gvsdd board agenda package - november 27, 2009€¦ · director joe trasolini, port moody director...

AGENDA

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

(GVS&DD) REGULAR MEETING

Friday, November 27, 2009

9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Board Members: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North

Vancouver District Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director George Chow, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan. Burnaby Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby

Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner, J. Carline*

Please advise Kelly Weilbacher at (604) 432-6250 if you are unable to attend.

* Non-voting member

This page left blank intentionally.

November 18, 2009

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT (GVS&DD)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

9:00 a.m. Friday, November 27, 2009

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

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

1. November 27, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 27, 2009 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. October 16, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its special meeting held October 16, 2009 as circulated.

2. October 30, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held October 30, 2009 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item.

Section A 1

SDD-1

1. WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS

Note: The following items will be considered by the Waste Management Committee on November 23, 2009. Any resulting changes to recommendations will be presented on table at the board meeting.

1.1 Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated October 30, 2009, titled “Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results”.

1.2 Liquid Waste Management Plan

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board adopt the Liquid Waste Management Plan, November 2009 (Attachment 1), and direct staff to forward the Plan to the GVS&DD member municipality councils for their endorsement prior to submitting the Plan to the B.C. Ministry of Environment for their approval.

1.3 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson

Crescent, Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the residential building at 24845 Robertson Crescent in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 49 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson Crescent, Township of Langley”.

1.4 Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th

Ave., Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the building footprint of the structures proposed to be built on the properties described as LT 2 & 3, SEC 2, TWP 7, NWD, PL BCP11402 in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 48 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th Ave., Township of Langley”.

2. ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY REPORTS 2.1 Discharge of Grease into the Sewer System

Environment and Energy Committee Recommendation: That the Board send a letter to the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, and a copy to the Premier’s office, underscoring the importance of amendments to provincial legislation which would provide the GVS&DD with ticketing powers and the ability to increase the level of fines available under the Sewer Use Bylaw; and highlighting both the economic and environmental reasons why the legislative amendments are required.

SDD-2

3. OTHER REPORTS 3.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – November

2009 Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated November 18, 2009, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – November 2009”.

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

Note: The following item will be considered by the Waste Management Committee on November 23, 2009. Any resulting changes to recommendations will be presented on table at the board meeting.

1. Amendment to GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007

Waste Management Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2009”; b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2009”.

Note: The following item will be considered by the Housing Committee on November 20, 2009. Any resulting changes to recommendations will be presented on table at the board meeting.

2. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost

Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Housing Committee Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to the Greater

Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009; and

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

No items presented.

I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

SDD-3

J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item the basis must be included below. Staff Recommendation: That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for November 27, 2009 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (g) (h) (i) and (k) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal

hearing affecting the regional district, other than a hearing to be conducted by the board or committee or a delegate of board or committee;

(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and

(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.”

K. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of November 27, 2009.

SDD-4

MINUTES

SDD-5


SDD-6

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, October 16, 2009 Page 1 of 3

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Special Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held at 9:25 a.m. on Friday, October 16, 2009 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Alternate Director Mary Wade Anderson,

White Rock for Catherine Ferguson Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director George Chow, Vancouver

(arrived at 9:32 a.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows

Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Alternate Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver

for Gregor Robertson Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Alternate Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey

for Linda Hepner Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Alternate Director Barbara Steele, Surrey

for Dianne Watts Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Commissioner Johnny Carline*

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township

Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City

STAFF PRESENT: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department

Priya Rai, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department

A. WAIVE SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board waive notice of the October 16, 2009 special meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Board in accordance with Section 3.5 (Calling and Conduct of Meetings) of the Procedure Bylaw.

CARRIED

* Non-voting member.

Section B 1

SDD-7


B. MEETING PURPOSE

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) hear the invited presentation from Chief Robert Pascoe; and b) resolve to close its special meeting scheduled for October 16, 2009, pursuant to

the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2)(b) as follows: “90 (2) A part of a board meeting must be closed to the public if the subject

matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and third party.”

CARRIED C. INVITED PRESENTATION

1. Chief Pasco, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council Chief Robert Pasco, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council and Grand Chief Doug Kelly, Soowahlie First Nation, were present to speak to the Board on the issue of the Solid Waste Management Plan and interior land filling. Chief Pascoe raised the importance of the environment for future generations, extended his appreciation to the Board for their efforts in providing solutions to waste management and highlighted the 2010 economic boost to the economy and resulting impacts.

9:32 a.m.

Director Chow arrived at the meeting.

Chief Kelly reflected on past First Nation history, the evolution of changes in government relations and the importance of conflict resolution and connectivity in discussion. Discussion ensued on the following: • senior government and First Nations jointly designing a consultation

process • ability of First Nations to express views in their language • need for solutions to waste management • need for education on current waste-to-energy technologies An invitation was extended to Chief Pasco to attend future Waste Management Committees as a non-voting observer.

SDD-8


D. ADJOURNMENT

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its special meeting of October 16, 2009.

CARRIED Director Chow absent at the vote.

(Time: 10:14 a.m.) CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

Lois E. Jackson, Chair

004982068 DRAFT

SDD-9


SDD-10

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held on Friday, October 30, 2009 Page 1 of 5

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors held at 9:17 a.m. on Friday, October 30, 2009 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Alternate Director Mary Wade Anderson, White Rock for Catherine Ferguson Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director George Chow, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver

Alternate Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam for Richard Stewart Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Alternate Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver for Gregor Robertson Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Alternate Director Barbara Steele, Surrey for Dianne Watts Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:18 a.m.) Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Alternate Director Lori Williams, New Westminster for Wayne Wright Deputy Commissioner Delia Laglagaron*

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver

STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Commissioner Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department

Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s

Department

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. October 30, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 30, 2009 as presented.

CARRIED Director Martin absent at the vote.

* Non-voting member.

Section B 2

SDD-11


B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. September 11, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes of the special joint meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD), and Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) Boards of Directors (Greater Vancouver District Boards) held September 11, 2009 as circulated.


2. September 25, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held September 25, 2009 as circulated.


C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA

9:18 a.m. Director Stevenson arrived at the meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the October 30, 2009 GVS&DD Board Consent Agenda: 1.1 Solid Waste Management Communications Strategy Update 1.2 Additional Regional Organic Waste Management Facilities 1.3 GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2008 Financial Results 2.1 GVS&DD Temporary Borrowing Authority 2.2 Draft Metro Vancouver Districts’ 2010 Budget

CARRIED The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows: 1.1 Solid Waste Management Communications Strategy Update

Report dated October 4, 2009 from David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, Corporate Relations Department, informing on the progress to date on implementing the communications strategy in support of the development of the Solid Waste Management Plan that was endorsed by the Waste Management Committee on August 28, 2009.

SDD-12


Recommendation: That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report dated October 4, 2009, titled “Solid Waste Management Communications Strategy Update”.

Adopted on Consent

1.2 Additional Regional Organic Waste Management Facilities Report dated October 13, 2009 from Toivo Allas, Manager, Policy and Planning Department, informing the Board of the process to identify municipalities interested in hosting organic waste management facilities. Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated October 13, 2009, titled “Additional Regional Organic Waste Management Facilities”.

Adopted on Consent

1.3 GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2008 Financial Results Report dated September 8, 2009 from Carol De La Franier, Senior Engineer, Engineering and Construction Department, providing the 2008 financial results for the GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement. Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated September 8, 2009, titled “GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2008 Financial Results”.

Adopted on Consent 2.1 GVS&DD Temporary Borrowing Authority

Report dated September 14, 2009 from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, seeking renewal of the authority for 2010 which permits temporary borrowing, should it be required, in anticipation of revenues during the year. Recommendation: That the Board authorize the borrowing from the District’s Banker or others in the course of the calendar year 2010 in anticipation of the collection of its revenue, of a sum or sums of money, the outstanding total of which shall not exceed $12 million at any one time, by the issue of promissory notes or by such other means as are appropriate.

Adopted on Consent

2.2 Draft Metro Vancouver Districts’ 2010 Budget Report dated October 20, 2009 from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, seeking approval of the 2010 revenue and expenditure budgets, use of reserves, and capital expenditures, and to set the solid waste tipping fee.

SDD-13


Recommendation: 1) That the Board approve the 2010 Revenue and Expenditure Budgets,

use of Reserves, and Capital Expenditures as shown in the following schedules: A1 Revenue and Expenditure Summary A4 2010 Budget - Proposed Application of Reserves B14 GVS&DD 2010 Budget B15-B16 GVS&DD Capital Programs & Project Details B17 Solid Waste 2010 Budget B18-B19 Solid Waste Capital Programs & Project Details B20 Solid Waste – Wastech Services Capital Plan

2) That the Board set the regional Solid Waste Tipping Fee at $82 per tonne.

Adopted on Consent

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items presented.

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT

AGENDA

1. 2010 Tipping Fee Bylaw No. 250 Report dated October 15, 2009 from the Waste Management Committee, together with report dated September 30, 2009 from Carol De La Franier, Senior Engineer, Engineering and Construction Department, seeking authorization to adopt the Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 250, 2009, which outlines the tipping fees for 2010. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 250, 2009”.

CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 250, 2009”.

CARRIED

2. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 2010 Cost Apportionment Bylaw 251, 2009 Report dated September 15, 2009 from Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, seeking approval of the Cost Apportionment Bylaw 251, 2009. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board give leave to introduce “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 2010 Cost Apportionment Bylaw No. 251, 2009”, being a

SDD-14


bylaw governing the distribution of the GVS&DD tax levy for 2010, and that it be read a first, second and third time.

CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 2010 Cost Apportionment Bylaw No. 251, 2009”.

CARRIED

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.

I. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented. J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for October 30, 2009 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e), (g), (i), and (k) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board 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;

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,

including communications necessary for that purpose; and (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed

provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.”

CARRIED

K. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of October 30, 2009.

CARRIED (Time: 9:25 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

Lois E. Jackson, Chair

004986773 FINAL

SDD-15


SDD-16

CONSENT AGENDA

SDD-17


SDD-18

004953711

Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009

To: Waste Management Committee From: Marie Griggs, Public Involvement Division Manager Engineering and Construction Department Date: October 30, 2009 Subject: Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results

Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated October 30, 2009, titled “Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results”. 1. PURPOSE This report summarizes the consultation program and the input received on the Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) between May 31, 2008 and October 30, 2009. 2. CONTEXT On February 29, 2008, the Board approved a consultation program to review the discussion document, Strategy to Update the Liquid Waste Management Plan. Consultation took place between March and May 2008, and included public meetings, municipal workshops, municipal advisory committee meetings, LWMP Reference Panel meetings, correspondence and discussions with agencies and First Nations. The results of the consultation process were reported to the Waste Management Committee (WMC) and Board in July 2008. Guided by the input received on the Strategy to Update the LWMP, Metro Vancouver drafted a Liquid Waste Management Plan. The draft LWMP was presented to the Regional Administrators Advisory Committee, Regional Engineers Advisory Committee, the WMC and the Board in the fall of 2008. Metro Vancouver staff was given authorization to proceed with consultation on the draft LWMP by the WMC and Board on October 31, 2008, with a modification indicating that the draft LWMP should contain three timeline options for the secondary treatment upgrades of the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants. Metro Vancouver proceeded to consult with key advisory committees, including the LWMP Reference Panel, on the draft plan. A subsequent modification to the draft plan was proposed to the Board in March of 2009. The amended draft contained changes that would better align the Metro Vancouver LWMP with provincial programs and initiatives, a new focus on integrated resource management, and other Metro Vancouver management plans. At its March 27, 2009 meeting, the Board authorized staff to consult on the modified draft plan.

Section E 1.1

SDD-19

Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 15

The purpose of this most recent phase of consultation was to gain feedback on the modified draft plan before final consideration by the Board later in 2009. The results of these consultations were considered in the drafting of the final LWMP. The final LWMP is also contained in the meeting agenda for the Committee and Board approval. Following an approval of the final LWMP by the Waste Management Committee, Board and Metro Vancouver member Councils, Metro Vancouver will submit a final consultation report and the final LWMP to the Minister of Environment for approval. 2.1 Program Overview The consultation and communications program for this phase was implemented to inform a range of audiences about issues and options within the LWMP. The consultation program was structured to encourage the Metro Vancouver public, Metro Vancouver members, First Nations, adjacent regional districts, government agencies and ministries, LWMP committees and other key interest groups to participate and provide input. The next section of this report outlines the consultation activities by audience, the variety of methods for submitting comments and common themes of comments received. See Attachment 1 for a diagram of the consultation framework, outlining the phases of the process. 2.2 Components 2.2.1 Public Five public meetings, attended by a wide range of community representatives, were held throughout the region between April 15 and April 28, 2009 to gather input on the draft LWMP. Participants at the meetings included residents and elected representatives, as well as members of business, community and environmental organizations. Environmental organizations in attendance included: T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Fraser River Coalition, Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society, Georgia Strait Alliance, Habitat Insurance, Silver Creek Streamkeepers, and Sustainable Community Initiative. Community associations included: Burquitlam Community Association, Edgemont Community Association, Norgate Park Community Association, Quayside Village Cohousing and West End Residents Association. Also present were representatives from the Semiahmoo First Nation. Business was represented by nine different organizations affected by liquid waste management issues. In total, approximately 70 participants were in attendance. Note that the number of meeting participants referred to in this report is approximate as registration forms were used as the basis of measurement. Each meeting followed the following format: welcoming and closing remarks by a member of the Waste Management Committee, a presentation by local municipal staff on innovative liquid waste management activities taking place in their municipality, an overview by Metro Vancouver staff of the draft LWMP and a presentation about relevant liquid waste management topics related to that sewerage area, and a question-and-answer session.

SDD-20

Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan: Consultation Program Results Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009

Page 3 of 15

The following table is a summary of public meetings held in Metro Vancouver on the LWMP during this phase of consultation: Meeting Locations (and Geographic Areas) Date (2009) Vancouver (Vancouver Sewerage Area) April 15 Richmond (Lulu Island Sewerage Area) April 21 Coquitlam (Fraser North Sewerage Area) April 22 Surrey (Fraser South Sewerage Area) April 23 North Vancouver (North Shore Sewerage Area) April 28

2.2.2 Metro Vancouver Members At the initiation of the consultation program, correspondence was sent to Mayors and Councils of Metro Vancouver member municipalities to update them on the draft LWMP development process, inform them of the public meeting schedule and technical forum (an intergovernmental workshop designed to share perspectives on the opportunities and challenges related to managing the region’s liquid waste) and solicit input on the draft LWMP. Member municipalities were also specifically requested to provide Metro Vancouver with Council resolutions regarding their response to the draft LWMP. Similar correspondence was also sent separately to members of the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC), REAC liquid waste sub-committee (REAC LW), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Sewerage Area Technical Committees. When the Tsawwassen First Nation became a member of Metro Vancouver on April 3, 2009, Metro Vancouver staff contacted them and offered to provide the necessary support for them to input on the draft LWMP process. In addition, the Tsawwassen First Nation was sent a letter with information on the draft LWMP development process, the public meeting schedule and technical forum, and an offer to provide presentations or other appropriate opportunities for receiving input. This letter was followed up with phone calls and a second letter. The tables below include a summary of Metro Vancouver member and municipal committee meetings where the draft LWMP was discussed. By request, Metro Vancouver staff attended some member council meetings to answer questions on the draft LWMP. In addition, a meeting among Metro Vancouver, Delta, Tsawwassen First Nation and BC Ferries took place on July 14, 2009 to discuss liquid waste planning in the area. A number of municipal committee meetings took place throughout the summer of 2009 to finalize specific details and actions contained in the LWMP.

SDD-21


Metro Vancouver Member Council and Committee Meeting Date (s) (2009) City of North Vancouver May 25 Coquitlam June 1 Surrey May 25 Richmond May 4, May 25 Burnaby May 14, May 19, June 1 Delta April 27 Langley City May 25 Langley Township May 25 Maple Ridge May 4, May 25 City of Port Coquitlam June 1 New Westminster April 20 District of North Vancouver May 25 Pitt Meadows May 19, April 30 Port Moody May 26 Vancouver June 2 White Rock May 25, June 15 West Vancouver May 25 Tsawwassen First Nation (meeting with Metro Vancouver) June 5

Municipal Committee Meetings Regional Administrators’ Advisory Committee (RAAC): September 14, 2008; February 25, 2009 (REAC invited) REAC: September 5, October 24, 2008; April 3, May 9, July 17, August 14, 21, September 11, October 2, 2009 Joint REAC & REAC LW LWMP Workshop: July 24, 2008 REAC LW: June 3, 19, December 11, 2008; February 26, April 2, June 18, July 9, 2009 Vancouver Sewerage Area Technical Committee: November 12, 2008; April 14, 2009 Fraser Sewerage Area Technical Committee: December 2, 2008; May 14, 2009 North Shore Sewerage Area Technical Committee: December 5, 2008; April 24, 2009

2.2.3 First Nations During the consultation period, letters were sent to First Nations bands, councils, nations and treaty groups in Metro Vancouver to provide information on the draft LWMP development process, inform them of the public meeting schedule and technical forum, and to offer presentations or other appropriate opportunities for receiving input. These letters were followed up with phone calls and second letters. Meetings with First Nations to discuss the LWMP occurred as follows: Tsawwassen First Nation (June 5, 2009); Musqueam Indian Band (July 21, 2009); Tsleil-Waututh Nation (October 27, 2008, March 25, 2009 and September 1, 2009); Squamish Nation (September 8, 2008), Sto:lo First Nation (May 5, 2009); Kwikwetlem First Nation (May 30, 2009 and July 8, 2009). A member of Semiahmoo First Nation attended and provided feedback at the public meeting in Surrey (April 23).

SDD-22


Page 5 of 15

2.2.4 Government Agencies and Ministries Discussions regarding the draft LWMP and the consultation program took place at meetings with the Ministry of Environment (Surrey office) before and during the consultation process. Letters were also sent to federal, provincial, and regional departments, ministries and agencies that may have an interest in Metro Vancouver’s Liquid Waste Management Plan, asking how they would like to be consulted. Second follow-up letters were sent asking for input on the draft LWMP. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development provided Metro Vancouver with a list of post-secondary institutions in the region with which to consult and letters were sent to these institutions. The following table is a summary of meetings with government agencies and ministries on the LWMP during this phase of consultation: Government Agency and Ministry Meeting Date (2009) BC Hydro June 22 BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development July 8 BC Integrated Land Management Bureau and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation August 5 BC Deputy Minister Konkin (Ministry of Environment), Deputy Minister Wall (Ministry of Community and Rural Development) and Assistant Deputy Minister Paine (Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation) October 2 BC Ministers Abbott (Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation), Bennett (Ministry of Community and Rural Development) and Penner (Ministry of Environment) and their Deputy Ministers October 7 BC Deputy Ministry Konkin and senior Ministry of Environment staff October 28

2.2.5 LWMP Committees Four LWMP Committees provided input on the draft LWMP, including the LWMP Reference Panel (RP), and three intergovernmental groups: the Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC), the Stormwater Inter-agency Liaison Group (SILG) and the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program/Fraser River Estuary Management Program (BIEAP/FREMP). These committees participated in the technical forum, in addition to holding independent meetings to discuss and provide input on the draft LWMP. 2.2.5.1 Technical Forum A technical forum (an intergovernmental workshop designed to share perspectives on the opportunities and challenges related to managing the region’s liquid waste) was held on May 6, 2009. The meeting included the following components: overview of the draft LWMP by Metro Vancouver staff; presentation on “A Different Perspective on Implementing Integrated Resource Management” by Dr. Jon O’Riordan, Director, Fidelis Resource Group; presentations on technical and advisory committee perspectives on the draft LWMP by committee chairs, followed by small group discussions on key themes of liquid waste

SDD-23


management. Approximately 30 participants attended, including representatives from the following organizations and committees:

• Organizations/Agencies: University of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Port Metro Vancouver, Fraser Health Authority, Indian and Northern Affairs, Environment Canada

• Municipalities: Township of Langley, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, City of Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, Surrey

• Committees: LWMP Reference Panel; REAC; REAC LW Sub-committee; Fraser, Vancouver and North Shore Sewerage Area Technical Committees; Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group; and the LWMP Environmental Monitoring Committee.

2.2.5.2 Reference Panel In 2008, a Reference Panel was appointed by the Board to provide additional input during the consultation process for the Liquid Waste Management Plan and report directly to the Waste Management Committee. The panel includes up to thirteen representatives residing or working in Metro Vancouver who bring a variety of perspectives to liquid waste issues, including technical experts, liquid waste management specialists, business representatives and citizens with an interest in liquid waste topics. Eleven meetings and two field trips of the LWMP Reference Panel between November 3, 2008 and September 8, 2009 took place for members to receive presentations, discuss the LWMP and develop recommendations on the draft LWMP. In addition, the Reference Panel reported out to the Waste Management Committee on four occasions (July 9, 2008, May 13, 2009, June 10, 2009 and July 15, 2009). 2.2.5.3 Environmental Monitoring Committee The Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) was created as part of the 2002 Liquid Waste Management Plan. The mandate of the EMC is to provide scientific advice and recommendations on issues relating to liquid waste discharges and their effects on receiving environments, and related environmental monitoring. The membership of the EMC consists primarily of municipal, academic and relevant senior government representatives. Six EMC meetings where the LWMP was discussed took place during the consultation period (May 31, 2008 to October 9, 2009). 2.2.5.4 Stormwater Inter-agency Liaison Group The Stormwater Inter-agency Liaison Group (SILG) was also created as part of the 2002 Liquid Waste Management Plan. The mandate of SILG is to assist with municipal implementation of actions focused on stormwater/rainwater management, and its membership consists of municipal and relevant senior government representatives. One SILG meeting where the LWMP was discussed took place during the consultation period (May 31, 2008 to October 9, 2009). 2.2.5.5 Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program/Fraser River Estuary Management Program The Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program and Fraser River Estuary Management Program (BIEAP/FREMP) are inter-governmental partnerships established to coordinate the environmental management of two significant aquatic ecosystems in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia - Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary. It is the forum identified in the 2002 LWMP to resolve environmental issues between Metro Vancouver and regulatory

SDD-24


Page 7 of 15

agencies. BIEAP/FREMP held a meeting on May 7, 2009 to develop recommendations on the draft LWMP. At the meeting on July 14, 2009, the biannual progress update report on the LWMP was discussed. 2.2.6 Adjacent Regional Districts During the consultation period, letters were sent to the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District informing them about the public meeting schedule and the technical forum, soliciting input on the plan and offering to meet regarding the plan, if requested. 2.2.7 Supporting Communication Activities The public consultation was supported by a range of activities aimed at increasing public awareness of the opportunity to become involved in deciding the future of the region and encouraging public input. The deadline for receipt of input was included in all communication activities supporting the consultation process. The following activities supported the consultation program: • Placement of advertisements in region-wide, local and ethnic newspapers with public

meeting details and other opportunities to provide input • Distribution of public meeting invitation flyers via e-mail and mail to individuals and

organizations on Metro Vancouver’s regional dialogue database and the Liquid Waste Management Plan database (approximately 1,100)

• Placement of follow-up phone calls regarding public meetings • Materials posted on the Metro Vancouver web site

(www.metrovancouver.org/services/wastewater/planning): public meeting advertisement and registration, presentation, feedback form, Metro Vancouver contact information for receipt of feedback

• Media relations support • Metro Vancouver Member, First Nation, government agency and ministry, adjacent

regional district and LWMP advisory committee notification as described in Sections 2.2.2 – 2.2.6

• Receipt of correspondence via fax, email, letter or feedback forms. 2.3 Consultation Input A summary of issues and comments raised on the draft LWMP in meetings and correspondence from the public, Metro Vancouver members, First Nations, government agencies and ministries, and LWMP committees, as well as Metro Vancouver’s responses to the input is contained in attachments 2-8. Metro Vancouver received 16 feedback forms, 44 pieces of correspondence (e-mail/fax/letter) and verbal input on the draft LWMP during the consultation program. The following sections provide an overview of key themes arising from input received during the draft LWMP consultation phase.

