GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE · GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT...

May 12, 2016

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:00 am

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 May 19, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for May 19, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 April 14, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 14, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options

Designated Speaker: Terry Hoff That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options”.

5.2 2016 Water Wagon Schedule and Sprinkling Regulations Education Materials Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2016 Water Wagon

Schedule and Sprinkling Regulations Education Materials”, dated May 3, 2016.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

UC - 1

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda May 19, 2016

Agenda Page 2 of 3

5.3 Water Conservation Research and Campaign Update Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Conservation Research and Campaign Update”, dated May 4, 2016.

5.4 Water Source Supply Model and WSRP Stage Activation Process Designated Speakers: Inder Singh and Andrew Wood That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Source Supply

Model and WSRP Stage Activation Process” dated May 10, 2016.

5.5 Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories Designated Speakers: Jeff Gogol and Sean Tynan That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

5.6 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 – Staff Appointments Designated Speaker: Ray Robb That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007: a) Appoint the following Metro Vancouver staff:

Michael Hughes and Luke Smith as Municipal Sewage Control Officers Kathy Preston as Deputy Sewage Control Manager; and

b) Rescind the following Metro Vancouver staff: Karen Pyne and Johanna van den Broeke as Municipal Sewage Control Officers; and

c) Appoint the following City of Vancouver staff: James Smith as a Deputy Sewage Control Manager.

5.7 Bridge Funding for the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative

Designated Speaker: Fred Nenninger That the GVS&DD Board approve: a) A contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding to the Partnership for Water

Sustainability in BC to partially fund a scaled‐back Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative in 2016; and

b) A letter to the Partnership supporting their request to the Province for a 5‐year funding commitment towards the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative.

5.8 Water and Liquid Waste Research and Innovation Presentation

Designated Speaker: Jeff Carmichael That the Utilities Committee receive for information the verbal presentation titled “Water and Liquid Waste Research and Innovation Presentation”.

UC - 2

Utilities Committee Regular Agenda May 19, 2016

Agenda Page 3 of 3

5.9 Managers’ Report Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Simon So That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated May 3, 2016.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Metro Vancouver Correspondence to the Corporation of Delta re: GVS&DD

Fermentation Operations Bylaw No. 294, 2015, dated April 29, 2016

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of May 19, 2016.

Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) – North Vancouver CityBecker, John (VC) – Pitt Meadows Cameron, Craig – West Vancouver Clay, Mike – Port Moody Fox, Charlie – Langley Township

Harper, Bill – New WestminsterHicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Jordan, Colleen ‐ Burnaby McDonald, Bruce – Delta Speirs, Craig – Maple Ridge

Stevenson, Tim – VancouverSteves, Harold ‐ Richmond Woods, Dave – Surrey

UC - 3

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, April 14, 2016 Page 1 of 8

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:02 a.m. on Thursday, April 14, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Vice Chair, Mayor John Becker, Pitt Meadows Councillor Craig Cameron, West Vancouver (arrived at 9:18 a.m.) Councillor Charlie Fox, Langley Township Councillor Bill Harper, New Westminster Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Bruce McDonald, Delta Councillor Craig Speirs, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond Councillor Dave Woods, Surrey (arrived at 9:11 a.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody STAFF PRESENT: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 14, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 14, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED

UC - 4


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 February 11, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 11, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Report dated March 14, 2016 from Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services, providing information on the unique opportunity available to use excess heat from the new cogeneration facility at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (AIWWTP) to dry biosolids, and seeking GVS&DD Board support to proceed with a feasibility study of a biosolids drying facility at the AIWWTP. Members were provided with a presentation on biosoilds drying at the AIWWTP highlighting biosolids composition, current biosolids produced at wastewater treatment plants as well as projections to 2040, relation to the Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan and Board Strategic Plan, alternative uses, drying process, heat and power generation, and the proposed feasibility study.

9:11 a.m. Councillor Woods arrived at the meeting. 9:18 a.m. Councillor Cameron arrived at the meeting.

Presentation material titled “Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board support proceeding with a feasibility study of a Biosolids Drying Facility at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, as presented in the report dated March 14, 2016, titled “Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant”.

CARRIED

UC - 5


5.2 Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant Report dated March 23, 2016 from Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services, informing of the opportunity to use drinking water treatment residuals as a raw material in the production of cement, and seeking GVWD Board support to proceed with an industrial trial at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant. Members were provided with a presentation about a proposed industrial trial of drinking water treatment residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant highlighting residuals composition, treatment process, dewatering process, current residuals management, relation to the Board Strategic Plan, proposed beneficial use alternatives, cement plant raw material addition, air quality permitting, and the proposed 12‐month trial. Presentation material titled “Drinking Water Treatment Residuals” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board support the 12‐month trial of drinking water treatment residuals for use as an alternate raw material in the production of cement at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant, as presented in the report dated March 23, 2016, titled “Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant”.

CARRIED

5.3 Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Northeast Coquitlam Report dated March 21, 2016 from Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary in Northeast Coquitlam, in response to a request from the City of Coquitlam. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board approve an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the properties in the City of Coquitlam as shown on District Drawing SA‐2376 Sheets 86 and 87, as presented in the March 21, 2016 report titled “Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Northeast Coquitlam“.

CARRIED

5.4 Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary ‐ 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey Report dated March 21, 2016 from Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Ave in Surrey, in response to a request from the City of Surrey.

UC - 6


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey, as presented in the report dated March 21, 2016 titled “Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary ‐ 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey”.

CARRIED

5.5 Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities Report dated March 21, 2016 from Jeff Gogol, Environmental Regulatory Planner, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, seeking GVS&DD Board endorsement for the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities, and seeking Board direction to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

CARRIED

5.6 Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey Report dated April 7, 2016 from Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications Division, External Relations, informing of the results of the grease pilot behavior change project conducted in the City of Surrey in the fall of 2015 in collaboration with Surrey staff. Members were provided a presentation on the results of the 2015 Grease Pilot Project highlighting the pilot area, tagline, media coverage, results, 2016 approach, and regional opportunities for 2016‐2017. Members were also provided with a video presentation, from the Metro Vancouver website, titled “Wipe It Green Bin It – Vikran Vij on Grease”. Presentation material titled “2015 Grease Pilot Project Results” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey”, dated April 7, 2016.

CARRIED

5.7 Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows Report dated March 14, 2016 from Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications Division, External Relations, informing of the results of the 2015 wipes pilot behavior change project conducted in the City of Pitt Meadows in the fall of 2015 in collaboration with Pitt Meadows staff.

UC - 7


Members were provided a presentation on the results from the 2015 Wipes Pilot Project highlighting the pilot area, tagline, media coverage, results, wipes count, successes, 2016 regional campaign, main elements, posters in municipal facilities, new elements, and evaluation. Presentation material titled “2015 Wipes Pilot Project Results” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows”, dated March 14, 2016.

CARRIED

5.8 2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report Report dated March 17, 2016 from Rosanna Yau, Superintendent, Water Services Laboratories, Water Services, providing a summary of the 2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report on drinking water quality. Members were provided a presentation on the 2015 Greater Vancouver Water District Quality Control Annual Report highlighting regulations, source water quality, turbidity at the Capilano‐Seymour and Coquitlam sources, Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Plant, filtered drinking water guidelines, monthly filter effluent turbidity, Coquitlam water treatment, secondary disinfection, distribution water quality, disinfection by‐products, trihalomethanes comparison pre‐ and post‐ filtration, haloacetic acids comparison pre and post filtration, and conclusions. Presentation material titled “GVWD 2015 Quality Control Annual Report” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report” dated March 17, 2016.

CARRIED

5.9 Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016 Report dated April 4, 2016 from Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, and Andrew Wood, Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services, providing the annual update on the current water supply and water consumption situation in advance of the approaching summer peak demand period. In response to questions, members were informed about the differential peak/non‐peak water rate structure, status of water supply at the Coquitlam Reservoir, and status of staff efforts related to:

exploring an assessment for regional water metering

in‐classroom education and conservation programs

UC - 8


development of a Support Guide for local governments on public messaging around water restrictions

consideration of long‐term water conservation and supply needs

monitoring of service demand levels and growth projections as they relate to water conservation strategies

Comments were offered about City of Seattle water use and conservation efforts. Request of Staff Staff was requested to report back to the Utilities Committee at its May 19, 2016 meeting with information on the City of Seattle’s water use and conservation strategies. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016”, dated April 4, 2016.

CARRIED

5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015 Report dated March 24, 2016 from Frank Huber, Director, Major Projects, Management Systems and Utility Services, Water Services and Mark Ferguson, Director, Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services, reporting on the status of the utilities capital expenditures in terms of the total project budgets compared to total projected expenditures to project completion. Members were provided a presentation on the status of GVWD capital expenditures highlighting the Angus Drive Main, Capilano Main No. 9, 2nd Narrows Water Supply Tunnel, Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel, and the Lynn Valley Reservoir. Members were further provided a presentation on the status of GVS&DD capital expenditures highlighting Sapperton Pump Station, Johnson Road section of the South Surrey Interceptor, Gilbert Trunk Sewer, Annacis Computerized Data Acquisition and Control building, blowers for the Annacis Solids Contact Tank, and Northwest Langley Secondary Clarifiers – Phase 1. Comments were offered about delays associated with the Capilano Main No. 9 Project and about highlighting jobs and economic growth generated from regional capital projects as part of public communication efforts. Members were informed that staff will report back on costs associated with the Capilano No. 9 project when this information is available. Members were updated on the status of the Barnston‐Maple Ridge Pump Station and informed that staff will report back at a future meeting on the status of the North Surrey Interceptor Project.

UC - 9


Request of Staff Staff was requested to email the Utilities Committee information on the upcoming Barnston‐Maple Ridge Pump Station ribbon‐cutting event. Presentation material titled “Capital Expenditure Summary” is retained with the April 14, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD and GVS&DD Boards receive for information the report titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015”, dated March 24, 2016.

CARRIED

5.11 Seymour Salmonid Society – 2015 Annual Report Report dated March 16, 2016 from Mike Mayers, Superintendent, Environmental Management and Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve, Water Services, providing the Seymour Salmonid Society’s 2015 Annual Report. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Seymour Salmonid Society ‐ 2015 Annual Report” dated March 16, 2016.

CARRIED

5.12 Managers’ Report Report dated April 4, 2016 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, and Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, updating the Utilities Committee on Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) funding and the Committee’s 2016 Work Plan. In response to questions, members were informed about the:

status and timing of the Request for Proposals for the design‐build contract for the LGSWWTP

cost eligibility for consideration of federal cost‐sharing

upcoming ribbon cutting event for the Barnston‐Maple Ridge Pump Station

recent awards to Metro Vancouver and its consultants by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies ‐ BC

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated April 4, 2016.

CARRIED

UC - 10


6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the following Information Items: 6.1 Intergovernment and Finance Committee Report dated January 30, 2016 titled

“Update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project” 6.2 Correspondence from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Communities to Chair

Moore dated February 29, 2016 6.3 Correspondence from the Corporation of Delta to Chair Moore dated

March 22, 2016 CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for April 14, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if

the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”

CARRIED 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adjourn its regular meeting of April 14, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 11:05 a.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Janis Knaupp, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 17941081 FINAL

UC - 11

18047650

To: Utilities Committee From: Regional Planning Committee Date: April 20, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report dated March 30, 2016, titled “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options”.

At its May 15, 2016 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee directed staff to:

present the report dated March 30, 2016, titled “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options” to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input.

The report is provided as an attachment to this cover report for the Utilities Committee’s information and input. Attachment Report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options”

5.1

UC - 12

17351664

To: Regional Planning Committee From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: March 30, 2016 Meeting Date: April 15, 2016 Subject: Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options

RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to present the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options” to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input.

PURPOSE This report provides the Regional Planning Committee with an assessment of implementation issues and options regarding Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services. BACKGROUND Urban growth containment is a central theme of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy. Metro 2040 Goal 1 is to ‘Create a Compact Urban Area’, and Strategy 1.1 is to ‘Contain Urban Development within the Urban Containment Boundary’. Metro 2040 establishes an Urban Containment Boundary (UCB), regional land use designations, strategies and policy actions designed to contain and manage urban growth and to protect Agricultural, Conservation and Recreation, and Rural areas. Connection to regional sewerage services is fundamental to urban development, and provides an important lever through which to achieve Metro 2040 goals. In the years since the adoption of Metro 2040 in July 2011, there have been a number of applications by member municipalities to extend regional sewerage services into areas with a Metro 2040 Agricultural land use designation. In an information report to the October 5, 2012 meeting of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee, staff advised the Committee of concerns regarding application of Metro 2040 policies. Staff then initiated a review and consultation process with member municipalities to consider potential enhancements to existing Metro 2040 policies and procedures. This report provides the Committee with a series of options for improving the implementation of Metro 2040 sewerage service policies. Metro 2040 Provisions affecting Regional Sewerage Services In accordance with Section 445 of the Local Government Act, Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 establishes that all bylaws, works and services undertaken by Metro Vancouver must be consistent with Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. Metro 2040 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key

Attachment

UC - 13

goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural, Rural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives. Currently, within Metro 2040, there are four main policy provisions guiding the extension of regional sewerage services. Metro 2040 Section 1.1.1

Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District to not extend regional sewage services into the Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas, except for building footprints in cases where infrastructure is needed to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri‐industry.

Similar policy language is repeated in Sections 1.3.1, 2.3.1 and 3.1.1 for the respective land use designations. Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1

After the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Regional Growth Strategy all bylaws adopted and all works and services undertaken by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District or the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District must be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District will not directly or indirectly supply, agree to supply, or authorize connections that enable the supply of services to a site that is developed or proposed to be developed after the date of adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy where the nature of that development is, in the sole judgment of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2

For further clarity, sites within the Urban Containment Boundary which are designated General Urban, Industrial, Mixed Employment, would be eligible for sewerage services, subject to normal Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District technical considerations, provided that the proposed development complies with the applicable policies under those designations and any such Urban Centre and Frequent Transit Development Areas overlays which might apply. For sites designated Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation, policies 1.3.1, 2.3.1 or 3.1.1 apply, respectively.

Metro 2040 Section 6.9.1 identifies Sewerage Extension Areas and Rural within the Sewerage Area for specific locations within Metro 2040 Rural and Agricultural areas where the extension of regional sewerage services will be permitted under Metro 2040, subject to land uses being consistent with the applicable Metro 2040 land use designation.

UC - 14

Metro 2040 Implementation Issues A list and description of sewerage extension applications considered since the adoption of Metro 2040 is provided in Attachment 3. Each of the cases involved considerable discussion about the intent and application of Metro 2040 provisions. Through the processing of these applications, three key implementation issues were identified. The need to clearly allow the GVRD Board some flexibility in applying Metro 2040 provisions for minor cases that are ‘inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions, but have no significant impact on Metro 2040 implementation Concern has been expressed by both municipal applicants and Metro Vancouver staff that the current Metro 2040 provisions are overly rigid and do not provide the GVRD Board with the flexibility to allow practical interpretation of Metro 2040 for minor service extensions. In three of the recent cases, a municipality requested that an existing institutional facility be connected to an existing adjacent sewer main, and posited that these facilities provided a practical benefit to the community. Review of the circumstances by Metro Vancouver staff indicated there were no implications for Metro 2040 urban containment provisions. In each of these cases, Metro 2040 Section 6.8 was interpreted to justify that these particular service extensions were ‘not inconsistent’ with (were inconsequential to), Metro 2040 provisions. However, there was concern expressed that a strict interpretation of Section 6.8 would potentially preclude the Board from having the flexibility to make this determination. A degree of practical flexibility in Metro 2040 implementation is necessary to avoid contention with member municipalities over relatively minor sewerage extensions that have no effect on Metro 2040’s urban containment and land protection strategies, and the integrity of the regional vision. The need to reduce ambiguity and overly broad criteria in defining the exceptions to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions Current Metro 2040 provisions that identify allowable exemptions to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri‐industry are vague and susceptible to broad and ambiguous justification. While exemptions to address a public health issue or to protect the region’s natural assets are legitimate causes for exception, the current policy language does not adequately provide criteria for defining public health or natural assets. There are established provincial acts, regulations and procedures addressing sewerage impacts on public health and environmental contamination. The clarity and consistency of Metro 2040 implementation would benefit from a more direct reference to the definitions and procedures established in provincial acts and regulations. Current Metro 2040 exemptions to service agriculture or agri‐industry can be generally interpreted to include any agricultural and related land uses as being entitled to sewerage services. Although it is not anticipated that all agricultural land uses will request a sewer connection, any extension of sewerage infrastructure from areas with a regional General Urban land use designation into areas with a regional Agricultural land use designation will create pressure for additional connections, and potentially a proliferation of serviced land and development speculation extending outside the edges of the Urban Containment Boundary or anywhere in areas with Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designations.

UC - 15

The need to establish decision‐making procedures for the roles of the GVRD and GVS&DD Boards, and Metro Vancouver departments, in considering sewerage extension applications Currently, sewerage area extension applications are submitted by member municipalities to the GVS&DD Board for approval. With the adoption of Metro 2040 there is a lack of clarity in terms of the process for undertaking a review of sewerage extension applications, applying Metro 2040 provisions, and determining Metro 2040 compliance. As all Metro Vancouver works and services must be consistent with Metro 2040, as determined by the GVRD Board, it would be helpful to have established procedures for coordinating the review of applications and decision making among Metro Vancouver Boards and staff. Additional clarity in Metro 2040 regarding the coordination of Boards, as well as Board‐approved procedures for the review of sewerage extension and connection applications would benefit Metro 2040 implementation. Proposed Responses to Implementation Issues Following consultation with member municipalities and Metro Vancouver Liquid Waste Services staff and a review by Metro Vancouver Legal staff, it is proposed that amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions along with a companion set of sewerage extension implementation guidelines would address the issues in an effective way. Proposed amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions are included in Attachment 1. The proposed amendments would maintain the primary policy intent to limit the extension of regional sewerage services to contain urban development within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary. In addition, the proposed amendments and associated implementation guidelines would:

Maintain a clear policy directive to inhibit sewerage service extensions outside of the Urban Containment Boundary;

Provide the GVRD Board with the discretion to consider practical exceptions;

Establish clear application review procedures and decision making roles for the GVRD Board (Metro 2040 review) and GVS&DD Board (service provision) regarding future extensions of regional sewerage services;

Provide greater specificity in defining sewerage extension policy exceptions by linking regional policy with existing provincial regulations that address public health and environmental contamination risks;

Allow flexibility for considering exceptions to sewerage extension policy for extensions / connections having no significant impact on Metro 2040 goals, or where a qualified professional (as defined through Provincial regulations) recommends that on‐site septic treatment systems are not feasible; and

Maintain GVRD Board discretion to determine that any particular sewerage service connection or extension is inconsistent with the broader provisions of Metro 2040.

