plant and landscaping products and services, including landscape designs and installations. Via a Request for Proposal process, the Clarkson location of Sheridan Nurseries, in addition to other garden centres in Peel Region, were selected for a joint venture to promote Fusion Landscaping. The following initiatives were established with Sheridan Nursery in Clarkson:

• Created a Fusion demonstration garden at the front of the store property • Installed outdoor signage and point-of-purchase displays promoting Fusion Landscaping • Provided discount coupons for Fusion plants to homeowners who had a Fusion Landscape

consultation • Provided Fusion Landscaping design and installation services to area residents • Added information about Fusion and the Region’s program to their corporate web site in

2012. Nursery staff also wore “Ask me about Fusion” buttons to encourage resident interactions.

A partnership with several local businesses in the Village of Clarkson was established through the City of Mississauga. These businesses allowed the Region to place Fusion Landscaping promotional posters in their windows and Fusion planters at the entrance to their locations. The purpose in securing additional locations for the promotion of Fusion Landscaping and Fusion planters was to reinforce the advertising and direct mail campaign.

4.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In the planning and development phase of the pilot study, significant attention was focused on the monitoring requirements and data collection methodology of the project. Water use, uptake of Fusion Landscape measures, uptake of the Region’s landscape consultation service, and customer satisfaction data was captured over the course of the pilot project. Water demands of the original five demonstration homes, homes in the general study area (1456 homes), homes in a Control Area A (179 homes), and homes in a Control Area B (106 homes) were monitored. The following is a summary of the qualitative and quantitative monitoring that was undertaken for the pilot study and control areas:

• Benchmark 2009 water demands were determined for the demonstration homes, study

area homes, and homes in Control areas ‘A ‘and ‘B’

• Summer students recorded weekly water meter readings for the demonstration homes and a random selection of homes in the study and control areas

• The addresses of homes where landscape consultations were completed were tracked

• A photographic catalogue of the front yards of homes in the study area prior to the start of the project and annually throughout the course of the program was maintained to quantify the number of homes that made front yard landscape changes involving a reduction in turf grass and/or hardscaped areas

• Customer satisfaction surveys were completed covering the Fusion Landscape consultation service and supporting resources and promotions

• Stormwater modelling and analysis completed by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC).

26

4.1 Evaluation of Residential Water Use The five demonstration homes all showed a significant increase in peak season water use in the first year (2010) following the installation of the Fusion Landscapes. Over the remainder of the pilot study (2011 through 2015) both peak season and AAD water demands declined significantly in the demonstration homes. A total reduction in household daily water demand in the demonstration homes of 32.5% over benchmark water use was tracked as illustrated in Chart 2 below. In the last two years of the pilot study (2014 and 2015); the average water use per demonstration home per day was at or below 600 litres. This compares with control area A and control area B which had an average water use per home per day of approximately 900 litres and 1,100 litres, respectively. Chart 2 below provides a comparative summary of the water use in the demonstration homes, pilot study area homes and the two control areas over the course of the project.

27

Chart 2: Average Litres of Water Use per Home per Day (2009 -2015)

4.2 Landscape Consultations A total number of 282 Fusion Landscape consultations were conducted in the study area over the course of the pilot. This represents about 20% of the total number of homes in the study area. Throughout the duration of the pilot study, 3 landscape consultations where provided to homeowners in Control Area A and 6 landscape consultations were provided to homeowners in Control Area B over the same period representing 1.7% and 5.7% of homes in control areas A and B respectively. Control Areas A and B are representative of Peel Region as a whole in terms of exposure to advertising and promotion of Fusion Landscaping and the Region’s landscape consultation service. Single digit uptake rates for landscape consultation services are typical of those found in other municipalities in south-central Ontario offering similar programs.

4.3 Physical Changes to Home Landscapes

Physical changes to front yard landscapes in the study area and control areas A and B were identified through visual observations, of the front of the properties, by staff when in the community. Additional verification of physical changes to landscapes in the study area was done via seasonal (late spring and early fall) photographing and cataloguing of the front yards of the homes. Landscape changes were defined as the amount of turf/lawn cover and hardscaped areas

28

that were removed and replaced with a Fusion Landscape feature(s) such as gardens and permeable surfaces such as mulched pathways or alternative ground covers. A reduction of thirty percent (30%) or more in the area of turf cover or hardscape surface area is considered to be a major change while a reduction of less than 30 % is considered a minor change. The results of the monitoring of physical changes between 2010 and 2015 to the front yard landscapes in the study and control areas is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Observed and Tracked Physical Changes to Front Yard Home Landscapes

Year

Pilot Study Area Control Area A Control Area B

Major Landscape Changes

Minor Landscape Changes





2010 3 5 0 1 0 0 2011 11 12 0 2 0 1 2012 13 17 0 0 1 0 2013 7 9 1 0 0 0 2014 8 7 1 1 0 0 2015 2 4 0 0 0 0 Total 44 54 2 4 1 1

Grand Total 98 6 2

4.4 Resident Satisfaction

On-line surveys were conducted over three years from 2013 through 2015 with homeowners who received Fusion Landscape consultations, to determine levels of satisfaction with the consultation and secure feedback about their experience. Survey feedback identified key motivators for scheduling a consultation as:

• Looking for Expert Advice/Knowledge/Ideas • Water Conservation/Water Use/Environmental Consciousness • Improvement/Beautification of Home

Table 2: Fusion Landscape Consultations – Homeowner Survey Responses*

Satisfied w/Service Dissatisfied Total Satisfaction %

2015 101 23 124 81.45 2014 95 24 119 79.86 2013 128 35 165 78.53

*A 10 point scale was used to determine customer satisfaction with 1 as highly dissatisfied and 10 as completely satisfied. Responses greater 7 were used to indicate satisfaction. Analysis of survey responses identified three primary reasons for satisfaction with the service:

• Residential expectations were met due to consultant knowledge and helpfulness • The overall performance of the consultants was highly rated • The documentation/information/ideas provided were good

29

4.5 Stormwater Evaluation The Region of Peel requested the assistance of Credit Valley Conservation staff in evaluating and quantifying the potential stormwater benefits that could be achieved through the implementation of Fusion gardening. A detailed report of the analysis is included in Appendix B.

The stormwater impacts of the five demonstration gardens were evaluated based on four categories5:

1. Runoff volume reduction 2. Water quality treatment 3. Stormwater peak flow reduction 4. Pollution prevention

Aerial photographs, landscape designs and Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping were used to determine the total area of impermeable surface, grass and garden both pre- and post-Fusion installation. LIDAR (Light Detection and Remote Sensing) data available through GIS were used to determine the drainage catchment areas of each property. In addition, onsite location of downspouts was used to determine the further retention of stormwater from roof areas to the Fusion gardens.

4.5.1 Water Quality Treatment and Pollution Prevention

To evaluate runoff reduction, three modelling scenarios were used and compared. The scenarios provided comparable results and are reported as a range, summarized below.

Table 3 Runoff Reduction Summary

Demo Homes Range of Runoff Reduction (%) 1066 Welwyn Drive 34-45 1189 April Drive 36-44 1824 Delaney Drive 25-32 1818 Barsuda Drive 10-12 1930 Davebrook Road 9-19

These results indicate that downspout disconnection and direct runoff to Fusion gardens achieves a higher rate of volume reduction compared to downspout disconnection to lawn only. The footprint of the Fusion garden also has an impact on the volume retained from runoff; the larger the area of the landscape dedicated to Fusion gardens the greater the volume of stormwater retained and infiltrated on-site.

5 Categories align with the City of Mississauga’s Stormwater Credit Program for Multi-Residential and/or Non-Residential Properties (Policy 09-01-04) Dated May 25, 2015.

30

4.5.2 Water Quality Treatment and Pollution Prevention

To evaluate the water quality benefits of the Fusion gardens, the gardens were modelled as rain gardens; considered first-level capture and treatment in a Low Impact Development (LID) or Green Infrastructure (GI) approach to stormwater management. A treatment train approach to stormwater management follows the sequence of on-site, conveyance and finally end of pipe treatment. Capturing and treating water on-site is preferential as it has the greatest impact in reducing stormwater flows and improving water quality. The water quality results as discussed below are post-processed and the removal efficiencies are based on literature and monitored data. Results indicate varying Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) load reductions. These load reductions are summarized below in Table 4. These represent significant load reductions and the potential of Fusion Landscaping to reduce contaminant loadings to surface and ground water sources and drinking water supplies.

Table 4: Total Suspended Solid and Total Phosphorous Load Reduction

Demo Home TSS (% load reduction) TP (% load reduction)

1189 April Drive 67 67 1066 Welwyn Drive 67 67 1824 Delaney Drive 44 44 1818 Barsuda Drive 22 22 1930 Davebrook Road 36 36

4.5.3 Peak Flow Reduction

Peak Flow is the peak-producing runoff rate or highest volume of flow created by a given storm. Each property responds to stormwater peak flow reduction differently based on the site condition and the details of the landscape conversion (i.e. lawn converted to garden, roof area disconnected etc.) Stormwater peak flow reduction modelling indicates that homes with both conversion of lawn to Fusion garden and disconnection of downspouts generally yields the highest peak flow reduction. In three of the five demonstration homes, peak flow reduction was approximately 50%. Highest peak flow reductions occur during the 2 year storm and decrease with larger storm events. These results again are significant and demonstrate the potential of Fusion Landscaping to reduce peak flows and minimize the flooding potential of large storm events.

31

Chart 3: % Peak Flow Reduction for 5 Demonstration Homes

5.0 SUMMARY

5.1 Results

Data collected from the Clarkson Pilot project, as well as stormwater modelling data completed by the CVC shows:

• Following establishment, the 5 demonstration gardens experienced a decrease in both peak and

AAD water demands compared to the rest of the study area.

• Enhanced marketing of Fusion Landscaping resulted in greater uptake in Fusion consultations in the Study Area compared to the two control groups (20% homes in the study area, 1.7% in Control A, and 5.7% in Control B).

• Enhanced marketing and visual prevalence of Fusion Landscaping examples within the Study

Area also resulted in more physical changes to front yard landscapes within the Control (98 changes in the Study Area vs. 6 in Control A and 2 in Control B).

• Stormwater modelling indicates that the installation of Fusion Gardens on the five properties

resulted in runoff reductions between 9-45%. Runoff reductions were greater when roof leaders were disconnected and directed to Fusion gardens. The greater the footprint or area of the Fusion garden the greater the volume of stormwater retained on-site.

32

• Stormwater runoff reductions also resulted in enhanced water quality treatment and pollution prevention. Modelling indicated that both TSS and TP load reductions are between 22% and 67% for the Fusion Landscapes.

• Homes with both conversion to Fusion gardens and disconnection of downspout yielded the

highest peak flow reductions – approximately 50% in 3 of the 5 demonstration homes. Each property responds to peak flow differently based on the site conditions and characteristics of conversion. Peak flow reductions were greatest during the 2-year storm and decreases with larger events.

• There are many additional benefits of Fusion Landscaping that were not quantified in this study.