SDD-25


2.3.1 Public Meetings and Correspondence The following common themes regarding the draft LWMP emerged from the public meetings noted in Section 2.2.1 and through public correspondence: Increase public awareness of liquid waste management and water conservation – Participants encouraged Metro Vancouver to provide the public with ongoing education about water conservation measures and liquid waste management practices. Participants also felt it was important to inform the public about innovative technology options for managing liquid waste. It was also suggested that Metro Vancouver develop specific education programs targeting landscapers and nurseries as well as primary and secondary school students. Assist homeowners with private sewer maintenance – Participants recognized the importance of managing private sewer pipes to reduce the amount of stormwater and groundwater leaking into the sanitary sewer system through cracks in private sewer pipes and the subsequent burden on the wastewater treatment system. It was suggested that Metro Vancouver and other levels of government require private pipes in poor condition to be inspected and repaired and that grants or low-interest loans be provided to homeowners to assist with the costs. Provide incentives for water conservation and sustainable stormwater design – Participants suggested that Metro Vancouver offer a range of incentives to encourage residents and businesses to install water saving plumbing fixtures, such as low and dual-flush toilets, and to incorporate roof gardens and permeable surfaces into building design. A high level of support for the use of rain barrels was indicated. Accelerate schedule for replacing combined sewers – Participants raised concerns about combined sewer pipe overflows and their impacts on the environment. Participants were generally supportive of the timeline to replace combined sewers but encouraged Metro Vancouver and its members to accelerate the sewer separation schedule whenever possible. Provide secondary treatment at both the North Shore and Vancouver wastewater treatment plants by 2020 – The majority of participants were supportive of upgrading both treatment plants by 2020, despite the additional costs to taxpayers. Some participants indicated that they would be willing to pay more taxes to achieve secondary treatment. Participants urged Metro Vancouver to make the decision to provide secondary treatment and then approach senior levels of government to request cost sharing. They also suggested that industry discharge fees be increased to assist with costs. Participants inquired as to whether public-private partnerships would be considered and if the upgrade costs could be amortized over a longer period to reduce financial impacts on taxpayers. Consider a variety of innovative liquid waste treatment options – Participants encouraged Metro Vancouver to more proactively review innovative designs and technologies related to liquid waste treatment. It was suggested that tertiary treatment be considered to deal with emerging contaminants. Some participants inquired about innovative treatment solutions currently under consideration by Metro Vancouver.

SDD-26


Page 9 of 15

Improve environmental monitoring and reporting to test for emerging contaminants – Participants suggested that Metro Vancouver review and re-evaluate current instruments for environmental monitoring, such as the list of triggers that prescribe specific responses by governments. Some participants felt that there should be increased testing for emerging contaminants such as personal care products and flame retardants. More detailed information about environmental discharges was requested, particularly regarding heavy metals and other toxic compounds. Recover resources and value from liquid wastes – There was widespread support for the LWMP Strategy 2.1 at the community meetings. Some participants felt that Metro Vancouver should be using treated effluent in the marine environment as a nutrient for fish, algae and bacteria. The benefits to agriculture of using treated effluent for irrigation and recovered phosphorus as a fertilizer were also identified. Some participants suggested that liquid waste could be converted into fuel for taxis and buses. In all cases, participants noted the need to ensure full transparency and ongoing public consultation for the planning and implementation of all programs related to resource recovery and use. Continue with current stormwater/rainwater management approach – Participants were supportive of the initiatives Metro Vancouver and members are taking regarding stormwater management and indicated support for increased efforts to return rainwater to the ground. Attendees encouraged Metro Vancouver to continue to play a key role in leadership and support for Metro Vancouver members, who are responsible for developing and implementing rainwater management plans. 2.3.2 Metro Vancouver Member Meetings and Correspondence The following common themes regarding the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) emerged from meetings with Metro Vancouver members noted in Section 2.2.2 and through correspondence: General plan comments – Metro Vancouver members support the LWMP in principle, contingent upon a few items. It was requested that Metro Vancouver provide more context within the LWMP on the region’s 20 year outlook. Members suggested that member staff continue to work with Metro Vancouver and neighbouring members to achieve increased efficiencies and optimal levels of service. It was suggested that the exploration and piloting of alternative system approaches should be included as a specific strategy in the draft plan. Working with member municipalities’ technical staff, a LWMP has been developed which satisfies municipal concerns and meets regional needs. Minimize liquid wastes at their source and decrease inflows and infiltration – Members requested clarification on their obligations associated with source control and outreach programs in the draft LWMP. Members suggested that the allowances set by Metro Vancouver for discharge rates from municipal sewers to regional trunk sewers and wastewater treatment plants warrant further evaluation to consider infrastructure age, land use, density and local conditions. Members recognize the need to require repairing and replacing private sewer pipes (laterals) and will develop strategies that address the unique characteristics of each municipality. Members encouraged Metro Vancouver to work with the province to obtain legislative authority for municipalities to address infiltration from aging, private property sanitary sewer connections.

SDD-27


Provide secondary treatment at both the North Shore and Vancouver wastewater treatment plants by 2020 – Metro Vancouver members in the North Shore and Vancouver sewerage areas recommended that treatment plant upgrades in their areas be completed by 2020, subject to senior government cost sharing. Some members requested sequential upgrading of the treatment plants in 2020 and 2030, for financial and logistical reasons. The majority of members suggested accelerating the overall completion of the projects. Seek funding from senior levels of government for treatment plant upgrades – Members recommended that the three levels of government (federal, provincial and regional) should equally fund the upgrading of the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), as major capital projects have historically been co-funded. It was suggested that Metro Vancouver address concerns of financial implications in the context of regional affordability prior to the adoption of the final LWMP. One member recommended that Metro Vancouver add the costs of upgrading these secondary treatment facilities to accommodate future growth to the Vancouver and North Shore Sewerage Area development cost charges. Recover resources and value from liquid waste – One member suggested Metro Vancouver undertake an Integrated Resource Recovery (IRR) approach on the North Shore as soon as possible, in cooperation with the three North Shore members. Another member suggested that a revised plan include member rights to material and energy recovery. It was recommended that Metro Vancouver prioritize options for recovering energy and nutrients from liquid waste. Continue current stormwater management plan process – Most members were supportive of the current stormwater management plan development and implementation process. One member suggested that stormwater management plans be developed by Metro Vancouver members on a voluntary basis. Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) interest in the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) - A letter from Tsawwassen First Nation indicated that they are considering their wastewater management options, including membership in the GVS&DD. In addition, the letter indicated that many of the sustainability goals included in the LWMP are compatible with the stated goals of the TFN and that the TFN is committed to pursuing sustainable integrated resource management goals to provide sewage treatment for its lands. 2.3.3 First Nations The following themes regarding the draft LWMP emerged from First Nations meetings noted in Section 2.2.3 and correspondence. Tsawwassen First Nation themes are captured in the Metro Vancouver member section above. Hwlitsum First Nation - Request for information on capacity funding to participate in the LWMP consultation process. The Hwlitsum First Nation indicated that they have an interest in liquid waste management issues and would like to be involved in the LWMP decision making process. However, the Hwlitsum First Nation has a firm policy that all consultation should take place on a revenue neutral basis. The Hwlitsum First Nation requested information on what capacity funding, if any, is available for them to participate in the LWMP consultation.

SDD-28


Page 11 of 15

Musqueam Indian Band - Request for information on the timeline for upgrading and potentially relocating the Iona Island WWTP and capacity funding. The Musqueam Indian Band requested a timeline on the upgrade and potential re-location of the Iona Island WWTP. Also, it was decided that Metro Vancouver would work to engage the province in discussions with Musqueam on consultations over the upgrading of the Iona Island WWTP and capacity funding issues. Musqueam Indian Band – Metro Vancouver liaison appointed to build relationship with Musqueam Indian Band. At the April 9, 2009 Metro Vancouver Board meeting, Director Maria Harris was appointed as a Metro Vancouver “liaison/ambassador” to build relationships with the Musqueam Indian Band. Tsleil-Waututh Nation – Cooperation Protocol in development. Metro Vancouver and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation are currently working on a Cooperation Protocol to strengthen the relationship between the two organizations. 2.3.4 Government Agencies and Ministries Seven government agencies responded to Metro Vancouver’s letters asking how they would like to participate in the process for updating the LWMP. Responses ranged from requesting regular correspondence on the LWMP to interest in attending future meetings about the LWMP. The following summaries regarding the draft LWMP emerged through additional correspondence with the government agencies: Environment Canada – Correspondence from Environment Canada encouraged Metro Vancouver to upgrade the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants without delay and to participate in the upcoming consultations on the proposed federal wastewater effluent regulation put forward by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Environment Canada also noted the need for continued action to eliminate overflows from combined sewers and reduce the impacts of stormwater. Fisheries and Oceans Canada – A letter from Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicated that updates to the draft LWMP have provided opportunities in a number of areas including improved integration of land use planning and rainwater management to protect or improve watershed and stream health. These policies are complementary to the fish habitat management goals of the agency. Health Canada – A letter from Health Canada indicated support for the goals and strategies contained in the draft LWMP. It was recommended that Metro Vancouver periodically reassess the list of parameters specified in the operating certificates for wastewater treatment plants to allow for consideration of emerging contaminants. Health Canada also suggested that Metro Vancouver should consider outreach programs developed for other jurisdictions when exploring ways to support and improve liquid waste source management initiatives. It was noted that water metering is an important tool to reduce water consumption and that metering is aligned with the plan’s strategy to minimize liquid wastes at their source.

SDD-29


B.C. Ministry of Environment – Through ongoing correspondence, the Ministry of Environment acknowledged the significant advances that Metro Vancouver has made in the management of liquid waste. In a 2008 letter, the Ministry declined a Metro Vancouver request to change the title of the LWMP to the Liquid Resource Management Plan, due to the specific language in the Environmental Management Act, while acknowledging the potential value of using a waste as a resource. Subsequent letters identified key areas for further discussion with Metro Vancouver staff regarding the elimination of combined sewer overflows, municipal inflow and infiltration management, the attainment of water quality objective monitoring using the cautions, warnings and triggers approach in both the receiving and ambient environments, and the timely implementation of municipal level Integrated Stormwater Management Plans. The Ministry encouraged Metro Vancouver to adopt a five to eight year term for the LWMP to better implement adaptive management practices, yet still allow sufficient time between formal plan revision cycles. Finally, it was recommended that the scheduling of major treatment facility upgrades be finalized. B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands – Correspondence from the Ministry provided recommendations regarding how agriculture could play a role in the achievement of the draft LWMP goals. It was noted that all fertilizers must meet food safety standards and organic certification requirements and that reclaimed wastewater for agricultural irrigation should meet drinking water standards. BC Hydro – A written submission from BC Hydro indicates support for the Integrated Resource Management vision contained within the draft LWMP and inquired as to whether Metro Vancouver has conducted a highest and best use analysis of biosolids and yard waste, noting an opportunity for integration with Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Plan and energy recovery. BC Hydro also urged Metro Vancouver to articulate its position on sewer waste heat recovery within the next year rather than by 2014/2016 since many communities are currently considering opportunities in this area. 2.3.5 LWMP Committees 2.3.5.1 Technical Forum The following common themes regarding the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) emerged from the May 6, 2009 Technical Forum: Minimize liquid wastes at their source - Meeting attendees noted the importance of increasing business and industry participation in source control programs to better manage their liquid waste. It was suggested that Metro Vancouver provide incentives for businesses and industry to implement on-site liquid waste treatment. Separate sewers and reduce wet weather overflows - Several meeting participants suggested sewer separation be accelerated while others preferred to continue with sewer separation at a rate of 1% a year. Another participant suggested a business case could be made to separate sewers to accommodate growth. Support for upgrades of Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants - There was widespread support to increase the level of treatment at the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants to secondary treatment in a timely manner.

SDD-30


Page 13 of 15

Conduct Integrated Resource Recovery (IRR) analyses to inform asset management decisions - Attendees encouraged Metro Vancouver to conduct a business and needs analysis to determine if IRR would be successful on the North Shore and to identify potential opportunities for implementation. Attendees suggested Metro Vancouver clarify the commitment to treatment plant upgrades in the draft plan and consider the impact of IRR on the levels at wastewater treatment plants. Continue current monitoring and conduct research on the impact of emerging contaminants Meeting attendees recommended Metro Vancouver continue with the current level of monitoring activities and encouraged research and development at the federal level in regard to the impact of emerging contaminants. Support for approaching senior governments for funding - It was suggested that senior governments should contribute to the cost of maintaining and upgrading current infrastructure. 2.3.5.2 Reference Panel The Liquid Waste Management Plan Reference Panel provided input to the Waste Management Committee on four occasions and submitted a series of recommendations grouped under the themes of the natural environment, built environment, sewage treatment, financing and implementation. These are set out in full together with staff responses in Attachment #8. The Commissioner met with the Reference Panel to discuss the recommendations and staff responses to their mutual satisfaction. 2.3.5.3 Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) Key topics discussed throughout the consultation period included: site-level rainwater management; Integrated Stormwater Management Plans (ISMPs), reduction of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), climate change, risk-based philosophy, the timeline for wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) upgrades and minimizing the impact of liquid waste on the environment. It was identified that the mandate of the EMC is to play a key role in the following: moving the new LWMP forward; assessing the impacts of the new WWTPs in regard to design and contaminants; open dialogues between different levels of government, including federal, provincial and Port Metro Vancouver (Port). Metro Vancouver was strongly encouraged to discuss the benefits of monitoring and assessing the impacts of stormwater discharge with the EMC and the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG) and set goals accordingly. The Port requested to be consulted when overflow locations are identified, and that this need for consultation be indicated in the draft LWMP. 2.3.5.4 Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG) Issues of importance to SILG included the formation of a research academy, rainwater harvesting and data collection. SILG members discussed how to maintain Metro Vancouver member political engagement in liquid waste issues. 2.3.5.5 Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program/Fraser River Estuary Management Program (BIEAP/FREMP) It was noted that the comments made in April 2008 by BIEAP/FREMP have been incorporated or addressed in the draft LWMP as of May 20, 2009. During consultation, BIEMP/FREMP members discussed source control, outreach programs and public education and also suggested that performance measures and reporting be linked to sustainability within the LWMP. BIEMP/FREMP also recommended that the LWMP require

SDD-31


implementation of stormwater and rainwater management measures and plans to address the cumulative negative effects of altered water quality and quantity on area watercourses and receiving waters. It was also suggested that the LWMP should provide more clarification around climate change initiatives, state how the LWMP will address climate change and make reference to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Strategy. 3. ALTERNATIVES None provided. 4. CONCLUSION In March 2009, the Waste Management Committee approved proceeding with a second phase of consultation to support the draft LWMP. This report outlines the activities and findings of the consultation program, which occurred between May 31, 2008 and October 30, 2009. The consultation process provided opportunities for the Metro Vancouver public, Metro Vancouver members, First Nations, adjacent regional districts, government agencies and ministries, LWMP committees and other key interest groups to provide input for consideration in finalizing the new Liquid Waste Management Plan for Metro Vancouver. Overall feedback received during the consultation process was supportive of the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan, including the new integrated resource recovery focus. Participants encouraged Metro Vancouver to proceed with upgrades to the Vancouver and North Shore wastewater treatment plants and explore the necessary cost-sharing from higher levels of governments. In addition, there was support shown for public education, increased research on the impacts of emerging contaminants and the need for innovative liquid waste management practices. Following the LWMP’s adoption by the Board, the final consultation report and final LWMP will be submitted to the Minister of Environment for approval.

SDD-32


Page 15 of 15

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation Phases Diagram dated October 30, 2009

(eRIM # 4978680). 2. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – Public Input: Issues, Comments and

Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM # 4955595). 3. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – Metro Vancouver Member Input:

Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4955597).

4. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – First Nations Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4955599).

5. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – Government Agency and Ministry Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4955600).

6. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – LWMP Committee Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4976099).

7. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – LWMP Technical Forum Input: Issues, Comments and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4955601).

8. Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation – LWMP Reference Panel Input: Recommendations and Metro Vancouver Responses dated October 30, 2009 (eRIM# 4972726).

SDD-33

ATTACHMENT 1

004978680

Liquid Waste Management Plan Consultation Phases

PHASE 1

Consultation on Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan

PHASE 2

Consultation on the Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan

DRAFT PLAN

Draft Liquid Waste Management Plan Developed after Phase 1 input

PHASE 3

Final Plan Approval

PHASE 4

Liquid Waste Management Plan Implementation and Monitoring

MAY 2008 – OCTOBER 2009

NOVEMBER – DECEMBER 2009

MARCH - MAY 2008

2010 - 2018

SDD-34

Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan Consultation

Public Input (May 31, 2008 – O

ctober 30, 2009) Issues, C

omm

ents, Questions and M

etro Vancouver Responses

004955595

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 2

#

Source Issue/C

omm

ent/Question

Metro Vancouver (M

V) Response

General Plan C

omm

ents 1

Feedback Form

MV

is a leader in Canada in raising

environmental standards and achieving m

ore sustainable practices.

Com

ment noted.

2 Feedback Form

The draft Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan

(LWM

P) is guided by narrow

-minded, business-

as-usual attitudes.

Com

ment noted. R

ealignment w

ith new P

rovincial and N

ational policies and integration with M

V’s S

ustainable R

egion Initiative are significant innovations since the 2002 LW

MP

. 3

Feedback Form

The draft LWM

P lacks the vision of the Livable

Region P

lan of the 1990s. C

omm

ent noted. This has been addressed by the Vision

Statem

ent and Sustainable R

egion Initiative Section in the

LWM

P.

4 Feedback Form

M

V’s focus on the cost to tax payers ignores

the hidden costs of depleted salmon stocks,

degraded sea water and sea life.

Ongoing environm

ental programs continue to m

onitor for effects from

liquid waste m

anagement on aquatic

ecosystems—

results inform the LW

MP

actions under S

trategy 1.3. 5

Feedback Form

Provide m

ore information on the effects on

coastal waters, fish and w

ildlife. A

ccess to MV

’s related environmental studies is available

through its library. 6

Feedback Form

Consider the large num

ber of other infrastructure projects occurring in the region; w

hat is the tax cost per house listed?

MV

continues to assess liquid waste program

s in the broader regional context along w

ith other regional and m

unicipal services for affordability: annual regional sewers

levy is about $158 per household. 7

Feedback Form

Ensure that input on the LW

MP

is solicited from

the technology comm

unity at large, specifically during concept and specification developm

ent.

MV

’s LWM

P R

eference Panel contained m

embers from

research, science and industry. O

ngoing technical advisory com

mittees (S

trategy 3.5: Collaborative

Managem

ent) provide technical input to policies, concepts and designs.

8 Feedback Form

C

ompensate the D

istrict of North V

ancouver for to the loss of taxable land caused by the purchase of the old B

C R

ail lands.

MV

is not required to pay municipal property tax on its

infrastructure that provides service to municipalities.

SDD-35

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 2

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

2

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M

etro Vancouver (MV) R

esponse 9

Feedback Form

Provide "M

ade in BC

" technology a fair opportunity to participate in LW

MP

developm

ent.

Made in B

C technology is treated w

ith equal fairness as others—

criteria are reliable systems to protect public

health and the environment, and value for m

oney. 10

Feedback Form

The BC

clean-tech and wastew

ater industrial clusters are significant stakeholders in the LW

MP

.

Com

ment noted.

11 Feedback Form

Im

measurable benefit devolves to both the

local economy as w

ell as the local technology sector by show

casing local BC

technology to the export m

arket through integration into the LW

MP

.

MV

will continue to partner in the developm

ent and show

casing of local technology under Strategy 2.1.

12 Feedback Form

O

pposed to significant private involvement in

the liquid waste m

anagement process.

Com

ment noted. O

pportunities for private involvement in

liquid waste m

anagement w

ill continue to be assessed w

here relevant. 13

Feedback Form

The Public B

roadcasting Service program

, “P

oisoned Water” should be utilized as a tool

for public education.

Com

ment noted. This docum

entary discusses endocrine disrupting pollutants. M

V w

ill continue with its partnerships

to examine risks and m

itigative options from these

pollutants. M

V education and outreach program

s will continue to

evolve to address these priorities. 14

Feedback Form

Concerns that the technology utilized in the

LWM

P w

ill become outdated unless the

timeline is accelerated.

The LWM

P does not specify technology; instead it sets

performance objectives. O

ngoing and expanded environm

ental monitoring program

s (Strategy 3.3) w

ill continue to assess effectiveness of the LW

MP

. 15

Feedback Form

Request for the LW

MP

to be accelerated. C

omm

ent noted. 16

Feedback Form

The environment is the greatest priority in

regard to liquid waste m

anagement.

Com

ment noted. P

rotecting Public H

ealth and the E

nvironment is G

oal 1.

SDD-36

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

3

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 17

Meeting N

otes D

isappointed in the lack of reference to the C

anadian Council of M

inisters of the E

nvironment (C

CM

E) strategy in the draft

LWM

P w

hen referencing federal and provincial roles and responsibilities.

The CC

ME

strategy, which w

as adopted by CC

ME

February 17

th, indicates that implem

entation has been left to the jurisdictions (provinces) in regard to tim

elines, and quality param

eters to be used. It is going to take several years for the province to update their sew

age regulations in term

s of aligning with the new

national strategy. The LW

MP

aligns with new

standards. 18

Meeting N

otes C

oncern that some of the tim

elines in the draft LW

MP

are not consistent with the tim

elines laid out in the C

CM

E strategy.

The LWM

P tim

elines align within the envelopes of the

CC

ME

strategy. Decisions regarding tim

elines, and quality param

eters to be used have yet to be formalized by the

provinces. 19

Meeting N

otes Tim

elines and associated cost are the main

issue of contention in the draft LWM

P.

Timelines and costs are a significant factor regarding the

upgrades for North S

hore and Vancouver S

ewerage A

rea. These upgrades are a result of Federal-P

rovincial policies. The cost and tim

ing of these upgrades are significant and com

pete with other m

ajor regional initiatives. 20

Meeting N

otes V

ancouver perceived as a leader in advancing green developm

ent and infrastructure. M

V w

ill continue to collaborate with the C

ity of Vancouver

and others to advance green infrastructure. For example,

Vancouver’s N

eighbourhood Energy U

tility in South E

ast False C

reek evolved from joint research by M

V and its

mem

bers. 21

Meeting N

otes C

oncern over the health of the coastal waters

of Georgia S

trait. C

omm

ent noted. MV

’s environmental m

onitoring (ambient

and discharge) will continue w

ith the intention to better integrate data to inform

a better understanding of the relationship betw

een liquid waste m

anagement and the

receiving environments (S

trategy 3.3). 22

Meeting N

otes C

larify that the timeline of 2050 being proposed

in the draft LWM

P is the status quo in the

existing LWM

P.

Yes, the tim

eline of 2050 being proposed in the draft LW

MP

is the status quo in the existing LWM

P.

SDD-37

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

4

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 23

Meeting N

otes The north arm

of the Fraser River no longer

has salmon.