Metro Vancouver 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 – Extension of Regional Sewerage Services A proposed Metro Vancouver 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 – Extension of Regional Sewerage Services is provided as Attachment 2. The purpose of the Implementation Guidelines is to complement and support Metro 2040 policies by providing the detailed exception criteria and review procedures for those sewerage connections or extensions applicable to Metro 2040. The

UC - 16

guidelines are directly referenced in the amended Metro 2040 policy and will be conveyed to the GVRD Board for consideration following consideration following consideration of the proposed associated Metro 2040 bylaw amendments. The Implementation Guidelines specify that all sewerage extension applications must be submitted to the GVS&DD Board by the respective municipality following a Council resolution. The Implementation Guidelines then provide municipalities and the proponent with rationale and the information necessary in submitting an application, as well as the technical assessment process and the review process that is undertaken by Metro Vancouver Boards. Next Steps Staff are conveying these issues for Committee consideration and discussion prior to seeking initiation of a proposed Type 3 Metro 2040 amendment and support for associated Implementation Guidelines. While the Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services are within the Regional Planning Committee’s mandate, members of the Utilities Committee may be interested in hearing about, and providing input to, the proposed directions. As such, a similar presentation could be made by staff at the May 19th 2016 of the Utilities Committee. Members of the Regional Planning Committee would be invited to attend to hear the discussion. Staff propose to return to the Regional Planning Committee and the GVRD Board in June 2016 seeking initiation of the proposed amendment as well as 1st and 2nd reading of the amendment bylaw, and conveyance to affected local governments for comment. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to present the report dated March 30, 2016,

titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options” to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input.

2. That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options”, and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As this report is conveying issues to the Regional Planning Committee for consideration and discussion, there are no immediate financial implications associated with it. If initiation of the proposed amendment occurs at a future meeting, the process for implementing a Type 3 Metro 2040 amendment will take place. No public hearing is required as part of this process. All other costs associated with the amendment process are covered as part of regular business processes as approved through the 2016 budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Compact urban form, urban containment and the protection of agricultural lands are fundamental goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. To reinforce these goals, Metro 2040 contains provisions to limit the extension of regional sewage services into areas with a regional Agricultural, Rural and Conservation and Recreation land use designation. While sewerage extension provisions provide an important tool for managing urban containment, implementation to date indicates that

UC - 17

the provisions might be enhanced by allowing for greater flexibility to address sewerage extensions in exceptional circumstances, while simultaneously adding greater clarity to the definition of what those exceptions are and how Metro 2040 compliance is determined. Following consultation with municipalities and Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and Liquid Waste Services staff, and a review by Metro Vancouver Legal staff, staff propose that amendments to sewerage extension provisions within Metro 2040, along with a companion set of sewerage extension implementation guidelines provide a means to address the issues in an effective way. The proposed amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions would maintain the primary policy intent to limit the extension of regional sewerage services to contain urban development within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, but would allow for flexibility for the GVRD Board to determine exceptions for minor sewerage extensions that are inconsistent with, but inconsequential to, Metro 2040. The accompanying Implementation Guidelines complement Metro 2040 policy by establishing clear and transparent sewerage extension application procedures and providing detailed review criteria for determining service extension exceptions. The Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services are within the Regional Planning Committee’s mandate, however, members of the Utilities Committee may be interested in hearing about, and providing input on, the proposed directions. As such, staff are seeking direction to attend the May 19th 2016 Utilities Committee meeting to provide a similar presentation. Attachments: 1. Proposed revisions to Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension provisions. 2. Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, Implementation Guideline #6, Extension of

Regional Sewerage Services. 3. Sewerage Extension applications considered since Metro 2040 Adoption.

UC - 18

Description of Proposed Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions Table 1 below provides the proposed Metro 2040 amendments for the extension of regional sewerage services along with the rationale for each amendment. The proposed amendments would replace the existing Metro 2040 actions in Section 1.1.1 and be repeated for each of the non‐urban land use designations under Sections 1.3.1 (Rural Areas), Section 2.3.1 (Agricultural Areas) and Section 3.1.1 (Conservation and Recreation Areas). Table 1. Proposed Metro 2040 Amendment and Rationale

Proposed Amendment Rationale

Goal 1 Create a Compact Urban Area Strategy 1.1 Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary a) By deleting Section 1.1.1 in its entirety and substituting the following in its place: 1.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services within the Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas. The following exceptions may be considered by the GVRD Board for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying Regional Growth Strategy land use designation: a) the connection to regional sewerage services is necessary to prevent or alleviate a public health or environmental contamination risk. This exception will only be considered where, in the opinion of a qualified professional, a private on‐site sewage treatment system that is constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable Provincial legislation and regulations would not be a feasible means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or b) the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on achieving Regional Growth Strategy goals and policy actions.

Maintain a clear policy directive to inhibit sewerage service extensions outside of the Urban Containment Boundary Provide GVRD Board discretion to consider practical exceptions. Establish exception criteria as a risk to public health or environmental contamination. Establish an authoritative reference to determine a legitimate risk. Allow consideration for circumstances where building an on‐site system would be impractical in addressing the risk. Provide GVRD Board discretion to determine

Attachment 1

UC - 19

that a specific extension would not affect Metro 2040 implementation.

e) By adding a new Section 6.9.2 as follows: 6.9.2 Regional Growth Strategy provisions apply to all regional sewerage service connections both within and outside the regional sewerage area boundaries.

This action is added to address areas where the current GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundaries extend outside of the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary into Agricultural, Rural and Conservation lands. Adding this policy action will clarify and reinforce that, even though within the existing sewerage area boundary, any connections to regional sewerage services is subject to Metro 2040 provisions.

f) By adding a new Section 6.9.3 as follows: 6.9.3 All connections to regional sewerage services approved by the GVRD Board as per Metro 2040 Sections 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 2.3.1, and 3.1.1 will be contained within a sewerage area footprint boundary as determined by the GVRD and GVS&DD Boards. Any sewerage service connection outside of that boundary will require GVRD Board and GVS&DD Board approval.

This action is added to specify that any future approved extension of sewerage services must be contained within limited site boundary, and that any change to sewerage service connections that exceed the boundary will require a new application for Metro 2040 review and GVS&DD approval. Details of the boundary configuration are contained in the companion Implementation Guidelines – Extension of regional Sewerage Services document.

g) By adding a new Section 6.9.4 as follows: 6.9.4 The GVRD Board has adopted guidelines titled, “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Implementation Guideline #6 ‐ Extension of Regional Sewerage Services” to assist in the implementation of Regional Growth Strategy policies regarding the provision of regional sewerage services.

To establish that detailed application procedures and exception review criteria are contained in a separate Implementation Guidelines document approved by the GVRD Board. Provide clear roles for Metro 2040 (GVRD Board) and GVS&DD review and approval processes.

h) By deleting the words “and Sewerage Areas” from Section 6.12.4.

There are a number of locations in the region which have historically been located within the GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundary and are fully serviced, but are located outside of the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary within Agricultural or Rural designations. This wording is deleted to allow potential future designation of a Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Area for those specific/unique

UC - 20

locations. Allowing this designation will also distinguish such locations from other locations historically within the GVS&DD sewerage area, not serviced, and located outside of the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary within Agricultural or Rural designations.

UC - 21

1

Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future

Draft IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #6

Extension of Regional Sewerage Services

Dated xxxxxxxxx, 2016

Guideline Adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board XXXX XX, 2016

Attachment 2

UC - 22

2

Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #6: Extension of Regional Sewerage Services

Table of Contents

Purpose ...........................................................................................................................................................

3

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Rationale ................................................................................. 3

1.2 Roles of Metro Vancouver Boards ................................................................................................ 4

2 Application Review Criteria and Procedures: Regional Sewerage Service Extension ........................... 5

2.1 Initiating an Application ............................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Technical Review of GVS&DD System and Regulatory Implications ............................................ 5

2.3 Metro 2040 Review ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Exception to Address a Public Health or Environmental Contamination Risk ...................... 6

2.3.2 Connection Exception for Limited Development Deemed to Have No Significant Impact on

Metro 2040 Provisions .................................................................................................................................. 7

2.4 Sewerage Extension Applications within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary .......... 9

2.5 Applications that are Inconsistent with Metro 2040 Provisions ................................................... 9

2.6 Potential Conditions to Support Metro 2040 Compatibility ........................................................ 9

3 GVS&DD Board Decision ..................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 1 Metro 2040 Application Review Process for Municipalities Requesting Extension of GVS&DD

Sewerage Services ....................................................................................................................................... 12

UC - 23

3


Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe applicable Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our future

(Metro 2040) provisions and application review criteria and procedures for member municipalities

requesting a connection to regional sewerage services within Metro 2040 Rural, Agricultural or

Conservation and Recreation areas.

1 Introduction Metro Vancouver adopted Metro 2040, the region’s regional growth strategy on July 29, 2011, following acceptance by all affected local governments. Metro 2040 represents consensus among Metro Vancouver and affected local governments to work collaboratively to meet our collective regional planning goals of creating a compact urban area, supporting a sustainable economy, protecting the environment, responding to climate change impacts, developing complete communities and supporting sustainable transportation choices. Successful implementation of Metro 2040 depends on cooperation between Metro Vancouver and affected local governments, and the support of local plans, policies and programs that contribute to the regional planning objectives identified in Metro 2040. Metro Vancouver is responsible for preparing guidelines to assist in implementing Metro 2040

strategies. This guideline should be read in conjunction with Metro 2040, and it does not replace or

supersede the content of, or the requirements set out in, the Regional Growth Strategy. This

document is one in a series of guidelines supporting Metro 2040 implementation. Metro 2040,

related documents and a glossary of terms and references for this guideline can be viewed on the

Metro Vancouver website:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx

1.1 Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Rationale

A primary goal of Metro 2040 is urban containment, utilizing the Urban Containment Boundary

(UCB) to limit the spread of urban development into the Rural, Agricultural and Conservation and

Recreation areas. The UCB establishes a long‐term footprint for future urban development,

provides predictability for major investments in utility, road and transit infrastructure, and protects

the character and viability of Rural, Agricultural, and Conservation and Recreation areas. Metro

2040 anticipates the area within the UCB has capacity to accommodate projected urban growth

through the 2041 timeframe, with the majority of future growth concentrated within Urban Centres

and along transit corridors within the UCB.

Urban growth typically depends on access to regional sewerage services. To reinforce the urban

containment strategy, Metro 2040 includes policies to coordinate regional growth and utility

planning, and to limit the extension of regional sewerage services into Rural, Agricultural, or

Conservation and Recreation areas.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1, which reflects Local Government Act Section 865, prevents the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District and the Greater Vancouver

UC - 24

4


Sewerage and Drainage District from providing works and services that are inconsistent with Metro

2040.

“After the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Regional Growth Strategy all

bylaws adopted and all works and services undertaken by the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District or the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District must be consistent with the Regional Growth

Strategy. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater

Vancouver Water District will not directly or indirectly supply, agree to supply, or

authorize connections that enable the supply of services to a site that is developed

or proposed to be developed after the date of adoption of the Regional Growth

Strategy where the nature of that development is, in the sole judgment of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional

Growth Strategy”.

Metro 2040 Section 1.1 ‘Contain Urban Development within the Urban Containment Boundary’, more specifically establishes Metro Vancouver’s role as follows:

“1.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services within the Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas. The following exceptions may be considered by the GVRD Board for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying Regional Growth Strategy land use designation: a) the connection to regional sewerage services is necessary to prevent or alleviate

a public health or environmental contamination risk. This exception will only be considered where, in the opinion of a qualified professional, a private on‐site sewage treatment system that is constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable Provincial legislation and regulations would not be a feasible means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or

b) the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact

on achieving Regional Growth Strategy goals and policy actions”.

This policy provision is repeated in Metro 2040 Section 1.3 for Rural areas, Section 2.3 for Agricultural areas and Section 3.1 for Conservation and Recreation areas.

1.2 Roles of Metro Vancouver Boards

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) provides members with regional

sewerage collection and treatment services. The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is

responsible for the implementation and administration of Metro 2040. The GVS&DD’s Board of

Directors is distinct from, but has many directors in common with, the GVRD’s Board of Directors.

Connections to regional sewerage services are only provided within the GVS&DD’s legally defined

Sewerage areas. Prior to adoption of Metro 2040, an application for an expansion of the Sewerage

UC - 25

5


Area services required only GVS&DD Board approval. Following adoption of Metro 2040, the

GVS&DD is not permitted to provide services if the GVRD Board determines such services are

inconsistent with Metro 2040 provisions. Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 establishes that the GVRD

Board must determine whether a proposed sewerage extension or connection is consistent with

Metro 2040 prior to the GVS&DD Board’s final decision on an application.

2 Application Review Criteria and Procedures: Regional Sewerage Service

Extension The process for municipalities applying to connect to regional sewerage services within Metro

2040’s Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation areas is described in this section and

summarized in Figure 1.

2.1 Initiating an Application

Applications for connection to regional sewerage services must be initiated by a resolution of the

respective municipal Council. It is expected that the municipality’s application will include

appropriate documentation addressing Metro 2040 provisions and guidelines as appropriate for the

specific application. It is recommended that municipal staff consider these guidelines and contact

Metro Vancouver staff before seeking a Council resolution and submitting an application. It is

important that each municipality ensure the project proponent is fully aware of Metro Vancouver

policies and procedures, and understands the appropriate documentation to be included with the

application.

2.2 Technical Review of GVS&DD System and Regulatory Implications

Upon receipt of an application, Metro Vancouver Liquid Waste staff will prepare an initial technical

review of the application to assess service capacity, service levels and financial implications for the

GVS&DD system, and compliance with applicable Acts and Bylaws. If it is determined that there are

GVS&DD system or regulatory implications the application may be denied by the GVS&DD Board. If

there are no such GVS&DD implications, the application would be forwarded to Metro Vancouver

Regional Planning staff to assess consistency with Metro 2040.

2.3 Metro 2040 Review

Metro Vancouver staff will assess the existing or proposed development and the merits and

potential implications of sewerage service extension in regard to Metro 2040 goals and strategies.

The primary policies will include, but not be limited to, Metro 2040 Land Use Designations, Strategy

1.1 Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary; Strategy 1.3 Protect Rural

areas from urban development; Strategy 2.3 Protect the supply of Agricultural land and promote

agricultural viability; and, Strategy 3.1 Protect Conservation and Recreation lands. Metro 2040

Section 6.9 provides additional provisions for approved sewerage connections within the

Agricultural, Rural and Conservation and Recreation areas.

On‐site systems are the primary method of sewage treatment in Rural, Agricultural and

Conservation and Recreation areas. Metro 2040 anticipates that on‐site systems will continue to be

the primary method of sewage treatment in these areas. However, Metro 2040 recognizes

UC - 26

6


exceptional circumstances in which regional sewerage service may be extended into Rural,

Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this guideline

describe how applications will be categorized and assessed in relation to these exceptions. Even if

an application falls within one of the exceptions described in sections 2.3.1 or 2.3.2 the GVRD Board

may nevertheless determine that the extension of regional sewerage service is inconsistent with

other relevant Metro 2040 provisions and deny the application.

2.3.1 Exception to Address a Public Health or Environmental Contamination Risk

In accordance with Metro 2040 Sections 1.3.1(a), 2.3.1(a) and 3.1.1(a), exceptions will be

considered to ensure there is appropriate sanitary sewer treatment available to avoid the risk of

public health or environmental contamination. Exceptions are applicable for existing development,

or new development that, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions,

where an on‐site sewer treatment system constructed and maintained in accordance with

applicable Provincial regulations would not be a feasible alternative.

For cases where the daily sewage flow is less than 22,700 litres/day, the Public Health Act and

Sewerage System Regulation include provisions for on‐site wastewater disposal and the criteria for

defining a related public health hazard. To qualify for a Metro 2040 exception, the applicant must

include documentation establishing that an on‐site sewerage system, constructed and maintained

in accordance with Sewerage System Regulations BC Reg. 326/2004, would in the opinion of the

public health inspector or qualified professional as defined in Section 7(3) of the Sewerage System

Regulations BC Reg. 326/2004, not be feasible.

For larger developments where the daily sewage flow is greater than 22,700 litres/day, the

Environmental Management Act and Municipal Wastewater Regulation include the provisions and

criteria to determine an environmental risk. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the applicant

would qualify for the Metro 2040 exception by providing an Environmental Impact Study, prepared

and certified by a qualified professional, establishing that an on‐site sewerage treatment system

constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Wastewater

Regulation, would not be feasible.

To be considered under this exception, applications must include documentation, prepared by a

qualified professional, specifying:

a) the existing use of the property, the structures proposed for connection and any anticipated

changes to the use or structures on the property.

b) the circumstances inhibiting the installation, maintenance or repair of an on‐site sewerage

system in accordance with the Public Health Act and Sewerage System Regulation or

Environmental Management Act and Municipal Wastewater Regulation. Such circumstances

typically relate to site constraints such as soils, natural features, site configuration, flow

capacity that would inhibit an on‐site system or require prohibitive construction or

maintenance costs.

c) the nature of the public health or environmental risk on or adjacent to the site.

UC - 27

7


d) the location of the existing regional or municipal sewer pipes proposed for connection, and

the proposed routing of the new sewer pipes required for connection to the subject site.

Consideration will include the potential for extended sewerage infrastructure to prompt

additional demands for connection regional sewerage services. Proximity to an existing

sewer main does not alone establish rationale for a sewerage connection.

e) the site plan showing the proposed GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint containing only

the structure(s) to be connected within the property.

f) the servicing plan showing that the works are designed to accommodate a flow capacity no

greater than the capacity necessary to service the specified structures and activity located

within the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint.

g) the applicant and property owner acknowledge that Metro Vancouver consideration for

exemption is specific to the information contained in the application, and that any works to

extend the capacity for collection of liquid waste generated outside of the GVS&DD

sewerage boundary footprint, within or outside of the subject property, will require a new

sewerage extension application to the GVS&DD.