These include climate change mitigation through reduction of urban heat island and carbon sequestration through increased vegetative cover, improved biodiversity by providing habitat, enhanced aesthetic appeal of neighbourhoods, and improved health and well-being by contributing to physical and visible access to greenspace resulting in an overall improvement in the livability of communities.

• Fusion Landscaping also has the potential to reduce energy and other inputs for landscape maintenance, reduce energy required for heating and cooling (through strategic planting of trees), and reduce airborne pollutants.

5.2 Next Steps

Based on the results of this study, the Region of Peel will continue to promote Fusion Landscaping as well as support the adoption of Fusion Landscaping across the Greater Toronto Area. Fusion Landscaping is currently being used by York and Durham Regions. The term FUSION has been trademarked in relation to landscaping and water efficiency. Licencing agreements will be drawn up with municipalities and those wishing to use the Fusion brand. As Fusion Landscaping Consultations have been predominately focused on the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) audience, Peel will endeavor to engage homeowners in high peak water using areas, and address residential irrigation by promoting Water Smart Irrigation Professional (WSIP) certified consultants. To address the non-DIY audience, the Region is partnering with York Region and Landscape Ontario on the Fusion Landscape Professionals (FLP) certification program, to certify companies in the landscape design, installation and maintenance industries in water efficient gardening techniques that incorporate low impact development. Similar to the WSIP program, Fusion certified companies will be promoted as the experts in this form of landscaping. Utilizing a Fusion certified contractor for large scale landscaping initiatives has the potential to yield greater water savings and stormwater benefits. The Fusion Landscape Professional certification program is currently under development and is expected to be rolled out in late 2017. The Region will continue to monitor and evaluate the Fusion landscaping program through consumer uptake and client satisfaction, as well as building upon the research summarized in this report. Additional understanding about the drivers for landscape transformation programs such

33

as the Fusion program will be gained through the Region’s participation in the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s Landscape Transformation Study. The Landscape Transformation Study is a multi-year research study to explore the reasons and rationale as well as he water demand impact of landscape changes. The study will identify the key components necessary to motivate and achieve reliable, persistent and substantial water savings. The study evaluates both utility and customer supported and financed landscape changes from multiple perspectives across the United States and Canada.

34

APPENDIX A

Explain what motivated you to schedule a landscape consultation.

2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Water Conservation/Water Use 38 12.58%

36 19.89%

27 18.88%

23 18.70% Expert Advice/Knowledge/Ideas 59 19.54%

30 16.57%

29 20.28%

33 26.83%

Low Maintenance/Environmentally Conscious 32 10.60%

20 11.05%

13 9.09%

6 4.88%

Education/Learning New Things 33 10.93%

6 3.31%

5 3.50%

8 6.50% New Home 30 9.93%

13 7.18%

12 8.39%

10 8.13%

Improvement 32 10.60%

32 17.68%

21 14.69%

13 10.57% Advertising 2 0.66%

Water Runoff 5 1.66%

1 0.55%

4 2.80%

1 0.81% Free Service 30 9.93%

9 4.97%

10 6.99%

5 4.07%

Problems with Yard/Lawn 13 4.30%

14 7.73%

10 6.99%

3 2.44% Interested/Love Gardening 12 3.97%

6 3.31%

2 1.40%

6 4.88%

Want My Lawn to look Good/Be Healthy 6 1.99%

2 1.10%

2 1.40%

2 1.63% Done Work Already & Looking for Reassurance 5 1.66%

4 2.21%

4 2.80%

1 0.81%

Other 5 1.66%

8 4.42%

4 2.80%

12 9.76%

302 100.00%

181 100.00%

143 100.00%

123 100.00%

35

How did you hear about the Fusion Landscape consultation service?

2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Waterbill 58 17.52%

30 18.40%

12 9.52%

3 2.42%

Mobile Sign 60 18.13%

36 22.09%

35 27.78%

72 58.06%

Referral 25 7.55%

18 11.04%

17 13.49%

18 14.52%

Newspaper 56 16.92%

22 13.50%

13 10.32%

1 0.81%

Came in the Mail 63 19.03%

34 20.86%

22 17.46%

1 0.81%

Online 41 12.39%

11 6.75%

10 7.94%

14 11.29%

Event 9 2.72%

4 2.45%

2 1.59%

4 3.23%

Other 12 3.63%

5 3.07%

2 1.59%

6 4.84%

Flyer 0 0

0 0

5 3.97%

4 3.23%

Can't Recall 7 2.11%

3 1.84%

8 6.35%

1 0.81%

331 100.00%

163 100.00%

126 100.00%

124 100.00%

36

Rate your satisfaction with the landscape consultation, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 10 being highly satisfied. Responses (1-7)

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

No Solution Provided/required more info 13 17.57%

No Solution Provided/required more info 2 5.88%

1 4.76%

1 4.55%

Consultation did not meet expectations 17 22.97%

Consultation did not meet expectations 7 20.59%

8 38.10%

7 31.82%

Resident was knowledgeable/Consultation did not provide any new additional info 13 17.57%

Resident was knowledgeable/Consultation did not provide any new additional info 7 20.59%

2 9.52%

4 18.18%

Did not agree with advice 1 1.35%

Did not agree with advice 2 5.88%

2 9.52%

0 0.00%

Missed Consultation 5 6.76%

Resident Still Confused After Consultation 3 8.82%

0 0.00%

2 9.09%

Unsatisfied with Staff 21 28.38%

Unsatisfied with Staff 4 11.76%

1 4.76%

3 13.64% Consultation OK 2 2.70%

Consultation OK 3 8.82%

2 9.52%

3 13.64%

No Comment 2 2.70%

Too Short 6 17.65%

5 23.81%

2 9.09%

74 100.00%

34 100.00%

21 100.00%

22 100.00%

*A weighted response of 1 through 7 was used to indicate dissatisfaction with the service, whereas a response of 8 through 10 used to indicate satisfaction.

37

Rate your satisfaction with the landscape consultation, with 1 being not at all satisfied and 10 being highly satisfied. Responses (8, 9, 10)

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Consultants were knowledgeable and met expectations 97 50.52%

Consultants were amazing 19 15.08%

20 21.51%

12 12.12%

Consultants were good/nice but consultation did not meet all expectations 9 4.69%

Consultants were knowledgeable/helpful and met their expectations 70 55.56%

57 61.29%

59 59.60%

Good Documentation 32 16.67%

Consultants good/nice, but consultation did not meet all expectations 11 8.73%

4 4.30%

4 4.04%

Require more information 3 1.56%

Good Documentation/Info/Ideas 20 15.87%

8 8.60%

11 11.11%

Consultation was not helpful 2 1.04%

Resident Still Confused 1 0.79%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Great Program 4 2.08%

Great Program/Appreciates the Program 2 1.59%

1 1.08%

5 5.05%

Useful Information/Suggestions Made 38 19.79%

Useful Information/Suggestions Made or Will be Made 3 2.38%

3 3.23%

8 8.08%

Other 7 3.65%

126 100.00%

93 100.00%

99 100.00%

192 100.00%

*A weighted response of 1 through 7 was used to indicate dissatisfaction with the service, whereas a response of 8 through 10 used to indicate satisfaction.

38

*Describe what you liked or found helpful about the landscape consultation.

2010 - 2012

# %

Knowledge of Consultants 37 12% Handouts and Booklet Given 49 16% Excellent Suggestions/Ideas/Tips 100 33% Learning about Landscaping 25 8% Cost and Free Service 8 3% Diagrams, Drawings. And Plans 20 7% Customer Service 28 9% Everything/ All of the Above 7 2% Negative or Not helpful 12 4% N/A 4 1% Other 10 3%

300 100.00%

*(2010 - 2012 survey only)

39

*Describe what you did NOT like or did NOT find helpful about the landscape consultation.

2010 - 2012

# %

No complaint 146 48%

Generic information not tailored to the individual's situation 13 4% Consultation was too short 18 6% Lack of knowledge and expertise on the subject 33 11%

The consultation relied too much on questions from the client instead of suggestions from the consultant 8 3% The Staff was too young 4 1% Did not provide enough valuable information 26 9% Did not provide examples or inspiration 7 2% The layout plans were not detailed enough 6 2% Lack of enthusiasm 2 1%

Did not provide connections to related services (through the Region, community, or other) 3 1% Long wait times for appointment 2 1% Problems with the coupons 3 1% Other 33 11%

304 100.00%

*(2010 - 2012 survey only)

40

Did you implement any of the suggestion(s) provided to you by the landscape consultants?

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

Yes 63% 209

58% 95

77% 92

60% 74

No 37% 124

42% 68

23% 27

40% 50

Answered Question 333

163

119

124

Skipped Question 0

2

3

4

Describe what suggestions were implemented?

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Water Conservation 24 13%

Water Conservation/Water Use/Watering Habits 5 4.27%

11 11.58%

4 5.63%

Lawn Control 9 5%

Landscape Design/New Bed by Consultants 16 13.68%

23 24.21%

17 23.94%

Garden Expansion 8 4%

Replacing Current Plants w/ Fusion Plants 4 3.42%

2 2.11%

5 7.04%

Implemented Plant/Shrub Purchases 80 43%

Removing Lawn w/ New Fusion Plants 3 2.56%

0 0.00%

3 4.23%

Implemented Design Plans 32 17%

Rearrangement of Plants 6 5.13%

3 3.16%

4 5.63%

Existing Landscape/Resource Changes 13 7%

New Plantings 49 41.88%

35 36.84%

25 35.21%

Weed Control 2 1%

Added Mulch 11 9.40%

7 7.37%

1 1.41%

Vegetable Gardens 1 1%

Used Suggestions to Remove Weeds 5 4.27%

6 6.32%

1 1.41%

N/A 17 9%

Improvements to Lawn 6 5.13%

2 2.11%

0 0.00%

186 100.00%

Other 12 10.26%

6 6.32%

11 15.49%

117 100.00%

95 100.00%

71 100.00%

41

Explain why you implemented this suggestion(s).

2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %



13 13.00%

5 7.35%

Visually Pleasing 52 26%

Expert Advice/Knowledge/Ideas 18 19.57%

20 20.00%

16 23.53%

Easy Solution/maintenance 19 10%


17 17.00%

11 16.18%

Placement 4 2%

Reduce Grass Area 3 3.26%

2 2.00%

1 1.47%

Expert Advice 67 34%

Cost/Practical 7 7.61%

7 7.00%

8 11.76%

Financial 5 3%

Improvement/Beautification 13 14.13%

19 19.00%

13 19.12%

Minimizing grass 3 2%

Weed Control 8 8.70%

4 4.00%

0 0.00%

N/A 14 7%

Problems with Yard/Lawn 4 4.35%

4 4.00%

4 5.88%

Program Feedback 6 3%


1 1.00%

1 1.47%

197 100.00%

Done Work Already & Looking for Reassurance 2 2.17%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Other 10 10.87%

13 13.00%

9 13.24%

92 100.00%

100 100.00%

68 100.00%

42

Describe the benefits you have found from implementing these suggestion(s).