The presence or absence of salmon m

ay be the result of m

any factors. Municipal developm

ent and implem

entation of integrated storm

water m

anagement plans (IS

MP

s) should support im

proved salmon populations in the N

orth A

rm of the Fraser R

iver (Strategy 3.4).

24 M

eeting Notes

Where is industry in the LW

MP

? The 300 largest industries are perm

itted through source control program

s. MV

sets permit lim

its to protect the plant, w

orkers and the environment. They are m

onitored on a regular basis. There are also m

andatory codes of practices for a number

of comm

ercial sectors, such as dental offices that must

have amalgam

separators (Strategy 1.1)

25 M

eeting Notes

Are there specific locations in the w

orld that can be looked to for a program

of steps to reach an ultim

ate solution for liquid waste

managem

ent?

No. A

round the world, em

erging issues are being looked at because there is not yet an ultim

ate solution. The science is being looked at to consider w

hat parameters

are ’safe’. 26

Meeting N

otes A

ll participants at the comm

unity meeting

should watch the “P

oison Water,” television

program.

Com

ment noted. This docum

entary discusses endocrine disrupting pollutants. M

V w

ill continue with its partnerships

in examine risks and m

itigating options from these

pollutants. M

V education and outreach program

s will continue to

evolve to address priorities 27

Meeting N

otes C

oncern expressed that the public does not view

sewage treatm

ent and the marine

environment as im

portant issues.

Com

ment noted. M

V considers these issues im

portant and uses outreach through program

s such as MV

’s S

ustainable Region TV

program to prom

ote awareness.

28 M

eeting Notes

MV

is frustrating to deal with; a conservative

organization with no obligation to respond, just

like Victoria.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-38

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

5

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 29

Meeting N

otes S

candinavian taxes became very high and now

they have incredible renew

able resources; this m

akes the proposed 14% increase in M

V seem

insignificant.

Com

ment noted. S

trategy 3.1 will explore and access the

renewable resource potential of liquid w

astes.

30 M

eeting Notes

Are there other options for how

one billion dollars could be spent to achieve the sam

e or better results for liquid w

aste managem

ent?

MV

is pursuing an Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IRR

) approach.

31 M

eeting Notes

Clarification that a P

3 (public/private partnership) is different than privatization.

Privatization w

ould be the operation and provision of liquid w

aste services by a private, for profit company—

often includes the sale of assets to the private sector. P

3 could use a business to provide specialized services, such as operations, inspection, or m

aintenance contractor—

asset ownership and core functions can be

retained by the public sector. 32

Meeting N

otes M

isconception that water is privatized in M

V.

Opposed to the privatization of drinking w

ater in M

V.

Com

ment noted. W

ater supply has not been privatized in M

V. This issue is addressed in the D

rinking Water

Managem

ent Plan.

33 M

eeting Notes

The degradation of the marine habitat in the

Fraser River has occurred over the last 50

years.

Com

ment noted. O

ver the last 50 years, three Waste

Water Treatm

ent Plants (W

WTP

s) have been built for MV

on the Fraser R

iver—prior to that, liquid w

astes were

discharged untreated into the Fraser River.

34 M

eeting Notes

Surrey used to deposit w

aste directly into the Fraser R

iver; Blaine, W

ashington, continues to do so.

Blaine is not tributary to the Fraser R

iver. Surrey is served

by the Annacis Island W

WTP

.

35 M

eeting Notes

Governm

ents have allowed for fisheries and

crabbing, causing the current health and environm

ental problems.

Strategy 1.3 “M

inimizes im

pacts to the environment—

water, land and air” helps im

prove aquatic ecosystem

health. 36

Meeting N

otes The LW

MP

is a positive project that should receive greater priority.

Com

ment noted. The im

portance of the LWM

P is

considered in relation to other municipal and regional

plans and initiatives

SDD-39

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

6

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 37

Meeting N

otes R

eference made to the W

orld Urban Forum

3 w

here a documentary alleged a large problem

w

ith sewage sludge.

Com

ment noted. M

V is required to m

eet provincial regulations, for anything applied to land. S

ince the 1990s, M

V has been applying som

e biosolids from sew

age to reclaim

mine sites. It is not used for agricultural crops.

38 M

eeting Notes

Requiring 8%

of household income to cover the

cost of municipal, M

V and TransLink program

s is too high.

This figure includes property taxes, TransLink fees and surcharges on gasoline. Fees are collected from

multiple

sources. 39

Meeting N

otes The best plan for street gardens is through coordination w

ith other departments and

comm

unity gardens in order to promote self-

irrigation systems.

Com

ment noted.

40 M

eeting Notes

Where are definitions regarding “open m

arine” located?

They are in the provincial “Municipal S

ewage

Regulations”.

41 M

eeting Notes

The term “open m

arine” should be defined as an area of ocean w

ith nothing visible to the horizon i.e. it is possible to see V

ancouver Island from

Vancouver, therefore the G

eorgia S

trait is not “open marine.”

Com

ment noted. The regulatory nature of the LW

MP

requires that its definitions be consistent w

ith provincial regulations—

i.e. for Georgia S

trait.

42 P

ublic C

orrespondence N

orth Am

ericans are the most w

asteful users of w

ater. C

omm

ent noted. MV

’s Drinking W

ater Managem

ent Plan

contains initiatives to promote m

ore efficient water use

behaviours. 43

Public

Correspondence

Give preference to re-developm

ent or brow

nfield development for the provision of

sewage services as opposed to new

developm

ent.

Land re-development (including brow

nfield) is where m

ost of the region’s developm

ent opportunities occur. The R

egional Grow

th Strategy is expected to support land re-

development through a firm

urban growth boundary.

44 P

ublic C

orrespondence M

V should exam

ine the full cost of greenfield developm

ents, including the carbon impact,

when deciding w

hether or not to provide sew

age services.

The Regional G

rowth S

trategy is expected to support land re-developm

ent through a firm U

rban Grow

th Boundary,

linked through Strategy 3.4.

SDD-40

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

7

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 45

Public

Correspondence

Is it reasonable to permit greenfield

development, w

hich will cause those areas

developed to become perm

anently de-forested w

ith a high carbon footprint?

The Regional G

rowth S

trategy is expected to limit

greenfield development through a firm

Urban G

rowth

Boundary, linked through S

trategy 3.4.

46 P

ublic C

orrespondence M

V should take advantage of every opportunity

to incorporate liquid waste m

anagement into

regional planning.

Com

ment noted. This has been addressed through

linkages to the Regional G

rowth S

trategy (Strategy 3.4).

47 P

ublic C

orrespondence The interest of S

imon Fraser U

niversity (SFU

) in sustainability and the protection of public health and the environm

ent are in line with the

goals and proposed actions of MV

as outlined in the LW

MP

.

Addressed through S

trategies 1.3 and 3.3 and collaboration w

ith SFU

can be facilitated through Strategy

3.2.

48 P

ublic C

orrespondence The LW

MP

is a high level document that

establishes admirable objectives, goals, action

items and im

plementation steps that are

difficult to provide comm

ent on.

Com

ment noted.

49 P

ublic C

orrespondence LW

MP

implem

entation is dependent upon MV

m

embers im

plementing bylaw

s to make on-site

rainwater m

anagement a reality.

The rainwater site m

anagement actions in S

trategy 1.1 do not necessarily require m

unicipal bylaws, but they do

require municipal policies for land use and storm

water to

be more integrated

50 P

ublic C

orrespondence E

xploring all options for liquid waste

managem

ent prior to the implem

entation of a new

LWM

P; concern expressed that this has

not been done.

Strategy 3.2 enhances innovation and S

trategy 2.1 explores the integrated options to m

ore sustainable m

anage liquid wastes.

Strategy 1.1: Reduce liquid w

astes at their source (Strategy #1 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 51

Feedback Form

Improve public education around liquid w

aste m

anagement to the level of solid w

aste and recycling.

Com

ment noted. This has been addressed under S

trategy 1.1 in the LW

MP

.

52 Feedback Form

The cost of upgrades to private laterals should be equally split betw

een the homeow

ner, the m

unicipal government, the provincial

government and the federal governm

ent.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-41

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

8

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 53

Feedback Form

MV

should mandate perm

eable concrete roadw

ays and parking lots if it is cost-effective. C

omm

ent noted. This has been addressed under Strategy

1.1 in the LWM

P.

54 Feedback Form

Is it possible to w

ater gardens using waste

water?

Yes, providing that the reclaim

ed water does not pose a

health risk—regulation in this area is still being developed

by the province. 55

Feedback Form

Utilize m

ore green roofs and walls to m

inimize

water w

aste. C

omm


1.1 in the LWM

P.

56 Feedback Form

A

sensor system should be put into place to

check what hum

ans discharge into the system

through storm w

ater;

Com



MP

.

57 Feedback Form

P

romote the use of rain barrels.

Com



MP

. 58

Feedback Form

Help hom

e owners detect and solve problem

s related to private laterals.

Com



MP

. 59

Feedback Form

What is the cost of sanitary sew

er smoke

testing? C

osts vary depending on the length and number of

sewers being inspected—

generally, smoke testing costs

are reasonable. 60

Feedback Form

Sanitary sew

er smoke testing should be piloted

in a small area to assess the severity of the

problem of private laterals

Com



MP

.

61 Feedback Form

P

rovide grants to home ow

ners for sewer

upgrades. C

omm


1.1 in the LWM

P.

62 Feedback Form

W

hen sewers are privately ow

ned, the private ow

ner should repair them.

Com



MP

. 63

Feedback Form

Make low

-interest loans available to owners of

private sewers to ensure repair is possible

when necessary.

Com



MP

.

64 Feedback Form

H

as industry made any reduction in sew

er output in the last 5 – 10 years?

Perm

itted industries are monitored for com

pliance with

their discharge permits – im

proved compliance in

discharges has been achieved since 2002.

SDD-42

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

9

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 65

Feedback Form

What are M

V’s plans for the education of

primary and secondary students in regard to

liquid waste m

anagement?

MV

has a broader ongoing K-12 education program

which

includes liquid waste as a com

ponent.

66 Feedback Form

The future generation in M

V should be

educated about liquid waste m

anagement as

they will live w

ith the actions of the current generation.

Com



MP

.

67 Feedback Form

E

ducating the public, home ow

ners, developers, planners and landscapers on liquid w

aste managem

ent is a priority.

Com



MP

.

68 Feedback Form

Look globally for innovative ideas for reducing the usage of w

ater in the system, such as using

rain barrels for watering law

ns.

Com



MP

.

69 Feedback Form

Industry should pay m

ore for their outflow into

the system.

Com



MP

. 70

Feedback Form

Is MV

monitoring output into the system

made

by industry? Y

es, through inspection and enforcement program

s under S

trategy 1.1. 71

Feedback Form

Consider using perm

eable surfaces in every new

development.

Com



MP

. 72

Feedback Form

What is the relationship betw

een private sew

age managers and M

V?

Private sew

age managers include private sew

erage utilities-system

s that are not connected to the MV

system

and businesses that transport liquid wastes (trucked liquid

waste) from

industries, businesses and septic fields to disposal at M

V’s W

astewater Treatm

ent Plants (W

WTP

s). 73

Feedback Form

Are there rules for the m

aintenance of sewer

systems by private sew

age managers and are

these maintenance contracts being kept?

Private sew

erage systems are regulated by the P

rovince, not M

V.

74 Feedback Form

P

rivate sewer system

s should be checked and ow

ners required to conduct updates if required; alternatively, all private pipes should be required to upgrade at the sam

e time as the

City.

Com



MP

.

SDD-43

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

10

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 75

Feedback Form

MV

should support ongoing innovation to reduce rainw

ater run-off. C

omm


1.1 in the LWM

P.

76 M

eeting Notes

Request for m

ore information on w

ater conservation.

Com



MP

. 77

Meeting N

otes P

leased with conservation program

s being put forw

ard by MV

, such as low-flush toilets, rain

barrels and green roofs.

Com



MP

.

78 M

eeting Notes

Will grants be considered to encourage

residents or businesses to take advantage of conservation techniques, such as low

-flush toilets, rain barrels and green roofs?

Municipalities are responsible for program

s regarding low-

flush toilets. BC

Hydro has som

e grant programs

available for washing m

achines.

79 M

eeting Notes

Through the water m

eter program several

houses were found to have plum

bing problems

or damaged w

ater connections; due to paying a flat rate, m

ost residents did not make repairs.

Com

ment noted.

80 M

eeting Notes

Is MV

monitoring industry outflow

into the sew

er system?

The 300 largest industries are permitted through a source

control program and are m

onitored on a regular basis. We

have mandatory codes of practices for a num

ber of com

mercial sectors.

81 M

eeting Notes

Can M

V increase charges to industry or force

industry to treat their outflow prior to

discharge?

MV

is exploring incentive programs.

82 M

eeting Notes

Implem

enting different sewage treatm

ent system

s on-board cruise lines is always m

ost effective w

hen the crew is brought in through

awareness, education and accountability.

Com

ment noted.

83 M

eeting Notes

Pleased w

ith the rain gardens and roadside sw

ales in Coquitlam

. C

omm

ent noted.

SDD-44

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

11

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 84

Meeting N

otes W

hat is the City of C

oquitlam doing in regard to

building with perm

eable surfaces? There are criteria for infiltration in m

ulti-family

developments; and there are som

e challenges for using perm

eable surfaces in road right-of-ways. S

and and gravel used during the w

inters plugs up any permeable

treatments.

85 M

eeting Notes

There should be no municipal jurisdiction from

a property line to a house.

Com

ment noted.

86 M

eeting Notes

Do private sew

ers only extend to the end of a property?

Yes.

87 M

eeting Notes

Would the province have to legislate

municipalities to inspect private sew

ers; have m

unicipalities lobbied for this previously?

A report has been prepared that looked at how

m

unicipalities were m

anaging private property laterals. There are a num

ber of ways that m

unicipalities are doing this. S

ome are doing inspections. O

thers are requiring inspections at the tim

e of property sale. All m

odels require a new

act or legal authority. There are various approaches that can be used.

88 M

eeting Notes

Has M

V or the m

unicipalities considered liability issues associated w

ith private sewers

and inspection?

There are some new

technologies being employed, such

as a trenchless approach for repairs and the use of micro

cameras for inspections of plum

bing systems to m

inimize

impacts and potential liability.

89 M

eeting Notes

With the increasing volum

es of the tributaries that feed into the Fraser, N

icomekl and

Serpentine, is it fair to say that the sm

all tributaries and rivers are taking m

ore volumes

once a housing development goes into an

area?

Historically that w

as the case. Now

we are m

anaging how

stormw

ater gets to these tributaries. We now

have perforated pipes in areas that have perm

eable soils where

we look to infiltrate storm

water into the ground as it w

ould have, before developm

ent occurred. Storm

water detention

ponds are still used. We look at it so that the m

ass run-off from

industrial and residential developments has a

controlled peak, at its natural rate. We are on the path to

having a more natural flow

regime w

ith these initiatives. 90

Meeting N

otes E

xercise care when considering w

ater savings program

s, such as rain barrel programs due to

the long payback period.

Com



MP

.

SDD-45

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

12

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 91

Meeting N

otes W

hat is the City of N

orth Vancouver’s position

on “smart m

etering” and could it be installed? They w

ould add about $60 to $100 annually for a single fam

ily home.

92 M

eeting Notes

Would “sm

art metering” cost $100 per hom

e for the life of the project?

If you start with a new

system, adding w

ater meters is

relatively inexpensive. If you are retrofitting, it is more

costly. To start metering universally, it w

ould add $100 per year, per household.

93 M

eeting Notes

Installing water m

eters would not reduce the

rate at which M

V needs to add infrastructure as

meters need to be electronically tracked and

checked each year.

Com

ment noted.

94 M

eeting Notes

Have rooftop gardens been considered as a

way to absorb m

oisture run-off? M

etro Vancouver has collaborated extensively on

greenroof research and has co-developed guidelines for their use in rainw

ater managem

ent. 95

Meeting N

otes H

ave the use of green walls been considered

by MV

? G

reenwalls are less effective than greenroofs as they

cannot intercept as much rainfall and therefore have not

been examined.

96 M

eeting Notes

Will the increased num

ber of bioswales, and

resulting increase in standing water cause

problems w

ith things such as the mosquito

population?

In a properly designed bioswale, m

osquitoes should not be a problem

.

97 M

eeting Notes

Can M

V incorporate the use of engineered

concrete that allows for w

ater to pass underneath it into a bylaw

?

MV

put out a Best M

anagement G

uide and explored the use of porous concrete.

98 M

eeting Notes

Single fam

ily homes are connected to storm

drains and are easy to convert to keep w

ater on site; the D

istrict and City of N

orth Vancouver

have not adjusted their policies to allow

homeow

ners to retain water on site.

Com

ment noted.

99 M

eeting Notes

What is the difference betw

een a low-flush

toilet and other toilets? It is part of the provincial plum

bing code. All new

construction requires installation of low

-flush toilets that use only 6 litres per flush. W

hen you renovate or replace toilets, you w

ill only be able to purchase 6 litre toilets.

SDD-46

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

13

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 100

Meeting N

otes W

hen do upgrades to low-flush toilets need to

be completed by?

It is not a requirement to replace the existing 15 litre

toilets. They will be phased out over tim

e as toilets are replaced.

101 M

eeting Notes

Concerns that in older developm

ents the slope of line from

homes to the drains m

ay be insufficient to accom

modate low

-flush toilets.

Com

ment noted.

102 M

eeting Notes

Reference m

ade to dual flush toilets in the U

nited Kingdom

eliminating the need to flush

low-flush toilets m

ultiple times.

The Canadian W

ater and Waste A

ssociation has tested low

-flush toilets from m

any manufacturers.

103 M

eeting Notes

Support given to the functionality of low

-flush toilets.

Com

ment noted.

104 M

eeting Notes

Is there technology to allow for perforating

pavements in areas other than the country

lane?

Structural plastic grid and perm

eable pavers are being tried, in addition to other pilot program

s.

105 M

eeting Notes

Is heavier investment in perforating pavem

ents econom

ical considering it will take until 2050 to

do away w

ith Com

bined Sew

er Overflow

s (C

SO

s)?

MV

is exploring technologies and innovations in this area.

106 P

ublic C

orrespondence R

equire on-site rain water retainm

ent in existing developm

ents and encourage rain w

ater collection.

Com



MP

.

107 P

ublic C

orrespondence E

ncourage and provide incentives for on-site grey w

ater usage in housing complexes.

Com



MP

. 108

Public

Correspondence

Provide further incentives to the public and

industry for water-saving appliances and

plumbing fixtures.

Com



MP

.

109 P

ublic C

orrespondence R

educe the amount of w

aste water.

Com



MP

.

SDD-47

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

14

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 110

Public

Correspondence

Source control is of interest, in regard to

reducing property damage, poor w

ater quality and dam

age to aquatic habitat. Source

controls include vegetated swales, bio-retention

areas, infiltration trenches, infiltration ponds, foundation planters, pervious paving, green roofs and rainw

ater capture and reuse on landscaping.

Com



MP

.

111 P

ublic C

orrespondence Include a balance betw

een approved regulations and econom

ic incentives to prom

ote creativity and flexibility in managing

stormw

ater at the source while fostering the

public’s acceptance of such measures and

avoiding enforcement costs.

Com



MP

.

112 P

ublic C

orrespondence E

nsure that initial construction and subsequent m

aintenance costs of source control endeavours are both cost effective and com

patible with the structural integrity and

fitness of associated buildings.

Com



MP

.

113 P

ublic C

orrespondence M

anage rainwater on a site by site basis.

Com



MP

. 114

Public

Correspondence

Plan does not note w

hat engineering requirem

ents in regard to on-site rainwater

managem

ent would entail.

Com



MP

.

115 P

ublic C

orrespondence N

o funding is available for developing new

engineering requirements in regard to on-site

rainwater m

anagement; or developm

ent of technologies.

Com



MP

.

SDD-48

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

15

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 116

Public

Correspondence

MV

mem

bers currently encourage site owners

to design techniques for rainwater

managem

ent while still requiring the traditional

infrastructure; site owners are paying for the

development of rainw

ater managem

ent system

s and for traditional stormw

ater system

s, creating an expensive redundancy.

Com



MP

.

117 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

ome M

V m

embers continue to require

traditional roads and sidewalks that are not

conducive to meeting M

V objectives to

increase permeable surfaces.

Com



MP

.

118 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

et minim

um standards to prevent the overuse

of stormw

ater systems.

Com



MP

. 119

Public

Correspondence

Com

pliance and Enforcem

ent of Grease

Interceptors (GIs) should be included in the

LWM

P, including the registration of every

location with a G

I, annual logging of the num

ber and size of each GI, required m

onthly m

aintenance and servicing of all GIs, increased

enforcement, a required log of all services

performed, a registration/renew

al charge for each G

I (creating a revenue source for MV

).

Com



MP

.

120 P

ublic C

orrespondence E

xamine alternatives for regulatory com

pliance softw

are that would require G

I service com

panies to report servicing on behalf of GI

waste generators and provide a servicing data

base to assist enforcement officers in their

compliance program

.

Com



MP

.

SDD-49

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

16

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 121

Public

Correspondence

Resolve the persistent and costly Inflow

and Infiltration (I&

I) issue by embracing policy and

legal tools that enable municipalities to

implem

ent timely and appropriate m

easures on private property.

Com



MP

.

122 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide both the financial incentives and enforcem

ent resources that will ensure

effective source control in the industrial-com

mercial-institutional sector; the region can

protect the environment by preventing the

introduction of fire retardants and endocrine disruptors; and reduce sew

er system costs by

intercepting fats, oils and greases.

Com



MP

.

123 P

ublic C

orrespondence The N

orth Shore does not have com

bined sew

ers; why is there no m

ention in the draft LW

MP

of a plan for municipalities to reduce

rainwater and storm

water infiltrating into the

sewer system

?

This has been addressed by Strategy 1.1 w

hich contains actions to reduce rainw

ater and groundwater infiltration

into sanitary sewers.

124 P

ublic C

orrespondence R

ainwater and storm

water m

anagement should

be left up to the municipalities; they are aw

are of area-specific concerns and are m

ore proactive since the S

eymour S

lide in 2005.

Com

ment noted. U

nder the LWM

P, m

unicipalities will

continue their mandate to provide storm

water and

rainwater m

anagement services.

Strategy 1.2: Reduce w

et weather overflow

s (Strategy #2 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 125

Feedback Form

Consider the potential destructive im

pact of C

ombined S

ewer O

verflows (C

SO

s) in the north arm

of the Fraser River

Com



MP

.

126 Feedback Form

C

onsider the environmental costs of adhering

to the current 1% per year replacem

ent strategy for C

SO

upgrades.

Com



MP

.

SDD-50

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

17

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 127

Feedback Form

Where is the data to justify the current 1%

per year replacem

ent strategy for CS

O upgrades?

In the 1970s, the City of V

ancouver established a policy that it w

ould separate its combined sew

ers at average rate of 1%

per year corresponding best practice rate for sewer

renewal. E

nvironmental studies directed at the C

SO

s have been ongoing since the 1990s.

128 M

eeting Notes

Support given for sew

er updates as soon as possible, regardless of the cost.

Com

ment noted.

129 M

eeting Notes

Inquired about Bentley S

treet and Heather

Street discharging m

assive amounts of oil into

the Fraser River.

By 2050 w

e will be elim

inating those. Fraser River studies

confirmed no N

orth Arm

impacts from

CS

Os.

130 M

eeting Notes

18 connections are still being used by industry in the N

orth Arm

of the Fraser; request made

that the LWM

P deal w

ith this problem that is

affecting juvenile salmon.