If the proposed connection is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, Metro Vancouver will consult

the Agricultural Land Commission to determine whether the extension of sewerage infrastructure

and the service connection are acceptable to the Commission.

The application must also include a letter signed by the designated authority responsible for the

administration of the applicable Sewerage System Regulation or Municipal Wastewater Regulation,

concurring with the exception rationale.

All submitted documentation will be reviewed and assessed by Metro Vancouver staff, and is

subject to consideration by the GVRD Board and the GVS&DD Board.

If the GVRD Board determines that the application sufficiently meets exception criteria, the GVRD

Board may resolve to accept the extension of regional sewerage services into Rural, Agricultural or

Conservation and Recreation areas to address a public health or environmental contamination risk.

The extension will be limited to a specified sewerage area boundary defined by a footprint of the

structures(s) connecting to the system as referenced in Metro 2040 Section 6.9.3.

2.3.2 Connection Exception for Limited Development Determined to Have No Significant Impact

on Metro 2040 Provisions

“No significant impact” is a term applied to regional sewerage service extensions or connections

that do not conflict with the intent or implementation of Metro 2040 Goal 1 urban containment

provisions or related Metro 2040 land use designations, goals and strategies. The intent of this

exception is to recognize there may be particular circumstances where a service connection is

practical and there are no significant Metro 2040 implications.

The GVRD Board’s review of the application will consider the following evaluation criteria in

determining whether an application is considered “not significant” under Metro 2040 provisions

1.1.1(b), 1.3.1(b), 2.3.1(b), or 3.1.1(b):

UC - 28

8


a) the nature of development, existing or proposed, does not conflict with, or negatively

impact, Metro 2040 Goal 1 urban containment provisions or related Metro 2040 land use

designations, goals and strategies; and

b) extension of GVS&DD sewage services is provided to a single, non‐strata, property, with

service access to be contained within a specified GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint

comprising the connected structures within that property; and

c) the service connection is designed to accommodate a sewage flow capacity no greater than

the capacity necessary to service the existing structures and activity located within the

specified GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint on the date of approval; and

d) the distance and routing of extended sewerage infrastructure to the subject property is

proximate and located such that there is limited potential for prompting additional regional

sewerage connection requests in the surrounding area. Proximity to an existing sewer main

does not alone establish rationale for a sewerage connection.

In addition, the GVRD Board will consider whether:

a) the extension serves public facilities or institutional uses; or

b) the extension is an adjustment of the GVS&DD boundary to accommodate structural

building alterations that do not substantially alter the existing land use.

If the proposed connection is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, Metro Vancouver will consult

the Agricultural Land Commission to determine whether the extension of sewerage infrastructure

and the service connection are acceptable to the Commission.

To be considered under this exception, applications must include documentation specifying:

a) the existing use of the property, the structures proposed for connection and any anticipated

changes to the use or structures on the property.

b) the rationale for connecting to the GVS&DD sewage treatment system versus an on‐site

sewage treatment system.

c) the location of the existing GVS&DD or municipal sewer pipes and the proposed routing of

the new sewer pipes required for connection to the subject site.

d) the site plan showing the proposed GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint containing only

the structure(s) to be connected within the property.

e) the servicing plan indicating the connection is designed to accommodate a flow capacity no

greater than the capacity necessary to service the specified structures and activity to be

located within the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint.

f) the applicant and property owner acknowledge that Metro Vancouver consideration for

exemption is specific to the information contained in the application, and that any works to

extend capacity for collection of liquid waste generated outside of the GVS&DD sewerage

boundary footprint, within or outside of the subject property, will require a new sewerage

extension application to the GVS&DD.

UC - 29

9


Following its review and assessment of the proposed sewerage extension, the GVRD Board may

resolve that the sewage extension has ‘no significant impact’ on Metro 2040 provisions and forward

the application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

2.4 Sewerage Extension Applications within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary

There may be locations within the Metro 2040 General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment land

use designation that are not included within the GVS&DD sewerage area. As these locations are

intended for forms of development that require access to sewerage services, Metro 2040 Section

6.8.2 states that such locations would be eligible for sewerage services provided that the proposed

development complies with applicable policies for those designations.

Application to the GVS&DD Board is required for sewerage extension approvals in these areas. Each

application will initially be reviewed by the GVRD Board to determine compliance with applicable

Metro 2040 policies. If consistent with Metro 2040, the application would then proceed to the

GVS&DD Board for consideration of approval. If not consistent with Metro 2040, the GVRD Board

will direct the GVS&DD Board to deny the application (see Section 2.5 below).

2.5 Applications that are Inconsistent with Metro 2040 Provisions

Any sewerage extension application, including applications that meet the exception criteria

described in sections 2.3.1, may nevertheless be determined by the GVRD Board to be inconsistent

with the broader provisions of Metro 2040, as referenced under Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1.

Determining inconsistency with Metro 2040 provisions will include, but not be limited to,

consideration of the following:

whether the extension is intended to service new development that is inconsistent with the

intent of the existing Metro 2040 Land Use Designation or applicable Metro 2040 Goal,

Strategy or Action;

whether the extension of new sewerage infrastructure connecting to the subject site would

create opportunity and additional pressures for further extension of regional sewerage

services in the surrounding Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas in a

manner that may compromise Metro 2040 urban containment provisions or the intent of

those land use designations.

Where the GVRD Board determines that the nature of development (including the extension of

municipal infrastructure providing access to GVS&DD works and services) proposed in the subject

application is inconsistent with Metro 2040 provisions, the GVRD Board will direct the GVS&DD to

deny the application.

2.6 Potential Conditions to Support Metro 2040 Compatibility

The GVRD Board may additionally determine that the application proceed with conditions.

Conditions will be determined on a case by case basis and may include, but are not limited to, the

following:

the extension of regional sewerage services is limited by a restrictive covenant registered on

the property specifying that sewerage services are provided only within a specified

boundary and only for the specified land use / structures. In such cases, the municipality

UC - 30

10


must reapply to the GVS&DD for a sewerage extension for any proposed change in the

specified boundary, or change in the specified land use or development connecting to

regional sewerage service on the property.

UC - 31

11


3 GVS&DD Board Decision All GVRD Board resolutions pertaining to an application to extend GVS&DD sewerage services will

be sent to the GVS&DD Board for final decision. In the cases where the GVRD Board has resolved

that an application is not acceptable under Metro 2040, the GVS&DD Board is bound by that

resolution and must not approve the extension of regional services. In the cases where the GVRD

Board has resolved that an application is acceptable under Metro 2040, the GVS&DD Board has sole

discretion either to approve or deny the application.

UC - 32

12


Figure 1 Metro 2040 Application Review Process for Municipalities Requesting Extension

of GVS&DD Sewerage Services

UC - 33

Attachment 3

Recent Sewerage Extension Application Examples

Since adoption of Metro 2040, the following applications have been considered regarding the extension of regional sewerage services under Metro 2040 provisions. Each case presents a unique set of circumstances and considerations for Metro 2040 application. • Village of Anmore – New School Site: A new school was planned in the Metro 2040 “Rural”

designation, abutting the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB). Following an initial Village of

Anmore request for sewerage extension, it was agreed that a Metro 2040 Type 2 amendment from the Metro 2040 “ Rural” designation to the “General Urban” designation and movement of the UCB would be most appropriate. This amendment allowed the extension of regional sewerage services within the newly designated Metro 2040 “General Urban” area. • Corporation of Delta – Delta Municipal Airport: The airport is located within the Metro 2040 “Mixed Employment” designation, and an extension of the existing sewerage service connections at the airport was requested to allow completion of the airport facilities. The application was supported as Metro 2040 does not limit the extension of regional sewerage services within the Metro 2040 “Mixed Employment” designation.

• Corporation of Delta – Municipal Works Yard: The Corporation of Delta’s works yard is located outside the Urban Containment Boundary within the Metro 2040 “Agricultural” designation and within the Agricultural Land Reserve (use predates the ALR). The Corporation of Delta was expanding the facility and indicated the on‐site system was not adequate for the additional wastewater management. An existing sewer main was accessible for connection within a short distance. This extension was approved by resolution of the GVRD Board based on interpretation of Section 6.8 such that, in the judgment of the Board, the nature of development would have no impact on Metro 2040 implementation and was ‘not inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions. • Corporation of Delta ‐ Hawthorn Park: The Corporation of Delta intended to expand community amenity and agricultural theme facilities within a publicly owned park, located within the Metro 2040 “ Agricultural” designation (and ALR) and abutting the Urban Containment Boundary. Delta requested to connect to the existing sewer main adjacent to the park. This extension was approved by resolution of the GVRD Board based on interpretation of Section 6.8 such that, in the judgment of the Board, the nature of development would have no impact on Metro 2040 implementation and was ‘not inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions.

• Corporation of Delta ‐ Millennium Greenhouses: A greenhouse operation located within the Metro 2040 “Agricultural” designation (and ALR) requested a sewer extension to connect a new temporary migrant worker housing and washroom facility to a sewer main traversing the property. This extension was approved by resolution of the GVRD Board based on the exception to service agriculture.

UC - 34

• Corporation of Delta ‐ Augustinian Monastery: The Roman Catholic Augustinian facility site includes abutting properties containing Sacred Heart Church and School, the Augustinian House residence and the Augustinian Monastery – all located within the Metro 2040 “Agricultural” designation. The properties containing the church/school and the residence had previously been approved for sewerage extension. The Monastery, located between the church and residence, was not included in the previously approved extension, but had connected to the existing sewer pipes within the facility. Delta requested that the Monastery site be included within the sewerage area service for the site. This extension was approved by resolution of the GVRD Board based on interpretation of Section 6.8 such that, in the judgment of the Board, the nature of development would have no impact on Metro 2040 implementation and was ‘not inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions.

• Township of Langley – Langley Grove Mobile Home Park: Langley Grove Estates is a mobile home park comprising 224 units on a 12 hectare site. The subject property is located among a pocket of properties within the Metro 2040 “Rural” designation, about 3 kilometres outside of the UCB, surrounded by Metro 2040 “Agricultural” (also within the ALR) lands. The Township of Langley requested an extension and connection to GVS&DD regional sewerage services to

alleviate concern for environmental or public health risk posed by the current on‐site septic

system. Due to soil conditions and a low water table on the site, the current disposal field was failing and creating a risk to local groundwater and the Hopington Aquifer. A letter signed by the Environmental Protection Officer for the BC Ministry of Environment, South Coast Region Environmental Protection Division, notes that there are potential risks to public health and the environment due to the concerns as documented in a consultant report titled, Langley Grove Estates Septic Field – Hydrogeological Review, prepared by AECOM, June 1, 2012. Regarding concern that connection to sewerage services may trigger redevelopment of the property, the Township proposed a restrictive covenant (between the property owner and the Township) be registered against the property to specify that the service connection is provided only for the existing use on the property. Any future sewer service connections beyond that use would require a new sewerage extension application to Metro Vancouver. With supporting documentation by a Qualified Professional, concurrence by the Ministry of Environment and the Township, and a restrictive covenant, the application was accepted by the GVRD Board as consistent under Metro 2040 exception policy.

UC - 35

5.2

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communication, External Relations

Department Date: May 3, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: 2016 Water Wagon Schedule and Sprinkling Regulations Education Materials

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2016 Water Wagon Schedule and Sprinkling Regulations Education Materials”, dated May 3, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee and Board with the preliminary 2016 event schedule for Metro Vancouver’s Water Wagon and Tap Water Team, and an update on the sprinkling regulations education materials being provided to members and promoted to residents across the region. BACKGROUND The Water Wagon and the sprinkling regulations education materials support goals and strategies in both the Drinking Water Management Plan (DWMP) and the 2015‐2018 Board Strategic Plan. Goal 2 of the DWMP is: Ensure the Sustainable Use of Water Resources, with supporting strategy 2.1.1: Deliver education programs promoting behaviour change and sustainable use of water. The Board Strategic Plan includes: Expand public awareness of the quality of Metro Vancouver drinking water and the importance of conserving it; while strategy 3.1 states: Enhance the Tap Water Campaign; and strategy 3.2 states: Promote water conservation through public education campaigns and other tools. Metro Vancouver undertakes several approaches to meeting this goal, including K‐12 programming, Watershed Tours, providing online resources, social media, campaigns, a Water Wagon for public events, and by supporting the annual sprinkling regulations. Based on the Committee workplan, this report covers two of these items: the Water Wagon and supporting the sprinkling regulations. The first Water Wagon event is being planned for the May long weekend, and the sprinkling regulations communication materials have been available for local government use since the first week of May. METRO VANCOUVER WATER WAGON The objectives of the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon and outreach program are to:

highlight the region’s water quality, water conservation, and encourage tap water over bottled water;

provide Metro Vancouver’s tap water messaging to diverse audiences;

UC - 36

safely and effectively provide tap water at regionally representative events;

disseminate information about relevant Metro Vancouver campaigns; and

appropriately respond to additional inquiries raised by event attendees. Metro Vancouver provides the Water Wagon and associated outreach team for events hosted by members of the Greater Vancouver Water District and other public events throughout the summer months. Events are recruited through event planners, the Municipal Water Coordinators Committee, municipal communications staff, and the REAC Water Sub‐Committee. Criteria used to select events include the number of attendees, length of event, opportunities for engagement, availability of GVWD water on site, and access to electricity. In 2016, opportunities for outreach in public spaces (e.g., parks, commercial areas) are also being pursued for dates when a municipal event is not available. In its sixth year of operation, the wagon has been refurbished over winter 2015, including updates to the exterior graphics. The associated outreach team engagement materials are also being refreshed. Event requests are currently under review and the Water Wagon will be active from May 21 to the end of September. The 2016 preliminary event schedule for the Water Wagon (Attachment 1) includes 60 event days in the operating season. Event recruitment will continue throughout the summer and requests are encouraged. SPRINKLING REGULATIONS EDUCATION MATERIALS Metro Vancouver supports member efforts in informing residents of the Sprinkling Regulations. Because the Regulations come into effect two weeks earlier in 2016 (May 15), key communications/collateral materials were made available for use May 1. This included updated web content and social media messaging, PSAs, postcards for both residential (in 5 languages) and commercial addresses, hose tags and magnets for residents, information for landscaping associations, and artwork for posters and other media. Metro Vancouver also placed ads in community newspapers in early May and a media bulletin will be distributed on Friday, May 13. Community papers included translations into Chinese and Punjabi where appropriate.

Please see Attachment 2 for examples of the 2016 sprinkling regulations artwork, including a bookmark, postcard, and poster available for print and online information.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Water Wagon and Tap Water Outreach Team program budget is $75,000. Advertising placements across the region’s community newspapers, and collateral materials promoting the sprinkling regulations, are budgeted at $20,000. These costs are included in the Communications Program of the 2016 Water Services budget. All sprinkling regulations communication materials are produced in‐house.

UC - 37

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION An important component of Metro Vancouver’s Board Strategic Plan includes communication and outreach initiatives to ensure water resources are conserved and efficiently used throughout the region. Important initiatives to meet those objectives are the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon and communication support materials around the sprinkling regulations. The Metro Vancouver Water Wagon and Tap Water Outreach Team will continue to attend public events in the region to provide opportunities for outreach and resident engagement on topics related to water conservation and quality. The Water Wagon is available to members of the Greater Vancouver Water District. The 2016 preliminary event schedule includes 60 event days in the operating season (May to September); however, event recruitment will continue throughout the summer and requests are encouraged. A number of communication tools have been developed to support and educate residents on the new sprinkling regulations. These materials are available for Metro Vancouver members to distribute and share with their residents. The Water Wagon and sprinkling communication materials also support the regional water conservation campaign launching in mid‐June of 2016. Attachments: 1. 2016 Preliminary Event Schedule for the Water Wagon 2. Lawn Sprinkling Communications Materials 18197649

UC - 38

Attachment 1

2016 Preliminary Event Schedule for the Water Wagon

Date Event Name Municipality Event Days

Saturday, May 21 to Sunday, May 22

Rocky Point Park Port Moody 2

Monday, May 23 Victoria Day at Trout Lake Vancouver 1

Thursday, May 26 to Friday, May 27

Surrey International Children’s Festival

Surrey 2

Saturday, May 28 MEC Bikefest North Vancouver North Vancouver District

1

Sunday, May 29 Public Park Vancouver 1

Saturday, June 4 Run for H2O Guatemala Fundraising Run

Vancouver 1

Sunday, June 5 Gutsy Walk Vancouver 1

Friday, June 10 Longest Day Running Race Electoral Area A 1

Saturday, June 11 Delta Works Yard Open House Delta 1

Sunday, June 12 Italian Days Vancouver 1

Saturday, June 18 to Sunday, June 19

Vancouver Dragon Boat Festival Vancouver 2

Tuesday, June 21 National Aboriginal Day at Trout Lake

Vancouver 1

Saturday, June 25 Welcome BBQ New Westminster 1

Sunday, June 26 Greek Day on Broadway Vancouver 1

Friday, July 1 Canada Day Coquitlam 1

Saturday, July 2 Port Moody Firefighters Breakfast Port Moody 1

Sunday, July 3 to Saturday July 4

Golden Spike Days Port Moody 2

Saturday, July 9 to Sunday, July 10

Carnaval del Sol Vancouver 2

Friday, July 15 Poco Grand Prix Port Coquitlam 1

Saturday, July 16 Cascadia Masters Rowing Championship

Burnaby 1

Sunday, July 17 Edmonds City Fair Classic Car Show and Street Festival

Burnaby 1

Friday, July 22 Ribfest Port Moody 1

Saturday, July 23 Kaleidoscope: 125 Years of Art & Culture

Coquitlam 1

Sunday, July 24 Fusion Festival Surrey 1

Saturday, July 30 to Sunday, July 31

Powell Street Festival Vancouver 2

Friday, August 5 KitsFest Vancouver 1

Saturday, August 6 to Sunday, August 7

Richmond Maritime Festival Richmond 2

Saturday, August 13 toSunday, August 14

Slide the City & Car Free Day North Vancouver City

2

Saturday, August 20 to September 5

PNE Eco Alley Vancouver 13

UC - 39

Date Event Name Municipality Event Days

Thursday, September 1 New Graduate Student Orientation Electoral Area A 1

Saturday, September 3 Richmond World Festival Richmond 1

Tuesday, September 6 Imagine UBC Electoral Area A 1

Thursday, September 8 SFU Vancouver BBQ & Community Fair

Vancouver 1

Saturday, September 10

Saturday Farmers Market Maple Ridge 1

Sunday, September 11 Ma Murray Heritage Day Anmore 1

Saturday, September 17

Burnaby Farmers Market Burnaby 1

Sunday, September 18 Terry Fox Run TBD 1

Friday, September 23 to Saturday, September 24

Riverfest New Westminster New Westminster 2

Sunday, September 25 World Rivers Day Burnaby 1

Total Event Days 2016: 60

UC - 40

Attachment 2

Lawn Sprinkling Communications Materials

Sample of an advertisement for a community paper, or poster for a municipal kiosk.