2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %



16 14.95%

6 8.57%

Aesthetics/Esthetics 80 46%

Expert Advice/Knowledge/Ideas 1 1.12%

7 6.54%

2 2.86%

Waiting for Results 22 13%


21 19.63%

7 10.00%

Less Maintenance 18 10%

Reduce Grass Area 1 1.12%

1 0.93%

1 1.43% Undesired Results 6 3%

Cost/Practical 1 1.12%

3 2.80%

2 2.86%

General Comments 15 9%

Improvement/Beautification 31 34.83%

37 34.58%

32 45.71%

Vegetable Gardens 4 2%

Weed Control 2 2.25%

4 3.74%

0 0.00%

174 100.00%

No Answer/Found No Benefit 6 6.74%

2 1.87%

0 0.00%

Too Early To Tell/Will Have Better Idea Next Year 17 19.10%

7 6.54%

13 18.57%


1 0.93%

1 1.43%

Other 6 6.74%

8 7.48%

6 8.57%

89 100.00%

107 100.00%

70 100.00%

43

Explain why you did not implement the suggestion(s).

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Time 4 5.71%

1 3.57%

5 9.80% Planning On Implementing Next Year 32 45.71%

17 60.71%

22 43.14%

No $ 5 7.14%

2 7.14%

8 15.69% Landscapers Asked For To Much 3 4.29%

0 0.00%

1 1.96%

Wanted Students/Someone To Do The Work 4 5.71%

0 0.00%

1 1.96%

Personal/Family Issue 3 4.29%

0 0.00%

2 3.92% Did Not Want To Put In Effort 2 2.86%

1 3.57%

1 1.96%

Consultation Not Helpful 6 8.57%

4 14.29%

1 1.96% Other 11 15.71%

3 10.71%

10 19.61%

70 100.00%

28 100.00%

51 100.00%

44

Are you planning on implementing this suggestion(s)?

2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Using Mulch 8 3.43%

Landscape Design by Consultants 8 13.33%

4 18.18%

3 7.32% Reducing lawn/Changing Ground cover 15 6.44%

Replacing Current Plants w/ Fusion Plants 5 8.33%

1 4.55%

1 2.44%

Multiple/All Suggestions 37 15.88%

Removing Lawn w/ New Fusion Plants 3 5.00%

0 0.00%

2 4.88%

Layout/Design 17 7.30%

Rearrangement of Plants 2 3.33%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% Already Completed Suggestions 8 3.43%

New Plantings/New Bed 21 35.00%

8 36.36%

18 43.90%

Planting Suggested Plants 76 32.62%

Other 4 6.67%

1 4.55%

2 4.88% Expanding Garden/ Creating new gardens 13 5.58%

All 17 28.33%

8 36.36%

15 36.59%

Rain barrel 5 2.15%

60 100.00%

22 100.00%

41 100.00% Lawn Care/Overseeding Tips 3 1.29%

Unsure/ No comment 18 7.73% Other 21 9.01% Implementation

Ongoing/Would like more suggestions 12 5.15%

233 100.00%

45

*How could the landscape consultation be improved?

2010 - 2012

# %

Time was too short 21 6.31% Met Expectations 97 29.13% Program Enhancements 83 24.92% Consultants to be more experienced or have greater knowledge 49 14.71% Would Like a Follow Up Consultation 15 4.50% More Advertising for Program 4 1.20% Visuals 24 7.21% Giveaways 7 2.10% Hands On Component 8 2.40% Seasonal Timing of Consultation/Survey 9 2.70% Other 14 4.20% Missed Consultation 2 0.60%

333 100.00%

*(2010-2012 survey only)

46

*Do you like Fusion Landscapes? YES

2010 - 2012

# %

Low Maintenance and Cost Effective 43 15.99% Good Service from Region 34 12.64% Easy 10 3.72% Conservation/Enviro friendly 68 25.28% N/A 20 7.43% Ontario 8 2.97% Variety of Options 22 8.18% Misc 25 9.29% Reducing Lawn 4 1.49% Looks Beautiful 35 13.01%

269 100.00%


NO

# %

Consultation Was Not Helpful 8 8.99% Confused About Fusion 18 20.22% Ontario 29 32.58% No Comment 26 29.21% Lacks Native Plants or Winter Interest 1 1.12% Too Complicated 1 1.12% Wants To See An Example of Fusion 1 1.12% Misc 5 5.62%

89 100.00%


47

Did you use any of the materials (Plant Swatch, Fusion Book, Landscape Design Sheet) provided as part of your landscape design?

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Yes 63% 211

85% 136

79% 92

80% 96 No 42% 142

15% 25

21% 24

20% 24


161

116

120

Skipped Question 0

2

3

4

48

Did you use any of the materials (Plant Swatch, Fusion Book, Landscape Design Sheet) provided as part of your landscape design? 2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Yes 78 40.00%

Plant Swatch 70 38.25%

48 35.56%

Plant Swatch 55 29.41%

Multiple Items 17 8.72%

Design Sheet 52 28.42%

53 39.26%

Landscape Design Sheet 80 42.78%

Swatch/Flip Card/FanCard 50 25.64%

Fusion Book 26 14.21%

12 8.89%

Fusion Book 52 27.81% Diagram/Sketch 3 1.54%

Seeds 1 0.55%

10 7.41%

187 100.00%

Seeds 4 2.05%

All 29 15.85%

8 5.93% Misc Answer 17 8.72%

Don’t Remember 2 1.09%

1 0.74%

Coupon 1 0.51%

Other 3 1.64%

3 2.22% N/A - No Comment 11 5.64%

183 100.00%

135 100.00%

Used as a reference material 14 7.18%

195 100.00% 2010 - 2012

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

No 8 6.25%

Next Year 8 36.36%

9 37.50%

9 39.13%

Don't remember 8 6.25%

No time 3 13.64%

6 25.00%

2 8.70%

What tools?/Didn't receive tools 40 31.25%

Materials not helpful 0 0.00%

4 16.67%

3 13.04%

Will get to it/No time yet 21 16.41%

Other 11 50.00%

5 20.83%

9 39.13% Materials/Consultation not

helpful 16 12.50%

22 100.00%

24 100.00%

23 100.00% N/A - No comment 23 17.97%

Other 12 9.38%

128 100.00%

49

How was the Landscape Design Sheet helpful?

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Plant Positioning/Placement/Spacing 16 19.28%

Plant Positioning/Placement/Spacing 31 30.10%

29 34.12%

Design/Layout 26 31.33%

Design/Layout 24 23.30%

20 23.53% Plant Suggestions 7 8.43%

Plant Suggestions 18 17.48%

8 9.41%

How-To/Steps/Calculators 8 9.64%

How-To/Steps/Calculators 5 4.85%

8 9.41% All 11 13.25%

Other 25 24.27%

20 23.53%

Other Suggestions 9 10.84%

103 100.00%

85 100.00% Unsure 6 7.23%

83 100.00%

Briefly explain why you did 'not' use the Landscape Design sheet?

Did you use the Landscape Design Sheet?

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Yes 59% 94

71% 83

75% 90 No 41% 66

29% 34

25% 30


117

120 Skipped Question 3

3

4

50

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Time 2 3.13%

2 6.06%

1 3.85% Next Year 27 42.19%

11 33.33%

5 19.23%

No $ 1 1.56%

0 0.00%

1 3.85% Already Have Garden, Other Questions 10 15.63%

4 12.12%

5 19.23%

Didn't Get One/Lost it 6 9.38%

4 12.12%

1 3.85% Sheet Not Helpful 4 6.25%

6 18.18%

2 7.69%

Confused/Lazy/Overwhelmed 5 7.81%

1 3.03%

2 7.69% Other/N.A. 9 14.06%

5 15.15%

9 34.62%

64 100.00%

33 100.00%

26 100.00%

Did the advisors explain how to use the Landscape Design Sheet and the steps on How-to-Build Your Garden, in an easy to understand manner?

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Yes 113 76.87%

96 84.21%

101 85.59% No 11 7.48%

3 2.63%

8 6.78%

Unsure/Don't Remember 8 5.44%

4 3.51%

2 1.69% Yes, But Felt Rushed or Could Be Clearer 5 3.40%

4 3.51%

2 1.69%

Other 10 6.80%

7 6.14%

5 4.24%

147 100.00%

114 100.00%

118 100.00%

51

From which retailer do you normally purchase your plants?

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Home Depot 14 8.75%

Home Depot 22 13.66%

Home Depot 55 14.14% Sheridan 25 15.63%

Sheridan 31 19.25%

Sheridan 57 14.65%

Terra 7 4.38%

Terra 20 12.42%

Terra 31 7.97% Costco 2 1.25%

Costco 4 2.48%

Costco 38 9.77%

Canadian Tire 3 1.88%

Canadian Tire 12 7.45%

Canadian Tire 32 8.23% Humber 5 3.13%

Humber 12 7.45%

Humber 24 6.17%

Lowes 2 1.25%

Lowes 8 4.97%

Lowes 27 6.94% Heartlake/Lakeside Garden Gallery 5 3.13%

Heartlake/Lakeside Garden Gallery 8 4.97%

Heartlake/Lakeside Garden Gallery 20 5.14%

Jade Gardens in Oakville 3 1.88%



Walmart 1 0.63%

Walmart 1 0.62%

Walmart 16 4.11%

Multiple 56 35.00%

Longos 0 0.00%

Grocery Store Related Garden Centre 25 6.43%

Not specific/No Fixed Retailer 37 23.13%

Fortinos 0 0.00%

Van Dongens 6 1.54%

160 100.00%

Van Dongens 2 1.24%

Mississauga Greenhouses 9 2.31%

Mississauga Greenhouses 5 3.11%

Rona 21 5.40%

Loblaw's 5 3.11%

Not Listed 22 5.66%

Rona 4 2.48%

389 100.00%

Not specific/No Fixed Retailer 25 15.53%

161 100.00%

52

Do you collect rainwater to water your plants?

2014

2015

# %

# %

Yes 21% 24

22% 26 No 79% 91

78% 93



5

Do you currently have an automatic in-ground sprinkler system?

2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

Yes 11% 18

20% 23

13% 16 No 89% 142

80% 94

87% 104


117


3

4

Would you be interested in having someone visit your home, free of charge, to ensure your sprinkler system is working properly/efficiently?

Yes 50% 9

61% 14

50% 8 No 50% 9

39% 9

50% 8


23


97

108

53

Would you be interested receiving a referral to a Water Smart Irrigation Professional to ensure your sprinkler system is working properly/efficiently?