By 2050 w

e will be elim

inating those. Fraser River studies

confirmed no N

orth Arm

impacts from

CS

Os.

131 M

eeting Notes

Move m

ore quickly on the issue of CS

Os and

illegal dumping in the north arm

of the Fraser im

mediately, not in 25 years.

Com



MP

.

132 M

eeting Notes

Is MV

considering opportunities to coordinate the C

SO

replacement schedule w

ith other construction projects?

Yes, w

e look at opportunities and coordinate with the

streets division.

133 M

eeting Notes

Would the C

SO

replacement schedule occur

more quickly if m

ore funds were available?

The current sewer separation rate requires 3-4 dedicated

fulltime crew

s renewing the sew

ers. Increased efforts w

ould require more resources and also have m

ore roads and neighbours disrupted at any given tim

e. 134

Meeting N

otes R

equest for clarification that the proposed tim

eline for CS

O upgrades is no m

ore am

bitious than what is required.

The timeline for C

SO

elimination has been set taking into

account financial resources and logistics to separate the legacy com

bined sewers.

SDD-51

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

18

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 135

Meeting N

otes To w

hat degree are CS

Os a contributor to the

most sensitive w

ater bodies? D

ue to the complexity of non-point source pollutants, the

cumulative effects of C

SO

are instead assessed on the receiving environm

ent around CS

O locations. The

Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (EM

C) and the

Fraser River E

stuary Managem

ent Plan (FR

EM

P) track

indicators for the receiving environments.

136 M

eeting Notes

What other C

SO

issues, with regard to

contaminants, should be considered?

Improving the understanding of the effects of storm

water

runoff for both separated sewers and com

bined sewer

systems is being considered.

137 M

eeting Notes

What is the potential for the sanitary sew

er to leak into the w

ater table? The potential for sew

age exfiltrating the pipes is low given

that gravity sewers are not pressurized, w

ith groundwater

more com

monly infiltrating into the sew

ers. 138

Public

Correspondence

Concerns over the m

ixing of rainwater and

sewage in the com

bined sewage system

s. C

omm


1.2 in the LWM

P.

139 P

ublic C

orrespondence C

SO

s are a considerable source of pollution w

hen discharged during storm events.

Com



MP

. 140

Public

Correspondence

Com

bined sewer system

s likely make it difficult

to apply advanced sewage treatm

ent technology due to higher fluctuations in daily flow

from rainw

ater.

Com



MP

.

141 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

upport sewer separation being com

pleted in a tim

ely manner.

Com



MP

. 142

Public

Correspondence

The separation of combined sew

ers will be

costly and should be shared with federal and

provincial funding, local government taxes and

development cost charges.

Com

ment noted.

Strategy 1.3: Reduce environm

ental impacts from

liquid waste m

anagement to a m

inimum

(Strategy #3 in March 2009 D

raft LW

MP)

143 Feedback Form

P

rovide information on the volum

e of primary

treated sewage em

issions over the last 3 – 4 decades.

The WW

TP in the V

ancouver and North S

hore sewerage

areas respectively discharge on average 580 megalitres

per day and 90 megalitres per day of treated effluent.

SDD-52

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

19

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 144

Feedback Form

Provide inform

ation on the breakdown of

contents, masses of toxic com

pounds and heavy m

etals emitted yearly from

the WW

TPs.

Characterization of the treated effluent discharged from

the treatm

ent plants can be obtained through the Metro

Vancouver H

arry Lash Library. 145

Feedback Form

Reduce liquid w

aste by: reducing the energy requirem

ents of treatment plants by 50%

relative to a conventional plant; reducing the land foot print to 30%

of a conventional plant, and; by lim

iting chemical consum

ption, and producing less sludge and odour.

Com



MP

. The LWM

P contains an action to

provide secondary level wastew

ater treatment.

146 Feedback Form

U

pdate the Iona and North S

hore wastew

ater plants by 2020 using the best possible technology.

Com



MP

. The LWM



ater treatment.

147 Feedback Form

E

xercise precaution; current instruments used

to measure the im

pact of dumping prim

ary-treated effluent are not sufficient.

Com



MP

.

148 Feedback Form

Iona m

ust be converted to secondary treatment

by at least 2020 due to the greater volume of

effluent discharged into a more sensitive

marine environm

ent, when com

pared with

Lions Gate.

Com



MP

. The LWM



ater treatment.

149 Feedback Form

Iona m

ust be converted to secondary treatment

by at least 2020 as it currently receives the least treatm

ent; the plant is by-passed when it

rains.

Com



MP

. The LWM



ater treatment.

150 Feedback Form

C

onsider land acquisition as well as the

distance between and location of the

discharging stations when upgrading the

WW

TPs.

Com



MP

.

151 Feedback Form

C

ost is the greatest challenge for upgrading the W

WTP

s. C

omm


1.3 in the LWM

P. C

ost sharing will be sought by M

V and

municipalities from

both senior levels of government.

SDD-53

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

20

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 152

Feedback Form

Are better treatm

ent options available that are not currently identified in the LW

MP

? The LW

MP

does not identify treatment specific options,

but a process of monitoring, assessm

ent and response to protect the environm

ent and public health Strategy 1.3.

153 Feedback Form

U

pgrades to secondary treatment should be

combined w

ith an upgrade to tertiary treatment.

Com



MP

. 154

Feedback Form

Consider the challenges presented by a

growing population w

hen considering upgrades to the W

WTP

s.

Com



MP

.

155 Feedback Form

R

educe the amount of liquid w

aste so that the current capacity is sufficient for another 10 years; conduct upgrades to the W

WTP

s after 10 years have passed, w

hen technology has becom

e more advanced.

Com



MP

.

156 Feedback Form

P

olitics is the biggest challenge involved in updating the W

WTP

s. C

omm

ent noted.

157 Feedback Form

S

upport accelerating timeline for updates due

to the current low interest rates and high

economic-stim

ulus spending in construction.

Com



MP

. The LWM



ater treatment.

158 Feedback Form

S

upport for 2020 timeline on both W

WTP

s regardless of an increase in cost for residents.

Com

ment noted. The Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan

(LWM

P) contains an action to provide secondary level

wastew

ater treatment for the N

orth Shore and V

ancouver sew

erage areas. Based on the C

anada-wide S

trategy for the M

anagement of M

unicipal Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-M

MW

E), Lions G

ate should proceed within a 10-year

timeline and Iona Island w

ithin a 20-year timeline.

159 Feedback Form

The m

ain challenges for updating the WW

TPs

are funding and cost-sharing. C

omm


1.3 in the LWM

P. C

ost sharing will be sought by M

V and

municipalities from


160 Feedback Form

C

onsider newer designs for the new

North

Shore W

WTP

; opportunity to reduce the visual and aesthetic im

pact of the plant by blending w

ith the neighbourhood.

Com



MP

.

SDD-54

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

21

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 161

Feedback Form

The new N

orth Shore W

WTP

should not have a negative im

pact on the comm

unity, such as odour or noise.

Com



MP

.

162 Feedback Form

W

hy is tertiary treatment not being pursued as

an option? Tertiary treatm

ent does not necessarily provide better w

astewater treatm

ent; it is a term that usually refers to

nutrient removal processes. N

utrients have not been identified to be a concern.

163 Feedback Form

H

ow close to shore are w

aste effluents currently being discharged; how

far from shore

could/should these waste effluents be

discharged?

Outfalls are located to obtain dispersion of the treated

effluent through submerged diffuser outfalls. D

istances offshore vary from

100’s of metres to several kilom

etres.

164 Feedback Form

C

onsider future ability to upgrade the WW

TPs.

Com



MP

. 165

Feedback Form

Explain the process of upgrades to the W

WTP

s from

now until 2020.

We are doing conceptual design plans in conjunction w

ith integrated resource recovery business cases. The com

plete design process will be up to 18 m

onths, and construction 3-4 years. P

ublic consultation will parallel the

technical process. 166

Meeting N

otes C

oncern expressed that the three timelines for

WW

TP upgrades are a result of placing

responsibility on senior levels of government.

Cost sharing w

ill be sought by MV

and municipalities from

both senior levels of governm

ent.

167 M

eeting Notes

Suggestion m

ade that MV

put forward a

timeline for W

WTP

upgrades that the public desires; let accountability lay w

ith senior governm

ent to confirm support and funding.

Com



MP

. The LWM



ater treatment.

168 M

eeting Notes

Suggestion m

ade that the timeline for upgrades

to both Lions Gate and Iona be accelerated to

no later than 2020.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

contains an action to provide secondary level w

astewater treatm

ent for the North S

hore and V

ancouver sewerage areas. B

ased on the CW

S-

MM

WE

, Lions Gate should proceed w

ithin a 10-year tim

eline and Iona Island within a 20-year tim

eline.

SDD-55

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

22

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 169

Meeting N

otes C

oncern expressed over a blunt set of environm

ental measures in regard to sew

age effluent and that triggers are based upon unsophisticated m

easures.

Com



MP

.

170 M

eeting Notes

Concern expressed over how

tax payer money

is being spent; the Annacis Island W

WTP

is not w

orking well.

Com



MP

.

171 M

eeting Notes

New

York and C

olumbia should be used as

role models for W

WTP

s; it should be possible to take a cup of w

ater at the outfall and drink it.

Com



MP

.

172 M

eeting Notes

What has happened in term

s of increases in prim

ary treated sewage in the sam

e period and w

hat are the projections for the next 20-30 years? (R

eferenced graph illustrating the dram

atic drop of untreated sewage entering

coastal waters).

The volumes of prim

ary treated sewage have increased

primarily w

ith the North S

hore population (Vancouver’s

volumes are correlated to rainfall). O

ver the next 20-30 years these volum

es will drop to zero as the prim

ary plants are replaced w

ith secondary level treatment plants.

173 M

eeting Notes

With population grow

th and development have

we seen a great increase in sew

age that is prim

arily treated?

As population has grow

n, dry weather flow

s have increased in term

s of what is treated. H

owever, w

et w

eather flows have not changed as storm

water inflow

fills up the rem

aining treatment capacity.

174 M

eeting Notes

Based on research on C

olumbia and N

elson, M

V should consider tertiary treatm

ent due to em

erging contaminants.

Com



MP

.

175 M

eeting Notes

What occurs after liquid w

aste is released into the environm

ent and solids disposed of? S

olids and biosolids are used in a digestion process to create biogas. M

ost are being land applied for mine

reclamation in the interior.

176 M

eeting Notes

Has M

V considered discharging the liquids that

result after plant treatment via pipeline into

open waters?

Currently w

e are discharging to a large body of water w

ith a sm

all flow. E

nvironmental assessm

ents conducted at the point of discharge, indicate the locations are appropriate.

177 M

eeting Notes

Does effluent flow

through sewer pipes

naturally or is it pumped discharge?

It moves by gravity. A

t the treatment plant, w

e lift sewage

high enough that it flows out.

SDD-56

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

23

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 178

Meeting N

otes C

ould a cable, similar to the large

telecomm

unications cables, be used for discharging effluent further out into the ocean?

It is high quality secondary effluent. It has not been deem

ed necessary to move the discharge location.

179 M

eeting Notes

Effluent w

ould carry some nitrogen and organic

material from

the treatment process, w

hich could be useful for organism

s in the ocean.

Nutrient levels in the G

eorgia Strait and Fraser R

iver are low

. On the W

est Coast, the nutrients released are

beneficial in some w

ays. 180

Meeting N

otes R

ichmond m

ade an effort to address the effluent going into the system

when the Lulu

Island WW

TP w

as first built; some com

panies w

ere given permission to use the system

.

Com

ment noted.

181 M

eeting Notes

Would it be useful to consider a W

WTP

in the southern region of M

V?

Siting decisions w

ill be finalized during the implem

entation phase of the LW

MP

. 182

Meeting N

otes A

WW

TP in the southern region of M

V could

utilize the resulting water for farm

land irrigation. C

omm

ent noted.

183 M

eeting Notes

Concern regarding the build-up of chem

icals in treatm

ent plants. Treatm

ent processes and substances entering the receiving environm

ent are structured so that the receiving environm

ent water quality objectives are m

et. Treatment

processes are matched to this.

184 M

eeting Notes

The treatment costs are different in each

sewerage area; is the [treated] w

ater quality the sam

e in all four regions on the output?

The plants on the Fraser treat to secondary levels and those that discharge in m

arine environments are using

primary treatm

ent levels. Those are being upgraded to secondary treatm

ent. 185

Meeting N

otes D

o any of the treatment plants currently use

bacteria? Y

es - all treatment processes use bacteria to digest.

186 M

eeting Notes

What is currently m

easured in the treatment

plants? M

V W

WTs have m

onitoring programs associated w

ith them

, including measurem

ent of biochemical oxygen

demand (B

OD

), total suspended solids (TSS

) and num

erous chemical param

eters. 187

Meeting N

otes A

laska has recently changed amm

onia levels to 2.9 m

illigrams.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

references Canadian

regulations and continues to use a “Cautions, W

arning and Triggers” approach to assess environm

ental impacts.

SDD-57

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

24

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 188

Meeting N

otes C

ruise ships are adding nitrifying bacteria to reduce am

monia levels.

Com

ment noted. There are various technologies available

to control amm

onia levels in Strategy 3.3.

189 M

eeting Notes

Are there any m

unicipalities that have achieved zero [liquid] w

aste that could be looked to as exam

ples for MV

?

No. There are som

e very arid cities where extensive

water reclam

ation systems have been built.

190 M

eeting Notes

Tertiary systems are effective and there are

many exam

ples of where M

V should be in

regard to their sewage system

s.

Com

ment noted. This com

ment is addressed by

Strategies 1.3 and 3.3.

191 M

eeting Notes

It is shocking that MV

is looking at 2030 as a tim

eline for upgrades to the WW

TPs, w

hen it w

as in Vancouver that B

ob Hunter started an

environmental m

ovement.

Com



MP

.

192 M

eeting Notes

Privatization of W

WTP

s would lead to unions

feeling that their jobs are threatened. C

omm

ent noted. Ow

nership and corporate structures are not part of the LW

MP

; rather they are MV

Board (elected

officials) policy decisions. 193

Meeting N

otes W

here is MV

in terms of actual com

mitm

ent to m

oving forward on sustainability, innovation

and resource recovery for the WW

TPs?

Strategy 3.2 includes the use of innovative approaches

and technology and Strategy 2.1 includes the

development of business cases for each sew

erage area. 194

Meeting N

otes W

ill the Langley WW

TP be enlarged to sustain

trucked liquid waste?

We handle our trucked liquid w

aste at the two largest

plants. With the Langley plant there w

ould be odour issues, and for the foreseeable future it w

ill be just the two

largest plants. 195

Meeting N

otes A

2030 timeline is too slow

. C

omm


1.3 in the LWM

P. The LW

MP


astewater treatm

ent. 196

Meeting N

otes R

eference made to new

federal regulation on sew

age mandating that secondary treatm

ent be achieved in 10 years. W

ould MV

be in violation if secondary treatm

ent is not achieved in 10 years?

The LWM

P is aligned to this federal strategy.

197 M

eeting Notes

Does the Iona W

WTP

discharge directly into the ocean?

It discharges into “open marine”. M

V uses the provincial

definitions regarding “open marine”.

SDD-58

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

25

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 198

Meeting N

otes H

as MV

conducted studies regarding contam

ination occurring as a result of outfall from

the WW

TPs?

Extensive m

onitoring programs have been done around

outfalls since the 1980s. The Environm

ental Monitoring

Com

mittee (E

MC

) has and continues to review those

programs.

199 M

eeting Notes

Support the V

ictoria model of sludge entering

the water as preferable to sludge going to

farms.

Com

ment noted.

200 M

eeting Notes

Is MV

considering using salt water in the

sewage system

s like in Hong K

ong? There are no salt w

ater systems in M

V for residential or

comm

ercial use. 201

Meeting N

otes The C

ity of Vancouver has a salt w

ater sewer

system ready for im

plementation.

Vancouver has a saltw

ater fire fighting system for m

ajor em

ergencies. 202

Public

Correspondence

Increase the price of water to include the cost

associated with w

astewater treatm

ent and the required upgrades to the W

WTP

s.

Com



MP

.

203 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

ewage treatm

ent provides an excellent opportunity for M

V to take a m

ore sustainable approach to regional planning.

Com



MP

.

204 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide more inform

ation at public meetings to

inspire the public to support innovative technologies for w

astewater treatm

ent.

Com



MP

.

205 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide more inform

ation regarding the presence of endocrine disrupters and other chem

icals in sewage and w

hat types of treatm

ent might rem

ove these compounds.

Com



MP

.

206 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide more inform

ation on how M

V’s treated

sewage com

pares with that of other regions

across Canada; this w

ould likely increase public support for W

WTP

upgrades.

Com



MP

.

SDD-59

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

26

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 207

Public

Correspondence

Expressed doubt that upgrading the Iona and

Lions Gate treatm

ent plants to secondary treatm

ent is the correct decision given the num

ber of new technologies that are now

available.

Com



MP

.

208 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

re there any advanced sewage treatm

ents that m

ight preclude the installation of secondary treatm

ent?

Secondary treatm

ent refers to the use of biological processes to rem

ove pollutants. Som

e technologies such as m

embrane filters treat w

astewater w

ithout relying on biological processes.

209 P

ublic C

orrespondence D

istributed sewage treatm

ent systems, rather

than a few large sew

age treatment plants

would provide greater options for new

technologies; assurances w

ould still need to be m

ade that monitoring and treatm

ent would be

adequate.

Com



MP

.

210 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11: New

marina pum

p-outs must be

‘readily accessible to all vessels;” there are currently m

arinas with pum

p-out that are not accessible, this needs to be explicit in the LW

MP

.

Com

ment noted.

211 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11.3: Language should say ‘actively encourage representative m

arinas in MV

to install pum

p-outs.”

Com



MP

.

212 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11.3: If there are several marinas in an

area, it might not be necessary for each to

have a marina pum

p-out, as long as the marina

pump-outs available can service the vessel

traffic in that area.

Com



MP

.

SDD-60

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

27

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 213

Public

Correspondence

Action 11.3: N

eed incentives and methods to

encourage installing marina pum

p-outs; marina

pump-outs are expensive and federal

regulation does not mandate their installation,

therefore these mechanism

s require more

discussion and the region must assist in

providing marina pum

p-out services to all boaters.

Com



MP

.

214 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11: Marina pum

p-outs need to be accessible to the public; currently, som

e m

arinas do not allow public access to their

marina pum

p-outs but rather only to their m

embers or to those w

ho are moored there.

Com



MP

.

215 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11: The parenthesis be removed w

hich refers to 50%

of the value of upgrades; this figure is vague and could be used as a m

eans to avoid putting in m

arina pump-outs during

upgrades.

Com



MP

.

216 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11.1: By only discussing new

and renovated m

arinas, the LWM

P lim

its the likelihood of getting enough m

arina pump-outs

installed; consider annual goals for installing m

arina pump-outs so that w

ithin the next three years there are enough in the region to service boaters.

Com



MP

.

217 P

ublic C

orrespondence A

ction 11: Clarify w

hy the Ministry w

ould need to be advised of barriers to installing m

arina pum

p-outs; this point insinuates a means to

find reasons not to install marina pum

p-outs. In reality, there should not be any barriers to stop the upgrades.

Com



MP

.

SDD-61

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

28

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 218

Public

Correspondence

Action 11: There should be no potential barriers

in place to prevent the upgrades of marina

pump-outs.

Com



MP

.

219 P

ublic C

orrespondence W

hy is the Lions Gate W

WTP

not being upgraded to secondary treatm

ent? This W

WTP

has been identified for upgrade by 2020. P

reliminary engineering has begun.

220 P

ublic C

orrespondence If rainw

ater and stormw

ater infiltrating into the sew

er system is elim

inated, the Lions Gate

WW

TP has capacity to handle N

orth Shore

sewage for som

e time; a new

WW

TP w

ill not solve the infiltration problem

.

Com

ment noted. Infiltration and inflow

is being addressed as part of the plan.

221 P

ublic C

orrespondence W

ith the new technology available, is a single

WW

TP on the N

orth Shore the best option?

Strategy 2.1 w

ill examine technologies and determ

ine w

hich options are best for the North S

hore; a single treatm

ent plant or smaller distributed plants.

222 P

ublic C

orrespondence Is it possible for each m

unicipality to have its ow

n WW

TP and control its ow

n costs? S

trategy 2.1 will determ

ine which options are m

ost beneficial for the N

orth Shore m

unicipalities; a single treatm

ent plant or smaller distributed plants.

223 P

ublic C

orrespondence W

ould multiple W

WTP

s in each municipality

give a better option for resource recovery? S

trategy 2.1 will determ

ine which options are best for the

North S

hore resource recovery; a single treatment plant or

smaller distributed plants.

Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid waste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context (Strategy #6 and 8 in M

arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 224

Feedback Form

Support given to the production of phosphorus

as a by-product of resource recovery. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

225 Feedback Form

M

V m

ust ensure that solids are properly filtered from

liquids, that solids are dried accordingly and that solids are used as products for new

m

arket applications.

Com



MP

.

226 Feedback Form

M

V m

ust ensure that no contaminants enter

into the food chain, such as chemicals,

pharmaceuticals and horm

ones through resource recovery.

Com



MP

.

SDD-62

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

29

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 227

Feedback Form

Suggestion that bio-gases and fertilizer be

created as a by-product of the Wastew

ater Treatm

ent Plants (W

WTP

s).

Com



MP

.

228 Feedback Form

M

V should focus on recovering as m

uch energy as possible through the W

WTP

s. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

229 Feedback Form

M

V should m

ove towards zero w

aste treatment

and 100% resource recovery as soon as

possible.

Com



MP

.

230 Feedback Form

S

uggestion made that M

V consider using

waste liquid and solids as feedstock for deep

sea organisms.

Com

ment noted.

231 Feedback Form

Is the generation of biogas for energy a sensible pursuit?

Com



MP

. 232

Feedback Form

Suggestion m

ade that manures be created as a

by-product of the WW

TPs, w

hich could be used to replenish soils in the interior of B

ritish C

olumbia.

Com



MP

.

233 Feedback Form

M

V should exercise caution w

hen recovering m

aterials from w

aste due to toxicity concerns. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

234 Feedback Form

P

roducing water from

wastew

ater seems to be

cost inefficient. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

235 Feedback Form

W

ater and energy are inexpensive in MV

; resource recovery should be m

anaged with an

eye towards future build-out w

hile mitigating

the short-term costs of developm

ent.

Com



MP

.

236 Feedback Form

C

onsider collecting sewage w

ater, evaporating it and using the rem

ains as fertilizer. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

237 Feedback Form

R

ecognize dangers of toxic waste and heavy

metal accum

ulation with regard to resource

recovery.

Com



MP

.

SDD-63

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

30

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 238

Meeting N

otes P

leased with support for A

ction 20 that has been dem

onstrated: recover energy from liquid

waste and biosolids.

Com

ment noted.

239 M

eeting Notes

Effluent from

treatment plants should be

considered as a nutrient to feed existing resources, such as m

icroalgae, bacteria and fish.

Com



MP

.

240 M

eeting Notes

The application of waste residuals in fisheries

is important w

hen considering options for resource recovery.

Com



MP

.

241 M

eeting Notes

River w

ater is utilized in the farming com

munity

as much as possible; farm

ers are discouraged from

using potable water as there are

competing needs for w

ater.

Com



MP

.