Front of a postcard‐sized reminder for residential addresses.

UC - 41

Front of a postcard‐sized reminder for non‐residential addresses.

Front of a bookmark reminder for handout at public events, or as an education tool.

Back of a bookmark reminder for handout at public events, or as an education tool.

UC - 42

5.3

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: May 4, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Water Conservation Research and Campaign Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Conservation Research and Campaign Update”, dated May 4, 2016.

PURPOSE To update the Committee and Board on a regional water conservation campaign, supported by the 2015 Water Sustainability Innovation Fund, launching in summer 2016, with the objective of expanding public awareness of the quality of Metro Vancouver’s water and the importance of conserving it, and to encourage a year‐round reduction in personal consumption, both indoors and outdoors. BACKGROUND The water conservation campaign supports goals and strategies in both the Drinking Water Management Plan (DWMP) and the 2015‐2018 Board Strategic Plan. Goal 2 of the DWMP is: Ensure the Sustainable Use of Water Resources, with supporting strategy 2.1.1: Deliver education programs promoting behaviour change and sustainable use of water. The Board Strategic Plan includes: Expand public awareness of the quality of Metro Vancouver drinking water and the importance of conserving it; while strategy 3.2 states: Promote water conservation through public education campaigns and other tools. The main component of the 2016 water conservation campaign is supported by the funding granted through the 2015 Water Sustainability Innovation Fund. Per the policy associated with the Sustainability Innovation Fund, this report provides an update on the status of the water conservation and research project. Also contributing to the objectives of the water conservation campaign is the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon and the sprinkling regulations education materials. 2016 WATER CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN Per capita water consumption rates have been decreasing, including meeting a target of a 1% per year reduction in peak day per capita water use. However, as population rises, continued per capita rate declines can defer the need to expand the drinking water supply and infrastructure. Communications campaigns are one tool, in partnership with regulations, to reduce demand for potable water. Metro Vancouver’s role engaging residents in water conservation involves:

convening local governments to discuss and explore best practices;

UC - 43

providing advertising, web resources, and outreach collateral to promote the sprinkling regulations;

providing public access to information on our water supply system including: videos, consumption data and weekly reservoir level charts, and infographics;

providing watershed tours to residents, school groups and others to engage citizens on the multi‐barrier approach, and the source, treatment and quality of their drinking water;

coordinating the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon, to engage residents in discussions on water conservation, sprinkling regulations, and the source and quality of their drinking water; and

K‐12 curriculum development and program delivery that incorporates water conservation into sustainability education, as a key component of the livable region.

In summer 2015, Metro Vancouver and members amplified communications on water conservation to address the high demand for potable water, largely for outdoor uses including lawn watering. In addition to traditional media (over 120 interviews), Metro Vancouver increased its online media buy through YouTube and Facebook promotions, which, along with Twitter, drew considerable traffic to Metro Vancouver’s website for further information. Earlier in 2015, prior to the dry hot summer, Water Sustainability Innovation Funding was approved to expand the region’s water conservation efforts by undertaking research and incorporating research findings into a robust regional water conservation campaign incorporating both outdoor and indoor/ year‐round content. The project is driven by a long‐term view of the region’s water needs, the need to conserve water and reduce per‐capita water consumption. In order to develop a sound communication campaign strategy, public opinion research was undertaken to gain a good understanding of public attitudes toward water conservation. Public Opinion Research With advice from academic researchers and input from internal and local government staff, a region‐wide survey was completed in February 2016. Results have been shared with members, and used to inform the proposed campaign. Highlights are:

attitudes towards water conservation are similar across the region;

while a majority believe it is extremely important to reduce the amount of water used by households, reducing energy use and waste rate as significantly more important;

the majority feel they personally use water efficiently, and more so than their neighbours;

the majority recognize our region uses more water per household than comparable cities;

the following were found to be compelling reasons to encourage water conservation: o looking after the environment, o preparing for climate change and potential water shortages, o preparing for population growth, o it’s the right thing to do, and o leaving water in streams for fish and other wildlife.

on the other hand, saving money and reducing the cost of infrastructure were not found to be compelling.

On questions specific to lawn watering:

the vast majority support water restrictions;

the vast majority are ‘upset’ when they see neighbours watering outside the restrictions;

approximately 25% find it disturbing when public green spaces turn brown (dormant); UC - 44

approximately 20% are disturbed by the appearance of private brown lawns; and

25% cannot identify even one way to conserve water outdoors. The baseline research will be repeated in the fall of 2016 to test the effectiveness of the campaign. Focus Group Testing The public‐opinion research findings informed the development of a number of creative concepts that were then tested in two sets of focus groups in April and May. Focus group participants included both home owners and residents not responsible for their lawns. The focus testing ensures both message and design resonate with the intended audience. The focus groups revealed a number of key themes and observations towards the creative concepts and messages they were shown: Awareness of the Need to Conserve Water

Water conservation is not perceived to be an urgent or important need at the personal use level. The general perception is that the Metro Vancouver region “has an abundance of water.”

Difficult to Conceptualize

Research participants indicated they are largely unaware of how much water they use, which tasks are the biggest users of water, where they are making efficient use of water and where there are opportunities to be more efficient with water use.

The Need to See the Problem

Respondents wanted to understand what is at risk from over consumption of water. Just as they were unable to conceptualize their actual water consumption, they were unable to conceptualize the effects of over consumption.

Encourage, Don’t Shame

As is consistent with other social marketing campaign research, respondents tended to distance themselves from the intended message if they felt they were being blamed or reprimanded. This was especially true when the issue or topic wasn’t something they have thought of before.

Importance of Guidance

Respondents did not have any immediate or significant ideas on ways to reduce water consumption. Respondents were very interested to see ideas on how to make small changes in their behaviour and environment in order to reduce water consumption

In summary, there was a surprising lack of understanding around the need for water conservation – the environmental issues were understood and there was a definite perceived overall value for our water but not a recognized need to conserve it.

From these findings, creative was developed that incorporated both the context (the why) and more specific actions (the what) concerning water conservation.

UC - 45

Campaign Elements The campaign will aim to engage residents by illustrating the need for conservation, the personal changes they could make, and demonstrating the real effect of their actions. While carrying a regional, year‐round water conservation message, the campaign will have strong seasonal elements ‐ for example launching in the summer with a focus on outdoor water use and in particular lawns, moving into messaging around indoor water use in the fall and winter. The campaign will be built from a recognition that:

awareness alone is typically insufficient to change behavior;

behaviour change tends to be most powerfully driven by the perceived behavior of peers; and

Metro Vancouver residents tend to be environmentally conscious. The campaign will include a dynamic microsite with information on the why and individual actions that can be taken to conserve water – both indoor and outdoor, while also having the ability to drive residents back to the Metro Vancouver website for further information on other water related topics. The site will be supported by an online presence, and a media buy. In addition, the campaign will be incorporated into the Water Wagon outreach and will provide context for the sprinkling regulation communications in 2017. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. There are no alternatives presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The water conservation research and campaign budget is $340,000. These costs are included in the Communications Program of the 2016 Water Services budget. The Water Sustainability Innovation Fund supports $260,000 of these costs with the balance funded from the water rate. Expenditures include:

$115,000 for research (baseline, testing and post‐campaign) and for creative design; and $225,000 for campaign advertising.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver and its members have long undertaken water conservation initiatives targeting various audiences. However, the Drinking Water Management Plan and the Board Strategic Plan both state the importance of additional public engagement to further encourage water conservation. The provision of Water Sustainability Innovation Funding in 2016 has allowed Metro Vancouver, in collaboration with its members, to develop a research‐based and audience‐tested campaign that should set the frame for a multi‐year awareness and behavior change campaign. The high‐level strategy of the campaign is to engage residents by illustrating the need for conservation, the personal changes they could make, and demonstrating the real effect of their actions. The project is driven by a long‐term view of the region’s water needs, the need to conserve water and reduce per‐capita water consumption. The campaign will be supported by continued messaging and direct engagement with the public through the Metro Vancouver Water Wagon sprinkling regulations communications materials.

UC - 46

Members are actively engaged in the development of the campaign and will be encouraged to adopt the campaign platform so that residents across the region are exposed to a seamless water conservation message. The 2016 baseline research will be repeated to test the campaign’s success. Attachment: 1. Metro Vancouver Residents’ Attitudes Towards Water Conservation, February 2016, Mustel

Group Market Research 18195532

UC - 47

-This page intentionally left blank.-

UC - 48

Metro Vancouver Residents’ Attitudes Towards Water Conservation

February 2016

Attachment 1

UC - 49

Introduction

Background

Metro Vancouver is launching a campaign in the spring to educate and encourage residents to reduce their water usage. Market research has been conducted to provide direction for the campaign, and to track its impacts over time. This report presents the findings from a benchmark measure of attitudes towards long term water conservation. More specifically, the research has been designed to:

Measure the value of water and water conservation;

Identify the most influential target audience for the campaign;

Determine the core value people connect water conservation with;

Determine attitudes towards summer water restrictions.

2

Methodology

1,500 interviews completed using Mustel Group’s panel

supplemented by Asking Canadians panel;

300 interviews completed in each of five Metro Vancouver regions

Field dates: February 3-14, 2016;

Sample weighted by age within gender and region to match Statistics Canada data for each region;

Margin of error on a random sample of 1,500:

+/-2.5% at the 95% level of confidence;

Margin of error on a random sample of 300:

+/-5.7% at the 95% level of confidence;

Questionnaire used appended;

Detailed computer tabulations presented under separate cover.

UC - 50

Executive Overview

Attitudes toward Water Conservation

Metro Vancouver residents rate the importance of reducing the amount of water used by households an average of 7.4 on a 10-point scale where “10” means

extremely important. Reducing energy use and waste is perceived as more important than reducing water use (average ratings of 8.0 and 8.2 respectively).

The finding are relatively similar by region, dwelling type, and demographic characteristics (including ethnicity) but women tend to be slightly more concerned about water use than men.

In terms of personal efforts to conserve or reduce the amount of water used, the majority of residents, 70%, say they try at least “reasonably hard” but only 15% try

“very hard”. Those who do not try too hard to conserve

water just don’t think about, think water is plentiful or

believe their consumption already is low.

Half the population (50%) believes Metro Vancouver uses more water than most other major cities. Of the other half, most think we use the same amount rather than less water.

3

But in terms of their household, about half the population believes they use less water than their neighbours. Just under 10% believe they use more water than their neighbours.

When questioned what are the three most effective ways to reduce water use inside their household, the most common responses are shorter shower times and turning off taps when not using the water, followed by using appliances efficiently (more so than using water efficient appliances) and using water efficient fixtures.

In terms of water use outside the home, approximately one-in-three cannot think of any ways to reduce usage. This level is highest among condo or apartment dwellers but still almost one-in-four (22%) of single family dwellers are unable to think of any ways.

The most common suggestions made are reducing lawn watering and hand watering, followed by reducing frequency of washing vehicles and collecting rain water.

UC - 51

Executive Overview (cont’d)

4

Lawn Watering and Water Restrictions

Of those who live in a single family house, multifamily house or duplex/townhouse, 82% are required to maintain a lawn (90% of those in a single family home). Of this group, 18% has an automatic watering or irrigation system.

The majority of residents support outdoor water restrictions that are in place each summer. However, 17% feel they are too restrictive and a small group, 4%, believes they are not needed at all.

Resistance to the restrictions is slightly higher among:

men;

single family and duplex/townhouse owners (those with lawns); and

those of Chinese descent (partially because they are more inclined to live in a single family house).

Approximately one-in-four (24%) finds it disturbing when public green spaces turn brown in late summer. A similar proportion, 20%, finds it disturbing when private green spaces turn brown.

The findings do not vary significantly by type of home and whether a lawn is maintained, but those of Chinese descent and those with automatic water sprinklers do find these situations more disturbing than others.

As support for water restrictions is relatively strong, it is not surprising that the majority (80%) are annoyed when they see someone watering their lawn outside the regulations.

Communications

A number of statements or approaches to communicating water conservation were tested in terms of being compelling. The most compelling statements are:

It is an important part of environmental sustainability and looking after the environment.

We may face local water shortages in the future due to climate change or droughts.

We may face local water shortages in the future due to population growth.

It is the right thing to do.

UC - 52

Executive Overview (cont’d)

5

Communications (cont.)

To further test what values residents associate most with water conservation, respondents were asked to choose which of five statements they found most motivating. The statement that tests the strongest is:

I care about the environment.

Four taglines were also tested in terms of their effectiveness in communicating water conservation. Reactions are relatively similar to all four but ‘waterwise’

and ‘water smart’ do emerge slightly ahead of others.

UC - 53

Detailed Findings

UC - 54

Water Conservation Attitudes

UC - 55

Importance of Reducing Water Use Relative to Energy and Waste

8

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means ‘extremely important’, Metro Vancouver residents rate the importance of reducing the amount of water used by households an average of 7.4, with 53% rating the importance between 8 to 10 on the scale.

Reducing energy use and waste is perceived as more important.

Base: Total (n=1,500)

Q.A1 A-C) How important to you personally is each of the following?

72%

68%

53%

25%

29%

40%

3

4

6

Reducing the amount ofwaste produced by

households

Reducing the amount ofenergy used by households

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.2

8.0

7.4

10 = Extremely important, 1 = not at all important

Reducing the amount of water used by households

UC - 56

Importance of Reducing Water Used by Households

9

The finding are relatively similar by region, dwelling type and demographic characteristics (including ethnicity) but women tend to be slightly more concerned about water use than men (7.7 average score versus 7.0 among men).

Q.A1) How important to you personally is each of the following?

A. Reducing the amount of water used by households

53%

52%

49%

57%

57%

53%

40%

41%

43%

36%

39%

41%

6%

7%

8%

7%

4

5

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

7.4

7.3

7.2

7.5

7.6

7.4



UC - 57

Importance of Reducing Energy Used by Households

10

The findings for energy are also similar by region and by demographic segments with the exception that women are more concerned about energy use.


B. Reducing the amount of energy used by households

68%

66%

62%

74%

71%

67%

29%

29%

35%

23%

25%

30%

4

5

3

3

3

3

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.0

8.0

7.8

8.2

8.1

8.0

Reducing the amount of energy used by households


UC - 58

Importance of Reducing Waste Produced by Households

11

While the findings for waste are also similar by region, women and those residing in single family homes are more concerned about waste management than others.


C. Reducing the amount of waste produced by households

72%

70%

69%

76%

74%

71%

25%

25%

28%

22%

24%

28%

3

5

3

3

3

1

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.2

8.2

8.1

8.4

8.4

8.2

Reducing the amount of waste produced by households


UC - 59

Personal Efforts to Conserve Water

12

When asked to what extent they personally try to conserve or reduce the amount of water they use, the majority, 70%, reply they try at least “reasonably hard” but only 15% try “very hard”.

Residents of the North West, South East and South West regions appear to be most motivated, as are those residing in single family homes (75% try at least “reasonably hard”) and those 55 years of age or over (who are more inclined to live in single family homes).

While women rate the importance higher than men, their efforts to conserve water are similar to those of men. The findings do not vary by ethnicity. Q.A2) To what extent do you personally try to conserve or reduce the

amount of water you use? Please be candid.

15%

12%

14%

18%

18%

15%

55%

53%

54%

61%

55%

62%

26%

30%

28%

20%

24%

20%

4

5

4

1

3

3

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Try very hard Try reasonably hard

Try a little Don't really try at all

UC - 60

Reason For Not Really Trying To Conserve Water

13

Base: Those that “don’t really try at all”

Total(51)%

Central(15*)

%

North East

(11*)%

NorthWest(6*)%

SouthEast(9*)%

South West(10*)

%

Don’t think about it 45 47 58 35 40 29

Water is plentiful (i.e. time of year, rains a lot) 45 46 34 26 52 43

Current consumption is low 27 38 8 40 12 28

No reason 2 - - - 8 -

Q.A2B) Why is that?

*Caution: Small base size

Those who do not try too hard to conserve water just don’t think about, think water is plentiful or believe their consumption already is low.

UC - 61

MV Water Usage Compared to Other Major Cities

14

Half the population believes Metro Vancouver uses more water than most other major cities.

Of the other half, most think we use the same amount rather than less water.

Residents of the South East are most inclined to think we use more water.

Men and those 55 years of age or over are also more inclined to think we use more. The findings do not vary by household type or ethnicity.

Q.A3) Do you believe residents of Metro Vancouver use more water, about the same amount, or less water than those living in most other major cities?

18%

19%

14%

18%

19%

16%

32%

30%

30%

29%

37%

32%

32%

32%

35%

32%

29%

34%

8%

9%

6%

10%

7%

6%

1

1

1

2

1

10%

10%

13%

8%

8%

12%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Metro Vancouver uses a great deal moreSomewhat moreAbout the sameSomewhat lessA great deal lessDon't know

Total MV use more

50%

50%

45%

47%

56%

48%

UC - 62

Household Water Usage Compared to Other Major Cities

15

But in terms of their household, about half the population believes they use less water than their neighbours.

Less than 10% believe they use more water than their neighbours.

The findings are consistent by region, household type and demographic characteristics with the exception that those 35 years or over are slightly more inclined to think they use less than their younger counterparts.

Q.A4) Do you believe your household uses more water, about the same amount, or less water than your neighbours?