2015

# %

Yes Yes 34% 41 No No 66% 79

Answered Question 120 Skipped Question 4

YES

2015

# %

Yes, If It Wasn't Too Costly 4 16.00% Yes, Too Much/Hard To Do Alone 4 16.00% Yes, Need Professional Help 9 36.00% Yes, Property Too Large To Do Alone 1 4.00% Yes, Want a Professional to Oversee it 5 20.00% Yes, Other 2 8.00%

25 100.00%

NO

2015

# %

No, Too Costly 25 36.76% No, Prefer To DIY 17 25.00% No, Consultation Answered Questions To Do Alone 10 14.71%

No, Already Have Made Some Changes From Consultation 8 11.76% No, Timing Issue 3 4.41% No, Area Too Small To Call Landscape Contractor 2 2.94% No, Other 3 4.41%

68 100.00%

54

Please provided any comments or suggestions

2010 - 2012 2013

2014

2015

# %

# %

# %

# %

Found Consultants Had Very Good Advice/Knowledge/Ideas 10 6.21%

15 16.67%

11 16.92%

13 18.84%

Did Not Think Consultants Were Helpful 10 6.21%

3 3.33%

1 1.54%

2 2.90% Happy Region Offers The Service 57 35.40%

22 24.44%

23 35.38%

20 28.99%

Happy Region Offers The Service & Mentioned to Friends/Family 11 6.83%

9 10.00%

7 10.77%

8 11.59%

Was Looking For Students/Landscaper To Complete The Work 10 6.21%

8 8.89%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Looking For Rebate 5 3.11%

2 2.22%

3 4.62%

0 0.00% Consultants good/nice, but consultation did not meet all expectations 6 3.73%

5 5.56%

3 4.62%

4 5.80%

Good Use Of Tax Dollars 0 0.00%

1 1.11%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% Looking For Another Consultation Next Year 6 3.73%

6 6.67%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

Consultation Too Short 9 5.59%

2 2.22%

3 4.62%

1 1.45% None/No Answer 12 7.45%

7 7.78%

0 0.00%

1 1.45%

Other 22 13.66%

10 11.11%

14 21.54%

20 28.99%

158 98.14%

90 100.00%

65 100.00%

69 100.00%

55 Credit Valley Conservation 1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, ON L5N 6R4

Phone: 905-670-1615 Fax: 905-670-2210 www.creditvalleyca.ca

APPENDIX B

Quantifying Stormwater Benefits for Clarkson Fusion Gardens



Quantifying Stormwater Benefits for Clarkson Fusion Gardens

Contents 1. Background: ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Evaluating Stormwater Benefits ....................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Mississauga Stormwater Criteria .................................................................................................. 2

3. Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1. Property - 1066 Welwyn Drive ....................................................................................................... 3

3.2. Property - 1189 April Drive ............................................................................................................ 5

3.3. Property - 1818 Barsuda Drive ...................................................................................................... 7

3.4. Property - 1824 Delaney Drive ....................................................................................................... 9

3.5. Property - 1930 Davebrook Road ................................................................................................ 11

4. Site Characteristics Summary .......................................................................................................... 13

5. Evaluating Stormwater Benefits ..................................................................................................... 14

5.1. Runoff Volume Reduction ........................................................................................................... 14

5.1.1 Thornthwaite and Mather Water Balance Approach ............................................................. 14

5.1.1. LID Treatment Train Model ..................................................................................................... 16

5.1.2. Modeling of Continuous Rainfall Data (Truscott Gauge) ........................................................ 19

5.1.3. Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................. 21

5.1.4. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 23

5.1.5. Best Practices for Runoff Reduction ........................................................................................ 23

5.2 Peak Flow Reduction .................................................................................................................... 25

5.2.1 Best practices for Peak Flow Reduction .................................................................................. 27

5.3 Water Quality Treatment ............................................................................................................ 27

5.2.1 Best Practices for Water Quality Treatment ........................................................................... 28

5.3 Additional Benefits of Fusion Garden .......................................................................................... 28

6 Integrated Water Management ..................................................................................................... 29

References ........................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................... 32



1. Background: The Region of Peel has undertaken a pilot project within a residential neighbourhood just north of Clarkson that involved retrofitting homes with ‘fusion landscaping’. The work included converting turf landscapes to fusion gardens that incorporated sustainable design principles. As part of the study, five (5) homes near the Clarkson community received front yard makeovers. These five demonstration gardens are the anchor of a five-year study. The study will monitor the effects on outdoor water use of this new, sustainable landscape design. Traditional residential landscapes use turf which requires watering, mowing and fertilizing to keep them green and lush. With traditional landscapes, soil can often become compacted which reduces the amount of rainfall infiltrating into the ground. Further, grass clippings, fertilizers and other pollutants get washed into the storm sewer system which then flows into our lakes and river. Fusion Landscaping is an innovative way to avoid this endless maintenance cycle and the impacts of traditional residential landscapes.

2. Evaluating Stormwater Benefits The Region of Peel requested the help of Credit Valley Conservation staff in evaluating and quantifying the potential stormwater benefits that could be achieved through the implementation of fusion gardens. This memo outlines the approaches and results of CVC’s investigation into the stormwater benefits achieved as part of this demonstration project.

2.1. Mississauga Stormwater Criteria The City of Mississauga currently implemented a stormwater charge as a means to generate a dedicated funding source for stormwater management infrastructure. CVC staff attempted to evaluate the demonstration sites based on the following stormwater credit categories: 1. Runoff Volume Reduction 2. Water Quality Treatment 3. Peak Flow Reduction 4. Pollution Prevention



3. Site Description The following section is a description of each property and how they were discretized in preparation for the hydrologic assessment.

3.1. Property - 1066 Welwyn Drive

Figure 1: landscape Design and areial photograph of post construction conditions

Landscape Plan Post Construction Conditions & Drainage Paths

Roof 1

Roof 2

Driveway



Figure 2: Before & After photographs of 1066 Welwyn Drive

Total Area [m2]

Driveway [m2]

Grass [m2] Roof [m2] Soil Type

808 65 564 179 Sandy Loam

Total Area (m2)

Driveway + Walkway [m2]

Fusion garden [m2]

Grass [m2] Roof [m2]

808 92 177 360 179

Roof Leaders Roof 1 (directed to garden) 125 m2

Roof 2 (directed to lawn) 54 m2



3.2. Property - 1189 April Drive Figure 3: landscape Design and areial photograph of post construction conditions


Fusion Garden

Fusion Garden

Lawn



Figure 4: Before & After photographs of 1189 April Drive

Total Area [m2]

Driveway [m2]


944 58 673 213 Sandy Loam

Total Area Driveway + Walkway [m2]

Fusion Garden [m2]


944 102 287 342 213

1189 April Drive

Roof 2 ( directed to lawn) 110 m2 Roof 1 (directed to garden) 103 m2

Roof 1

Roof 2

Fusion Garden

Lawn

Driveway



3.3. Property - 1818 Barsuda Drive

Figure 5: landscape Design and areial photograph of post construction conditions




Figure 6: Before & After photographs of 1818 Barsuda Drive

Total Area [m2]

Driveway [m2]

Grass [m2]

Roof [m2]

Soil Type

552 36 345 176 Sandy Loam

Total Area Driveway + Walkway [m2]

Fusion garden [m2]


552 36 72 268 176

1818 Barsuda Drive

Roof, R1 (connected to storm sewer) 127 m2

Roof, R2 (directed to lawn) 48.20 m2

Fusion Garden

Roof is connected to storm sewer



3.4. Property - 1824 Delaney Drive Figure 7: landscape Design and areial photograph of post construction conditions


Figure 8: Before & After photographs of 1824 Delaney Drive



Total Area [m2] Driveway [m2]


1331 64 1115 152 Variable (Front), Sandy Loam (back)

Total Area

Driveway + Walkway [m2]

Fusion garden

[m2]


1331 86 171 922 152

1824 Delaney Drive Roof 1 (fusion garden) 57 m2 Roof 2 (directed to lawn) 72 m2 Roof 3 (directed to storm sewer) 24.4 m2



3.5. Property - 1930 Davebrook Road Figure 9: landscape Design and areial photograph of post construction conditions




Figure 10: Before & After photographs of 1930 Davebrook Road

Total Area [m2] Driveway + Paved area

[m2]


732 90 472 170 Clay Loam

Total Area

Driveway + Walkway + Paved Area

[m2]

Fusion garden

[m2]

Grass [m2]

Roof [m2]

732 118 187 257 170

1930 Davebrook Rd Roof (connected to storm) 77.50 m2 Roof (directed to lawn) 92.80 m2

Roof is connected to storm sewer



4. Site Characteristics Summary The tables below provide the land use breakdown of each property before and after the fusion garden retrofits and downspout disconnections. This information will support the evaluation of stormwater benefits from pre to post conditions.

Demo Home Total Area [m2] Driveway

[m2] Grass [m2] Roof [m2] Soil Type

1066 WELWYN DR 808 65 564 179 Sandy Loam

1189 APRIL DR 944 58 673 213 Sandy Loam 1818 BARSUDA DR 557 36 345 176 Sandy Loam

1824 DELANEY DR 1331 64 1115 152 Variable (Front), Sandy Loam (back)

1930 DAVEBROOK RD 732 90 472 170 Clay Loam Table 1 Pre-conditions land use breakdown

Demo Home Total Area

Driveway &

Walkway [m2]

Fusion garden

[m2] Grass [m2]

Roof Area [m2]

Directed to

garden

Directed to lawn

Connected to Storm

1066 WELWYN DR 808 92 177 360

125 54 -

1189 APRIL DR 944 102 287 342

103 110 - 1818 BARSUDA

DR 557 36 72 273 -

48 128 1824 DELANEY

DR 1331 86 171 922 57

72 24 1930

DAVEBROOK RD 732 118 187 257 -

93 78 Table 2 Post-conditions land use breakdown

Roof Downspouts In addition to the fusion garden, the contribution of roof runoff was also included in the retrofit scenario. To quantify the amount of roof runoff directed to the garden or lawn area through the downspout, the roof area of each home was broken down into smaller catchments. According to the information provided and based on the drawings of each home, the roof areas for each home were discretized as indicated in tables above.



5. Evaluating Stormwater Benefits

5.1. Runoff Volume Reduction

5.1.1 Thornthwaite and Mather Water Balance Approach The water balance method developed by Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) determines the potential and actual amounts of evapotranspiration and water surplus (or excess of precipitation over evapotranspiration). Infiltration factors are used to determine the fraction of water surplus that infiltrates into the ground and the fraction that runs off to receiving drainage systems and/or streams (MOECC, 2003). This method has been utilized to analyze runoff reduction from existing condition to post fusion landscape condition. The Water Balance approach can be illustrated through the following equation: INPUT = OUTPUT This method provides an estimate of surplus based on precipitation minus evaporation and then applies an infiltration factor to determine the amount of infiltration. Infiltration factors are determined based on topography, soil and cover type. The following parameters were determined in order to conduct the water balance analysis:

o Precipitation value of 786mm (Toronto Pearson Airport, Appendix A) o Evapotranspiration and surplus, 786 mm and 326 mm (Toronto Pearson Airport, Appendix A) o Infiltration factor is a function of grading /topography/land cover/soil types; o Pervious and impervious areas reflecting pre and post conditions (see Table 1 and Table 2); o % of roof runoff directed to garden/ lawn (downspout disconnection);

Assumptions: To calculate the runoff reduction the following assumptions were taken into consideration:

o Irrigation was assumed to be zero, i.e. precipitation was the only input; o Use of annual averages for precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (PE); o All rainfall is evaporated at PE Rate;

∆SM

Precipitation (P)

Irrigation (Irr)

Runoff (RO)

Infiltration (Infil)

Potential Evapotranspiration

(PE)

P + Irr = RO + PE + Infil + ∆SM



o It was assumed that all downspout were connected in pre-retrofit scenario and some downspout were disconnected in post retrofit scenario (based on information from Region of Peel);

o A Runoff Reduction factor of 0.5 was applied to the demo homes with downspout disconnection. This is based on a conservative runoff reduction rate estimate for roof downspout disconnection for hydrologic soil group A &B (Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, 2010)

o Assumed no other tree canopy , gardens, shrubs and or plants Soil

o The subsurface of the fusion garden was scarified to a depth of 75mm to produce an even, loose textured surface, free of stones, roots, branches and live weeds ( Section 3.2 as per Document 2010-33IT)

o Minimum of 150 mm of topsoil was placed for finished grade ( Section 3.3 as per Document 2010-33IT)

o An Infiltration Factor of 0.30 was applied to Fusion Garden based on soil amendment practices (Section 2.0 as per Document 2010-33IT)

o The soil type, soil material and infiltration factor are listed below in Table 4.