242 M

eeting Notes

Storm

sewer w

ater should be used in agriculture; the fresh w

ater is no longer as deep in the Fraser R

iver resulting in salt water

coming through farm

ers pumps.

Com



MP

.

243 M

eeting Notes

Likely by-products of resource recovery are biogas or solids that could be used as fertilizers.

Com



MP

.

244 M

eeting Notes

What is a potential negative by-product of

resource recovery? E

ffluent discharges and solids recovery have regulated standards. These requirem

ents are being comfortably

met. A

dditional research is being conducted by MV

and its partners.

245 M

eeting Notes

In som

e situations urban and industrial waste

mix; is there a surplus of w

aste not being used for biogas or fertilizer?

We have an extensive source control program

and bylaw.

A C

anada-wide strategy also provides directions. They

limit w

hat industry can discharge to the system, w

ith the purpose of protecting the environm

ent. 246

Meeting N

otes If there is a surplus of w

aste not being used for biogas or fertilizer, w

hat is the quantity? If it is non-toxic, can it be placed in the ocean?

Ocean disposal of biosolids is not a beneficial use of a

resource. It has been banned.

SDD-64

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

31

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 247

Meeting N

otes W

ould it be possible to incorporate wastew

ater into usage for agriculture?

Water can be collected locally from

the stormw

ater system

. There is not a lot of irrigation water that does not

come from

that system.

248 M

eeting Notes

What form

is phosphorus in when it is produced

as a result of resource recovery? In som

e processes it is used directly as a slow release,

non-burning fertilizer (5-28-0). 249

Meeting N

otes W

hat is the situation regarding contaminants in

resource recovery? This depends on the technology used and quality needs for the resource reuse.

250 M

eeting Notes

If contaminants w

ere present in products of resource recovery, it w

ould cause a problem.

Com



MP

. 251

Meeting N

otes A

re any projects currently focused on energy recovery from

sewers?

A study is underw

ay for effluent extraction from the

Annacis Island W

WTP

s. Other specific projects are being

considered. 252

Meeting N

otes P

ipes close to Delta C

ity Hall, as w

ell as at a nearby sports com

plex would be ideal locations

for tapping into sewer heat.

Com



MP

.

253 M

eeting Notes

There is a business case for converting liquid w

aste into hydrogen. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

254 M

eeting Notes

Are innovations, such as converting w

aste into hydrogen, being considered sufficiently by M

V?

Strategies 2.1 and 3.2 explore Integrated R

esource R

ecovery (IRR

), innovative approaches and technologies. 255

Meeting N

otes E

urope is currently using and applying heat and biogas recovery; secondary treatm

ent was

dictated over a decade ago.

Com



MP

.

256 M

eeting Notes

Solids obtained from

liquid waste should be

dried, turned into energy to dry solids or turned into fertilizer and then sold to other production plants as fuel.

There are some quantities of sludge turned into biosolids

through the digestion process and are used for land reclam

ation. We are also pursuing their use as a fuel.

257 M

eeting Notes

Does M

V have a w

ay to remove the paint,

heavy metals and pharm

aceuticals from the

biosolids that are produced?

Source control program

s are the most effective m

eans to protect the quality characteristics of biosolids. Treating biosolids to rem

ove contaminants is im

practical. 258

Meeting N

otes B

iosolids can poison farmlands w

hen they are sprayed onto fields.

Com



MP

.

SDD-65

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

32

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 259

Meeting N

otes S

upport LWM

P’s consideration of creative

options for resource recovery. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

260 M

eeting Notes

Consider ideas, such as anaerobic digestion to

fuel taxis and buses, in a more com

prehensive m

anner.

Strategy 2.1 com

mits to recovering energy, nutrients and

water from

liquid waste.

261 M

eeting Notes

Is evaporating waste w

ater being considered as a possibility for resource recovery?

The LWM

P contains an action to develop IR

R business

cases for each sewerage area.

262 M

eeting Notes

Is MV

considering producing water from

waste

water effluent?

The LWM


R business


263 M

eeting Notes

What are the opportunities for pow

er generation from

storm sew

ers? The LW

MP

contains an action to develop IRR

business cases for each sew

erage area. 264

Public

Correspondence

Com

bine solid and liquid waste for use in

waste-to-energy (W

TE) plants.

Com



MP

. 265

Public

Correspondence

Opposed to the developm

ent of WTE

plants. C

omm

ent noted. This is part of the Solid W

aste plan, and is not addressed under the LW

MP

. 266

Public

Correspondence

Opposed to the proposed garbage gasification

plant in Port M

oody. C

omm

ent noted. This is part of the Solid W

aste plan and is not addressed under the LW

MP

. 267

Public

Correspondence

Solid w

aste is a very heterogeneous mix of

materials som

e of which cannot be incinerated

or gasified without creating hazardous

chemicals including dioxins.

Com

ment noted. This is part of the S

olid Waste plan and

is not addressed under the LWM

P.

268 P

ublic C

orrespondence W

hile it may be appropriate to use liquid w

aste for W

TE purposes, it w

ould be inappropriate to use solid w

aste as well.

Com



MP

.

269 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

olid waste should be subject to m

ore stringent recycling and re-use program

s rather than being destroyed to create energy.

Com

ment noted. This is part of the S

olid Waste plan and

is not addressed under the LWM

P.

270 P

ublic C

orrespondence C

omm

ent made that m

ore energy is wasted

when products are not reused in com

parison to using those products to generate energy.

Com



MP

.

SDD-66

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

33

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 271

Public

Correspondence

Investigate any proposal to use liquid waste to

create energy; these investigations should be conducted in a transparent m

anner and engage the public in consultation.

Com



MP

.

272 P

ublic C

orrespondence H

eat recovery from liquid w

aste should become

a standard application whenever possible.

Com



MP

. 273

Public

Correspondence

The use of grey water for law

n watering and

flushing toilets should be investigated and incorporated into planning for new

developm

ents.

Com



MP

.

274 P

ublic C

orrespondence E

xplore how sew

age is being used in Norw

ay to create biofuels for public buses.

Com



MP

. 275

Public

Correspondence

Encourage greater re-use of rainw

ater. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

276 Feedback Form

S

upport MV

’s proposed actions for IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

277 Feedback Form

R

educing usage is more im

portant than IRR

in regard to liquid w

aste managem

ent. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

278 Feedback Form

C

osts and funding are the key concerns in regard to IR

R.

Com



MP

. 279

Feedback Form

Prioritize the use of roof gardens in plans for

IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

280 Feedback Form

O

pinion expressed that timelines for IR

R w

ill take longer than projected.

Com



MP

. 281

Feedback Form

Many of the strategies for IR

R w

ill involve research, identification and developm

ent of new

technologies and processes, likely resulting in a long tim

eline for implem

entation.

Com



MP

.

282 Feedback Form

IR

R should be evaluated in the context of each

individual treatment facility; reclaim

ing water at

the Lions Gate facility w

ould not be as param

ount as at other facilities.

Com



MP

.

SDD-67

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

34

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 283

Feedback Form

The emphasis in the draft LW

MP

on IRR

and the harvesting of w

aste for energy and income

is promising.

Com



MP

.

284 M

eeting Notes

Generating energy is im

portant when

considering IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

285 M

eeting Notes

What process does M

V use w

hen considering options for IR

R?

The LWM


R business


286 M

eeting Notes

What is the estim

ated revenue currently generated by IR

R at the W

WTP

s? It is probably offsetting half of the energy cost. It is m

any m

illions of dollars annually in costs that would otherw

ise have to be levied and put on taxpayers.

287 M

eeting Notes

M

V w

ill soon be facing major environm

ental im

pacts; the timeline for upgrades m

ust be accelerated and technology for IR

R utilized.

Com



MP

.

288 M

eeting Notes

Recognize the im

provement in the draft LW

MP

w

ith regard to IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

289 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

upport an approach to liquid waste w

hich will

include a greater focus on IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

290 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide clarification at public meetings as to

what w

ould be entailed in taking an IRR

approach to w

astewater m

anagement and w

hat the options are in regard to specific technologies.

Com



MP

.

291 P

ublic C

orrespondence P

rovide residents with m

ore information

regarding the pros and cons of IRR

. C

omm


2.1 in the LWM

P.

292 P

ublic C

orrespondence R

esource recovery must have a positive

benefit; it is only beneficial if there is a local use for the recovered m

aterials that does not require storage or long-distance transportation.

Com



MP

.

293 P

ublic C

orrespondence The recovery of m

aterial at an added cost, w

hich could otherwise be disposed of safely,

must not create other environm

ental impacts

through distribution for use.

Com



MP

.

SDD-68

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

35

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 294

Public

Correspondence

Strategy 8: A

ssess the business case for IRR

before proceeding w

ith the engineering for replacem

ent treatment plants in the N

orth S

hore and Vancouver S

ewerage A

reas: if the region is to truly achieve the S

ustainable R

egion vision, then the IRR

philosophy must be

at the heart of the system and facility planning

process, not an add-on.

Com



MP

.

295 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

trategy 8: Implem

ent a consistent region-wide

approach to neighbourhood (re)development

and building design that integrates rainwater

managem

ent, green infrastructure and IRR

; m

unicipalities will have to provide guidance as

to how w

atershed-specific targets established through Integrated R

ainwater M

anagement

Plans can be m

et at the development scale.

Com



MP

.

Strategy 3.1: Manage assets and optim

ize existing sanitary sewerage operations (Strategy #4 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

296 Feedback Form

S

upport planning for the cost of future m

aintenance and upgrades as recognized in A

ction 16.

Com



MP

.

297 M

eeting Notes

Pleased w

ith the public and political support dem

onstrated for Goal 2.

Com



MP

. 298

Meeting N

otes W

hat is the optimal pipe density and height for

sustainable infrastructure and sewage?

This is not known.

299 M

eeting Notes

How

many toilets are there in a fifty storey

building? If several 50-storey buildings are built on one street, w

hat is the impact on

capacity? Is there an optimal density for the

City of V

ancouver?

This is a municipal policy decision on balancing zoning

and infrastructure capacity. The sewers have the capacity

to handle the buildings as they are proposed now.

SDD-69

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

36

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 300

Meeting N

otes Is the sensitivity of the receiving environm

ent considered w

hen deciding what action to take

next in regard to upgrading waste m

anagement

infrastructure?

Environm

ental monitoring (S

trategy 3.3) is used to inform

the setting of priorities (Strategy 1.3).

Strategy 3.2: Use innovative approaches and technologies (Strategy #5 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

301 Feedback Form

P

rovide more inform

ation about innovative options for liquid w

aste managem

ent. C

omm


3.2 in the LWM

P.

302 Feedback Form

Increase the num

ber of innovative solutions to liquid w

aste managem

ent being put forward.

Com



MP

. 303

Feedback Form

Candidate innovative technologies should

compete on m

erit. Many are excluded from

consideration by criteria such as: "M

ust have at least three local reference sites of the sam

e scale."

Com



MP

.

304 Feedback Form

M

any new innovative technologies that could

potentially be integrated into the LWM

P,

receive only cursory evaluation due to unfam

iliarity with the technology on the part of

the consultants and a bias towards traditional

designs. This issue could be remedied by

allocating points for "local" technology content; ensuring local technologies receive the sam

e due diligence as their conventional counterparts; and by reducing barriers to entry.

Com



MP

.

305 M

eeting Notes

The technology for innovative treatment exists;

political reasons hinder their implem

entation. C

omm


3.2 in the LWM

P.

306 M

eeting Notes

There are innovative strategies available that M

V refuses to use.

Com



MP

. 307

Meeting N

otes P

leased with the innovations m

ade by the City

of Surrey.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-70

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

37

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse Strategy 3.3: M

onitor the performance of liquid w

aste system im

pacts on the receiving environment (Strategy #7 in M

arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 308

Meeting N

otes W

hat is MV

’s monitoring com

mittee doing w

ith regard to the issue of reactive nitrogen?

Environm

ent Canada has guidelines on nitrogen, and

primarily in the am

monia form

. Metro V

ancouver does not exceed the nitrogen guidelines at any of our W

astewater

Treatment P

lants (WW

TPs).

309 M

eeting Notes

More testing required for em

erging wastew

ater contam

inants such as coffee and shampoo.

Com



MP

. 310

Meeting N

otes A

re there triggers and testing in place for [storm

] water collection and run-off to indicate if

clean-up is required?

Storm

water is a non-point source pollutant. Integrated

stormw

ater managem

ent plan (ISM

P) processes are

expected to quantify and address this (Strategy 3.4).

311 M

eeting Notes

Does the public have access to the w

ater quality of ponds? C

oncern expressed over w

hat flows into the w

ater quality ponds; are there security m

easures to prevent people from

falling into them? W

hat becomes of the w

ater after it leaves the w

ater quality ponds?

The ponds are intended to be constructed within a

neighbourhood setting next to a forest or riparian area, w

ith a gentle slope and natural landscaping. A program

to m

onitor water quality in the ponds to assess the

effectiveness is underway. C

leaning the ponds requires sedim

ent settling from run-off, and then any contam

inants w

ould be cleaned out and treated as a special waste.

All w

ater quality ponds would discharge to creeks and

streams w

hich are fish habitat. The first ones just came on

line this yea. In a year or two w

e will know

if it is an effective strategy to protect our stream

s and creeks. 312

Meeting N

otes S

urrey and Langley should increase the am

ount of monitoring and treatm

ent in general, not just for w

astewater.

Com



MP

.

313 M

eeting Notes

Why is only w

ater quality being monitored and

not concentrations of things like heavy metals

and pesticide residues?

Studies have been undertaken and IS

MP

s also identify w

hich parameters need to be m

onitored.

314 M

eeting Notes

Pesticide residues are reaching levels that are

harmful to fish.

Com



MP

.

SDD-71

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

38

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 315

Meeting N

otes M

unicipalities should explore additional water

quality indicators, not just PH

and temperature.

Com



MP

. Strategy 3.4: Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term

needs (Strategy #8 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 316

Feedback Form

Too many trees have been cut dow

n and too m

uch development has occurred in B

urnaby in order to m

anage rainwater and storm

water.

Com



MP

.

317 Feedback From

B

urnaby has a poor record in regard to storm

water, for exam

ple, by building too close to S

till Creek. S

till Creek cannot handle the

rain-fall at high levels.

Com



MP

.

318 Feedback Form

P

leased with the initiatives M

V has taken on

stormw

ater. C

omm

ent noted.

319 Feedback Form

B

uild using permeable surfaces.

Com



MP

. 320

Feedback Form

Filters should be placed in stormw

ater pipes to help clean out contam

inants and/or sediment

so that streams can be m

aintained.

Com



MP

.

321 Feedback Form

P

rioritize public health and public safety when

considering stormw

ater managem

ent. C

omm


3.4 in the LWM

P.

322 M

eeting Notes

Storm

water contains m

any contaminants; w

hat level of treatm

ent does stormw

ater receive before it goes back into stream

s and rivers?

Historically, very little. S

tormw

ater runs off and enters stream

s. There are some requirem

ents on parking lots and separators to reduce destructive peak flow

s and im

prove water quality. S

trategy 1.1 emphasizes actions to

promote site level storm

water m

anagement to address

this concern and improve w

ater quality. 323

Meeting N

otes S

tormw

ater managem

ent practices have only been im

plemented in new

developments and

address localized alterations in the water

course.

Com



MP

.

324 M

eeting Notes

Ninety per cent of the infrastructure does not

mitigate the storm

water flow

s to local streams;

the impact has not been reduced.

Com



MP

.

SDD-72

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

39

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 325

Meeting N

otes W

ater run-off from roads should be treated.

Com



MP

. 326

Meeting N

otes There is not enough funding available to im

plement treatm

ent infrastructure for storm

water.

Com



MP

.

327 M

eeting Notes

Study the quality of surface run-off,

groundwater and storm

water before

considering the treatment of storm

water.

Com



MP

.

328 M

eeting Notes

Som

e developed areas have bylaws in place

that require treatment of run-off, storm

water

and rainwater, by using an oil-separator.

Com

ment noted.

329 M

eeting Notes

A third storm

pipe for roof run-off, installed like a reverse w

ell, has been implem

ented as a pilot project in Langley.

Com

ment noted.

330 M

eeting Notes

Add an interim

step, prior to 2020 upgrades, to discuss introducing a filtration m

edium to storm

sew

ers that removes B

iochemical O

xygen D

emand (B

OD

), Chem

ical Oxygen D

emand

(CO

D) and heavy m

etals from the w

ater; this is a separate discussion from

primary and

secondary treatment discussions.

Com



MP

.

331 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

tormw

ater managem

ent is a more sustainable

approach to regional planning. C

omm


3.4 in the LWM

P.

332 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

upport increased efforts to return rainwater to

the ground, to create pervious areas in developed areas and to treat rainw

ater runoff to im

prove its water quality prior to discharge into

salmon-bearing w

ater courses.

Com



MP

.

333 P

ublic C

orrespondence M

V plays a key role in developing rainw

ater m

anagement plans and providing leadership to

municipalities.

Com



MP

.

SDD-73

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

40

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 334

Public

Correspondence

Strategy 8: R

e-focus Integrated Rainw

ater M

anagement P

lans on developing affordable and effective land use strategies that both green the urban landscape and im

prove w

atershed health; plans that do not integrate land use and drainage planning result in unaffordable drainage infrastructure budget item

s that become liabilities w

ithout offsetting stream

health benefits.

Com



MP

.

Strategy 3.5: Use collaborative m

anagement to address evolving needs (A

daptive Managem

ent in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.

Financial Plan 335

Feedback Form

MV

’s strategy appears to be based on double rather than triple-bottom

line accounting. C

omm

ent noted. Metro V

ancouver takes a triple-bottom

line approach. 336

Feedback Form

What w

ill the outcomes be if funding from

senior governm

ent for upgrades to the W

astewater Treatm

ent Plants (W

WTP

s) does not com

e through?

Strategy 1.3 provides an overview

of MV

’s approach to liquid w

aste managem

ent. If cost sharing is not available from

senior governments, then M

V B

oard will decide how

to proceed.

337 Feedback Form

W

hat contingency plans does MV

have in place for funding of the upgrades to the W

WTP

? M

V is expecting cost sharing. If cost sharing is not

available from senior governm

ents, then MV

Board w

ill decide how

to proceed. 338

Feedback Form

Can the cost of the upgrades to the W

WTP

s be am

ortized over a large period to bring down

costs to the taxpayer?

The inter-generational equitability is less desirable as there are other m

ajor capital programs in w

ater, solid w

aste and liquid waste w

hich compete for the sam

e public funding.

339 Feedback Form

Lobby for am

endments to federal and

provincial tax sharing arrangements to ensure

that municipalities are better poised to handle

infrastructure costs such as the treatment plant

upgrades.

Com

ment noted.

340 Feedback Form

S

upport taxpayers paying more for faster and

better upgrades to WW

TPs.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-74

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

41

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 341

Feedback Form

If one billion dollars is being spent on security for the O

lympics an equivalent am

ount should be spent on upgrades to the W

WTP

s.

Com

ment noted.

342 Feedback Form

The provincial governm

ent should pay for upgrades to the Iona and Lions G

ate treatment

plants rather than spending 4 billion dollars to tw

in the Port M

ann Bridge.

Com

ment noted.

343 Feedback Form

C

onsider raising industry sewer fees to cover

the cost of upgrading the WW

TPs.

Com

ment noted.

344 Feedback Form

M

V m

ay find raising taxes becomes

problematic to accom

modate the cost of

upgrades to the WW

TPs.

Com

ment noted.

345 Feedback Form

N

eed provincial and federal governments to

assist in upgrading the WW

TPs.

Com

ment noted. S

trategy 1.3 contains an action to provide secondary level w

astewater treatm

ent for the N

orth Shore and V


ased on the C

anada-wide S

trategy for the Managem

ent of M

unicipal Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-MM

WE

), Lions Gate

should proceed within a 10-year tim

eline and Iona Island w

ithin a 20-year timeline, subject to the appropriate

financial arrangements being in place.

346 Feedback Form

C

onsider the possibility of escalating WW

TP

costs. C

omm

ent noted.

347 M

eeting Notes

Opposed to public/private partnerships (P

3s). C

omm

ent noted. 348

Meeting N

otes M

V does not receive a large am

ount of taxes; support paying taxes as they fund the construction of necessary infrastructure.

Com

ment noted.

349 M

eeting Notes

Will M

V consider a public/private partnership

considering that public projects often cost more

and run over schedule?

Under the current procedures, M

V w

ill consider public/private partnerships (P

3s) if beneficial.

350 M

eeting Notes

Cost sharing should be sought as a strategy to

overcome the dow

nturn in the economy.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-75

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

42

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 351

Meeting N

otes S

ewage costs per household w

ere shown at

8%; does that translate to $8,000 per year if an

individual earns $100,000 per year?

Approxim

ately 8% of our household incom

e funds all m

unicipal and MV

programs. M

V, m

unicipality and TransLink costs add up to 8%

of household income.

352 M

eeting Notes

What is M

V’s role in sharing the costs of

sewage treatm

ent and movem

ent between

municipalities, especially w

hen considering the great difference in sew

age treatment plants?

The region is divided into four sewerage regions; and

mem

ber municipalities share basic operating costs w

ithin their sew

erage area(s). For secondary treatment

upgrades, 70% of the costs are shared across all the

sewerage areas–am

ongst all the municipalities across the

region. 353

Meeting N

otes H

ow w

ill the cost of upgrading the WW

TPs

affect taxes? W

ith 2/3 senior government cost sharing, the current 8%

of household incom

e would pay for these program

s based on a m

edian scenario. 354

Meeting N

otes W

as the cost information provided in public

meeting presentations from

MV

’s point of view,

or was it referencing the costs of the treatm

ent plant?

The chart referenced costs of the treatment plant, and

costs coming from

MV

. It doesn’t include individual m

unicipal costs. The average household paid $300-350 annually for sew

er. 355

Meeting N

otes W

hat is the percentage of financial support given by each m

unicipality towards the cost of

the treatment plant upgrades?

The amount varies by the size of the m

unicipality and the size of the sew

erage area. All operating costs associated

with sew

age treatment plants stay in the sew

age area. O

perating costs of the project are significant. There are large infrastructure upgrade projects at treatm

ent plants (to the secondary portion of the plants). The form

ula breaks dow

n to 30% in the sew

erage area. Approxim

ately 70%

of the costs are shared. 356

Meeting N

otes W

ould the cost increases due to WW

TP

upgrades be different in each sewerage area?

Yes, as the costing form

ula allocates different amounts

within sew

erage areas and shares others region-wide.

357 M

eeting Notes

If public costs were to increase by $150, how

m

uch would be for operating costs of the

WW

TPs? W

hat would the rem

ainder cover?

About 40%

to 50% are operating costs – the rem

ainder is debt servicing. Large investm

ents will be debt financed.

SDD-76

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

43

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 358

Meeting N

otes R

equest for more clarification around cost-

sharing for the upgrades to the WW

TPs.

Strategy 1.3 contains an action to provide secondary level

wastew


orth Shore and V

ancouver sew

erage areas. Based on C

WS

-MM

WE

, Lions Gate



ithin a 20-year timeline, subject to the appropriate

financial arrangements being in place as indicated in the

Financial Plan.

359 M

eeting Notes

The fees in Vancouver are going up by 300%

; the upgrades in the Fraser S

ewerage A

rea have already been im

plemented and the costs

are higher than in Vancouver. R

esidents of the Fraser S

ewerage A

rea are paying the price of these upgrades and V

ancouver is not.