1

1

2

6

6

8

9%

4

7

34%

35%

36%

34%

33%

31%

39%

39%

35%

35%

42%

42%

13%

12%

13%

17%

15%

14%

4

4

5

3

4

3

3

4

3

2

1

4

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Your household uses a great deal moreSomewhat moreAbout the same amountSomewhat lessA great deal less than neighboursHave not comparedDon't know

Total Household

use less

52%

51%

48%

52%

56%

52%

UC - 63

Most Effective Method to Reduce Water Usage Inside Household

16

22%

21%

14%

12%

4%

4%

4%

3%

2%

1%

<1%

<1%

11%

Shorter shower time

Do not leave water running/ turn off taps when not using

Efficient usage of appliances (i.e. combine laundry loads,dishwasher used less often)

Use water efficient fixtures (i.e. low flow toilet, showerhead)

Use water efficient appliances (i.e. dishwasher, frontloading washing machine)

Flush toilet only when necessary

Take showers not baths

Reduce the number of showers/ baths per week

Reuse "grey water" (i.e. flush toilet, water plants)

Check/ fix leaks

Put a brick in toilet tank to use less water when flushing

Miscellaneous

Don't know

When questioned what are the three most effective ways to reduce water inside their household, the most common responses are shorter shower times and turning off taps when not using the water, followed by using appliances efficiently (more so than using water efficient appliances) and using water efficient fixtures.

The finding are similar by region and household type but note that women in general are able to think of more ways than men to save water.

Base: total (n=1,500)

Q.A5I) Thinking of the ways water is used inside your household, what do you think are the most effective ways to reduce water usage in your household?

Most effective

UC - 64

Top 3 Methods to Reduce Water Usage Inside Household

17

43%

41%

38%

23%

11%

9%

8%

7%

7%

5%

1%

1%

11%

Do not leave water running/ turn off taps when not using

Efficient usage of appliances (i.e. combine laundry loads,dishwasher used less often)

Shorter shower time

Use water efficient fixtures (i.e. low flow toilet, showerhead)

Flush toilet only when necessary

Use water efficient appliances (i.e. dishwasher, frontloading washing machine)

Take showers not baths

Reduce the number of showers/ baths per week

Reuse "grey water" (i.e. flush toilet, water plants)

Check/ fix leaks

Put a brick in toilet tank to use less water when flushing

Miscellaneous

Don't know

When all three ways listed are combined, the same four ways are at the top of the list.


Q.A5I) Thinking of the ways water is used inside your household, what do you think are the most effective ways to reduce water usage in your household?

Top 3 ways

UC - 65

Most Effective Method to Reduce Water Usage Outside of Home

18

22%

20%

10%

8%

5%

3%

1%

<1%

31%

Don't water lawns/ reduce the frequency of watering

Don't use sprinklers/ leave water running

Don't wash vehicle as often at home/ use carwash service

Collect/ use rainwater for lawns, gardens and car wash

Change lawns from grass to drought resistant plants/ nolawns at all

Misc. yard maintenance (i.e. water lawn, plants duringthe cooler part of the day, use mulch to cover soil)

Sweep instead of using powerwash/ hose

Reduce swimming pool/ hot tub water changing/maintenance

Don't know

In terms of water use outside the home, approximately one-in-three cannot think of any ways to reduce usage. This level is highest among condo or apartment dwellers but still almost one-in-four of single family dwellers (22%) are unable to think of any ways.

The most common suggestions made are reducing lawn watering and hand watering.


Q.A5II) Now thinking of the ways your household uses water outside your home, what do you think are the most effective ways to reduce water usage outside your household?

Most effective

UC - 66

Top 3 Methods to Reduce Water Usage Outside of Home

19

32%

29%

28%

16%

10%

8%

5%

1%

31%

Don't use sprinklers/ leave water running

Don't water lawns/ reduce the frequency of watering

Don't wash vehicle as often at home/ use carwash service

Collect/ use rainwater for lawns, gardens and car wash

Change lawns from grass to drought resistant plants/ nolawns at all

Sweep instead of using powerwash/ hose

Misc. yard maintenance (i.e. water lawn, plants duringthe cooler part of the day, use mulch to cover soil)

Reduce swimming pool/ hot tub water changing/maintenance

Don't know

When combined with the top three ways, reducing frequency of washing vehicles also emerges as a common response, followed by collecting rain water.


Q.A5II) Now thinking of the ways your household uses water outside your home, what do you think are the most effective ways to reduce water usage outside your household?

Top 3 ways

UC - 67

Lawn Watering and Water Restrictions

UC - 68

Required to Maintain Lawn/ Garden

21

82%

81%

80%

82%

82%

85%

18%

19%

20%

18%

18%

15%

Total (n=1,089)

Central (n=167)

North East (n=241)

North West (n=209)

South East (n=247)

South West (n=225)

Required to maintain lawn/ garden

Of those who live in a house, multifamily house or duplex/townhouse, 82% are required to maintain a lawn (90% of those in a single family home).

Of this group, 18% has an automatic watering or irrigation system.

Base: Total live in a house, multiple-family house or duplex

Q.B1) Do you live in a home that requires you to maintain a lawn and/ or garden?

18%

16%

19%

19%

20%

19%

82%

85%

81%

81%

80%

81%

Total (n=908)

Central (n=138)

North East (n=195)

North West (n=176)

South East (n=206)

South West (n=193)

Have automatic watering/ irrigation

Yes No

Base: Total live in a home that requires them to maintain a lawn and/ or garden

Q.B2) Do you have an automatic watering or irrigation system that is set to a timer or rain sensor? UC - 69

Opinions of Summer Water Restrictions

22

76%

83%

70%

73%

70%

72%

71%

17%

12%

21%

19%

21%

19%

21%

4

4

7%

5

4

4

6

3

1

3

4

5

5

3

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Needed and appropriate measures

Needed but are too restrictive

Not needed

No opinion

The majority of residents support outdoor water restrictions that are in place each summer. However, 17% feel they are too restrictive and a small group, 4%, believes they are not needed at all.

Resistance to the restrictions is slightly higher among:

men;

single family and duplex/townhouse owners (those with lawns); and

those of Chinese descent (partially because they are more inclined to live in a single family house).

Residents of the Central region are most supportive of the restrictions due to the higher proportion living in condos or apartments.Q.B3) For approximately the past 20 summers, outdoor water

restrictions have been in place to reduce the amount of water used. Overall, do you think these water restrictions are:

Those who maintain a lawn (n=908)

UC - 70

Reaction to Public Green Spaces Turning Brown

23

5

5

3

2

5

6

4

40%

38%

44%

44%

41%

36%

43%

22%

24%

20%

24%

19%

23%

21%

10%

8%

13%

10%

11%

15%

10%

19%

21%

16%

17%

19%

18%

18%

5

5

4

4

5

3

5

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Did not notice Not at all disturbing

Not very disturbing Neither disturbing nor disturbing

Somewhat disturbing Very disturbing

Approximately one-in-four finds it disturbing when public green spaces turn brown in late summer.

The findings are relatively consistent by region, type of home and demographic characteristics, except that those of Chinese descent and those with automatic watering systems do find this situation slightly more disturbing than others.

Q.B4) How disturbing is it to you for public green spaces to turn brown?

Total disturbing

24%

26%

21%

21%

24%

20%

23%

Total not disturbing

62%

62%

64%

67%

60%

59%

64%Those who maintain a lawn (n=908)

UC - 71

Reaction to Private Green Spaces Turning Brown

24

4

5

2

2

5

5

3

48%

48%

48%

48%

47%

45%

48%

18%

18%

18%

19%

16%

22%

18%

10%

8%

12%

10%

11%

12%

10%

16%

18%

16%

16%

15%

14%

16%

4

3

5

6

4

3

5

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Did not noticeNot at all disturbingNot very disturbingNeither disturbing nor disturbingSomewhat disturbingVery disturbing

A similar proportion, 20%, finds it disturbing when private green spaces turn brown.

The findings do not vary significantly by type of home and whether a lawn is maintained, but those of Chinese descent and those with automatic water sprinklers again find this situation more disturbing than others (27% of Asians, 30% of those with water systems).

Q.B5) How disturbing is it to you for private green spaces to turn brown in late summer?

Total disturbing

20%

21%

20%

21%

20%

16%

21%

Total not disturbing

66%

66%

66%

67%

63%

67%

66%Those who maintain a lawn (n=908)

UC - 72

Reaction to Watering Lawn Outside Regulations

25

80%

82%

77%

79%

77%

81%

79%

9%

8%

13%

8%

9%

8%

10%

11%

10%

11%

14%

14%

11%

11%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

Annoyed

Doesn’t matter to me

Did not notice anyone watering outside regulations

As support for water restrictions is relatively strong, it is not surprising that the majority are annoyed when they see someone watering their lawn outside the regulations.

Q.B6) What is your reaction when you see someone watering their lawn outside the regulations?

Those who maintain a lawn (n=908)

UC - 73

Communications

UC - 74

Message Testing

A number of statements or approaches to communicating water conservation were tested in terms of being compelling. The most compelling statements are:





Two others that test well are:

It will result in more water left in streams for fish and other wildlife.

Canadians uses 343 litres a day (about the same in Metro Vancouver). Other countries use for example: Italy 250 litres/day; Sweden 200 litres/day; France 150 litres/day. We need to reduce our water usage.

The findings are consistent by region but note that all these statements tend to be more effective among women than men. But even among men, these statements are the strongest of those tested. The same pertains to those of Chinese descent.

27

UC - 75

Message Testing

28

Q.C1 A-I) The following are reasons some people have given for reducing water usage. How compelling to you personally is each reason?

71%

70%

69%

67%

64%

64%

51%

47%

20%

25%

23%

25%

28%

27%

29%

38%

41%

43%

5

7

7

5

9%

8%

12%

11%

38%

It is an important part of environmental sustainability andlooking after the environment.

We may face local water shortages in the future due toclimate change or droughts.


We may face local water shortages in the future due topopulation growth.

Canadians use 343 litres a day (about the same in MetroVancouver). We need to reduce our water usage.

It will result in more water left in streams for fish and otherwildlife.

Reducing my household’s water usage will save money.

It will help reduce the cost of infrastructure to deliver waterto you.

My neighbourhood is very environmentally conscious and Iget pressure from my neighbours.

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.1

8.1

8.0

8.0

7.6

7.7

7.1

6.9

4.7

10 = Extremely compelling, 1 = not at all compelling

UC - 76

Important Part of Environmental Sustainability

29

Q.C1) The following are reasons some people have given for reducing water usage. How compelling to you personally is each reason?

A. It is an important part of environmental sustainability and looking after the environment.

71%

71%

70%

69%

72%

69%

25%

24%

23%

27%

24%

28%

5

5

7%

4

4

3

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.1

8.2

7.9

8.2

8.1

8.2



UC - 77

Possible Water Shortages in Future Due to Climate Change

30


D. We may face local water shortages in the future due to climate change or droughts.

70%

71%

64%

70%

71%

71%

23%

22%

30%

24%

22%

23%

7%

7%

6%

6%

8%

6%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.1

8.2

7.8

8.0

8.0

8.1



UC - 78

It is The Right Thing to Do

31


H. It is the right thing to do.

69%

67%

65%

72%

71%

69%

25%

25%

26%

24%

22%

26%

7

8

9

4

6

5

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.0

7.9

7.8

8.3

8.1

8.1



UC - 79

Possible Water Shortages in Future Due to Population Growth

32


E. We may face local water shortages in the future due to population growth.

67%

67%

63%

67%

70%

65%

28%

28%

31%

28%

25%

31%

5

5

7

5

5

4

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

8.0

8.0

7.7

8.1

8.0

8.0



UC - 80

We Need to Reduce our Water Usage

33


I. Canadians use 343 litres a day (about the same in Metro Vancouver). Other countries use for example: Italy 250 litres/day; Sweden 200 litres/ day; France 150 litres/ day. We need to reduce our water usage.

64%

65%

59%

60%

69%

59%

27%

26%

28%

31%

24%

34%

9%

10%

13%

8%

8%

8%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

7.6

7.6

7.3

7.6

7.9

7.6

Canadians use 343 litres a day (about the same in Metro Vancouver). Other countries use for example: Italy 250 litres/day; Sweden 200 litres/ day; France 150 litres/ day. We need to reduce our water usage.


UC - 81

Water Left in Streams for Fish and Wildlife

34


B. It will result in more water left in streams for fish and other wildlife.

64%

64%

63%

61%

66%

60%

29%

27%

31%

32%

26%

33%

8

9%

6

7

8

7

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

7.7

7.7

7.7

7.7

7.8

7.6

It will result in more water left in streams for fish and other wildlife.


UC - 82

Reducing My Household’s Water Usage Will Save Money

35


F. Reducing my household’s water usage will save money.

51%

46%

51%

54%

54%

55%

38%

41%

36%

34%

37%

35%

12%

13%

13%

12%

9%

10%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

7.1

6.8

7.0

7.1

7.4

7.2

Reducing my household’s water usage will save money.


UC - 83

Reduction in Cost of Infrastructure to Deliver Water

36


C. It will help reduce the cost of infrastructure to deliver water to you.

47%

46%

42%

48%

51%

51%

41%

44%

42%

42%

38%

39%

11%

11%

16%

10%

11%

10%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

6.9

6.9

6.5

7.0

6.9

7.1

It will help reduce the cost of infrastructure to deliver water to you.


UC - 84

Pressure From Neighbours to be Environmentally Conscious

37


G. My neighbourhood is very environmentally conscious and I get pressure from my neighbours.

20%

21%

18%

14%

21%

19%

43%

42%

43%

45%

41%

48%

38%

37%

39%

41%

38%

33%

Total (n=1,500)

Central (n=300)

North East (n=300)

North West (n=300)

South East (n=300)

South West (n=300)

8 - 10 4 - 7 1 - 3

Average

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.3

4.8

4.8

My neighbourhood is very environmentally conscious and I get pressure from my neighbours.


UC - 85

Values Related to Water Conservation

38

33%

18%

17%

17%

11%

4%


You can save money.

We need to think about futuregenerations.

I care about the place where I live.

We are all in this together.

None of the above

To further test what values residents associate most with water conservation, respondents were asked to choose which of five statements they found most motivating. The statement that tests the strongest is:


Reactions are similar to all others statements tested but note “We are

all in this together” tested weaker

than the alternatives.


Q.C2) Which of these statements would motivate you the most to conserve or reduce your water use? Second most?

And which is the second most?

Most Motivating Statement

53%

32%

39%

36%

24%

10%

Top 2Statements

UC - 86

Term Most Effectively Communicates Water Conservation

39

27%

26%

25%

21%

Water smart

Don't waste a drop

Waterwise

Watter efficient

Four taglines were also tested in terms of their effectiveness in communicating water conservation. Reactions are relatively similar to all four but ‘waterwise’ and ‘water

smart’ do emerge slightly ahead of

others.

Water smart particularly appeals to men, younger residents (under 35 years) and residents of the North East and South West.


Q.C3) Which of the following most effectively communicates to you “water conservation”?

And which is second most effective?

Most Effective

58%

46%

52%

40%

Top 2

UC - 87

Demographics

UC - 88

41

Demographic Profile

Total(1,500)

%

Central(300)

%

North East

(300)%

NorthWest(300)

%

SouthEast

(300)%

South West(300)

%

Gender

Male 48 48 49 47 48 48Female 52 52 51 53 52 52

Age

18 to 34 29 32 28 23 29 2635 to 44 38 37 42 38 38 3855 or better 33 31 30 39 33 36

Area of residence

Central 40 100 - - - -North East 14 100 - - -North West 8 - 100South East 25 - - - 100 -South West 13 - - - - 100

Household classification

Detached single house 49 37 60 54 57 55Multi-family house (multiple suites in a single house) 4 6 4 2 3 2

Duplex or townhouse 16 13 15 12 22 18Apartment/ condominium 31 45 21 32 17 26Mobile home 1 1 - 2 2 - Continued…

UC - 89

42

Demographic Profile (cont.)

Total(1,500)

%

Central(300)

%

North East

(300)%

NorthWest(300)

%

SouthEast

(300)%

South West(300)

%

Own or rent home

Own 75 64 82 80 83 83Rent 25 36 18 20 17 17

Years lived in Metro Vancouver

Less than 5 years 6 5 8 5 6 65 – 9 years 7 9 6 4 6 610 – 19 years 17 22 14 12 13 1720 – 29 years 21 22 21 22 18 2130 – 39 years 19 18 17 16 24 1740 years of more 30 24 35 41 33 33Refused <1 <1 1 - - -

Household composition

Single with no children at home 31 39 25 31 26 24A couple with no children at home 35 31 34 39 41 31A family with children at home (incl. single parent) 34 29 40 30 33 44

Other 1 1 2 <1 1 1Refused <1 <1 - - - -

Education

High school or less 13 9 16 8 20 11Technical or vocational school 14 12 22 11 17 11University degree or college diploma 52 53 49 54 49 58Post-graduate degree 18 24 11 26 11 18Prefer not to say 2 3 2 2 3 2 Continued…UC - 90

43

Demographic Profile (cont.)

Total(1,500)

%

Central(300)

%

North East

(300)%

NorthWest(300)

%

SouthEast

(300)%

South West(300)

%

Language spoken at home

Chinese 11 13 8 3 4 25Cantonese 8 10 6 2 1 20Mandarin 5 6 3 1 4 11Other Chinese dialect 1 1 1 <1 <1 1

German 2 4 1 3 2 1Italian 1 3 1 2 1 -Punjabi 1 <1 2 - 1 1Other 12 12 15 15 9 12English only 71 66 73 77 82 60Prefer not to say 3 4 3 1 2 3

UC - 91

Questionnaire

UC - 92

Water Conservation Attitudes Questionnaire FINAL

1

Welcome to today’s survey regarding an issue of importance to your community. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete depending on your responses. Note that all your responses will be anonymous and confidential. Thank you for taking the time to provide your opinions! Demographics 1. Your gender: Male Female 2. Into which of the following age categories do you fall?

18 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 or better 3. In what municipality do you live? 4. How would you describe your residence? WATCH QUTOA ON HOUSES

Detached single house

Multi-family house (multiple suites in a single house)

Duplex or townhouse

Apartment/condominium

Mobile home

A. Water Conservation Attitudes and Behaviour A1. How important to you personally is each of the following?

SCALE: 10=extremely important, 1= not at all important

RANDOMIZE ORDER


Reducing the amount of energy used by households

Reducing the amount of waste produced by households

UC - 93


2

A2. To what extent do you personally try to conserve or reduce the amount of water you use?