Table 4 Soil Type and Soil Materials

Demo homes Soil Type Soil Material

Infiltration Factor (existing soil condition)

Rooftop disconnection status post retrofit

1066 WELWYN DR Sandy Loam Outwash Sand

0.25

all 4 disconnected, 1 flowing into fusion garden, 1 flowing into the flowerbed

1189 APRIL DR Sandy Loam Outwash Sand 0.25 all 4 disconnected, 2 flowing into the garden

1818 BARSUDA DR Sandy Loam Outwash Sand 0.25

2 in front connected to storm, 1 in back is disconnected to backyard

1824 DELANEY DR

Variable (Front),

Sandy Loam (back)

Alluvial (front), Outwash sand

(back)

0.25

2 in front connected to storm, 2 in back disconnected, 3 in front disconnected to garden

1930 DAVEBROOK RD Clay Loam Grey Shale

0.20

3 Downspouts. 2 to the garden are connected. 1 downspout directed to the lawn is disconnected



WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS: Each demo home was divided into a number of sub catchments of pervious area and impervious area. A water balance was calculated to estimate the amount of infiltration and runoff generated from each subcatchment. For the pre-retrofit scenario, the sub catchments of all demo homes typically consist of pervious area (lawn) and impervious area (rooftop and driveway). The post-retrofit scenario sub catchments include lawn and fusion garden, and impervious areas such as rooftop, driveway and walkway. Both scenarios are modelled utilizing the various factors discussed above- infiltration factor; topography; soil; land cover; precipitation; evaporation; infiltration; % of pervious and impervious area. The figures provided in Section 3.0 illustrate how each demo home was discretized into various subcatchments. The summary of the results generated for each Demo home can be found in Table 5. The detailed results of the water balance of each home can be found in Appendix B.

5.1.1. LID Treatment Train Model The Low Impact Development Treatment Train Tool (LID TTT) has been developed by Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a tool to help developers, consultants, municipalities and landowners understand and implement more sustainable stormwater management planning and design practices in their watersheds. The purpose of the tool is to analyze annual and event based runoff volume reduction and pollutant load removal through the use of LID practices. (LID Treatment Train Tool beta version 1.0 under development as of August 19, 2016). The tool is built upon the open source EPA-SWMM model providing a user friendly interface. It uses SWMM’s LID module for computations related to LID infrastructure. The LID TTT provides preliminary water budget analysis (i.e. evaporation, surface runoff, infiltration) for pre and post development scenarios and pollutant load removal estimates for post-development scenarios with LID. Average annual rainfall time series and SCS and Chicago design storm distributions are built into the tool. The model was run with average annual rainfall time series, as well as 4-hour Chicago design storm event. The LID TTT model for Clarkson was set up with the roof, driveway, lawn, and fusion garden, being defined as separate catchment areas for the overall site. Area, soil type, slopes, catchment width, percent imperviousness, depression storage for pervious and impervious surfaces, and roughness was provided as input to the tool for each catchment. For demo homes with downspout disconnections, the runoff from the roof was routed to fusion garden. For homes with no disconnection, the input to fusion garden only included direct rainfall; no external area was routed to the garden. For some other sites, the roof downspout was disconnected and routed to the lawn. In this case the lawn received excess runoff from the roof.



Model set up for pre retrofit Scenario for 1066 Welwyn Drive

Model set up for post retrofit Scenario for 1066 Welwyn Drive

The fusion garden was modeled as a bioretention LID practice without a storage layer or an underdrain, with sandy loam soil type (hydrologic properties of sandy loam soils were retrieved from the EPA-SWMM User Manual). Following are some assumptions made for modeling the sites in the tool:

• No groundwater component was defined for the catchment areas, so the evaporation and infiltration results generated by the tool are not true values. Some of the amount shown under infiltration is going to evaporate from the upper unsaturated soil layer. The LID, however, captures the true evaporation because the evaporation from the soils is captured in the computations. Therefore, you will see that the evaporation has increased significantly between the scenarios with and without the garden. This may not be true.

• The fusion garden is assumed to always be comprised of fine sandy loam soil type, even for sites with a different native soil type.

• The results of the LID TTT runs are addressed in Table 5. • Walkway is modeled as impervious surface in the pre-development scenario even though there

is no walkway under pre development conditions. This was done such that we can compare the same ratio of pervious and impervious surfaces in the pre and post development scenarios.

• Walkway has been assumed to have been routed to the lawn under both pre and post development scenarios. This applies even for when the walkway goes through the fusion garden and is realistically draining to it. This assumption was made such that we could isolate the benefits achieved from rooftop disconnection to fusion garden and not route any other impervious surfaces to it, since the goal of this exercise is strictly to realize the benefits of converting lawn to fusion garden and rooftop disconnection.



Results of Runoff Volume Reduction from Water Balance Approach using: LID Treatment Tool, SWMM & Thornthwaite and Mather Water Balance

* Assumption: Predevelopment of fusion garden has no rooftop disconnections in the properties * The infiltration and evaporation values are reported collectively in the EPA SWMM & LID Treatment Tool 6 Precipitation input = 753 mm (average annual rainfall data from Toronto Pearson Airport Gauge) 7 Precipitation input = 637 mm (3 years of continuous rainfall data from Truscott Gauge: 2013-2015, Appendix C) 8 Precipitation input = 786 mm (Toronto Pearson Climate Normal Data, 1981-2010, Appendix A)

Table 5 Comparison of Runoff Volume Reduction Calculations

LID Treatment Tool6 EPA SWMM 7 (Stormwater Management Model)

Thornthwaite and Mather Water Balance8

Changes to Site Characteristics

Demo Homes Scenario

Infiltration + Evapotranspir

ation (mm)

Runoff (mm)

% Runoff Reduction

Infiltration + Evapotranspir

ation (mm)

Runoff (mm)

% Runoff Reduction

Infiltration + Evapotranspi

ration (mm)

Runoff (mm)

% Runoff Reduction

%Lawn Converted to Fusion Garden

% Roof directed

to Garden

% Roof directed to Lawn

Roof area connected to storms

1066 Welwyn Drive

Pre 540 214

45%

444 194

43%

549 237

34% 31% 70% 30% 0 Post 625 117 517 111 629 157

1189April Drive

Pre 545 209 43%

445 193 44%

557 228 36% 43% 48% 52% 0 Post 620 119 514 109 640 145

1824 Delaney Drive

Pre 599 154

32%

483 100

30%

627 159

25% 15% 37% 47% 16% Post 643 104 523 108 667 119 1818 Barsuda Drive

Pre 500 254

10%

406 230

10%

503 283

12% 21% 0% 27% 73% Post 518 229 423 206 538 248 1930 Davebrook Road

Pre 474 279

14%

379 260

19%

519 267

9% 40% 0% 55% 46% Post 599 240 414 211 544 242



5.1.2. Modeling of Continuous Rainfall Data (Truscott Gauge) The Truscott Gauge Station is located within the vicinity of the Clarkson Neighbourhood as shown below in the map. CVC has historical rainfall data available from 2013 – 2015 at this station. This data was utilized to calculate runoff reduction using EPA SWMM (Storm Water Management Model). The purpose of this exercise was to compare the runoff reduction with the simulation runs from the Toronto Pearson Airport station. The average runoff reduction comparisons are in the Table 5. The breakdown of the results can be found in Table 6 below.

Figure 1 Location of Truscott Gauge

The results indicate that the Airport data utilized is a close approximation of the rainfall observed in the Clarkson neighbourhood. OBSERVATIONS

• The results presented are average annual runoff volumes for the period of 2013-2015 • Both methods (LID TT and Continuous modeling) of calculating runoff volume reduction generated

similar results in reduction • The LID treatment tool tended to over-estimate runoff reduction. This is based on the physical

parameters used to model the fusion garden in the tool. • Larger % of volume reduction were observed in homes that have all roof leaders disconnected and a

larger footprint of fusion garden • 1930 Davebrook property has less runoff reduction observed, although more roof area is being directed

to the lawn. This is particularly indication of the soil characteristic of this site. Most of the properties are sandy loam while 1930 Davebrook consists of clay loam which impedes infiltration.



Table 6 Results of continuous rainfall data from Truscott Gage (2013-2015)

Demo Homes Simulation year Scenario Total Precip (mm) Total Evap (mm) Total Infil (mm) Total Runoff (mm)% Runoff

ReductionPre devp 593.6 88.9 274.4 231.0Post devp 593.6 197.5 193.5 190.4Pre devp 822.2 104.8 372.0 347.4Post devp 822.2 249.3 278.2 284.5Pre devp 495.8 80.3 215.4 200.8Post devp 495.8 184.3 138.9 159.4Pre devp 637.2 91.3 287.3 259.7Post devp 637.2 210.4 203.5 211.4Pre devp 593.6 80.9 385.7 125.8Post devp 593.6 142.0 360.8 83.7Pre devp 822.2 95.5 516.8 210.1Post devp 822.2 167.9 500.1 148.6Pre devp 495.8 69.6 301.5 124.2Post devp 495.8 125.7 271.9 90.6Pre devp 637.2 61.5 401.3 153.4Post devp 637.2 145.2 283.2 107.6Pre devp 593.6 76.2 311.9 197.2Post devp 593.6 139.3 266.6 173.5Pre devp 822.2 93.8 418.4 311.9Post devp 822.2 171.2 365.7 280.4Pre devp 495.8 73.3 244.3 179.3Post devp 495.8 127.6 198.7 162.7Pre devp 637.2 81.1 324.9 229.5Post devp 637.2 146.0 277.0 205.5Pre devp 593.6 84.8 339.0 169.5Post devp 593.6 220.3 263.6 95.1Pre devp 822.2 100.6 463.5 259.1Post devp 822.2 266.0 396.8 146.2Pre devp 495.8 76.8 269.4 149.6Post devp 495.8 204.7 190.2 84.9Pre devp 637.2 87.4 357.3 192.7Post devp 637.2 230.3 283.5 108.7Pre devp 593.6 82.2 337.0 174.3Post devp 593.6 179.2 312.1 92.8Pre devp 822.2 98.2 469.9 255.2Post devp 822.2 215.7 443.9 154.3Pre devp 495.8 75.3 268.0 152.9Post devp 495.8 166.7 231.9 86.7Pre devp 637.2 85.2 358.3 194.1Post devp 637.2 187.2 329.3 111.3