The MV

portion of the average utility bill is $150—about

half of the bill. The other half is what the m

unicipality needs to run its local sew

er system. The upgrades have

been made to A

nnacis Island—V

ancouver and North

Shore S

ewerage A

reas have contributed to cost sharing these upgrades.

360 M

eeting Notes

What stage is M

V at in their application to the

federal government to fund one third of the

WW

TP upgrades?

We have talked to them

about the funding programs,

including the current infrastructure program. They have

made it clear that this round is directed to transportation

improvem

ents. 361

Meeting N

otes W

hy is the North S

hore facing the highest increase in costs due to the upgrades to the W

WTP

s?

Both V

ancouver and the North S

hore Sew

erage Areas are

facing similar increases because the m

ajority of the upgrade costs are contained w

ithin the sewerage area as

set by the regional cost allocation formula. The sam

e form

ula was applied to the Fraser and Lulu Island

Sew

erage Areas in the 1990s w

hen these areas paid the m

ajority of the costs for upgrading the Lulu and Annacis

Island WW

TPs.

362 M

eeting Notes

Without governm

ent funding, the North S

hore has a projected 250%

increase per household due to the proposed upgrades to the W

WTP

s; w

ill an average household be paying $575 if no governm

ent funding is received?

It would increase to approxim

ately $525 per household.

SDD-77

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

44

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 363

Meeting N

otes W

ith or without governm

ent funding, the increase in cost to residents of the N

orth S

hore, as a result of the upgrades to the W

WTP

s seems excessive.

Com

ment noted.

364 M

eeting Notes

Would the new

North V

ancouver WW

TP be

paid for by North S

hore residents only, or are costs from

incremental expansions across the

region included?

Most of the costs w

ould be paid by the North S

hore S

ewerage A

rea, except a portion of the secondary treatm

ent plant upgrade which are shared region-w

ide—those over and above prim

ary treatment.

365 P

ublic C

orrespondence D

o not believe the public will support increased

taxes for improved sew

age treatment.

Com

ment noted.

366 P

ublic C

orrespondence The public w

ould support increased costs for im

proved sewage treatm

ent to ensure that orcas could continue to live and reproduce in the southern S

trait of Georgia.

Com

ment noted.

367 P

ublic C

orrespondence There w

ere no funds for the LWM

P identified in

the stimulus package as this project is not yet

considered to be “shovel ready.”

Com

ment noted. P

rojects will be developed and becom

e “shovel ready” as the plan is carried out

368 P

ublic C

orrespondence C

oncern over future funding of the LWM

P as

the current financial situation could leave the P

rovincial and Federal governments in a deficit

for many years.

Com

ment noted. S

enior governments have provided 2/3

cost-sharing on major capital projects.

369 P

ublic C

orrespondence C

oncerned that if the Provincial and Federal

governments do not contribute financially,

municipalities w

ould be responsible for a higher portion of funding, residents w

ould balk at the cost of the project and the prom

ised odour-free plant w

ould not be built odour-free, resulting in a negative effect on the com

munity.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-78

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

45

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 370

Public

Correspondence

The majority of N

orth Shore residents have no

idea of the potential costs of implem

enting the draft LW

MP

.

Com

ment noted. M

V continues to w

ork with N

orth Shore

councils to share information on the financial im

plications of secondary treatm

ent upgrade options, and other aspects of the plan.

Performance M

easures

N

o comm

ents received.

Consultation Process

371 Feedback Form

The current round of consultation on the LW

MP

seem

s to be the same as the consultation

conducted in 2008.

Com

ment noted. The 2008 LW

MP

consultations focused on the strategy to update the LW

MP

. The most recent

phase of consultation was on the draft LW

MP

document,

including specific actions and implem

entation steps. 372

Feedback Form

The comm

unity meeting w

ent well and w

as very w

ell moderated.

Com

ment noted.

373 Feedback Form

If sandw

iches or a light dinner are offered at com

munity m

eetings more people w

ill attend. C

omm

ent noted.

374 Feedback Form

H

old public meetings in the D

istrict of North

Vancouver, the com

munity w

here the new

Wastew

ater Treatment P

lant (WW

TP) is being

proposed.

Com

ment noted. P

ublic consultation will be a com

ponent of im

plementing the treatm

ent plant upgrade.

375 Feedback Form

P

arking facilities surrounding the venue for the com

munity m

eeting were too lim

ited, thus inhibiting public participation.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-79

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

46

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 376

Feedback Form

Post all results of the com

munity m

eeting on the w

ebsite. C

omm

ent noted. All input from

public meetings w

ill be considered before finalizing the LW

MP

and will be noted

in a MV

issue/response document. This docum

ent will be

included with a consultation report that w

ill be submitted to

the MV

Waste M

anagement C

omm

ittee and Board, along

with the final LW

MP

. The final LWM

P and consultation

report will be posted on M

V’s w

ebsite at: w

ww

.metrovancouver.org/services/w

astewater/planning.

377

Meeting N

otes W

ill the presentation on Innovations in the City

of Vancouver be available online?

Should you w

ish to obtain copies of this municipal

presentation from the public m

eetings, please contact lw

mp@

metrovancouver.org

378 M

eeting Notes

Request m

ade that MV

post all presentations on the w

ebsite. The M

V public m

eeting presentations are available on the w

ebsite: w

ww

.metrovancouver.org/services/w

astewater/planning

To obtain copies of municipal presentations from

the public m

eetings, please contact lw

mp@

metrovancouver.org

379 P

ublic C

orrespondence The presentations failed to provide a clear indication of how

MV

presently treats sewage

and what the full range of options are for

improvem

ent. Reference m

ade to the recent S

WM

P public consultation w

here the public w

as provided with relevant inform

ation regarding recycling rates and encouraged to choose from

among a num

ber of programs to

increase recycling.

Com

ment noted.

380 P

ublic C

orrespondence S

ince the North S

hore has no combined sew

er system

s and MV

is not responsible for rainw

ater and stormw

ater, it was redundant to

spend half of the meeting discussing this topic.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-80

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan Consultation

Public Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and MV

Responses

47

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 381

Public

Correspondence

Request for additional m

eetings in each of the N

orth Shore m

unicipalities, to which C

ouncil, staff and the public be invited.

Com

ment noted. A

dditional meetings w

ill take place in m

unicipalities during the implem

entation phase.

SDD-81


SDD-82

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver Mem

ber Input (May 31, 2008 – O


omm



004955597

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 3

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse G

eneral Plan Com

ments

1 C

ity of Burnaby C

ouncil R

esolution, June 1, 2009 B

urnaby Council supports the Liquid

Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P) in

principle, contingent upon a few item

s.

Com

ment noted. S

pecific items are responded to

elsewhere in this table.

2 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council

Resolution, June 1, 2009

Coquitlam

Council w

ould not support the current draft of the LW

MP

due to reasons of affordability, private property service im

plications, and other im

pacts.

The LWM

P assum

es provincial and federal financial com

mitm

ents will be forthcom

ing and MV

will w

ork w

ith MV

Municipalities (m

unicipalities) to ensure that the cum

ulative cost implications of this plan are

mitigated through appropriate financial strategies

such as rate smoothing.

3 C

ity of New

Westm

inster E

ngineering Report, dated A

pril 20, 2009

New

Westm

inster staff support the draft LW

MP

, with the exception of a

few outstanding concerns.

Com

ment noted. S



4 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 13, 2009. The draft LW

MP

provides a strong fram

ework for dealing w

ith liquid w

aste now and in the future. R

esource recovery, im

proved treatment and

renewal of infrastructure are in

accordance with sound liquid w

aste m

anagement principles.

Com

ment noted. S



5 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R

eport, dated April 30, 2009

Pitt M

eadow’s current w

ork program

and long-term corporate priorities

appear to align with the recom

mended

strategies and actions contained in the draft LW

MP

.

Com

ment noted. S



6 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam letter,

dated June 2, 2009 P

ort Coquitlam

Council is generally in

support of the draft LWM

P.

Com

ment noted. S



7 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam letter,

dated June 2, 2009 A

dd more context to the LW

MP

, including inform

ation on the 20 year outlook.

The LWM

P provides context on linkages and

alignments w

ith national and provincial initiatives as w

ell as other plans (including long-term planning).

SDD-83

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 3

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 8

City of P

ort Moody C

ouncil R

esolution, May 26, 2009

Municipal staff should continue to

work to achieve liquid w

aste m

anagement efficiencies and optim

al levels of service.

The LWM

P is based on collaborative m

anagement

between M

V and its m

embers.

9 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 The draft LW

MP

has incorporated m

any elements to im

prove the current system

of wastew

ater managem

ent.

Com

ment noted.

10 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 E

xplore and pilot other delivery system

models that m

ay improve

comm

unity sustainability (ie. system

delivery to multiple com

munities,

combined utility delivery, liquid w

aste m

anagement through upfront design).

The LWM

P is aligned w

ith many provincial initiatives,

such as the BC

Energy P

lan and the Guide to G

reen C

hoices that include using alternative system

approaches to liquid waste m

anagement. The P

lan com

mits to Integrated R

esource Recovery (IR

R)

business cases for each sewerage area.

11 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Section A

of the LWM

P does not

recognize other legislation that plays a role in the LW

MP

such as Species at

Risk (Federal), Fish P

rotection Act

and the Water A

ct (Provincial).

Implem

enting the LWM

P requires close co-ordination

between m

any groups such as Environm

ent Canada

(who adm

inister the Species at R

isk Act), and the

Ministry of E

nvironment (w

ho administer the Fish

Protection and W

ater Acts). O

nly regulatory authorizing acts are listed in S

ection A.

12 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R

eport, dated May 21, 2009

Most of the draft LW

MP

actions are consistent w

ith Vancouver’s plans and

priorities, with the exception that

alternative upgrade schedules to the V

ancouver and North S

hore treatment

plants should be developed and the overall upgrade program

should be accelerated.

Com

ment noted.

13 D

istrict of Maple R

idge Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009. M

aple Ridge C

ouncil supports the draft LW

MP

goals and strategies. C

omm

ent noted.

14 D

istrict of Maple R

idge Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009 M

aple Ridge staff w

ill continue to work

with M

V to share inform

ation, practices and strive to be cost effective in program

s and service levels.

The LWM

P is based on collaborative m

anagement

between M

V and its m

embers.

SDD-84

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 15

District of W

est Vancouver

Council R


West V

ancouver Council supports the

draft LWM

P.

Com

ment noted.

16 Tsaw

wassen First N

ation Letter, dated M

ay 7, 2009 The Tsaw

wassen First N

ation (TFN)

would like to discuss becom

ing a m

ember of the G

reater Vancouver

Sew

er and Drainage D

istrict and included in the regional sew

er system.

Discussions are ongoing w

ith TFN and D

elta.

17 D

istrict of North V

ancouver C

ouncil Resolution, 25 M

ay, 2009The proposed changes to liquid w

aste m

anagement have significant financial

and operational implications; how

ever, resource recovery, im

proved treatm

ent and infrastructure renewal

are in accordance with sound w

aste m

anagement principles.

Com

ment noted.

Strategy 1.1 : Reduce liquid w


raft LWM

P) ** A

ll actions listed in the MV R

esponse column are located under the Strategy 1.1 in the LW

MP.

18 C

ity of Burnaby E

nvironment

Com

mittee R

eport, dated June 1, 2009

The allowances set by M

V for

discharge rates from m

unicipal sewers

to regional trunk sewers and w

aste w

ater treatment plants (W

WTP

s) w

arrant further evaluation to achieve a m

ore equitable and practical approach. E

valuation should consider infrastructure age, land use density and local conditions. If allow

ances are not revised, it w

ill create significant financial and infrastructure im

plications for the municipality.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains an action to review the average inflow

and infiltration (I&

I) allowance for regional trunk sew

ers and W

WTP

s.

19 C

ity of Burnaby E

nvironment

Com

mittee R

eport, dated June 1, 2009

I&I into sanitary sew

ers is a key issue in the LW

MP

. While the proposed I&

I standards m

ay be appropriate for new

system design, provisions m

ust be m

ade to reflect local conditions and different land use densities.

The LWM

P contains a strategy to m

anage I&I and an

action to review I&

I allowances.

SDD-85

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 20

City of B

urnaby Environm

ent C

omm

ittee Report, dated June 1,

2009

The expansion of the municipality’s I&

I inspection and m

onitoring program to

include private laterals will require an

additional $350,000 annually; this estim

ate does not include any corrective w

ork required of hom

eowners that m

ay be identified through the inspection program

.

Com

ment noted.

21 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council

Resolution, dated June 1, 2009

Clarify m

unicipalities’ source control and outreach program

obligations in the LW

MP

.

The LWM

P contains a strategy that outlines

municipality obligations associated w

ith source control.

22 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council


Modify the LW

MP

requirements

relative to onsite piping repair, rehabilitation and replacem

ent, and reflect the ongoing replacem

ent of onsite system

s, concurrent with site

re-development.

I&I m

anagement plans required under the LW

MP

will

identify on-site repair needs based on local and dow

nstream issues and needs.

23 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council


There are some situations w

here it m

ay not be practical to reduce I&I to

prescribed regional levels.

I&I m

anagement plans need to identify the

appropriate managem

ent actions.

24 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council


Modify the requirem

ents for m

unicipalities to map locations of

onsite sewage disposal, w

hich is m

anaged by local health authorities.

On-site disposal system

actions are not identified in the updated plan.

25 C

ity of Langley letter, dated May

25, 2009 O

pposed to using the building permit

process as a means of inspecting and

repairing sanitary sewer service

connections to reduce I&I.

Com

ment noted. The building perm

it process is already in place in som

e municipalities and is a ready

instrument.

26 C

ity of New

Westm

inster Council

Resolution, dated A

pril 20, 2009 C

oncerned with the legal and practical

implications to m

unicipalities associated w

ith the proposed initiative to address deteriorating infrastructure on private property.

Com

ment noted. I&

I plans need to address best actions, including service lateral m

anagement to the

extent necessary to prevent downstream

overflows.

SDD-86

5 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 27

City of N

orth Vancouver C

ouncil R


The municipality has begun to

incorporate stormw

ater best practices into projects, including on-site rainw

ater infiltration in new

developments.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

contains actions that enable and encourage on-site rainw

ater m

anagement.

28 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

significant portion of the underground sew

age collection system

is on private land. Inspection, repair and replacem

ent of old sewer

laterals on private property will com

e at a cost to property ow

ners and to the m

unicipality.

Com

ment noted. I&

I plans need to address best actions, including service lateral m

anagement to the

extent necessary to prevent downstream

overflows.

29 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 The authority of the m

unicipality regarding private laterals is not clear in the LW

MP

.

Municipalities w

ill develop I&I m

anagement plans,

which w

ill include the consideration of private lateral m

aintenance. 30

City of P

itt Meadow

s Council

Report, dated A

pril 30, 2009 A

ction 3: Flow testing in m

unicipalities’ sanitary m

ains indicates that there is very little, if any, w

et water infiltration.

Municipality staff believes requiring

this type of inspection for homes 20

years and older is a good idea.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop and

implem

ent I&I m

anagement plans to ensure w

et w

eather I&I volum

es are within M

V’s allow

ances.

31 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 4: P

itt Meadow

s currently allow

s different storm w

ater infiltration approaches in its subdivisions and developm

ent control bylaw, w

here site-specific studies determ

ine that this practice is appropriate.

The LWM

P contains actions for on-site rainw

ater m

anagement.

32 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 A

key challenge in Richm

ond is m

anaging water-based discharge from

de-w

atering activities associated with

building and development projects.

The LWM

P should include strategies

to reduce de-watering volum

es.

Although the LW

MP

does not mention de-w

atering activities explicitly, it contains an action to review

and enhance sew

er use bylaws to reduce liquid w

aste at source (including contam

inants identified by the C

anadian Environm

ental Protection A

ct (CE

PA

)).

SDD-87

6 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 33

City of R

ichmond n C

omm

ittee R


Groundw

ater in Richm

ond has naturally-occurring high levels of dissolved iron; this w

ater has the potential to adversely im

pact fresh w

ater systems and is not alw

ays suitable to discharge to storm

water

systems. S

ource reduction policies should consider criteria for iron.

The LWM

P contains an action to review

and enhance sew


aste at source (including contam

inants identified by the CE

PA

and to establish region w

ide baseline criteria for on-site rainfall m

anagement including variations for localized

geology, rainfall and watershed conditions.

34 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 3.2: S

urrey has completed

numerous infrastructure repairs in an

attempt to achieve M

V’s I&

I allow

ance, but has been unable to reduce I&

I in many catchm

ent areas to a level at or below

MV

’s prescribed allow

ance.

The LWM

P contains an action for I&I and rainw

ater m

anagement including w

orking with m

unicipalities to review

and adjust I&I allow

ances.

35 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 3.2: This action w

ill result in the inspection and replacem

ent of private sew

er laterals. This is an expensive proposition for private property ow

ners, and is administratively

intensive for Surrey.

The LWM


ater m

anagement including the developm

ent and im

plementation of a process for inspection and

certification of private sewer laterals.

36 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 3.2: R

eview and revise, if

appropriate, the average I&I

allowance of 11,200 l/ha/day (A

ction 15.2) prior to considering A

ction 3.2.

The LWM


ater m

anagement including w

orking with m

unicipalities to review

the I&I allow

ances.

37 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 3.2: C

omplete a cost/benefit

analysis prior to this action to determ

ine if requiring the repair or replacem

ent of private sewer laterals

is the most cost effective alternative to

addressing infiltration.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-88

7 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 38

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 21, 2009 A

ction 3.2: Municipalities be required

to introduce, as part of their sanitary sew

er by-laws, a requirem

ent that for every significant building perm

it application or property redevelopm

ent, the existing private sew

er lateral be inspected to ensure that it is in satisfactory condition for service and that it be replaced if found to be unsatisfactory; M

V should consider

this prior to Action 3.2.

The LWM


ater m

anagement that addresses this.

39 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 3.2: R

e-evaluate other actions prior to considering A

ction 3.2 as most

properties experience some form

of developm

ent after 40 to 50 years, w

hich is in the general timefram

e that private sew

er laterals start contributing significant am

ounts of infiltration.

Com

ment noted.

40 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Monitor how

rainwater is infiltrated to

inform m

anagement approaches.

The LWM


ater m

anagement that includes research on w

atershed-based storm

water m


41 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 21, 2009

Action 4: Include a reference to non-

point source pollution and a link back to w

atershed-based objectives defined in Integrated S

torm M

anagement

Plans (IS

MP

s). Minim

izing rainwater

runoff at the site level does not address the overall w

atershed non-point source pollution factor and m

ay not m

eet all watershed based

hydrological targets.

The LWM


ater m



water m


SDD-89

8 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 42

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 21, 2009 A

ction 4: A focus on site m

easures in com

bination with com

munity facilities

and sustainable infrastructure design w

ill better serve the watershed.

The LWM


ater m



water m


43 C

orporation of Delta C

ouncil R


Action 3: Legal issues have to be

resolved and potential costs to the m

unicipality and private property ow

ners have to be assessed. An

option for dealing with private property

sewer services is to require the

renewal of private sanitary sew

er lines at the tim

e of building permit

applications above a specified value (e.g. $100,000).

The LWM


ater m

anagement that addresses this.

44 D

istrict of West V

ancouver C

ouncil Resolution, dated M

ay 25, 2009

Work w

ith the province to obtain legislative authority for m

unicipalities to address infiltration from

aging, private property sanitary sew

er connections.

The LWM

P contains an action for M

V to address I&

I and rainw

ater managem

ent.

45 Tow

nship of Langley Council

Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 1.2: The current sewer use

bylaw has a list of banned or restricted

wastes, and lim

its on sewage

strength; this action would require

further treatment of w

astes prior to discharge to the m

unicipality system

by some industrial and com

mercial

customers.

The LWM

P contains actions to review

and enhance sew


aste at source including contam

inants identified by the CE

PA

.

SDD-90

9 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 46

Township of Langley C

ouncil R


Action 3.2: The Tow

nship of Langley is already required to prepare an I&

I plan as a requirem

ent to allow the

connection of East Langley into the

Greater V

ancouver Sew

erage and D

rainage District sew

erage system;

the repair of private service laterals requires further study, including clarification of m

unicipalities’ legal position on enforcem

ent on private property.

Com

ment noted.

47 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 4: The Township of Langley

has started implem

enting this action at developm

ent sites in Willoughby.

Com

ment noted. The Tow

nship of Langley is encouraged to share their results w

ith other m

unicipalities at technical comm

ittee meetings.


et weather overflow


raft LWM

P) ** A



MP.

48 C

ity of Burnaby C

omm

ittee R


Burnaby initiated the com

bined sewer

separation program for the N

orth B

urnaby area over a decade ago; the program

provides an opportunity to replace aging sew

er pipes.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains a strategy to reduce wet w

eather overflows

through separating existing combined sew

ers in B

urnaby, New

Westm

inster and Vancouver

(continuation of existing strategy). 49

City of B

urnaby Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 14, 2009 A

gree with the principles of the asset

managem

ent approach. The LW

MP

contains an action to reduce wet w

eather overflow

s and to work w

ith municipalities to develop

and implem

ent municipal-regional sanitary overflow

m

anagement plans.

50 C

ity of Burnaby C

omm

ittee R


Burnaby w

ill likely have to increase its annual storm

sewer replacem

ent fund by approxim

ately $4 to $5 million by

2019.

Com

ment noted.

51 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 7: There is little, if any, w

et w

eather infiltration in the Pitt

Meadow

s sanitary collection system.

The LWM

P contains an action to identify locations

and schedules for appropriate system capacity

improvem

ents, wet w

eather containment, and point

treatment of chronic overflow

s.

SDD-91

10 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 52

City of P

itt Meadow

s Council

Report, dated A

pril 30, 2009 A

ction 7: Overflow

is a chronic problem

at the Katzie sanitary pum

p station in M

aple Ridge; during heavy

rainfall events, sanitary overflow from

this station is discharged into the K

atzie Slough and flow

s through Pitt

Meadow

s to the Baynes R

oad drainage pum

p station.

The LWM

P contains actions to develop and

implem


m

anagement plans to reduce w

et weather overflow

s and to identify locations and schedules for appropriate system

capacity improvem

ents, wet

weather containm

ent, and point treatment of chronic

overflows.

53 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 7: A

greater priority needs to be placed on w

et weather overflow

s by both M

V and M

V m

unicipalities to ensure that incidents of infiltration are reduced and that the capacity of the sanitary stations are appropriate.

The LWM

P contains a strategy to reduce w

et weather

overflows w

ith key municipal actions to elim

inate sanitary sew

er overflows and reduce the risk of spills.

54 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 7: C

onstruction of a treatment

plant at the Katzie sanitary pum

p station and a second forcem

ain from

the Katzie pum

p station to the intersection of B

aynes Road and

Airport W

ay, should be included in the M

V 5 Y

ear Capital P

lan.

The LWM


implem


m


et weather overflow


capacity improvem

ents, wet

weather containm


overflows.

55 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 7: Include M

V’s infrastructure,

as some areas are undersized based

upon upstream developm

ent even w

ith appropriate inflow and infiltration

(I&I) levels.

The LWM

P contains an action for M

V to replace

combined regional trunk sew

ers with separated

sanitary and storm sew

ers (through prioritized and targeted sew

er renewal and separation).

56 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 4.3 iii: Stakeholders involved in

developing site-level rainwater

managem

ent systems m

ust include the developm

ent industry and builder associations such as the G

reater V

ancouver Hom

e Builders

Association.