Please be candid.

Try very hard

Try reasonably hard

Try a little

Don’t really try at all

A2b. IF DON’T TRY: Why is that?

A3. Do you believe residents of Metro Vancouver use more water, about the same amount, or less

water than those living in most other major cities?

Metro Vancouver uses a great deal more water

Somewhat more

About the same

Somewhat less

A great deal less than other major cities

Do not know

A4. Do you believe your household uses more water, about the same amount, or less water than your

neighbours?

Your household uses a great deal more water

Somewhat more

About the same amount

Somewhat less

A great deal less than neighbours

Have not compared

Do not know

A5i. Thinking of the ways water is used inside your household, what do you think are the most

effective ways to reduce water usage in your household? Please list your top three ways starting

with the most effective way. (Open-ended)

A5ii. Now thinking of the ways your household uses water outside your home, what do you think are

the most effective ways to reduce water usage outside your household? Please list your top three

ways starting with the most effective way. (Open-ended)

UC - 94


3

(Note: the above questions will be coded by behavioural changes and technical changes.)

B. Lawn Watering B1. IF LIVES IN HOUSE, MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE OR DUPLEX: Do you live in a home that requires you to

maintain a lawn and/or garden?

B2. IF YES: Do have an automatic watering or irrigation system that is set to a timer or rain sensor?

B3. For approximately the past 20 summers, outdoor water restrictions have been in place to reduce

the amount of water used. Overall, do you think these water restrictions are:

Needed and appropriate measures

Needed but are too restrictive

Not needed

NO OPINION

B4. Now consider the appearance of your community during the past summers. How disturbing

is it to you for public green spaces to turn brown?

Did not notice

Not at all disturbing

Not very disturbing

Neither disturbing nor not disturbing

Somewhat disturbing

Very disturbing

B5. How disturbing is it to you for private green spaces to turn brown in late summer?

Did not notice

Not at all disturbing

Not very disturbing

Neither disturbing nor not disturbing

Somewhat disturbing

Very disturbing

UC - 95


4

B6. What is your reaction when you see someone watering their lawn outside the regulations?

Annoyed

Doesn’t matter to me

Do not notice anyone watering outside regulations

C. Communications

C1. The following are reasons some people have given for reducing water usage. How compelling to

you personally is each reason? 1 = not at all compelling; 10 = extremely compelling

ORDER OF STATEMENTS RANDOMIZED

a. It is an important part of environmental sustainability and looking after the environment.

b. It will result in more water left in streams for fish and other wildlife.

c. It will help reduce the cost of infrastructure to deliver water to you.

d. We may face local water shortages in the future due to climate change or droughts.

e. We may face local water shortages in the future due to population growth.

f. Reducing my household’s water use will save money.

g. My neighbourhood is very environmentally conscious and I get pressure from my neighbours.

h. It is the right thing to do.

i. Canadians uses 343 litres a day (about the same in Metro Vancouver). Other countries use for

example: Italy 250 litres/day; Sweden 200 litres/day; France 150 litres/day. We need to reduce

our water usage.

C2. Which of these statements would motivate you the most to conserve or reduce your water use?

Please choose one. Second most motivating? RANDOMIZE ORDER


I care about the place where I live.

We are all in this together.

You can save money.

We need to think about future generations.

NONE OF ABOVE

C3. Which of the following most effectively communicates to you ‘water conservation’? Second

most effective? RANDOMIZE ORDER

Waterwise

Don’t waste a drop

Water efficient

UC - 96


5

Water smart

(Note: Section D may be included on a telephone Omnibus Survey)

D. Awareness of Metro Vancouver D1. Are you aware of a government body called Metro Vancouver?

Yes

No

D2. IF YES: To the best of your knowledge, what are the roles and responsibilities of Metro

Vancouver? What does it do? (Open-ended)

Metro Vancouver, formerly known as the GVRD, is in fact a political body that delivers regional services,

policy and political leadership on behalf of all the separate municipalities in the Greater Vancouver

region. It oversees the region’s drinking water, air quality, sewage and drainage, waste management

and regional parks.

E. Demographics

E1. Do you own or rent your home?

No. of years living in Metro Vancouver, Household composition, education, ethnicity

UC - 97

18155809

5.4

To: Utilities Committee From: Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services

Andrew Wood, Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services Date: May 10, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Water Source Supply Model and WSRP Stage Activation Process

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Source Supply Model and WSRP Stage Activation Process” dated May 10, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee and Board with information on the GVWD’s water source supply model and Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) stage activation process. BACKGROUND Information on the GVWD’s water source supply model and WSRP stage activation process was requested by the Utilities Committee prior to the summer 2016 peak water demand season. Drinking water in Metro Vancouver comes from rain and snow melt collected from within three protected mountain watersheds – Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam. On average, each watershed supplies approximately one third of the region’s drinking water. The Capilano and Seymour reservoirs are also supplemented by three smaller high elevation alpine lakes – Palisade, Burwell and Loch Lomond. Managing the GVWD’s source supply through the summer peak water demand season involves ongoing detailed analysis of a number of parameters such as river inflows and weather conditions which may affect water demands and storage volumes. The goal of managing the supplies is to ensure that sufficient water is available through to the end of the peak demand season. During an extended warm and dry fall, water demands could remain high well into October. The WSRP, which has been adopted into local government bylaws, plays a key role in managing summer water demands and if necessary, during times of emergency. The WSRP focuses on reducing demand for outdoor water use and contains actions that will produce significant reductions in daily water demand in the region using staged restrictions, if persistent hot, dry conditions occur. The GVWD Commissioner has the authority to activate, extend, or deactivate stages of the WSRP at any time, or in any order, as deemed necessary. Source Water Supply Model A key tool used to manage source supply is the Decision Support System (DSS) model. This water source supply model was developed in the 1990’s and updated in 2004 utilizing external consulting expertise and is validated and refined annually.

UC - 98

The DSS model is used to plan water withdrawals from the Capilano and Seymour source reservoirs accounting for the differing storage volumes, maximum outflow capacities, primary service areas and operating parameters. The model is also used to determine GVWD bulk water purchases, or nominations, from BC Hydro to supplement supply during the summer demand season. The DSS model is a mass balance spreadsheet file, with analytical and graphical tools, which uses key data inputs such as current source reservoir levels, projected total system daily demands, reservoir withdrawal rates, projected river inflows, anticipated source reservoir evaporation, in‐stream fish flow release rates, and the remaining water nominations from the Coquitlam reservoir. Utilizing the DSS model, a source supply strategy is developed ahead of each high demand season to be used as a road map for reservoir level and source flow management throughout the summer. The strategy incorporates operational requirements and planned maintenance and construction activities in developing overall goals and objectives. Conservative model input parameters are used in this early season strategy. The DSS model is run weekly throughout the peak demand season to forecast storage levels and drawdown rates for the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs and is used to analyze the response of the system to varying demands and reservoir inflows. The model information is then used to establish sustainable withdrawal rates from each source to the end of the peak demand season. Information from the weekly model runs is also used to assist staff with operational decision making such as the timing and duration of alpine lake withdrawals and scheduling of operations and maintenance projects at the dams and source lakes. Following each peak demand season, the model input parameters are adjusted for future run scenarios. For 2016, the DSS model was updated to reflect the increased system demands and extremely low river inflows experienced in 2015. As well, enhancements have been made to how snowpack and streamflow information is utilized in reservoir management. GVWD Water Shortage Response Plan Stages The GVWD has utilized a WSRP since 1993, which has subsequently been updated in 2004, 2011 and most recently in early 2016. The WSRP is currently undergoing a complete review to produce an updated plan in time for the 2017 summer season. The WSRP is comprised of four stages. Stage 1, as recently amended, is activated automatically on May 15 of each year and remains in effect until October 15. The first stage promotes water conservation and reduces peak demands primarily through restricted lawn sprinkling. Stages 2 and 3 progressively impact additional water uses to further reduce demand. Stage 4 essentially bans all outdoor water use and is intended to be implemented only as a consequence of unforeseen emergency situations such as an earthquake or other major service disruption.

WSRP Stage Activation Each summer season will have unique characteristics and therefore, specific supply and demand management actions need to be enacted on a case by case basis. During the summer demand season, the actual system demands and reservoir inflows are compared on a weekly basis against the DSS model forecasts. Should any combination of these parameters

UC - 99

result in projected end of season total available storage dropping below established limits, consideration is given to activating stricter stages of the WSRP. Minimum end of season total storage volumes for the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs, as well as the alpine lakes, are established based on maintaining required lake levels for operational considerations, maintaining in‐stream fish flow releases and ensuring annual recharge. Minimum operating levels for the Coquitlam reservoir are established by Agreement with BC Hydro. Throughout the summer season, DSS model projections are run weekly to predict drawdown rates and end of season storage, thereby providing key input into decisions regarding activation and deactivation of stages of the WSRP. The activation to more restrictive stages of the WSRP is based on a number of factors including:

Available Storage Capacity of the Capilano and Seymour Reservoirs and Alpine Lakes Draw down rates of the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs and alpine lakes are influenced by inflows and system demands. Forecasts of drawdown rates and available storage to the end of the peak demand season are based on the key data inputs to the DSS model as noted above, including predicted system demands and inflows from precipitation and snow melt.

Storage Nominations from the Coquitlam Reservoir The Coquitlam reservoir is operated by BC Hydro and provides approximately one third of the regional water supply. Metro Vancouver and BC Hydro are in regular communication regarding operation of the Coquitlam reservoir to ensure the GVWD is provided with its nominated water volumes and that minimum in‐stream fish flow releases are maintained. The two parties also share inflow data and modelling results on a regular basis and monitor real time lake level data throughout the summer peak water demand season.

Hydrologic Forecasting Short and long‐term weather forecasts are examined to consider how temperature, precipitation, snow melt, and other climatic conditions will influence inflows to the source reservoirs.

Seasonal Water Demand Trends System consumption is tracked on a daily basis and compared to daily and cumulative water demand forecasts included in the DSS model. This analysis is undertaken on a weekly basis.

Transmission System Performance During periods of high demand, the transmission system may be stressed in localized areas. Stage 1 of the WSRP is designed to reduce the peak demands by distributing the water consumption more equally during the week and outside of the evening hours. Recent improvements in the transmission system have significantly improved the capacity of the system to supply water during peak demand periods.

User Compliance with Restrictions The effectiveness of a particular stage in reducing water demands will vary based on the level of compliance with the restrictions.

UC - 100

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The estimates of water sales included in the annual GVWD Budget assume average weather conditions and the regular implementation of Stage 1 water restrictions. An unusually hot and dry summer may result in higher consumption and revenues in excess of budget. When water restrictions are required to reduce demand during extreme years such as 2003 and 2015, water sales will be impacted by activation of higher stages of the WSRP. Such was the case in 2015. During the hotter and drier summer months, the demand for water increases significantly over that in the winter, putting additional stress on the water supply system. The GVWD’s wholesale peak summer water rate is 25% higher than the rate for the off‐peak period. This seasonal pricing reflects the cost of building larger infrastructure and higher operating costs such as increased pumping to meet peak summer demands. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report responds to a request from the Utilities Committee for information on the GVWD’s water source supply model and Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) stage activation process. Developed in the 1990’s and updated in 2004 utilizing external consulting expertise, the Decision Support System (DSS) model is a key tool used to manage source supplies during the peak summer demand period and in making decisions to activate or deactivate stages of the WSRP. The model is a dynamic tool which is run weekly during the summer demand season with updated input parameters and validated and refined annually. It is used to analyze the response of the water system to varying demands and reservoir inflows, which is then used to establish sustainable withdrawal rates from each of the sources to the end of the peak demand season. DSS model runs provide an early warning that minimum end of season total storage volumes may not be sustained and therefore stricter demand management options may need to be considered. The WSRP is comprised of four stages, which progress into increased restrictions on water use to reduce water demands during periods of water supply shortage, service limitations, or an emergency condition. The GVWD Commissioner has the authority to enact, extend, or deactivate stages of the WSRP. The decision to activate the WSRP to more restrictive stages is based on complex technical analysis and modelling, and multiple factors including: available storage capacity of the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs and alpine lakes, storage nominations from the Coquitlam reservoir, hydrologic forecasting, seasonal water demand trends, transmission system performance and WSRP compliance levels. The goal of managing the supplies is to ensure that sufficient water is available through to the end of the peak demand season which, depending upon climatic conditions, can extend well into the fall. 18155809

UC - 101

To: Utilities Committee From: Jeff Gogol, Environmental Regulatory Planner, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid

Waste Services Sean Tynan, Policy Coordinator, Public Involvement, Liquid Waste Services Date: April 14, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research

Laboratories

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

PURPOSE To seek the endorsement of the GVS&DD Board for the Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories and to receive direction to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

BACKGROUND Regulatory Need Most post‐secondary institutions in the Region have teaching and/or research laboratories that discharge to sanitary sewers. As well, there are many research facilities outside of the campuses that also discharge to sewers. While the quantity of non‐domestic waste that is being discharged from these facilities is significantly less than industrial facilities, they are still considered high‐volume dischargers. Their discharges to sewers may contain a mixture of chemical and biological wastes that could stress the operations of the collection and treatment systems . Therefore, Metro Vancouver is developing strategies to regulate wastes discharged to sewer from post‐secondary and research laboratories.

Authorization Metro Vancouver is authorized to manage its liquid waste through the approved Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) approved by the Province. Primary source control strategies highlighted in the ILWRMP include:

review and enhance Sewer Use Bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,

develop new regulatory instruments, such as Pollution Prevention Plans, to complement existing regulations, and

develop source control initiatives targeting endocrine‐disrupting chemicals, persistent organic pollutants and other micro‐contaminants found in wastewater.

Under the authority of the provincial Environmental Management Act, Metro Vancouver is authorized to enact Bylaws to regulate the discharge of non‐domestic waste into its sewerage and drainage system at source. GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Sewer Use Bylaw)

5.5

UC - 102

prohibits discharge from a high‐volume discharger (discharging more than 300 m3 in a 30 day period) unless that discharger is in compliance with the Sewer Use Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, a Code of Practice or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan.

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANNING APPROACH Since post‐secondary and research laboratories are considered high‐volume dischargers, some form of regulation is appropriate to ensure they are properly handling their wastewater prior to discharge to sewers. Current Waste Discharge Permits issued by Metro Vancouver require dischargers to monitor the quantity and quality of their wastewater to ensure compliance with permit limits. However, post‐secondary and research laboratories are usually large, complex sites where it is difficult to monitor the discharge of the non‐domestic waste streams. Metro Vancouver considers the use of Pollution Prevention Plans, instead of Waste Discharge Permits, an effective strategy to regulate this sector. The East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland, California has effectively employed pollution prevention strategy to reduce the levels of mercury and metals entering the sewer system from post‐secondary institutions and other mercury sources.

Pollution Prevention Planning is a process used to examine operations and to eliminate or reduce pollution at the source. Pollution Prevention Plans focus on sources of key contaminants, and identify the most cost effective pollution prevention opportunities.

CONSULTATION For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders, an Intentions Paper (Attachment 1) has been developed. The Intentions Paper provides notice to the potentially impacted stakeholders that new pollution prevention requirements for post‐secondary and research laboratories are being considered and highlights the proposed requirements as well as outlines the general approach and proposed timeline for consultation. The consultation process is proposed to start in fall 2016 and continue through to fall 2017. Metro Vancouver will seek input on the proposed requirements through a combination of stakeholders meetings and online feedback.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐

Secondary and Research Laboratories and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

2. That the Board receive for information the report titled “Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories” dated April 14, 2016 and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As this is the start of the consultation process for this regulatory bylaw, there are no specific financial implications identified at this time. These will be determined through the consultation process as part of the development of the bylaw. Cost for consultation is included in the 2016 GVS&DD budget.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Most post‐secondary institutions in the Region have teaching and/or research laboratories that discharge to sanitary sewers. As well, there are many research facilities outside of the campuses that also discharge to sewers. While the quantity of non‐domestic waste that may be discharged from these facilities is significantly less than industrial facilities, they are still considered high‐volume dischargers. As well, the discharge to sewers may contain a mixture of chemical and

UC - 103

biological wastes that could stress the operations of the sewer collection and treatment systems. Metro Vancouver is proposing to begin consultation on a sector‐specific bylaw that would require that post‐secondary and research laboratories submit and implement Pollution Prevention Plans for their wastewater discharges, as outlined in the Intention Paper. Pollution Prevention Plans will assist in identifying ways of reducing and/or eliminating contaminants at the source.

Attachment: Metro Vancouver Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories 17523610

UC - 104

1 17546718

METRO VANCOUVER INTENTIONS PAPER

PROPOSED NEW BYLAW FOR POST‐SECONDARY AND

RESEARCH LABORATORIES

APRIL 14, 2016

Attachment

UC - 105

Metro Vancouver Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Post‐Secondary & Research Laboratories April 14, 2016

2

1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide the Metro Vancouver Board and potentially impacted

stakeholders with notice that new regulatory requirements for sewage discharge from post‐secondary

and research laboratories are being considered and that Metro Vancouver will begin consultation with

potentially impacted stakeholders in the fall on the proposed requirements.

The proposed bylaw will apply to post‐secondary and research facilities with laboratories discharging non‐

domestic waste to sewers located within Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver will seek feedback on the

proposed regulatory requirements from stakeholders beginning this fall. This feedback will be used to

refine the requirements and to develop a bylaw that will be presented to the Metro Vancouver Board in

2017. The stakeholders would include the universities, including the University of British Columbia and

Simon Fraser University, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, as well as the colleges and similar

institutions that have laboratories on their campus. In addition, research facilities not associated with

these institutions would also be include in the consultation.

2. Background Metro Vancouver is authorized to manage its liquid wastes through the Integrated Liquid Waste and

Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) approved by the Province. Primary source control strategies

highlighted in the ILWRMP include:

review and enhance Sewer Use Bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants

identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,

develop new regulatory instruments, such as Pollution Prevention Plans, to complement existing

regulations, and

develop source control initiatives targeting endocrine‐disrupting chemicals, persistent organic

pollutants and other micro‐contaminants found in wastewater.