2014

2013

2014

12%

10%

9%

44%

10%

1930 Davebrook Road

1824 Delaney Drive2014

2015

1818 Barsuda Drive

Average

2015

Average 30%

Average

27%

2013

2014

2015

2013

18%

18%

21%

33%

29%

19%

1189 April Drive

1066 Welwyn Drive

43%

47%

40%

43%

44%

2015

Average 44%

Average 43%

2013

2014

2015

2013



5.1.3. Sensitivity Analysis To further understand the effects of the conversion to fusion garden and the downspout disconnections, a sensitivity analysis was carried out with 5 scenarios. This was to analyze how much contribution to runoff reduction is made by the contribution of garden and roof runoff directed to lawn, and garden. The five scenarios are as follows:

1. Predevelopment conditions with no change in lawn 2. Post development with conversion of lawn to fusion garden 3. Post development with downspout disconnection to lawn only (i.e. roof runoff directed to lawn) 4. Post development with downspout disconnection to garden only (i.e. roof runoff directed to garden) 5. Post development with conversion of lawn to fusion garden and downspout disconnection

The results of the scenarios can be seen in Table 7. The results indicate that the reduction in runoff is greater when both fusion garden and rooftop are disconnected and directed to lawn/ garden. Roof disconnection seems to have a greater impact on runoff reduction than conversion of lawn area to fusion gardens. The volume of runoff directed to the fusion gardens is a key contributor to the reduction observed. The greater the impervious drainage area directed to the fusion garden, the higher the runoff reduction estimated through the different approaches. If the fusion garden only captures the rain falling on it, the runoff reduced is minimal because the inflow volume is minimal. Also, the lawn and fusion garden have similar soil properties, hence minimal differences in infiltration are achieved by changing the lawn to a fusion garden alone. This can be seen when comparing modeled runoff reduction results for scenario 2 versus 4. In spite of minor differences in underlying soil properties between the lawn and fusion garden, because the depth of the soil media in the fusion garden is much greater than the depth of soil in lawn, greater amount of runoff is retained when the rooftop is disconnected to the fusion garden versus the lawn. This can be observed when comparing results for scenario 3 and 4.



Table 7 Sensitivity analysis for 5 scenarios

Site Address Scenario Total Preceip (mm)Total Infil + Evap (mm)

Total Runoff (mm)

% runoff reduction,

%pollutant load reduction

Pre development 753.2 599.1 153.9Post Development with lawn converted to garden 753.2 603.3 143.2 7%Post Development with roof disconnection to lawn only 753.2 618.5 134.9 12%Post Development with roof disconnection to garden only 753.2 629.3 117.2 24%Post Development with garden and rooftop disconnection 753.2 642.6 104 32%

pollutant loading TSS in (kg) 55.9215657TSS out (kg) 31.3390896

TP in (kg) 0.16387272TP out (kg) 0.09183616

Pre development 753.2 500.1 253.6Post Development with lawn converted to garden 753.2 497.9 248.9 2%Post Development with roof disconnection to lawn 753.2 522.4 231.3 9%Post Development with garden and rooftop disconnection 753.2 517.9 228.9 10%


TP in (kg) 0.111896742TP out (kg) 0.087733069

Pre development 753.2 544.6 208.6Post Development with lawn converted to garden 753.2 536.4 201.7 3%Post Development with roof disconnection to lawn only 753.2 566.9 187.1 10%Post Development with roof disconnection to garden only 753.2 602.9 135.1 35%Post Development with garden and rooftop disconnection 753.2 619.5 118.5 43%


TP in (kg) 0.157546919TP out (kg) 0.05252613

Pre development 753.2 539.7 213.7Post Development with lawn converted to garden 753.2 532.8 209.9 2%Post Development with roof disconnection to lawn only 753.2 554.8 199.3 7%Post Development with roof disconnection to garden only 753.2 612.3 130.4 39%Post Development with garden and rooftop disconnection 753.2 625.3 117.3 45%


TP in (kg) 0.138134643TP out (kg) 0.045887191

Pre development 753.2 474.4 279.3Post Development with lawn converted to garden 753.2 490.5 249.4 11%Post Development with roof disconnection to lawn 753.2 491.9 262 6%Post Development with garden and rooftop disconnection 753.2 599.1 240.1 14%


TP in (kg) 0.163602768TP out (kg) 0.104712412

67%

67%

1066 Welwyn Drive

36%

36%

67%

1930 Davebrook Road

1824 Delaney Drive

1818 Barsuda Drive

1189 April Drive

44%

44%

22%

22%

67%



5.1.4. Summary The runoff reduction for the demo properties were quantified using three different approaches as described in the sections above. The Thornthwaite and Mather approach utilizes average annual precipitation and a long term climate data set available from the Toronto Pearson Airport. It utilizes the water budget approach using the long term data available from 1981-2010. It is a conservative approach with general assumptions on the capacity of the fusion garden. Both the LID Treatment Tool approach and the EPA SWMM utilize the similar modeling approach. The difference in these two approaches is the precipitation input. LID Treatment Tool was run using average annual precipitation value available from the Toronto Pearson Airport Gauge and the EPA SWMM was run utilizing rainfall data available from the Truscott Gauge for the period of 2013-2015. Therefore the results between them are closely comparable. The LID Treatment Tool is advantageous in modeling low impact development practices such as rain gardens, permeable pavement etc. However, currently it is in the beta version. Furthermore fusion garden does not have the same characteristic of a rain garden, and therefore the parameters had to be adjusted for the fusion garden in the LID Treatment Tool Model. In summary, the purpose of the exercise is to provide a range of runoff reduction that can be expected from the fusion garden on the demo sites. All three scenarios run for the analysis of runoff reduction are comparable to each other as the results generated are within reasonable range. The range of the runoff reduction is summarized below:

Table 8 Runoff Reduction Summary

Demo Homes Range of Runoff Reduction (%) 1066 Welwyn Drive 34-45 1189 April Drive 36-44 1824 Delaney Drive 25-32 1818 Barsuda Drive 10-12 1930 Davebrook Road 9-19

5.1.5. Best Practices for Runoff Reduction

o Maximizing roof leader disconnection and directing runoff to fusion gardens can achieve a higher rate of volume reduction.

o The footprint of the fusion garden has an impact to the volume retained from runoff. Therefore maximizing the footprint of the garden will increase the benefit.

o Increasing depth of amended soils to increase retention of runoff o When adding imperviousness area to the footprint (e.g. walkway) or disconnecting downspouts,

add topsoil to the lawn to retain the extra runoff, irrespective of native soil type, or the total runoff will increase despite addition of fusion garden or rooftop disconnection

o If adding walkway to site, design the walkway such that it is sloped to the lawn or the fusion garden. This helps reduce the amount of impervious areas directly connected. There are also pervious materials that could be utilized to further increase infiltration (i.e. permeable pavement, pavers, asphalt etc.)

o Rooftop disconnection to the fusion garden offers better runoff reduction than routing to the lawn. It is recommended that roof runoff be routed to fusion garden or other similar practices

o Landscaped areas that include a surface depression of approximately 150 mm (6 inches) that allows runoff from residential property to collect and easily absorb into the ground (Figure 2)



- Ponding can be implemented for soils having a percolation rate of > or = 15 mm/hr. Infiltration can be improved by tilling the ponding are to a depth of approximately 300 mm before sod is laid.

o Infiltration galleries and dry wells are excavations in native soil that are filled with geotextile fabric and clean granular stone. Soakaways are typically designed with a perforated pipe inlet from a relatively clean water source, such as a roof or pedestrian area. When possible, soakaways should be installed in areas where native soils allow for infiltration. If poorly draining soils are present, an underdrain can be installed to remove standing water (Figure 3)

o Consideration of incorporating physical structures of a Bioretention/ Rain garden can yield a more robust reduction in runoff of up to 85 % without underdrain and 45 % with underdrain. It has also a high performance of pollutant removal capacity.

Figure 2 Rain gardens are landscaped areas that include a surface depression of approximately 150 mm (6

inches) that allows runoff from residential property to collect and easily absorb into the ground (Source: CVC)

Figure 3 Subsurface soak away pit for enhanced volume reduction (Source: CVC)



5.2 Peak Flow Reduction DESIGN STORM The peak flow reduction was analyzed using a continuous flow modelling through EPA SWMM model with a 4 hour Chicago design storm distribution. The results can be found in Appendix C. The runoff reduction was also analyzed with the model to compare with the annual average method approach outlined in 5.1.3. Each property responds to peak flow reduction differently based on the site condition and the characteristics of the conversion of the demo homes (i.e. roof area converted, % are of lawn converted to garden etc.). The results indicate that the usually the homes with both conversion to fusion garden and disconnection of downspout yield the highest peak flow reduction, approximately 50 % in the case of 3 of the demo homes. The following figures shows the peak flow and runoff reduction in a continuous model.

Figure 4 Peak flow and Runoff Reduction in 1930 Davebrook Rd

• The greatest peak flow reduction is observed during the 2 year storm event and it decreases with increased storm size

• The runoff reduction levels off at 6% from the 25 year storm event.

• Roof area is not directed to garden, however some runoff reduction is observed, because a greater amount of lawn area was converted to fusion garden and a larger rooftop area was directed

to lawn. Therefore it’s a combination of the area directed or runoff volume directed, and size of fusion garden that contributes to the reduction.

Figure 5 Peak flow and Runoff Reduction in 1824 Delaney Dr.

The greatest peak flow reduction is observed during the 2 year storm event and it decreases with increased storm size The runoff reduction also has a similar pattern to peak flow reduction as the soil retention capacity decreases



Figure 6 Peak flow and runoff reduction for 1818 Barsuda Dr.

• The peak flow reduction is the highest during a 2 year storm event and decreases with larger storm volumes

• There is no runoff reduction visible in this property. This is because rooftop runoff is not being directed to the fusion garden and a very minimal area of roof area is being directed to lawn. Additionally, a very small

area is converted to garden. Therefore the conversion doesn’t provide much retention.

Figure 7 Peak flow and runoff reduction for 1189 April Dr.

• The peak flow reduction capacity decreases with larger storm events.

• Runoff reduction has a very similar pattern because of soil being saturated and the infiltration capacity decreasing with larger volume

Figure 8 Peak flow and Runoff reduction for 1066 Welwyn Dr.

• Similar to the other properties, the peak flow reduction is 26 % and decreases with increasing intensity storm event.

• Runoff reduction is highest at a

2 year event and decreases to 6 % for 50 year event and levels off for the 100 year event.



5.2.1 Best practices for Peak Flow Reduction

o The use of source controls for managing peak flow is currently being investigated in more detail. o Figure 9 is an example of how underground storage was provided within a residential lot that could

control peak flows. Fusion gardens could be situated over the underground storage chamber.