This comm

ent will be useful input for the S

tormw

ater Interagency Liaison G

roup (SILG

) during im

plementation of the LW

MP

.

SDD-92

11 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 57

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 7: Priority locations of S

anitary S

ewer O

verflows (S

SO

s) may not be

associated with high grow

th areas; the S

SO

s are often occurring in older dow

nstream sections of the

infrastructure, which are w

eak and cannot handle the hydraulic pressure during significant events.

The LWM


implem


m


et weather overflow


capacity improvem

ents, wet

weather containm


overflows.

58 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 7: U

pgrade priorities should consider the design heads of the trunk system

s and vulnerabilities, separately and in addition to the I&

I w

ork; evidence of this is the numerous

breaks, surcharges, etc., in the north S

urrey trunk line, which has had little

new developm

ent through Surrey but

more developm

ent in upstream

catchments.

The LWM

P contains a strategy to reduce w

et weather

overflows through prioritized and targeted sew

er renew

al and separation.

59 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A


historically has not had any issues w

ith sewer overflow

s. Areas know

n for overflow

s are adjacent to sanitary lift stations.

The LWM



improvem

ents, wet w


treatment of chronic overflow

s.

60 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A


has constructed a wet w

eather overflow

storage facility adjacent to the 28th A

venue Lift Station in

Aldergrove, w

hich mitigates the need

for emergency action.

The LWM



improvem

ents, wet w


treatment or chronic overflow

s and contains a strategy to reduce w

et weather overflow

s through prioritized and targeted sew

er renewal and

separation.

SDD-93

12 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse Strategy 1.3: R

educe environmental im

pacts from liquid w

aste managem

ent to a minim

um (Strategy #3 in M

arch 2009 Draft

LWM

P) ** A



MP.

61 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 S

upport secondary treatment facilities

for the Vancouver and N

orth Shore

sewerage areas provided that senior

levels of government share at least

66% of the project costs.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)


astewater treatm

ent for the North S

hore and V


ased on the Canada-

wide S


ent of Municipal

Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-MM

WE

), Lions Gate




62 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009 Include a secondary sew

age treatm

ent plant for the North S

hore by 2020 subject to senior governm

ent cost sharing.

The LWM

P contains an action to provide secondary

level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G

ate should proceed within a 10-year tim


ithin a 20-year timeline, subject to

the appropriate financial arrangements being in place

as indicated in the Financial Plan.

63 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 20, 2009 W

hen the Provincial M

inister of the E

nvironment approved the 2002

LWM

P, it included a deadline for

upgrades to Iona by 2020 and Lions G

ate by 2030.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




64 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 20, 2009 Lions G

ate has failed toxicity testing of the effluent due to am

monia and

surfactants; extensive monitoring has

been completed and there has been

no significant environmental im

pact m

easured in the receiving environm

ent.

The LWM

P contains an action to use the results of

environmental m

onitoring to assess discharge com

pliance with regulations, standards and official

water quality designations and identify and im

plement

any necessary remedial actions in consultation w

ith E

nvironment C

anada (EC

) and the Ministry of

Environm

ent (MoE

). 65

City of N

orth Vancouver C

ouncil R


Siting issues regarding the proposed

location of the new N

orth Shore

Wastew

ater Treatment P

lan (WW

TP)

exist. Resolution is required prior to

comm

itting to the upgrade.

Siting issues are addressed during the

implem

entation stage of the LWM

P.

SDD-94

13 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 66

City of P

itt Meadow

s Council

Report, A

pril 30, 2009 A

ction 11: There are two m

arinas w

ithin Pitt M

eadows that do not

currently have sanitary services; should these facilities w

ish to expand, perm

its for these services would be

required.

The LWM

P contains an action to address

environmental im

pacts from liquid w

aste managem

ent at m

arinas.

67 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R

eport, April 30, 2009

Action 13: P

itt Meadow

s is developing an inventory of the G

reenhouse Gas

(GH

G) em

issions and recom

mendations to reduce

emissions m

ay include those at sanitary sew

er stations.

The LWM


implem

ent programs to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from

municipal liquid w

aste managem

ent system

s with the m

ain municipal action to focus on

quantifying and managing air em

issions associated w

ith the wastew

ater collection systems.

68 C

ity of Richm

ond Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009 The upgrade of the Iona W

WTP

should be included as a priority.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




69 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 10.1: Linked to A

ction 28.4 and m

ust be clearly defined through the E

nvironmental M

onitoring Com

mittee

(EM

C) and the S

tormw


roup (SILG

). C

osts of an expanded monitoring

program cannot be reasonably

estimated and should not be included

as a comm

itment w

ithin the LWM

P

Com

ment noted.

70 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 10.1: W

ater quality monitoring

can be expensive depending upon the types of contam

inants and pollutants captured; a m

ore cost effective approach w

ould be to use proxies to evaluate w

ater quality in a scientifically defendable m

anner.

The LWM


environmental m




plement


ith E

C and the M

oE.

SDD-95

14 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 71

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 8.3: Em

ergency plans must

include a timely overflow

notification protocol for all affected stakeholders (M

V m

unicipalities and land owners

and in some cases irrigation districts,

Ministry of A

griculture and Lands, and other relevant associations.)

The LWM


environmental m




plement


ith E

C and the M

oE.

72 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 10: It is unclear w

hat is expected from

municipality program

s (i.e., type of m

onitoring, frequency, result subm

issions, non-point source pollution etc.). The E

MC

and the S

ILG need to play a role in this action

item.

The LWM

P contains a strategy that outlines m

unicipal responsibilities for reducing environm

ental impacts

from liquid w

aste managem

ent to a minim

um.

73 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R

esolution, June 2, 2009 R

e-prioritize upgrades to secondary treatm

ent at the Iona and North S

hore W

WTP

s and accelerate the overall com

pletion of upgrades.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




74 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R


Com

pleting upgrades at both WW

TPs

by 2020 would be financially and

logistically challenging.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G



ithin a 20-year timeline. C

ost sharing w

ill be sought by Metro V

ancouver and m

unicipalities from both senior levels of governm

ent. 75

City of V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 21, 2009 The best approach is to conduct the upgrades sequentially; this w

ould likely result in better application of technology, greater advancem

ents of innovative resource m

anagement

initiatives and lower cost.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




SDD-96

15 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 76

District of N

orth Vancouver

Council R


Include a secondary treatment plant

for the North S

hore by 2020. The LW

MP


astewater treatm

ent for the North S

hore and V


ased on CW

S-M

MW

E,

Lions Gate should proceed w

ithin a 10-year timeline

and Iona Island within a 20-year tim

eline. 77

District of W

est Vancouver

Council R


Advance the tim

eline for the Lions G

ate WW

TP secondary upgrade to

2020, on the condition that MV

receives senior governm

ent cost sharing grants.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




ost sharing w


ancouver and m


ent. 78

Corporation of D

elta Council

Report, dated A

pril 27, 2009 The proposed W

WTP

upgrades will

significantly improve the discharge

water quality. To reduce the im

pact to taxpayers, the upgrade at Iona Island should be com

pleted by 2020 and the N

orth Shore by 2030.

Com


aste Managem

ent P

lan (LWM

P) contains an action to provide secondary

level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




79 C


ouncil R


With senior governm

ent cost sharing it is anticipated that the N

orth Shore

upgrade could be accelerated to 2020.

Com


aste Managem

ent P

lan (LWM

P) contains an action to provide secondary

level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-MM

WE

, Lions G




ost sharing w


ancouver and m


ent. 80

City of V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 21, 2009 M

V and senior governm

ent regulators should use the C

anadian Council of

Ministers of the E

nvironment C

anada-w

ide Strategy for the M

anagement of

Municipal W

astewater E

ffluent (CC

ME

C

WS

– MM

WE

) to determine the

scheduling priority of WW

TPs.

The LWM

P is integrated w

ith the CC

ME

CW

S –

MM

WE

. Timelines for upgrading the N

orth Shore and

Vancouver sew

erage areas to secondary treatment

balance comm

unity and senior government

expectations.

SDD-97

16 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid w

aste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context (Strategy #6 & #8 in M

arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P) ** A



MP.

81 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam C

ouncil R

eport, dated June 2, 2009 M

ore details are needed regarding the environm

entally friendly techniques to reuse m

aterials generated through resource recovery.

Through an outline of the recovery of energy, nutrients and w

ater from liquid w

aste, the Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

) outlines environm

entally friendly approaches to reuse m

aterials generated through resource recovery. 82

City of P

ort Coquitlam

Council

Report, dated June 2, 2009

The concept of better use of grey w

ater should be expanded. The LW

MP

states that in consultation with health and

environmental authorities, M

V w

ill explore the use of grey w

ater as a substitute for potable water.

83 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam C

ouncil R

eport, dated June 2, 2009 M

ore discussion is needed with the

provincial government in regard to

reducing barriers in regulations, especially w

ith regard to grey water

systems.

The LWM

P states that in consultation w

ith health and environm

ental authorities, MV

will explore the use of

grey water as a substitute for potable w

ater.

84 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 20: H

eat recovery may becom

e a P

itt Meadow

s objective in its corporate and com

munity

sustainability plan.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

states that MV

and m

unicipalities will evaluate opportunities for heat

recovery.

85 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 22: U

pdates are needed to the subdivision servicing and building bylaw

s to encourage, if not require, the collection and reuse of rainw

ater. This supports the green infrastructure solutions as part of the m

unicipality’s ow

n sustainability mandate.

This is not explicitly stated in the current LWM

P.

How

ever, under Strategy 1.1, the LW

MP

does encourage m

unicipalities to update bylaws to require

on-site rainwater m

anagement sufficient to m

eet criteria established in m

unicipal integrated stormw

ater plans and to update m

unicipal utility design standards and neighbourhood design guidelines to enable and encourage on-site rainw

ater managem

ent. 86

City of R

ichmond C

omm

ittee R


Action 18.1: R

evise to include m

unicipal rights to material and

energy recovery. Exclusive M

V rights

to material and energy recovery from

the w

astewater system

would displace

potential revenue generation opportunities for R

ichmond.

This action is no longer in the LWM

P.

SDD-98

17 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 87

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 22: Ensure this is not a

detriment to tributary w

atershed creek base flow

s and fisheries habitat.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

does not endorse actions that w

ould result in detrimental im

pacts to w

atersheds and fisheries habitat. 88

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 22.1: Use of rainw

ater as an alternative to using potable w

ater m

ust be evaluated in the context of w

atershed limitations to ensure runoff

diversions do not adversely affect historical receiving w

atercourses.

MV

will w

ork with m

unicipalities to evaluate opportunities for the collection and use of rainw

ater as an alternative to potable w

ater for non-drinking purposes. The LW

MP

respects associated watershed

limitations.

89 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R

esolution, June 2, 2009 P

rioritize options for recovering energy and nutrients from

liquid waste

as described in Strategy 6.

Options for recovering energy and nutrients from

liquid w

aste have been prioritized in the LWM

P.

90 C


ouncil R


Action 18 to 24: S

upport these actions as they are green initiatives and have the ability to create revenue. It is recognized that they also carry cost im

plications.

Com

ment noted.

91 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009 B

egin Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IR

R) P

lanning for the North S

hore, in co-operation w

ith the three North

Shore m

unicipalities as soon as possible.

A com

mitm

ent to IRR

is made in the LW

MP

. MV

and m

unicipalities will capitalize on Integrated R

esource M

anagement approaches that m

aximize ecological,

social and economic benefits.

92 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 20, 2009 C

onsider IRR

more holistically and in

conjunction with the current solid

waste m

anagement planning.

Stated in the LW

MP

. There is interdependence betw

een the development of goals, strategies and

actions in this plan and those in other regional plans, such as the S

olid Waste M

anagement P

lan (SW

MP

). 93

City of N

orth Vancouver C

ouncil R


Begin IR

R business case study as

soon as possible; the results may

have implications to the design and

capacity of the new N

orth Shore

Wastew

ater Treatment P

lant (WW

TP).

The LWM


R


94 D

istrict of North V

ancouver C

ouncil Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009B

egin IRR

planning on the North

Shore as soon as possible, in

cooperation with the three N

orth S

hore Municipalities.

The LWM


R


SDD-99

18 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 95

District of W

est Vancouver

Council R


Undertake an IR

R study on the N

orth S

hore as soon as possible, in cooperation w

ith the three North

Shore M

unicipalities.

The LWM


R


96 Tow


Resolution, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 20.2: The Township of Langley

is currently investigating this action through a C

omm

unity Energy

Assessm

ent pre-feasibility study.

Com

ment noted.


ize existing liquid waste operations (Strategy #4 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

** All actions listed in the M

V Response colum

n are located under the Strategy 3.1 in the LWM

P. 97

City of P

itt Meadow

s Council

Report, A

pril 30, 2009 A

ction 16: Pitt M

eadows, as part of its

regular infrastructure maintenance,

uses video surveillance to assess the condition of one quarter of its sew

er m

ain inventory every year and plans its annual repair and replacem

ent program

around these findings.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains actions to assess the performance and

condition of municipal sew

erage systems.

98 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 16: In 2008, P

itt Meadow

’s older asbestos m

ains were sam

pled and subjected to testing for integrity and rem

aining life; the report and its findings are expected in m

id-2009 and w

ill be considered this fall when P

itt M

eadows review

s its 5 and 20 year capital plans.

The LWM

P contains actions to assess the

performance and condition of m

unicipal sewerage

systems.


arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 99

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 17.4: The proposed internal audit tim

eline can be problematic for

municipal planning; review

of opportunities for innovation to im

prove efficiency and effectiveness is not tim

eline driven, it is undertaken through the w

atershed planning process on an ongoing basis.

This has been addressed in the Liquid Waste

Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

). The review of best

practices to identify opportunities for innovation will be

done on an ongoing basis and has been identified through various actions.

SDD-100

19 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse Strategy 3.3: M

onitor the performance of liquid w

aste system im

pacts on the receiving environment (Strategy #7 in M

arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P) ** A



MP.

100 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 28.4: The type of m

onitoring, frequency, result subm

ission, m

onitoring targets and representative w

atersheds must be defined; the

Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (E

MC

) and the Storm

water

Interagency Liaison Group (S

ILG) are

the most logical groups to discuss the

merits and value of specific m

onitoring m

ethodology, locations and reporting based on current local and international experience.


P; how

ever, SILG

and E

MC

will be consulted on m

onitoring initiatives. The LW

MP

contains actions that comm

it MV

to using defined m

onitoring methodology.

101 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 25.1: The E

MC

should be involved in this action.

Com

ment noted.

102 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 29.2: Link needs to be m

ade w

ith already established local systems

to avoid overlap; Surrey currently

operates 6 rainfall stations (real time)

and has over 16 flow stations and

approximately 20 river level stations

(real time).

As per the LW

MP

, MV

will w

ork with m

unicipality m

unicipalities to reduce redundancies.

103 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 29.2: M

any other local governm

ents have automated

systems in their jurisdiction; sharing

the data or having joint agreements on

these sites should be considered by M

V.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-101

20 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 104

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 28.4: This item could have

huge cost implications to local

governments. Integrated S

torm

Managem

ent Plans (IS

MP

s) currently m

onitor benefits for watershed health;

general sampling program

s for non-point source pollution or storm

water

systems have not been defined.


P.

105 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 29.3: Three of the 25 sewage

lift stations operated by the m

unicipality have flow m

eters.

Com

ment noted.

106 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 29.3: In conjunction with station

upgrades and retrofits, municipality

staff is planning on installing meters at

an average of two stations per year.

Com

ment noted.

107 Tow


Resolution, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 29.3: The municipality has

three portable flow m

eters that can m

easure flow at any point in the

sewage system

.

Com

ment noted.

Strategy 3.4: Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term needs (Strategy #8 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 108

City of Langley C

ouncil R


The development of storm

water

managem

ent must be done on a

voluntary basis.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P) has an

action that comm

its MV

municipalities to develop and

implem

ent Integrated Storm

Managem

ent Plans

(ISM

Ps) at the w

atershed scale to manage rainw

ater runoff by 2014.

109 C

ity of New

Westm

inster E

ngineering Report, dated A

pril 20, 2009

Municipal resources w

ill be required to com

plete ISM

Ps.

The LWM

P has an action that com

mits M

V

municipalities to develop and im

plement IS

MP

s at the w

atershed scale to manage rainw

ater runoff by 2014. 110

City of N

ew W

estminster

Engineering R

eport, dated April

20, 2009


ill be required to develop and im

plement procedures to

link ISM

Ps w

ith land use and the O

fficial Com

munity P

lanning (OC

P)

processes.

The LWM

P has an action that com

mits M

V

municipalities to develop and im

plement IS

MP

s at the w

atershed scale by 2014.

SDD-102

21 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 111

City of N

ew W

estminster

Engineering R

eport, dated April

20, 2009


ill be required to update developm

ent standards and guidelines to incorporate new

sustainable, rainw

ater managem

ent requirem

ents.

The LWM

P encourages m

unicipalities to update bylaw

s to require on-site rainwater m

anagement

sufficient to meet criteria established in m

unicipal integrated storm

water plans and to update m

unicipal utility design standards and neighbourhood design guidelines to enable and encourage on-site rainw

ater m

anagement.

112 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 31: W

hile there are no w

atersheds, by definition, within P

itt M

eadow’s jurisdiction, m

any of the sam

e principles of ISM

P have been

applied to the Area N

o. 3 Drainage

Catchm

ent.

Com

ment noted.

113 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


Action 31: In the M

V public

presentation on the strategy to update the LW

MP

, drainage catchment and

watershed boundaries w

ere shown

incorrectly and include connections to w

atersheds in Maple R

idge that do not exist due to dyking.

Com

ment noted.

114 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 A

ction 35.3: Further development or

urbanization should be considered through the Livable R

egion Strategic

Plan and guided by the m

unicipality’s O

CP

and land use planning and approval processes.

The LWM

P aligns w

ith the Regional G

rowth S

trategy and needs of m

unicipal OC

Ps.

115 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 A

ction 35.3: Rem

ove clause ii. C

lause removed. The LW

MP

aligns with the R

egional G

rowth S

trategy and needs of municipal O

CP

s.

SDD-103

22 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 116

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 35.3: This action should also ensure new

service areas do not overtax lim

ited or deficient MV

trunk system

s that exist downstream

until the dow

nstream infrastructure is

capable of servicing the catchment

area without the undue risk of

significant trunk failures or frequent overflow

events.

The LWM

P aligns w

ith the Regional G

rowth S

trategy and needs of m

unicipal OC

Ps.

117 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 30.1 ii, viii, ix: These item

s can be very broad in nature, and depending on scope, can have a significant effect on research program

s; the scope must be clearly

defined through the EM

C and the

SILG

.

Com

ment noted. H

owever, this action is no longer in

the LWM

P.

118 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 31.1 ii: M

anagement of

rainwater runoff at the site level

should be included as well as non-

point source pollution considerations as other local governm

ents must

undertake; ensure the ISM

P tem

plate addresses these issues for com

bined and piped system

s as well.

Com

ment noted. H


the LWM

P.

119 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 32.2 ii: R

oads are not the only source of non point source (N

PS

) pollution problem

s and should not be highlighted separately, land use planning does play a role; how

ever, issues like sedim

ent and erosion, use of m

etal fences and storage of m

aterials, use of pesticides, hot tub discharges, etc., all play a large role in N

PS

effects beyond just those from

road runoff.

Com

ment noted. H


the LWM

P.

SDD-104

23 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 120

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 32.2 ii: Often aggressive

municipal street and catch basin

cleaning programs com

bined with

storm receptors can lead to

reasonable treatment of the runoff

from the road facility; this action item

should read m

ore generically to capture the broader range of influences.

Com

ment noted. H


the LWM

P.

121 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Action 35: Liquid w

aste infrastructure expansion m

ust be coordinated with

the Regional G

rowth S

trategy only if this grow

th strategy is consistent with

municipality grow

th strategies; if regional and m

unicipality growth

strategies are at odds, an appropriate servicing approach m

ust be mutually

agreed upon.

Com

ment noted.

122 C


ouncil R


Action 31 and 32: E

xtend timeline for

an additional 3 to 5 years as current tim

eline may not provide sufficient

time to com

plete these studies for an entire m

unicipality as budgets for studies are lim

ited.

The LWM

P states that m

unicipalities must com

plete their IS

MP

s at the watershed scale by 2014.

123 D

istrict of West V

ancouver C

ouncil Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009.

Recom

mend that the D

istrict of West

Vancouver continue to com

plete IS

MP

s for remaining w

atersheds w

ithin the municipality.

The LWM

P states that m

unicipalities must com

plete their integrated storm

water m

anagement plans by

2014.

124 Tow


Report, M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 34:.The municipality is

completing a D

ecentralized Sew

age M

anagement P

lan as a requirement of

the grant received for the Brooksw

ood S

ewer.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-105

24 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 125

Township of Langley C

ouncil R

eport, May 25, 2009

Action 35.2: W

hile there is currently a lim

itation on areas that can connect to the m

unicipal sewer system

, this action m

ay make it m

ore difficult for properties to do so.

Com

ment noted. H


the LWM

P.

126 Tow


Report, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

ction 35.2: The municipality w

ould be one of the M

V m

unicipalities most

affected by this action; as a com

munity of com

munities, there are

a number of sew

age corridors or potential sew

age corridors between

comm

unities where properties on

those alignments cannot be serviced

without special approval from

the G

VS

&D

D. These areas include:

Fraser Highw

ay between M

urrayville and A

ldergrove, 200th Street betw

een Fernridge and the H

igh Point

development, G

lover Road and the

potential development of the S

almon

River U

plands.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

aligns with the R

egional G

rowth S

trategy and needs of municipal O

CP

s.



daptive Managem

ent Section in March 2009 D

raft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Financial Plan 127

City of B

urnaby Council


The three levels of government

(federal, provincial and regional) should equally fund the upgrading of the W

astewater Treatm

ent Plants

(WW

TPs) for the V

ancouver and N

orth Shore sew

erage areas.

This plan includes a comm

itment to upgrading both

the treatments plants in the N

orth Shore and

Vancouver sew

erage areas. Given the significant cost

and importance of this w

ork, it is designed to fulfill environm

ental policy goals shared by all three levels of governm

ent; this plan assumes provincial and

federal financial comm

itments w

ill be forthcoming.

SDD-106

25 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 128

City of B

urnaby Council


Address concerns for financial

implications of adoption of the

remaining Liquid W

aste Managem

ent P

lan (LWM

P) elem

ents in the context of regional affordability prior to the adoption of the final LW

MP

by the MV

B

oard.

A regional affordability context has been prepared by

the Regional Finance A

dvisory Com

mittee (R

FAC

).

129 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council


Recognize that cum

ulative costs of various regional initiatives is excessive and that significant senior governm

ent funding must be sought

and other avenues explored, in order to reduce or defray the direct costs to local tax payers.

The LWM

P notes that the am

ount and timing of cost

sharing contributions will determ

ine the timelines

given the region’s limited capacity to com

plete certain com

mitm

ents. The LWM

P assum

es Provincial and

Federal financial comm

itments w

ill be forthcoming.

130 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009 Forw

ard a letter to the Provincial and

Federal governments urging them

to each provide 1/3 funding for the new

treatm

ent plants.

Given the significant cost and im

portance of this work,

the LWM

P is designed to fulfill environm


ent; this plan assum

es Provincial and Federal financial

comm

itments w

ill be forthcoming.

131 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 20, 2009 R

eplacement of the Lions G

ate W

WTP

will likely have significant

impacts on the R

egional Sew

er Levy; depending on the level of senior governm

ent funding provided, the regional sew

er levy could increase anyw

here from 80%

to 250%.