Under the authority of the provincial Environmental Management Act, Metro Vancouver is authorized to

enact Bylaws to regulate the discharge of non‐domestic waste into its sewerage and drainage system at

source. GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (Sewer Use Bylaw) prohibits the discharge from a high‐

volume discharger (discharging more than 300 m3 in a 30 day period) unless that discharger is in

compliance with the Sewer Use Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, a Code of Practice or an approved

Pollution Prevention Plan.

Most post‐secondary campuses have teaching and/or research laboratories that discharge to sewer.

While the quantity of non‐domestic waste that may be discharged from these facilities is far less than

industrial facilities, they are still considered high‐volume dischargers. As well, the discharge may contain

a mix of chemical and biological wastes that could stress the operations of the sewer collection and

treatment systems. Therefore, Metro Vancouver is developing options to regulate these institutions.

UC - 106


3

Since post‐secondary and research laboratories are considered high‐volume dischargers, some form of

regulation is appropriate to ensure they are properly handling their wastewater prior to discharge to

sewer. Current Waste Discharge Permits issued by Metro Vancouver require dischargers to monitor the

quantity and quality of their wastewater to ensure compliance with permit limits. However, post‐

secondary and research laboratories are large, complex sites where it is difficult to monitor the discharge

of just the non‐domestic waste streams. Therefore, Metro Vancouver considers the use of Pollution

Prevention Plans an effective strategy to regulate this sector.

Pollution Prevention Planning is a process used to examine operations and to eliminate or reduce

pollution at the source. Pollution Prevention Plans will focus on the root sources of key contaminants and

identify the most cost effective pollution prevention opportunities.

3. Goals for Metro Vancouver’s Source Control Program Metro Vancouver’s Source Control Program is intended to:

protect human health and safety,

protect the environment,

protect the sewers and sewage facilities and promote their efficient and cost‐effective operation,

enhance biosolids quality, and

help ensure regulatory compliance of Metro Vancouver facilities.

4. Proposed Requirements 4.1 Develop and Submit a Pollution Prevention Plan

Issue

There are a multitude of substances that may be handled at post‐secondary and research

laboratories. This combined with substantial variability in the day‐to‐day and even hour‐to‐hour

operations at these facilities makes it impractical to control sewer discharges from these facilities

by code of practice (intended for large numbers of similar facilities) or permit (issued for individual

facilities).

Proposal

Metro Vancouver is proposing to authorize the discharge of non‐domestic liquid waste to sanitary

sewer from post‐secondary and research laboratories providing that the discharger registers with

Metro Vancouver and the discharge is conducted in compliance with a Pollution Prevention Plan

submitted by qualified professionals. The proposed pollution prevention plans will focus on the

contaminants identified in the current Sewer Use Bylaw that may be present in their discharge as

well as other compounds that may be present. In addition, they will be required to submit a

report, on a frequency to be determined, outlining the status of the initiatives proposed in their

plans.

UC - 107


4

Rationale

Pollution prevention planning, often used as part of an Environmental Management System, has

been employed by many institutions. Pollution prevention planning incorporates proactive

analysis and planning and also allows flexibility to manage discharges from complex operations.

Since these facilities generally have access to qualified professionals for pollution prevention

planning, Metro Vancouver anticipates that Pollution Prevention Plans will be an efficient and

effective strategy to manage discharges to sewer.

4.2 Regulatory Fees

Issue

There is a cost to regulate this sector which includes reviewing the submitted pollution prevention

plans and determining compliance with the plan.

Proposal

Consistent with Metro Vancouver’s cost recovery and user‐pay fee principles, a one‐time

registration fee as well as an annual fee is being proposed. The fees are required to cover staff

review of the Pollution Prevention Plans as well as compliance promotion activities including

audits, inspections, sampling and analysis. Comparable user fees are being employed with other

industries regulated by Metro Vancouver. Table 1 summarizes the proposed charges.

Table 1 ‐ Fee Schedule for Compliance Promotion

Facility Type Registration Fee Annual Regulatory Fee

Large Post‐Secondary Institutions $5,000 $5,000

Other Post‐Secondary Institutions $2,500 $2,500

Research Facilities $1,000 $1,000

For the purposes of consultation, “large post‐secondary institutions” are those institutions with

more than one building containing multiple laboratories such as the University of British

Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology. In addition,

Metro Vancouver will work with stakeholders to further refine the scale of the facility types for

fee purposes.

Rationale

Staff time is required to work with dischargers as well as to review submitted Pollution Prevention

Plans. This fee will recover the additional staff time required to work with the institutions to

develop the plans, to review the submitted plans and to inspect the facilities to determine

compliance with the submitted pollution prevention plan. The fee for large facilities is consistent

with the administration fee for permitted dischargers.

UC - 108


5

5. Proposed Implementation Process Time will be required by the institutions to complete a Pollution Prevention Plan. Initially, Metro

Vancouver is proposing that the completed plans be submitted one year after the adoption of the new

Bylaw by the Metro Vancouver Board as well as submit a report, on a frequency to be determined,

outlining the status of the initiatives proposed in their plans. Metro Vancouver will seek comment from

stakeholders on the feasibility of this time frame and may vary it based on size, complexity and type of

operation.

Once the Metro Vancouver Board adopts the bylaw, Metro Vancouver would clearly communicate the

final requirements and timing to stakeholders and share the final reporting template.

6. Metro Vancouver’s Role in Supporting Compliance Metro Vancouver intends to work with stakeholders to develop a template to aid in the creation of the

Pollution Prevention Plans. In addition, Metro Vancouver staff will be available as a resource to respond

to questions from the institutions and to provide advice on compliance.

7. Metro Vancouver is Committed To: working with impacted stakeholders to provide information on the issue and develop a solution

that is fair, efficient and transparent, and

supporting stakeholders in the implementation process through clearly communicating

requirements and timing of implementation.

8. Consultation Process and Timeline: The consultation process is expected to begin in fall 2016 and continue through fall 2017.

Detailed consultation plan

Targeted stakeholder interviews

Draft requirements

Broad stakeholder notification

Survey current practices

Stakeholder consultation (meetings and online input)

Refine requirements

Draft bylaw

Confirm final requirements with stakeholders

Fall Winter SpringSummer & Fall

UC - 109


6

9. Providing Feedback Metro Vancouver will encourage input through a combination of meetings and online feedback. Specific

mechanisms will be developed as part of the detailed consultation plan, to be developed in early fall 2016.

Stakeholders may contact Metro Vancouver at [email protected] starting in June 2016.

UC - 110

5.6

To: Utilities Committee From: Ray Robb, Division Manager, Environmental Regulation and Enforcement,

Legal and Legislative Services Department Date: April 18, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007

– Staff Appointments

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007:

a) Appoint the following Metro Vancouver staff: Michael Hughes and Luke Smith as Municipal Sewage Control Officers Kathy Preston as Deputy Sewage Control Manager; and

b) Rescind the following Metro Vancouver staff: Karen Pyne and Johanna van den Broeke as Municipal Sewage Control Officers; and


PURPOSE To update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act (the Act) and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Bylaw). BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Regulatory Program supports the goals of the Liquid Waste Management Plan through regulation of the discharge of non‐domestic wastes to the region’s sanitary sewer systems. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 delegates authority to Board‐designated Officers to advance liquid waste management goals. Metro Vancouver staff is responsible for the administration of the Sewer Use Bylaw within the boundaries of the GVS&DD. Within the City of Vancouver, City staff has historically administered the provisions of the GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw. This arrangement has been in effect since the Bylaw was first enacted in 1990. A formal agreement between Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver has been established to ensure that delivery of source control services by the City serves the interests of the GVS&DD and its taxpayers Municipal Sewage Control Officers may enter property, inspect works, and obtain records and other information to promote compliance with the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Liquid Waste Management bylaws. Recent changes in Metro Vancouver environmental regulatory staff have resulted in a need to update staff appointments pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver

UC - 111

Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007. In accordance with Section 29 of the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Control Officers must be appointed by the Board. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007:

a) Appoint the following Metro Vancouver staff: Michael Hughes and Luke Smith as Municipal Sewage Control Officers Kathy Preston as Deputy Sewage Control Manager; and

b) Rescind the following Metro Vancouver staff: Karen Pyne and Johanna van den Broeke as a Municipal Sewage Control Officers; and


2. That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 – Staff Appointments” dated April 18, 2016 and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications for expenditures as one of the Metro Vancouver position is an existing budgeted position and the second provides for the backfilling of a position during a one year leave of absence. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Recent changes in staff have resulted in a need to update staff appointments under Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 and the Environmental Management Act. Staff recommend that the GVS&DD Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 adopt alternative 1. 17942784

UC - 112

To: Utilities Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services Date: April 26, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Bridge Funding for the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve: a) A contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding to the Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC to

partially fund a scaled‐back Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative in 2016; and b) A letter to the Partnership supporting their request to the Province for a 5‐year funding

commitment towards the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative.

PURPOSE To seek approval from the GVS&DD Board for a contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding and a letter of support for the continuation of the Inter‐Regional Education Initiative related to rainwater management and watershed health being coordinated through The Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC (the Partnership). BACKGROUND The Georgian Basin Inter‐Regional Educational Initiative (IRIE) is led by the Partnership. Five regional

districts are collaborating with the Partnership in the IRIE, namely: Capital Region, Nanaimo Region,

Cowichan Valley, Comox Valley and Metro Vancouver. In March/April 2015, all five Regional District

Boards passed resolutions supporting inter‐regional collaboration under the umbrella of the

Partnership.

A co‐application for a capacity‐building grant for the IRIE was made to UBCM in 2015 by the Partnership and the Cowichan Valley Regional District, on behalf of and the five regional districts participating in the IREI including Metro Vancouver, was unsuccessful in receiving 2016 funding. In response to the March 30, 2016 request from the Partnership, approval is sought from each of the regional districts for a contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding to continue a scaled back IREI programs in 2016, and a letter supporting the Partnership’s request to the Province for a 5‐year funding commitment towards the IRIE for 2017‐2021. GEORGIA BASIN INTER‐REGIONAL EDUCATION INITIATIVE (IREI) Launched in 2012, IREI provides local governments in the Metro Vancouver region with a mechanism

to collaborate, share outcomes and cross‐pollinate experience with local governments on the east

coast of Vancouver Island. The IREI program:

Helps Metro Vancouver and its members better deliver on regulatory commitments and actions identified in the ‘rainwater component’ of the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan;

Builds local government capacity through professional development;

5.7

UC - 113

Aligns with local government priorities and staff workloads; Enables local governments to leverage more with the same resources.

The focus of the IREI work plan is to promote integration of service, natural asset and financial sustainability (Sustainable Service Delivery) through an asset management process to achieve the Watershed Health Goal. Local government capacity is built through inter‐regional working sessions, cross‐fertilization of experience, and deliverables (documentation of process and outcomes). IREI deliverables include: Beyond the Guidebook Primer Series; Watershed Case Profile Series; and Water Balance Workshop Series. Metro Vancouver Collaboration Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (Plan) has, since its initial approval by the BC Minister of Environment in 2002, included important strategies and actions related to the management of stormwater and the improvement of watershed health. Much work has been undertaken over the past decade on the development of tools specific to stormwater and watershed health. Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities have become leaders in this area and now have extensive experience related to the development of the municipal Integrated Stormwater Management Plans. A number of tools, such as the water balance model initiated by Metro Vancouver in the early 2000s, have been further developed by the Province and others and are now well known and utilized by municipalities across British Columbia and beyond. This partnership arrangement of sharing information related to stormwater management and watershed health provides the collaboration needed to further the work and education across multiple sectors leading to positive and continuous improvement. This is in keeping with Action 3.2.2 of the Plan, which states that Metro Vancouver will:

Collaborate with local and senior governments, academic institutions and industry in research on wastewater treatment technology and stormwater management and associated demonstration projects, training and development of educational toolkits.

The requested 2016 bridge funding from the five regional districts would provide for continuation of education sessions related to the watershed systems approach and progress in stormwater management. Metro Vancouver is working in collaboration with its member municipalities on the development of a region‐wide baseline that will provide municipalities with an approach for on‐site rainwater management measures specific to properties undergoing redevelopment. New rainwater management tools will be shared through the IREI. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve:

a) A contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding to the Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC to partially fund a scaled‐back Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative in 2016; and

b) A letter to the Partnership supporting their request to the Province for a 5‐year funding commitment towards the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative.

UC - 114

2. That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Bridge Funding for the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative” dated April 26, 2016 and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A bridge funding request of $5,000 has been requested from Metro Vancouver, and four Vancouver Island regional district partners, by the Partnership for a scaled‐back IREI program in 2016. Metro Vancouver’s contribution could be funded from the Liquid Waste Services budget associated with stormwater management. No additional financial implications related to the collaborative support of the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative have been identified beyond the participation of staff in collaborative learning sessions. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Since the development of the water balance model in the early 2000s, Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities have collaborated with the other regional districts and the Province in the refinement of frameworks, tools and education related to stormwater management and watershed health. In accordance with the actions in the GVS&DD Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan related to collaboration with local and senior governments. It is recommended that the Board continue to support Metro Vancouver’s participation in the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative as coordinated through the Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC, a contribution of $5,000 in bridge funding to enable the delivery of a scaled‐back IREI program in 2016, and a letter to the Partnership supporting their request to the Province for a 5‐year funding commitment towards the Georgia Basin Inter‐Regional Education Initiative. Attachment: Letter from Kim Stephens, Partnership for Watershed Sustainability in BC, to Carol Mason, Metro Vancouver dated March 30, 2016 17957473

UC - 115

Request for Bridge Funding

Date: March 30, 2016

To: Metro Vancouver

Attention: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer

From: Kim A Stephens, M.Eng., P.Eng., Executive Director

Re: Georgia Basin Inter-Regional Education Initiative (IREI)

In April 2015, the Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) and the Partnership for Water

Sustainability submitted a co-application to UBCM for a capacity-building grant to fund the IREI

through 2017.

The co-application was submitted on behalf of the five regional districts participating in the IREI,

namely: Cowichan Valley, Capital Region, Metro Vancouver, Comox Valley and Nanaimo Region.

In January 2016, UBCM advised that the co-application was not successful. Subsequently, UBCM staff

advised CVRD and the Partnership as follows:

• The co-application still has merit.

• Therefore, re-apply in the second intake (end of 2016)

UBCM has encouraged Partnership and CVRD to re-apply for these two reasons:

• The IREI program objectives align fully with the provincial strategy to implement Asset

Management for Sustainable Service Delivery: A Framework for BC.

• The Partnership develops web-based tools and technical guidance resources, supported by

outreach and training for land and water professionals.

The re-application would not result in funding until early 2017. Without funding in 2016, however,

the Partnership would not be able to continue its role to help local governments.

Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to ask that Metro Vancouver:

1. Contribute $5000 in bridge funding so that the Partnership can support the Metro

Vancouver component of a scaled back IREI program in 2016.

2. Provide the Partnership with a letter supporting the Partnership’s request to the Province

for a 5-year funding commitment towards the Georgia Basin Inter-Regional Educational

Initiative.

Each of the four Vancouver Island partner regional districts has each committed to providing $5000

each in bride funding.

Attachment

UC - 116

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager ‐ Water Services

Simon So, General Manager – Liquid Waste Services Date: May 3, 2016 Meeting Date: May 19, 2016 Subject: Managers’ Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated May 3, 2016.

1. Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station – Tim Jervis

Constructed as part of the Langley‐Surrey Water Supply project, the new Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station in Pitt Meadows improves the reliability and capacity of water supply to Maple Ridge, Langley City, Langley Township and Surrey. With an ultimate design flow rate of over 400 ML/d, this pump station is one of the largest municipal water distribution pump stations in the Province. The pump station utilizes six 1000 horsepower pumps during initial operation with provision for two additional pumps when water demands increase in the future. This $46.5 million project incorporates sustainable design elements such as on‐site storm water control, a green roof with indigenous plants, locally supplied glulam beams, pumps with water‐cooled motors, energy efficient lighting and equipment, and the ability to expand to meet future demands. The final stages of testing and commissioning are nearing completion and the pump station is expected to commence full service in late May 2016. An official opening celebration event is planned for June 15 and will include participation from elected officials, staff, project partners, First Nations and key stakeholders. 2. Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 1 Upgrade – Simon So

The Northwest Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 1 upgrade, required to increase treatment capacity to meet growth demands, comprises an activated sludge tank, three secondary clarifiers, a pump station, a 25kV substation and process control buildings. The new treatment facility has been designed to produce a high effluent quality in terms of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solid (TSS) removal to protect human health and the environment. Construction of this project commenced in March 2014 and achieved a significant milestone in April 2016 when it successfully completed a 5‐day full operational test in remote automatic mode to ensure the new facility meets all the design and operating performance criteria. Next steps will include final tie‐ins to the existing plant followed by commissioning and final acceptance. The new facility is expected to commence full service in June 2016. The $55.3 million project will be completed under budget.