Figure 9 Example of underground storage chambers (Source : ADS Canada)

5.3 Water Quality Treatment Water quality results in the LID Treatment Train tool are post processed, that is they are not calculated within the SWMM model but are based on removal efficiencies hardwired into the tool. These removal efficiencies are based on literature and monitored data. Based on whether the drainage area has a LID feature, percent removal efficiency for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) is applied to the area. For catchment areas with multiple LID features, the BMP in-series equation is used to define the removal efficiency for that area.

For the fusion garden which was modeled as a rain garden in the LID treatment Tool, 40% removal for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 35% for Total Phosphorus (TP) is predicted for the area that drains to the garden. This removal efficiency combines both removal due to filtration and removal from volume retention. This value is low because there is no gravel layer under the fusion garden, thereby significantly limiting its ability to retain



runoff volume, and hence pollutants. With the gravel layer the pollutant removal efficiency could be 75% for TSS and 56% for TP. Areas that do not receive treatment from the garden, i.e. do not drain to the garden, and are assumed to have no pollutant removal. The pollutant loading is further broken down for TSS and TP for each property as seen in table below: For loading calculations, an influent TSS concentration of 273 mg/L and TP concentration of 0.8 mg/L was used based on the LID Treatment Tool concentrations for residential land use. The influent and effluent pollutant loading was estimated by multiplying the concentration with the total runoff volume generated from the site under pre-development and post-development scenarios. The difference in loadings between the pre and post scenarios informed the percent pollutant loading reduction. To estimate effluent pollutant loading, the influent pollutant concentrations were multiplied by runoff volume from areas other than the fusion garden and any roof area directed to the fusion garden. This is because the fusion garden did not generate any outflow for any of the sites, so no pollutants will be leaving the garden. The areas not routed to the fusion garden were assumed to provide no pollutant control, so influent concentrations were applied to them. Table 9 Percent Pollutant Load Reduction for each demo home

Demo Home TSS (% load reduction) TP (% load reduction) 1189 April Drive 67 67 1066 Welwyn Drive 67 67 1824 Delaney Drive 44 44 1818 Barsuda Drive 22 22 1930 Davebrook Road 36 36

5.2.1 Best Practices for Water Quality Treatment

o Soil blends/ mixtures can optimize pollutant removal (i.e. cation exchange capacity) o Different soil blends or soil media with high infiltration rates help to filter and cool the water

before getting absorbed into the ground.

5.3 Additional Benefits of Fusion Garden Beyond the stormwater benefits there are other ecological landscaping benefits of a fusion garden. The following are some potential benefits:

• Climate Change Mitigation o mitigation of urban heat island effect (cooler temperatures due to shade and

evapotranspiration); o erosion and sediment control – deep roots of many native species can help to stabilize soils; o carbon sequestration – through trees and the deep roots of prairie/meadow plants; o “right plant, right place” approach can improve capacity to adapt to extreme weather events

such as drought or intense storms • Improved Biodiversity

o providing habitat for birds and small mammals;



o providing habitat for pollinators and other insects; o contributing to native plant biodiversity – particularly important close to natural areas;

• Enhanced aesthetic appeal o adding beauty, colour and texture to the local landscape o improved curb appeal through landscape enhancement can increase house values (requires

commitment to maintenance) • Increased health and well-being

o physical and visible access to green space can improve psychological health o ecological landscaping practices such as fusion garden can complement outdoor recreational

activities o contributes to the livability of communities

Fusion Garden also has the potential to:

• reduce energy and other inputs for maintenance (e.g., when maintenance practices move away from mowing)

• reduce energy for heating and cooling (e.g., when trees are strategically planted to block cooling north-west winds from reaching a building)

• reduce airborne pollutants

6 Integrated Water Management In addition to the recommendations suggested above, an integrated water management is recommended to be considered for future pilot studies. The integrated water management or ‘One Water’ is a new paradigm that is gaining momentum within the water management field. The notion of an integrated water management involves development of sustainable water infrastructures that manages water, wastewater and stormwater through an integrated and holistic system. This approach looks at the urban water cycle as an interconnected solution to optimize impact on water quality, flooding, erosion, etc. Some of the guiding principles of the One Water approach include:

For more information, please visit: http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-support/one-water/

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-support/one-water/

http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-support/one-water/



References Conservation Authority Guidelines to Support Hydrogeological Assessments, Conservation Ontario, June, 2013.

Grey to Green Residential Guide, Credit valley Conservation Authority, 2015. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, Version1, Toronto and Region and Credit Valley Conservation, 2010. Low Impact Development Treatment Train Tool beta version 1.0 under development as of August 19, 2016, Credit Valley Conservation, Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Low Impact Development Residential Retrofits: Engaging Residents to Adopt Low Impact Development on their properties, Credit Valley Conservation, 2016. Landscape Construction Services of Five Residential Landscape Designs (Document 2010-33IT), Regional Municipality of Peel Purchasing Section, 2013.



Appendix A

Table 1 Climatic Water Budget: Climate Normal 1981-2010 (Toronto Lester B. Pearson Int’l Airport Trillium Health Centre

Month

Mean Temp

(degree C)

Heat Index Potential

Evapotranspiration (mm)

Daylight Correction

Value

Adjusted Potential Evapotranspiration

(mm)

Total Precipitation

(mm) Surplus (mm)

Deficit (mm)

January -5.5 0 0 0.82 0 52 52 0 February -4.5 0 0 0.82 0 48 48 0

March 0.1 0 0 1.03 0 50 50 0 April 7.1 1.70 30.5 1.11 34 69 35 0 May 13.1 4.30 60.9 1.25 76 74 0 2 June 18.6 7.31 90.5 1.27 115 72 0 43 July 21.5 9.10 106.6 1.29 137 76 0 61

August 20.6 8.53 101.6 1.20 122 78 0 43 September 16.2 5.93 77.4 1.04 81 75 0 6

October 9.5 2.64 42.4 0.96 41 61 21 0 November 3.7 0.63 14.6 0.82 12 75 63 0 December -2.2 0 0 0.79 0 58 58 -0

Totals 40.14 617 786 326 156

Total Water Surplus 169 mm



Appendix B 1066 Welwyn Drive

Water Budget - Pre Retrofit Water Budget - Post RetrofitAssume: Assume:Driveway drains directly to road 100% roof leader disconnection (70% of roof area is directed to fusion garden)All roof leaders are directly connected in pre restoration conditions Evaporation is the same rate for Lawn and Fusion Garden

Assuming 100 % capture from rain to pervious areasNo run-on (mm/yr) and other inputs (i.e. irrigration, sump pumps, etc.)20 % of loss of precipitation for impervious areas

Lawn Driveway Roof Total LawnFusion Garden

+ Walkway DrivewayRoof 1 (Fusion

Garden)Roof 2 (Grass) Total

Area (m2) 564 65 179 808 Area (m2) 360 204 65 125 54 808Pervious Area (m2) 564 0 0 Pervious Area (m2) Fusion Garden 204 0 125Impervious Area (m2) 0 34 178 Pervious Area (m2) Lawn 360 54

Impervious Area (m2) 0 0 92Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.15 0.15Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.1 0.1 Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.3Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0 0 Soil Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.25 0.25 Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.15 0 0.15 0.1Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0 0 MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.7Run-Off Coefficient Actual Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.7Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0.8 0.8 Runoff Reduction Factor (Roof) 0.5 0.5

Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.8Precipitation (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786Run-on (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Run-on (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 257Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 257 Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 308 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 157 157 478 Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 308 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 71 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 617 157 157 157 478 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - - 81 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 71 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) garden - - - 314 - 49 Runoff Pervious Areas 68 0 0 47 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) lawn - - - - 314 21 Runoff Impervious Areas 0 629 629 190 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - 314 314 151 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 629 629 237 Runoff Pervious Areas 59 42 - - 37 Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786.00 Runoff Impervious Areas - - 629 314 314 120 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0.00 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 59 42 629 314 314 157

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 Precipitation (m3/yr) 443 51 141 635 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Run-on (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (m3/yr) 283 161 51 98 42 635 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 443 51 141 635 Run-on (m3/yr) - - - - - -

Other inputs (m3/yr) - - - - - - Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 95 41 113 208 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 283 161 51 98 42 635 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 95 41 113 208 Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 348 10 28 386 Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 60.82 35 41 79 34 249 Infiltration (m3/yr) 57 - - 57 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 61 30 57.73 113 34 248.68 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 222 109 14.43 28 8 386.40 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 57 - - 57 Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - - - 65.42 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 38 - - 38 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - 56 - 39.30 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - 41 113 153 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - 56 16.98 121.70 Total Runoff (m3/yr) 38 41 113 191 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 21 7 - - 29.92 Total Outputs (m3/yr) 443 51 141 635 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - - 40.79 39.30 16.98 97.07 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Total Runoff (m3/yr) 21.29 8.63 40.79 39.30 16.98 126.98

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 282.87 160.53 50.99 98.25 42.44 635.08 * Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20 % of precipitatoin Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - - -

Outputs (Volumes)

Inputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Catchment DesignationSite

Infiltration Factors

Inputs (per Unit Area)

Outputs (per Unit Area)

Inputs (Volumes)

Onputs (per Unit Area)






1189 April Drive

Water Balance/Water Budget AssessmentSurplus = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration Runoff = Surplus - Infiltration

Water Budget - Pre Retrofit Water Budget - Post RetrofitAssume: Assume:Driveway drains directly to road 100% roof leader disconnection (48 % of roof area is directed to fusion garden)All roof leaders are directly connected in pre restoration conditions Evaporation is the same rate fro Lawn and Fusion Garden

Assuming 100 % capture from rain to pervious areas

Lawn Driveway Roof Totals LawnFusion Garden

+ Walkway Driveway Roof 1

(Fusion)Roof 2 (Grass) Totals

Area (m2) 674 58 213 944 Area (m2) 342 331 58 103 110 944Pervious Area (m2) 674 0 0 Pervious Area (m2) Fusion Garden 331 0 103Impervious Area (m2) 0 58 213 Pervious Area (m2) Lawn 342 110

Impervious Area (m2) 0 0 58Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.15 0.15Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.1 0.1 Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.3Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0 0 Soil Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.25 0.25 Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.15 0 0.15 0.1Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0 0 MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.6Run-Off Coefficient Actual Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0 0 0Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0.8 0.8 Runoff Reduction Factor (Roof) 0.5 0.5


Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 262Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 262 Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 301 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 157 157 485 Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 301 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 72 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 617 157 157 157 485 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - - 84 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 72 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) garden - - - 314.40 - 34 Runoff Pervious Areas 68 0 0 48 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) lawn - - - - 314.40 37 Runoff Impervious Areas 0 629 629 180 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - 314 314 155 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 629 629 228 Runoff Pervious Areas 59 42 - - 36 Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786.00 Runoff Impervious Areas - - 629 314 314 109 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0.00 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 59 42 629 314 314 145

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 Precipitation (m3/yr) 529 45 167 742 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Run-on (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (m3/yr) 269 260 45 81 87 742 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 529 45 167 742 Run-on (m3/yr) - - - - - -

Other inputs (m3/yr) - - - - - - Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 114 36 134 248 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 269 260 45 81 87 742 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 114 36 134 248 Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 416 9 33 458 Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 57.87 56 36 65 69 284 Infiltration (m3/yr) 68 - - 68 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 61 30 57.73 113 69 283.91 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 222 109 14.43 28 17 458.13 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 68 - - 68 Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - - - 79.59 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 46 - - 46 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - 56 - 32.25 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - 36 134 170 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - 56 35 146.55 Total Runoff (m3/yr) 46 36 134 216 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 21 7 - - 34.25 Total Outputs (m3/yr) 529 45 167 742 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - - 36.16 32.25 34.70 103.12 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Total Runoff (m3/yr) 20.25 13.99 36.16 32.25 34.70 137

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 269.15 260.30 45.20 80.63 86.76 742 * Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20 % of precipitatoin Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - -





Inputs (Volumes)



Inputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (per Unit Area)Onputs (per Unit Area)



1818 Barsuda Drive

Water Budget - Pre-DevelopmentWater Balance/Water Budget AssessmentSurplus = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration Runoff = Surplus - InfiltrationWater Budget - Pre Retrofit Water Budget - Post RetrofitAssume: Assume:Driveway drains directly to road Roof leader is connected with storm sewerAll roof leaders are directly connected in pre restoration conditions Evaporation is the same rate for Lawn and Fusion Garden


Lawn Driveway Roof Totals Lawn Fusion Garden Driveway Roof 2 (grass)

Roof 1 (stm) Totals

Area (m2) 340 36 176 552 Area (m2) 268 72 36 48 128 552Pervious Area (m2) 340 0 0 Pervious Area (m2) Fusion Garden 72Impervious Area (m2) 0 36 176 Pervious Area (m2) Lawn 268 48

Impervious Area (m2) 36 128Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.15 0.15Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.1 0.1 Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.3Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0 0 Soil Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.2MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.25 0.25 Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.15 0 0.1Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0 0 MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.6Run-Off Coefficient Actual Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0 0 0Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0.8 0.8 Runoff Reduction Factor (Roof) 0.5


Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 305Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 305 Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 345 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 157 157 441 Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 345 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 63 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 617 157 157 157 441 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - 70 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 63 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) garden - - - - - Runoff Pervious Areas 68 0 0 42 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) lawn - - - 314.40 - 27 Runoff Impervious Areas 0 629 629 241 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - 314 - 97 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 629 629 283 Runoff Pervious Areas 59 42 - - 34 Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 Runoff Impervious Areas - - 629 314 629 213 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0.00 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 59 42 629 314 629 248

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 Precipitation (m3/yr) 267 28 138 434 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Run-on (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (m3/yr) 211 57 28 38 100 434 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 267 28 138 434 Run-on (m3/yr) - - - - -

Other inputs (m3/yr) - - - - - Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 57 22 111 168 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 211 57 28 38 100 434 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 57 22 111 168 Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 210 6 28 243 Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 45.33 12 22 30.31 80.23 191 Infiltration (m3/yr) 34 - - 34 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 61 30 57.73 113 113 190.57 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 222 109 14.43 28 28 243.43 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 34 - - 34 Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - - - 38.64 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 23 - - 23 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - 56 - - Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - 22 111 133 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - 56 - 53.80 Total Runoff (m3/yr) 23 22 111 156 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 21 7 - - 18.92 Total Outputs (m3/yr) 267 28 138 434 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - - 22.45 15.15 80.23 117.84 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Total Runoff (m3/yr) 15.86 3.06 22.45 15.15 80.23 136.77

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 210.81 56.94 28.07 37.89 100.29 433.99 * Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20 % of precipitatoin Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - -

Outputs (Volumes)

Inputs (Volumes)


Onputs (per Unit Area)






Outputs (per Unit Area)

Inputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)



1824 Delaney Drive

Water Budget - Pre-DevelopmentWater Balance/Water Budget AssessmentSurplus = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration Runoff = Surplus - InfiltrationWater Budget - Pre Retrofit Water Budget - Post RetrofitAssume: Assume:Driveway drains directly to road Partial roof area is directed to Lawn (Roof 1 is connected)All roof leaders are directly connected in pre restoration conditions Evaporation is the same rate fro Lawn and Fusion Garden



+ Walkway Driveway

Roof 1 (fusion garden)

Roof 2 (Lawn)

Roof 3 (Strm) Totals

Area (m2) 1115 64 152 1331 Area (m2) 922 193 64 57 72 24 1331Pervious Area (m2) 1115 0 0 Pervious Area (m2) Fusion Garden 193 0 57Impervious Area (m2) 0 64 152 Pervious Area (m2) Lawn 922 72

Impervious Area (m2) 0 0 64 24Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.15 0.15Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.1 0.1 Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.3 0.15Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0 0 Soil Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.25 0.25 Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.15 0 0.15 0.1 0Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0 0 MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.6 0.25Run-Off Coefficient Actual Infiltration Factor 0.65 0.75 0 0 0 0Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0.8 0.8 Runoff Reduction Factor (Roof) 0.5 0.5 0

Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8Precipitation (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786Run-on (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 786Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Run-on (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 786Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 213Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 213 Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 629 244 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 157 157 542 Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 629 244 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 85 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 617 157 157 157 157 542 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - - - 94 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 85 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) garden - - - 314.40 - 13 Runoff Pervious Areas 68 0 0 57 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) lawn - - - - 314.40 17 Runoff Impervious Areas 0 629 629 102 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 110 127 - 314 314 - 125 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 629 629 159 Runoff Pervious Areas 59 42 - - 47 Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 Runoff Impervious Areas - - 629 314 314 629 72 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0.00 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 59 42 629 314 314 629 119

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 786 Precipitation (m3/yr) 876 50 119 1,046 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Run-on (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (m3/yr) 725 152 50 44 56 19 1,046 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 876 50 119 1,046 Run-on (m3/yr) - - - - - - -

Other inputs (m3/yr) - - - - - - - Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 188 40 96 284 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 725 152 50 44 56 19 1,046 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 188 40 96 284 Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 688 10 24 722 Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 155.78 33 40 35.59 45 15.09 324 Infiltration (m3/yr) 113 - - 113 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 155.78 32.65 40.24 35.59 45 15.09 324 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 568.75 119.20 10.06 8.90 11 3.77 722 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 113 - - 113 Infiltration (m3/yr) 101.26 24.49 - - - - 126 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 75 - - 75 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - 56 22 - 22.48 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - 40 96 136 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 40 22 - 56 22 - 166.02 Total Runoff (m3/yr) 75 40 96 211 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 21 7 - - 62.69 Total Outputs (m3/yr) 876 50 119 1,046 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - - 40.24 17.80 22.48 15.09 95.61 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Total Runoff (m3/yr) 55 8 40 18 22 15.09 158

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 724.53 151.86 50.30 44.49 56.20 18.86 1,046.24 * Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20 % of precipitatoin Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - -


Catchment Designation

Site



Inputs (Volumes)

Catchment Designation

Site


Inputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (per Unit Area)Outputs (per Unit Area)



1930 Davebrook Road

Water Budget - Pre-DevelopmentWater Balance/Water Budget AssessmentSurplus = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration Runoff = Surplus - Infiltration

Water Budget - Pre Retrofit Water Budget - Post RetrofitAssume: Assume:Driveway drains directly to road All roof leaders are connectedAll roof leaders are directly connected in pre restoration conditions Evaporation is the same rate fro Lawn and Fusion Garden



+ WalkwayDriveway + Paved Area

Roof 1 (strm)

Roof 2 (grass) Totals

Area (m2) 472 90 170 732 Area (m2) 257 187 118 77 93 732Pervious Area (m2) 472 0 0 Pervious Area (m2) Fusion Garden 187 0Impervious Area (m2) 0 90 170 Pervious Area (m2) Lawn 257 93

Impervious Area (m2) 0 0 118 77Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.15 0.15Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.1 0.1 Topography Infiltration Factor 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.15 0.3Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0 0 Soil Infiltration Factor 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.25 0.25 Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.15 0 0 0.1Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0 0 MOECC Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.6Run-Off Coefficient Actual Infiltration Factor 0.6 0.75 0 0 0.6Runoff from Impervious Surfaces 0 0.8 0.8 Runoff Reduction Factor (Roof) - 0.5


Total Inputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 255Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 629 629 255 Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 350 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 157 157 454 Net Surplus (mm/yr) 169 169 629 629 629 350 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 65 Evapotranspiration (mm/yr) 617 617 157 157 157 436 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0 Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 127 - - 68 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 0 0 65 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) garden - - - - - - Runoff Pervious Areas 68 0 0 44 Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) lawn - - - - 314.40 40 Runoff Impervious Areas 0 629 629 223 Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 101 127 - - 314 108 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 629 629 267 Runoff Pervious Areas 68 42 - - 35 Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 Runoff Impervious Areas - - 629 629 314 207 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0.00 Total Runoff (mm/yr) 68 42 629 629 314 242

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 786 786 786 786 786 786 Precipitation (m3/yr) 371 71 134 576 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - - Run-on (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0 Precipitation (m3/yr) 202 147 93 61 73 575 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 371 71 134 576 Run-on (m3/yr) - - - - - -

Other inputs (m3/yr) - - - - - - Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 80 57 107 187 Total Inputs (m3/yr) 202 147 93 61 73 575 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 80 57 107 187 Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 291 14 27 332 Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 43 32 74 48 58.35 256 Infiltration (m3/yr) 48 - - 48 Net Surplus (m3/yr) 43 32 74 48 58.35 256 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 159 115 19 12 14.59 319 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 48 - - 48 Infiltration (m3/yr) 26 24 - - - 50 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 32 - - 32 Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) - - - - - 29.18 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - 57 107 164 Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 36 22 - - 56 78.97 Total Runoff (m3/yr) 32 57 107 196 Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 24 7 - - - 25 Total Outputs (m3/yr) 371 71 134 576 Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) - - 74 48 24 152 Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - - Total Runoff (m3/yr) 17.39 7.90 74.20 48.42 24.21 177

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 202.24 146.98 92.75 60.52 60.52 575.43 * Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20 % of precipitatoin Difference (Inputs - Outputs) - - - -





Inputs (Volumes)



Inputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (Volumes)

Outputs (per Unit Area)Onputs (per Unit Area)



Appendix C

Demo HomesReturn period

(y)Storm Depth

(mm) ScenarioPeak Flow

(L/s)% Peak Flow

Reduction1930 Davebrook Road 2 yr 33.45 pre-devp 13.38

post devp 9.15 yr 44.97 pre-devp 19.43





post devp 35.161824 Delaney Drive 2 33.45 pre-devp 10.04

post devp 4.345 44.97 pre-devp 15

post devp 6.6510 55.38 pre-devp 20.29

post devp 9.9825 63.61 pre-devp 25



post devp 21.521818 Barsuda Drive 2 33.45 pre-devp 9.47






post devp 24.681189 April Drive 2 33.45 pre-devp 11.79






post devp 31.251066 Welwyn Drive 2 33.45 pre-devp 10.7






post devp 31.07

46%

43%

29%

24%

21%

18%

16%

32%

57%

56%

51%

39%

20%

17%

16%

15%

14%

14%

54%

41%

31%

24%

26%

14%

26%

21%

6%

15%

11%

8%

Documents

Fusion Landscaping - Region of Peel · 2017. 9. 1. · Region-wide Fusion Landscaping program, and its current Water Smart Irrigation Profession (WSIP) program. Below is a discussion