5.9

UC - 117

3. Utilities Committee – 2016 Work Plan – Tim Jervis/Simon So

Attached is the updated 2016 Work Plan indicating the status of the Committee’s key priorities together with the quarter that each priority is expected to be considered by the Committee. Attachment: 1. Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

UC - 118

Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

Priorities

1st Quarter Status

2016 Committee Priorities and Work Plan Complete

2016 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Phase 1 Amendments Complete Seymour River Rockslide Update Complete Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station Commissioning In Progress Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Hospitals and Health Care Facilities using Pollution Prevention Plans

Complete

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete

2nd Quarter

Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign including Water Wagon In Progress Water Supply Forecast and Consumption Update for Summer 2016 Complete Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Complete GVWD Quality Control Annual Report for 2015 Complete GVWD & Municipal Water Demand by Sector In Progress Seismic Resiliency of GVWD & GVS&DD Systems In Progress Long Term Water Supply Strategy In Progress Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve Public Consultation Update In Progress

Seymour Salmonid Society ‐2015 Annual Report Complete

Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant Complete

Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Post‐Secondary and Research Laboratories using Pollution Prevention Plans

In Progress

Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharge of Food Waste from Food Service Establishments

In Progress

2015 Wipes Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Pitt Meadows): Pilot Results and 2016 Regional Campaign

Complete

2015 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Surrey): Pilot Results Complete

Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for Port Moody – Coquitlam Drainage Area Pending

Iona Island WWTP Secondary Upgrade – Project Initiation In Progress

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update In Progress Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) In Progress Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) In Progress

UC - 119

3rd Quarter Status

Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds In Progress Joint Water Use Plan Update In Progress EOCP Policy Changes and Public Health and Environmental Risk Management Plans In Progress Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending Region‐wide Baseline for Onsite Stormwater Management Consultation Findings and Recommendations

Pending

GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report 2015 In Progress Liquid Waste Services Environmental Management and Monitoring Initiatives Pending

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Pending Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending

4th Quarter

Summer 2016 Water Supply Performance In Progress 2017 Budget – Water & Liquid Waste Pending Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending

Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign Update Pending

Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – Project Definition Update In Progress Water Shortage Response Plan Review ‐ Phase 2 Amendments In Progress Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel Commissioning In Progress

Comprehensive Regional Water System Plan Update In Progress

Regional Assessment of Residential Water Metering In Progress

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Pending

2016 Regional Wipes Behaviour Change Campaign: Update In Progress

2016 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Richmond): Update and Regional Campaign

In Progress

Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending

Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending

UC - 120

6.1

UC - 121

~4 metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

APR 2 9 1016

Mayor lois E. Jackson The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

_)pj. s Dear M_gy.o~: v-

Re: GVS&DD Fermentation Operations Bylaw No. 294, 2015

Office of the Chair Tel. 604 432 6215 Fa1< 604 451 6614

File: PE-13-01

Thank you for your letter dated March 22, 2016 regarding the recently adopted "GVS&DD Fermentation Operations Bylaw" (the "Bylaw') and its potential impact on small business owners.

The purpose of the Bylaw is to reduce and prevent spent grains, fruit and yeast from smaller fermentation operations from going down the drain and straining our wastewater system. The Bylaw was adopted by the Board of the GVS&DD ('Metro Vancouver') on November 27, 2015.

Metro Vancouver staff carried out consultation on the Bylaw with sector representatives between summer 2014 and fall 2015. Since the Bylaw has been adopted, Metro Vancouver has received some questions and concerns regarding the requirements similar to those identified in your letter. Staff have addressed these concerns in the following way:

• Met with the Canadian Craft Winemakers Association to clarify Bylaw requirements • Updated the Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide (attached) to clarify sampling point and

monitoring requirements • Sent out an email and letter notifying stakeholders that the Fermentation Operations Bylaw

Guide has been updated to clarify the sampling point and monitoring requirements

Metro Vancouver staff will carry out site visits to all fermentation operations to discuss the Bylaw requirements and provide guidance on compliance over the next few months. Some of the Bylaw requirements came into effect on the date of its adoption. However, there are aspects of the Bylaw that will be phased in to allow operators time to come into compliance. One of these aspects is the provision of a sampling point, which will not come into effect until July 1, 2016. By this time, stakeholders will have received the updated Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide clarifying the sampling point and monitoring requirements. The update includes examples of sampling points, which will be different based on the scale and type of operation.

With regard to the fees, Metro Vancouver charges administrative fees of $200 per year to recover the costs to administer and enforce the Bylaw. These costs include staffing, sampling and analysis. The same effort is required for administration regardless of the operation size which is why they are

4330 King sway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4GB • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.o rg

Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Ora nage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporat on

UC - 122

Mayor Lois E. Jackson, The Corporation of Delta GVS&DD Fermentation Operations Bylaw No. 294, 2015

Page 2 of 2

a flat rate. Treatment fees are charged based on an operation's annual production so that the costs are lower for smaller operations.

Metro Vancouver will continue to work with stakeholders and their related Associations and Guilds as the Bylaw phases in over the next year to ensure that the requirements are clear and achievable.

Yours truly,

/

Grek-MD~ Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

GM/SS/aw

cc: Chair and Directors, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver Michael Hind, Executive Director, Canadian Craft Winemakers Association Delta Council George V. Harvie, Chief Administrative Officer Steven Lan, Director of Engineering

Attachment: Metro Vancouver Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide, Spring 2016

18061071

UC - 123

metrovancouver ......... _. SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION ~

UC - 124

Metro Vancouver Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide

Spring 2016

Metro Vancouver wishes to thank Main Street Brewing Company, Granville Island Brewing, Big Rock Urban Brewery, and R&B Brewing Co. for allowing us to use images of their fermentation operations for demonstration purposes.

C Copyright 2016 Greater Vancouver Regional District

Disclaimer Copyright to this publication is owned by the Greater Vancouver Regional District ("Metro Vancouver"). Permission is granted to produce or reproduce this publication, or any substantial part of it, for personal, non·commercial, educational and informational purposes only, provided that the publication is not modified or altered and provided that this copyright notice and disclaimer is included in any such production or reproduction. Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, as amended or replaced from time to time.

While the information in this publication is believed to be accurate, this publication and all of the information contained in it are provided • as is • without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. All implied warranties, including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are expressly disclaimed by Metro Vancouver.

The material provided in this publication is intended lor educational and informational purposes only. This publication is not intended to endorse or recommend any particular product, material or service provider nor is it intended as a substitute lor engineering, legal or other professional advice. Such advice should be sought from qualified professionals.

UC - 125

Fermentation Operations Bylaw

Beginning November 27, 2015, Metro Vancouver is implementing a new bylaw to reduce and prevent spent grains, fruit and yeast from smaller fermentation operations from going down the drain.

The Fermentation Operations Bylaw applies to any business using yeast

to produce alcoholic beverages and discharging up to 300 m3 (300,000 L)

of wastewater into the sewer within 30 days, including brew pubs, cottage

breweries, micro-breweries, vint-on-premises, wineries, distilleries and u-brews.

Ensuring waste from fermentation operations is managed responsibly A rise in the number of fermentation operations in the Metro Vancouver region has increased the volume of spent grains, fruit and yeast entering and stressing the sewer system. The bylaw requires fermentation operations to remove solids from wastewater and monitor and control the pH of cleaning and sterilization water.

The Fermentation Operations Bylaw was developed in consultation with operators from across the region and reflects the distinct conditions of their operations. The bylaw is a set of standards operators need to meet; it was designed so there are multiple ways of achieving the standards, depending on a business' unique situation.


Supporting fermentation operations to comply with the bylaw This guide describes each bylaw requirement and offers support to fermentation operators to comply with the new regulation.

The guide is a companion piece to the Fermentation Operations Bylaw which can be found at www.metrovancouver.org by searching "Fermentation Operations Bylaw."

Operators are also encouraged to contact Metro Vancouver at 604-432-6200 and speak to an Officer with any questions or comments about the bylaw. In Vancouver, the bylaw is managed and enforced by the City of Vancouver local government. Fermentation operations within the City of Vancouver should call 3-1-1 for any inquiries related to the bylaw.

Contact information

Metro Vancouver: Call. 604-•BZ -6200 Ern;, :: r eguliltioncnforcernen t ~·f metr ov;,nco uver o • g

City of Vancouver: (for operations in the City of Vancouver only)

Call 3-1 -1 Em<lrl em·. r o n menta lp ro tect ron:9.'va ncouver.cc1

PAGEl

UC - 126

When coarse solids like spent grains and fruit, and fine solids suspended in water, like yeast, enter the sewer it stresses the system and costs money to maintain and repair.

This requirement ensures both coarse and suspended solids are removed from wastewater.

Bylaw requirement • The discharge of coarse spent grains or fruit pulp

to the sewer is prohibited on the date the bylaw is enacted.

• The maximum concentration of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) shall not exceed 1,200 mg/L

All operations must comply with the TSS limit effective January 1, 2017.

Supporting compliance

Operations employing Best Management :ractices for this sector usually have TSS concentrations under BOO mg/L.

PAGE4

In practice

Since it is unlawful to put organic solids in the garbage, some breweries have made arrangements to have their spent grains delivered to farmers to use as feed.

Operators are encouraged to call their waste hauler to learn about customized waste management services or contact processing facilities around the region to see what materials can be accepted.

Operators can contact the Recycling Council of . BC (www.rcbc.ca} to learn how to manage organic waste. RCBC can connect operators to the right resources to help them develop or improve an organics management program. ·


UC - 127

To ensure operators and regulatory staff have accurate knowledge of wastewater quality, they must be able to access wastewater for sampling purposes.

Bylaw requirement

Fermentation operations must provide a suitable sampling point that can be accessed during operating hours by July 1, 2016. A suitable sampling point must be: • Downstream from fermentation equipment; • Downstream from any equipment or device for

treating wastewater; • Upstream from washrooms; and • Easily accessible.

TrN tment Equipment


The intent of this requirement is that both operators and Metro Vancouver staff will be able to gather a representative sample of the wastewater produced from a fermentation operation. Examples of sampling points for operations with or without treatment equipment are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

In practice

The sampling point will be different based on the scale and type of operation. Fermentation operators are strongly encouraged to contact regulation staff to confirm their plans before installing a sampling point. Regulation staff would be pleased to provide guidance and suggestions on the appropriate sampling point type and location.

- - -

:·r-., ! • . · \.:r"" . \ 1,4

·- •• , ~ ~ • •• ; .~ , , ... ~ ~~, 1.: ~~ ·~ . ·~; • ' . · · • t· ._·· ·.· .. ·~ · . ..

~ ~ t5? ~ Fermentation Sink Spigot or Trade Waste S.mpii"!Cint must be loatH upsttwun

Vassel Check Valve Interceptor Df W IODIM and Dthet SDIII"Cee Df w•tewater untel818d tG r...m.nt.t~on

In some cases, In operations that empcy the lnstafmg a spigot or check It may be possible to use Please contact regulatory staff samples an be fermentation vessel into a valve, either underneath a an eJ<isting trade waste

drawn directly from 1 sink, it may be possible to sid: or further downstrum, interceptor. as long as it Is to discuss your options prior to carboy or other smd simply plug the sink and may be considered an a«eSSible and upstream

installing a new sampling point. fermentation vessel. take samples from there. acceptable sampr.ng point. of washrooms.

Metro Vancouver Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide PAGES

UC - 128

Cleaning and sterilizing activities for fermentation operations can impact the pH levels of wastewater which can damage pipes and can cause chemical imbalances that may be dangerous for workers in the sewer. This requirement ensures wastewater is tested regularly and adjusted to meet appropriate pH levels.

Bylaw requirement

Each operation is required to monitor and record wastewater pH. On days operators clean and sterilize fermentation equipment, they must measure and record pH at least once. The pH level must be measured immediately after sampling using an onsite pH meter.

Bottles are not considered fermentation equipment and therefore are excluded from the sampling requirement.

pH monitoring should begin once the sampling point is installed, to determine whether the wastewater complies with the Sewer Use Bylaw range of 5.5 to 10.5.

By October 31,2016, all operations are required to submit a pH Characterization Report showing their daily pH results. Metro Vancouver recommends using the form provided on page 10, which is also available on Metro Vancouver's website. The Characterization Report must include all data collected between July 1 and September 30,2016.

Other types of forms, such as a calendar, may be used by operators as long as the required information (date, time, pH) is clearly provided.

If the Characterization Report shows an operation is d ischarging wastewater with a pH outside the 5.5 to 10.5 range they will be required to submit a Compliance Plan to Metro Vancouver or City of Vancouver regulatory staff by January 31 , 2017.

The Compliance Plan will detail the works and/or procedures the operator will undertake to treat the wastewater to fall within the pH range. See page 11 to view the elements of a Compliance Plan.

Wastewater pH levels for all operations must be in compliance effective July 1, 2017.

PAGE6


In order to obtain a representative and accurate pH reading, fermentation operators should use a digital handheld pH meter. Meters can be obtained from a scientific supply retailer.

Operators should not use pH paper strips (paper) since they do not provide an accurate measure of wastewater pH.

Metro Vancouver Fermentat ion Operations Bylaw Guide

UC - 129

Records are required so regulatory staff can confirm operators are complying with the bylaw when they inspect the facility. Record keeping can also help operators understand the nature of their wastewater overtime.

Bylaw requirement

Operators are required to keep the following records: • Hectolitres (hi) of packaged product being

produced per calendar month • Dates, times and results of pH testing

Operators must maintain records of monthly hi of product. Copies of data recorded by operators for tax purposes (Canada Revenue Agency) would be acceptable. Record keeping of daily pH testing must begin July 1, 2016.

These records must be kept at the facility and available for inspection for a minimum of two years.


Metro Vancouver has created a simple template for recording pH testing that can be copied from this guide (see page 10) or downloaded from the Metro Vancouver website and used to track this data.

Other types of forms, such as a calendar, may be used by operators as long as the required information (date, time, pH) is clearly provided.

The Characterization Report noted in Requirement 3 is all data collected between July 1 and September 30,2016


You can download a copy of the Fermentation Operations Bylaw Monthly Reporting Form at

www.metrovancouver.org, search: "Fermentation Operations Bylaw"

PAGE7

UC - 130

Treatment fees are designed to recover the costs of conveying and treating the wastewater from fermentation operations.

Bylaw requirement

All fermentation operations are required to pay an annual amount for treatment fees based on their annual production from the previous year. The annual fees are presented in the fee table, at right.

Treatment fees will be invoiced within the first six months of each calendar year beginning in 2016.

Metro Vancouver will determine the appropriate fee based on information collected for Provincial or Federal government agencies for tax purposes, or an operator's records if it is a new operation.

Administrative fees recover the costs to administer and enforce the bylaw. These costs include staffing, sampling and analysis.

Bylaw requirement

Operators are required to pay an annual administration fee of $200 to Metro Vancouver or the City of Vancouver to cover the costs of regulating fermentation operations under this bylaw.

Regulatory fees will be invoiced within the first six months of each year and are payable by the date specified.

PAGES

TREATMENT FEE TABLE

OPERATIONS PRODUCING BEER, OPERATIONS CIDER OR WINE PRODUCING SPIRITS

Production Annual (hl) Treatment Fees An annual $100

0 - 1000 $ 250 treatment fee will be

charged to d istilleties.

1001 - 2000 $ 750 Operations with mixed

2001 . 3000 $ 1,250 production (e.g. brewery and d istillery

3001 - 4000 $ 1,750 at one site) do not pay

4001 . 5000 $ 2,250 the annual treatment fee for spirits if they

5001 . 6000 $ 2.750 produce beer, cider or wine.

)> 6001 $ 3,500


UC - 131

Off-spec product (bad batches) is very high in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) which can negatively impact the region's wastewater treatment plants.


Off· spec management depends on the volume produced:

• Off-spec over 1 00 litres and under 2000 litres per day: notify Metro Vancouver or the City of Vancouver by phone or email and then discharge. No response is required from Metro Vancouver or the City of Vancouver. Record the date, time and volume of off-spec in the appropriate section of the Monthly Reporting Form.

• Off-spec over 2000 litres per day: contact Metro Vancouver or the City of Vancouver by phone, email or online and obtain authorization before discharging to the sewer. Record the date, time and votume of off-spec in the appropriate section of the Monthly Reporting Form. Metro Vancouver/City of Vancouver will typically respond to your notification within one to two business days.

This requirement comes into effect immediately.

PAGE9

UC - 132

a metrovancouver .. Fermentation Operations Bylaw Reporting Form

Instructions: On days that you clean and sterilize fermentation equipment, measure and record wastewater pH at least once.

Date: ____________________________ __

Date Tme pH Sampling point

(indicate location if moro' than oncr) I

OH-spec discharge report

Date Time Volume

I

Sampled by

PAGE 10 Metro Vancouver Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide

I

UC - 133

Compliance Plan Overview A compliance plan is a document which includes: • a statement of objectives • a description of the approach that will be taken to meet the objectives • a schedule

The compliance plan must outline your approach to resolving the compliance issue and may involve the use of your in-house resources or the services of a qualified consultant.

Statement of Objectives

The statement of objectives must define what is to be achieved by the compliance plan and must include a compliance date.

Description of Approach

The solution to a non-compliance issue may be immediately evident or may require further study and evaluation of alternatives. Alternatives may include:

• modification to the process generating wastewater

• modification to procedures

• repair of defective equipment, or

• installation of new treatment works.

Schedule

A schedule for completion should be included which contains a timeline of design, procurement, construction, and system commissioning.

Metro Vancouver Review

In reviewing the compliance plan, Metro Vancouver will evaluate the statement of objectives, the commitment of resources, and the proposed schedule. Metro Vancouver will review the compliance plan and respond with comments. Metro Vancouver's evaluation of the compliance plan and recommendations will consider

• the appropriateness of the alternatives

• data quality

• soundness of the recommendations, and

• the implementation schedule.

Implementation of the Compliance Plan

When implementing the compliance plan, you will be required to submit regular progress reports to Metro Vancouver updating the status of the activities listed in the submitted schedule. Report frequency will be determined following completion of Metro Vancouver's evaluation.

Completion

The compliance program is complete when you have successfully demonstrated full and consistent compliance with the requirements of the Fermentation Operations Bylaw through a compliance verification process.

Fermentation Operations Bylaw Implementation Schedule R;q~-i~~~~·~i~· i--.. ~ --~-- - - .. _ ... -

l~ ~~~-! - - :· strri~~-<·~-h~~~ -~~r·~ . . - -.o:: ... .Jo.

1. Remove solids

a. Discharge of coarse solids prohibited November 27, 201 5

b. Max. concentration of TSS must not exceed 1,200 mgll January 1, 2017

2. Install a sampling point July 1, 2016

3. Monitor and t reat wastewater pH

a. Record pH July 1, 2016

b. Submit Characterization Report (July, Aug, Sept forms) By: October 31, 2016

c. Submit Compliance Plan (only if directed by By: January 31, 2017 if applicable Metro Vancouver/City of Vancouver)

4. Keep records

a. Record hi/month November 27, 201 5

b. Record pH on days when cleaning and sterilizing occur July 1, 2016

5. Pay Treatment Fees Invoices sent to operators between January and June every year beginning in 2016

6. Pay Regulat ory Fees Invoices sent to operators between January and June every year beginning in 2016

7. Manage off-spec product November 27, 2015

Metro Vancouver Fermentation Operations Bylaw Guide PAGE 11

UC - 134

Important contact information

Metro Vancouver: Call: 604-432-6200 Email: [email protected]

City of Vancouver: (for operations in the City of Vancouver only} Call: 3-1-1 Email: [email protected]

metrovancouver ....... ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A UVABLE REGION ~

Date post:	02-Nov-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE · GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT...

Documents