Com

ment noted.

132 C

ity of North V

ancouver Council

Report, dated M

ay 20, 2009 U

ntil further planning work is

completed for new

initiatives, such as private property sew

er laterals, a potential increase in cost is difficult to quantify.

Com

ment noted.

133 C

ity of Pitt M

eadows C

ouncil R


The investments in sew

age treatment

provided for in the draft LWM

P w

ill increase the cost of sew

age collection in the region in the com

ing years.

MV

will w

ork with its m

embers to ensure that the

cumulative cost im

plications of this plan are mitigated

through appropriate financial strategies such as rate sm

oothing.

SDD-107

26 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 134

City of P

ort Coquitlam

Council


Concerns raised regarding the ability

of municipalities to apply local taxes to

all upcoming regional initiatives such

as transportation, water and solid

waste.

A regional affordability context has been prepared by

the Regional Finance A

dvisory Com

mittee (R

FAC

).

135 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam C

ouncil R

eport, dated June 2, 2009 The proposed tim

etable to implem

ent the new

and enhanced actions of the LW

MP

should be extended.

Com

ment noted.

136 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam C

ouncil R

eport, dated June 2, 2009 Include a strategy for securing appropriate funding assistance from

senior levels of governm

ent prior to undertaking m

ajor LWM

P projects.

The LWM





mitm


ing. 137

City of P

ort Coquitlam

Council


Expand the Financial P

lan to include details of the costs to im

plement the

LWM

P; bring forw

ard some of the

numbers from

the tables in the back of the LW

MP

.

Com

ment noted.

138 C

ity of Port C

oquitlam C

ouncil R

eport, dated June 2, 2009 Include a strategy for M

V to determ

ine the infrastructure funding gap over the next five years.

Com

ment noted.

139 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 The LW

MP

would com

mit the C

ity to sew

er utility rate surcharges of up to 25%

.

Com

ment noted.

140 C

ity of Richm

ond Com

mittee

Report, dated M

ay 2, 2009 The final surcharge over current rates is dependent upon w

hether or not MV

receives grants for large infrastructure projects and the schedule upon w

hich the m

ajor initiatives are completed.

The LWM





mitm


ing

141 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Add to the costs of upsizing

secondary treatment facilities to

accomm

odate future growth to

Vancouver and N

orth Shore

Sew

erage Area D

evelopment C

ost C

harges.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-108

27 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 142

City of S

urrey Corporate R

eport, dated M

ay 25, 2009 A

lthough financial implications related

to the MV

action items are significant,

the total financial impact for all

municipal action item

s to the m

unicipality’s sewer and drainage

utility rates are considered m

anageable, given that the E

ngineering Departm

ent is already undertaking or has budgeted for the m

ajority of actions.

Com

ment noted.

143 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Ensure that adequate funding is

provided to the Environm

ental M

onitoring Com

mittee (E

MC

) and the S

tormw


roup (SILG

) for these groups to m

eet their mandates.

Com

ment noted.

144 C


ouncil R


With cost sharing, m

unicipal residential sew

er charges would

increase by 30%, w

hile for full cost sharing the increase w

ould be 10%.

The remaining actions of the LW

MP

also have the potential to represent costs to the m

unicipality, but the specific financial im

pacts are unclear at this tim

e.

Com

ment noted.

145 D

istrict of Maple R

idge Council

Resolution, M

ay 25, 2009. W

ork with provincial and federal

governments for funding of the

sewage plants. The tim

ing of the plants should be determ

ined by those outcom

es.



the LWM





mitm


ing. The amount and

timing of cost sharing contributions w

ill determine the

timelines given the region’s lim

ited capacity to com

plete certain comm

itments.

SDD-109

28 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 146

District of M

aple Ridge C

ouncil R

esolution, May 25, 2009.

The District of M

aple Ridge w

ould like to annually review

the implem

entation and funding of the LW

MP

action item

s, in regard to affordability.

Com

ment noted.

147 D

istrict of North V

ancouver C

ouncil Report, dated M

ay 13, 2009

Forward a letter to the provincial and

federal governments urging them

to each provide 1/3 funding for the new

treatm

ent plants.



the LWM



ent. S

pecifically, cost sharing will be sought by M

V and

municipalities from


148 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R


Senior governm

ents should develop an econom

ic plan to fund the large costs of upgrades w

hile meeting

environmental, technological and

Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IRR

) priorities.

Cost sharing for secondary treatm

ent will be sought

and innovative opportunities for integrated resource recovery w

ill be examined—

this is supported by S

trategies 1.3 and 2.1.

149 C

ity of Vancouver C

ouncil R


The draft LWM

P w

ould have significant cost im

plications for hom

eowners in V

ancouver.

Com

ment noted.

150 C

ity of Coquitlam

Council


Conduct an updated regional

affordability study, with m

unicipal input and com

mentary, prior to adoption of

the LWM

P.

The MV

continues to liaise with its m

embers as part

of an ongoing process to share an understanding of the affordability of the regional utility plans.

151 D

istrict of North V

ancouver C

ouncil Report, dated M

ay 13, 2009

Som

e potential new initiatives, such

as the managem

ent of private property sew

er laterals and m

anagement of M

V system

capacity issues related to infiltration in m

unicipal systems could result in

increased costs; until further planning w

ork is completed, these costs are

difficult to quantify.

Com

ment noted. It is recognized that in general

municipal w

et weather inflow

and infiltration m

anagement program

s require increased efforts and resources in order to m

anage the total system m

ost cost affordably and to reduce sew

er overflows.

Performance M

easures

N

o comm

ents received.

SDD-110

29 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation M

etro Vancouver M

ember Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse C

onsultation Process 152

City of P

ort Moody C

ouncil R

esolution, dated May 14, 2009

Recom

mendation m

ade that the MV

draft LW

MP

, dated March 2009 be

referred to the Environm

ental P

rotection Com

mittee for review

.

Com

ment noted.

153 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

The LWM

P tim

eline is overly am

bitious; there will be no

opportunities for the municipality to

review the final draft LW

MP

that incorporates com

ments from

the consultation process prior to consideration of approval by the M

V

Board.

Following the approval of the LW

MP

by the Metro

Vancouver B

oard, it will be subject to a final review

by M

etro Vancouver m

ember C

ouncils before it is sent to the B

.C. M

inister of Environm

ent for approval.

154 C

ity of Surrey C

orporate Report,

dated May 25, 2009

Provide a copy of the final draft LW

MP

to all M

V M

embers for final com

ment

prior to consideration of the LWM

P by

the MV

Board; w

ould ensure that m

unicipality concerns have been addressed and that other com

ments

that have been received and subsequently incorporated into the final draft are acceptable to the m

unicipalities.

Following the approval of the LW

MP

by the Metro

Vancouver B

oard, it will be subject to a final review

by M

etro Vancouver m

ember C

ouncils before it is sent to the B

.C. M

inister of Environm

ent for approval.

SDD-111


SDD-112

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation First N

ations Input (May 31, 2008 – O


omm



004955599

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 4

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse G

eneral Plan Com

ments

1.

Public M

eeting N

otes First N

ations are stewards of the land; liquid w

aste m

anagement is a system

that is owned by

municipalities or other organizations over w

hich First N

ations have no control.

MV

’s and municipal liquid w

aste managem

ent system

s are owned by the public and protect health

and the environment. The region’s First N

ations benefit from

these systems and are engaged in

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

consultations. 2.

P

ublic Meeting

Notes

Aboriginal rights and title m

ust be considered when

thinking about the environment.

First Nations have been engaged in LW

MP

consultation. In addition, First N

ations’ constitutional rights w

ill be considered in LWM

P im

plementation

(Section A

). 3.

P

ublic Meeting

Notes

First Nations, w

ho were here first, are being

affected; the affect on the longevity of the First N

ations people will cause m

ore strain on the health system

.

First Nations have been engaged in LW

MP

consultation. In addition, First N

ations’ constitutional rights w

ill be considered in LWM

P im

plementation

(Section A

). 4.

P

ublic Meeting

Notes

The Sem

iahmoo First N

ation is trying to gather reports and data to find out w

hat contaminants are

flowing dow

n the Serpentine and N

icomekl.

Access to M

V’s studies is available through its library

or by contacting the Information C

enter at icentre@

metrovancouver.org

5.

Public M

eeting N

otes M

any industries and municipalities are going ahead

with projects w

ithout looking at aboriginal rights and title.

Com

ment noted. First N

ations have been engaged in LW

MP

consultation. First Nations’ constitutional

rights will be considered in LW

MP

implem

entation (S

ection A).

6.

Public M

eeting N

otes W

ater quality is important for the S

emiahm

oo First N

ations as they are salt water people.

Com

ment noted. S

trategy 3.3 will continue to assess

Boundary B

ay for impacts from

liquid wastes.

7.

Public M

eeting N

otes The Little C

ampbell R

iver has experienced three m

ajor fish kills due to poor water quality; the

Sem

iahmoo First N

ations are unable to harvest oysters on their lands.

Under S

trategy 3.4, municipalities w

ill develop and im

plement co-ordinated integrated storm

water

managem

ent plans (ISM

Ps) for Little C

ampbell

River.

Strategy 3.3 w

ill continue to assess Boundary B

ay for im

pacts from liquid w

astes.

SDD-113

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 4

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation First N



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 8.

P

ublic Meeting

Notes

Bring back the health of the environm

ent as First N

ations cannot currently hunt or fish for traditional foods.

Strategy 1.3 “M

inimizes im

pacts to the environm

ent—w

ater, land and air” helps support this need.



raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.


et weather overflow


raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.


ental impacts from

liquid waste m

anagement to a m

inimum


raft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid w


arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.



arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Strategy 3.2: U

se innovative approaches and technologies (Strategy #5 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.

Strategy 3.3: Monitor the perform

ance of liquid waste system

impacts on the receiving environm

ent (Strategy #7 in March 2009

Draft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Strategy 3.4: Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term

needs (Strategy #8 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P) 9.

M

eeting with the

Musqueam

Indian B

and, July 21, 2009

Musqueam

Indian Band (M

IB) requested a tim

eline on the upgrade and potential re-location of the Iona Island W

aste Water Treatm

ent Plant (IIW

WTP

).

MV

staff sent an information package to the M

IB on

October 22, 2009 and M

V staff w

ill follow up w

ith the M

IB B

and Manager to ensure that he has received

the IIWW

TP briefing package and related m

aterial. 10.

Meeting w

ith the M

usqueam

Indian Band,

July 21, 2009

MV

should work to engage the province in

discussions with M

usqueam on consultations over

the IIWW

TP and capacity funding issues.

MV

staff is in discussions with the province

concerning the role of the MIB

in LWM

P

consultations.

SDD-114

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation First N



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 11.

Meeting w

ith the M

usqueam Indian

Band, July 21,

2009

MIB

representatives indicated that they will review

the 2005 proposal for a joint liaison com

mittee (or

other format such as briefings sessions/w

orkshops, etc.) as a possible approach for M

V and M

IB to

address the IIWW

TP and other issues requiring

“political” discussions and decisions.

MV

staff will seek M

IB’s com

ments on this issue

and/or proposed format for an engagem

ent process betw

een MV

and MIB

.



daptive Managem

ent in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.

Financial Plan

N

o comm

ents received.

Performance M

easures

N

o comm

ents received.


12. H

wlitsum

First N

ation letter The H

wlitsum

First Nation (H

FN) has an interest in

liquid waste m

anagement and w

ould like to be involved in the decision m

aking process.

Com

ment noted.

13. H

wlitsum

First N

ation letter The H

FN w

ould like to comm

ent on the LWM

P to

ensure that their interests are protected; however,

they have a firm policy that all consultation should

take place on a revenue neutral basis. To participate effectively in LW

MP

consultation and finance any expertise needed to assist in m

aking informed

decisions, capacity funding must be provided.

MV

does not provide capacity funding for participation in the LW

MP

update process.

14. H

wlitsum

First N

ation letter R

equest for information regarding w

hat capacity funding, if any, is available to the H

FN to participate

in the LWM

P negotiations.

MV

does not provide capacity funding for participation in the LW

MP

update process.

15. H

wlitsum

First N

ation letter The ongoing w

ork of identifying and articulating the interests of the H

FN and participating in the decision

making process requires a level playing field; in

return, the HFN

will m

ake itself available to participate in activities such as studies, assessm

ents, conferences, workshops and

presentations within the H

FN com

munity.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-115

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation First N



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 16.

Meeting N

otes A

nother level of consultation will need to take place

with the S

emiahm

oo First Nation.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-116

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation Provincial and Federal G

overnment A

gency and Ministry Input (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and Metro Vancouver R

esponses

004955600

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 5

#

Source Issue/C

omm

ent/Question

Metro Vancouver (M

V) Response

General Plan C

omm

ents 1

BC

Ministry of

Environm

ent letter dated D

ecember

4, 2008

Due to the specific language identified in the

Environm

ental Managem

ent Act, the province

cannot consider the naming convention proposed by

Metro V

ancouver (Liquid Resource M

anagement

Plan.) H

owever, the M

inistry understands Metro

Vancouver’s position and acknow

ledges the potential value of using a w

aste as a resource.

MV

staff proposes a new title: Integrated Liquid

Waste and R

esource Managem

ent Plan: A

Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan for the G

VS

&D

D and

Mem

ber Municipalities.

2 B

C H

ydro letter dated M

ay 29, 2009

Several opportunities to w

ork collaboratively with M

V

exist and we look forw

ard to discussions. M

V looks forw

ard to working w

ith all stakeholders during the im

plementation of the (Liquid W

aste M

anagement P

lan) LWM

P.

3 B

C H

ydro letter Integrate a regional energy and em

issions vision into the various M

V plans, including the LW

MP

. The LW

MP

contains a vision statement in the

Sustainable R

egion Initiative Section that addresses

energy and emissions.

4 B

C H

ydro letter A

dd regional energy quantification and mapping -

including demand, supply, w

aste heat recapture, and resource recovery options in the LW

MP

.

The LWM

P contains an action to prepare business

cases for Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IRR

) opportunities w

ithin each sewerage area. M

any of these issues w

ill be assessed during this exercise. 5

BC

Hydro letter

Has M

V considered a potential governance role as a

regional energy utility? Such a utility m

ay address broader issues than current M

V resource and w

aste m

anagement functions.

MV

’s energy role is evolving.

6 B

C H

ydro letter M

V has the potential for regional leadership in

district energy, to ensure consistent standards and future interconnectivity am

ong systems.

MV

understands the benefit of district energy on the long range energy planning initiatives. M

V w

ill also have an Integrated U

tility Managem

ent Advisory

Com

mittee (IU

MA

C) to ensure integration across its

utilities.

SDD-117

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 5

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P

rovincial and Federal Governm

ent Agency and M

inistry Input (May 31, 2008 – O


omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 7

BC

Hydro letter

Opportunities exist for local energy generation, an

important elem

ent of a sustainable region. Recent

results of a technical feasibility assessment show

ed high potential for technologies such as w

aste -to -energy.

The LWM

P contains an action item

to assess IRR

through business casing in each sew

erage area. These issues w

ill be addressed through the IRR

process.

8 B

C H

ydro letter P

otential regional leadership on local government

energy as well as greenhouse gas (G

HG

) targets. M

V is developing long range energy planning and

GH

G initiatives w

ith appropriate municipal

coordination on opportunities. 9

BC

Hydro letter

Opportunities exist to engage in a national vision of

Integrated Com

munity E

nergy System

s. C

omm

ent noted.



raft LWM

P) ** A



MP.

10 Fisheries and O

ceans Canada

letter dated May

15, 2009

LWM

P com

ponents such as improved integration of

land use planning and rainwater m

anagement to

protect or improve w

atershed and stream health are

complem

entary to the fish habitat managem

ent goals of the D

epartment of Fisheries and O

ceans.

The LWM


to address w

atershed scale stormw

ater planning, and action item

s to assess impacts on the receiving

environment.

11 H

ealth Canada

letter dated May

27, 2009

Consider program

s developed for other jurisdictions in the developm

ent of MV

liquid waste outreach

programs. R

eference made to an A

ustralian governm

ent initiative to help people use water w

isely in their everyday lives.

The LWM


to develop outreach program

s, which w

ill likely include a review

of other jurisdictions, and an action item to exam

ine rainw

ater re-use. The Drinking W

ater Managem

ent P

lan has considered this issue as well.

12 H

ealth Canada

letter S

uggest that similar to the “C

omm

uter Challenge,”

municipalities could prom

ote a water conservation

challenge.

The Drinking W

ater Managem

ent Plan has actions

on water conservation.

13 H

ealth Canada

letter W

ould MV

consider including water m

etering as an option in G

oal 1, Strategy 1 of the LW

MP

? Water

metering has successfully reduced w

ater consum

ption in other municipalities.

The Drinking W

ater Managem

ent Plan has

considered this issue with decisions on m

etering to be m

ade by municipalities.

SDD-118

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M



educe wet w

eather overflows (Strategy #2 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 14

Environm

ent C

anada letter dated A

pril 24, 2009

Continued action is needed to elim

inate overflows

from com

bined sewers and reduce the im

pact of storm

water.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P) has

several action items to address w

et weather

overflows, and storm

water m

anagement.

15 H

ealth Canada

letter dated May

27, 2009

Transport Canada m

ay have been overlooked in Im

plementation S

tep 11.1, the Governance S

ection and G

oal 1: Strategy 2.

The LWM

P contains action item

s to address the pum

p out facilities, which w

ill address this issue.

16 M

inistry of A

griculture and Lands em

ail dated June 1, 2009

Actions 6 and 7: W

herever current overflows im

pact land in the Agricultural Land R

eserve (ALR

), these should be m

ade a high priority. Elim

inate rather than m

inimize sanitary sew

er spills, as they have potential negative food safety im

pacts on the adjacent crops.

The LWM

P has several action item

s pertaining to prevention of w

et weather overflow

s.

17 M

inistry of A


ail

Actions 6 and 7: The target of m

inimizing “the

occurrence of combined sew

er overflows to a

frequency no greater than once every 5 years for a 24 hour duration event” w

ill likely mean that sew

er overflow

s continue to occur on an annual basis. In the interim

, timely overflow

reporting is crucial so potential food borne pathogens discovered later can be traced back to sew

er overflow records.

The LWM

P contains a strategy and several action

items to m

onitor the performance of the liquid w

aste system

and impacts on the environm

ent, including actions to address chronic sanitary sew

er overflows.

18 M

inistry of A


ail

Strategy 2, A

ction 6.3: Priority areas defined here -

does this mean that M

V M

embers, like S

urrey, are not included?

The updated LWM


requiring m

unicipalities to work w

ith MV

to implem

ent overflow

managem

ent plans. Strategy 1.3: M

inimize im

pacts from liquid w

aste managem

ent on the environment – w

ater, land and air (Strategy #3 in March

2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 19

Environm

ent C


pril 24, 2009

The Canadian C

ouncil for Ministers of the

Environm

ent (CC

ME

) strategy signed in February 2009 indicates that E

nvironment C

anada (EC

) intends to develop a federal w

astewater effluent

regulation under the Fisheries Act.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-119

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 20

Environm

ent C

anada letter E

C cannot com

ment on the proposed tim

elines to upgrade treatm

ent plants since the federal w

astewater regulation is still under developm

ent. H

owever, in the interest of protecting the

environment, M

V is strongly encouraged to upgrade

the Wastew

ater Treatment P

lants (WW

TPs) w

ithout delay.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)


astewater treatm

ent for the North S

hore and V


ased on the Canada-

wide S


ent of Municipal

Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-MM

WE

), Lions Gate




21 E

nvironment

Canada letter

All effluents from

wastew

ater treatment system

s and overflow

s from com

bined sewers in C

anada must

comply w

ith all applicable federal legislation including the Fisheries A

ct and the Canadian

Environm

ental Protection A

ct (CE

PA

).

The LWM

P contains action item

s to work w

ith regulatory agencies to m

onitor impacts of the liquid

waste system

in conformance w

ith the CC

ME

C

anada Wide S


ent of M

unicipal Wastew

ater Effluents requirem

ents, and develop environm

ental quality objectives. Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid w


arch 2009 D

raft LWM

P) ** A



MP.

22 B

C H

ydro letter dated M

ay 29, 2009

Support the Integrated R


R)

vision of the plan. The Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

) contains a goal to use liquid w

aste as a resource.

23 B

C H

ydro letter H

as MV

conducted a highest and best use analysis of biosolid and yard w

aste? B

iosolids investigations for land application and energy recovery have been undertaken.

24 B

C H

ydro letter D

oes biosolid and yard waste have m

ore value in com

posting and anaerobic digestion or in waste-to-

energy?

Biosolids investigations for land application and

energy recovery have been undertaken.

25 B

C H

ydro letter It w

ould be useful to understand the quantity (tonnes per year) and quality (w

ater content) of biosolids and anaerobic digestion residues that are presently available (not currently digested) for energy recovery.



26 B

C H

ydro letter The Integrated R


R) concept

assumes all biosolids w

ill be processed to biogas, but this m

ay not be their “highest and best use.”



SDD-120

5 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 27

BC

Hydro letter

Integrate the LWM

P w

ith the Solid W

aste M

anagement P

lan (SW

MP

), as the method of

treating wet biosolids (LW

MP

). LWM

P by-products

can be integrated with treatm

ent for garden waste,

Dem

olition, Land Clearing and C

onstruction and w

ood in the SW

MP

.

The LWM


for a business case for IR

R for each sew

erage area to assess such item

s. This includes linkages between liquid w

aste and other system

s such as solid waste, drinking

water and land use.

28 B

C H

ydro letter Transfer stations m

ay be a good location to process w

ood waste to gasification feedstock as they are

decentralized in industrial areas and may be in close

proximity to future district energy sites, allow

ing for cost effective transportation of district energy feedstock.

Wood w

aste collection and processing is being addressed in the S

WM

P.

29 B

C H

ydro letter A

ction 20.2 and 20.4: Should be expedited over the

next few years as m

any comm

unities are now

considering opportunities of sewer w

aste heat recovery.

The LWM


to evaluate heat energy recovery. The LW

MP

contains an action item

for a business case for IRR

for each sewerage area

which w

ill include timelines.

30 M

inistry of A


ail dated June 1, 2009

Action 21: The use of these types of fertilizers for

agricultural food crops will depend on the quality of

the fertilizer product produced (whether the nutrients

are in the form of biosolids, purified liquids or

extracted nutrients such as struvite).

The LWM


to assess technologies and processes to recover nutrients, and develop business cases. It also w

ill continue to assess production of a m

inimum

Class B

biosolids.

31 M

inistry of A


ail

Action 21: A

ny recovered fertilizer product from

liquid waste m

ust meet food safety standards and

organic certification requirements; even if the current

crop is not intended for human consum

ption, such as a hay field, m

any farms practice crop rotation and

a future crop may be a food crop.

The LWM


to assess technologies and processes to recover nutrients, and develop business cases. It also w

ill continue to assess production of a m

inimum

Class B

biosolids.

32 M

inistry of A


ail

Action 22: This cannot be intended for agriculture;

agricultural operators would have to build huge

reservoirs to capture rain water, and this w

ould take significant am

ounts of land out of production.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-121

6 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 33

Ministry of

Agriculture and

Lands email

Action 23: The use of reclaim

ed wastew

ater for agricultural irrigation of food crops w

ould be dependent on the quality; if it is potable and w

ithin drinking w

ater standards, the irrigation of food crops, even for direct consum

ption, should not be a problem

.

The LWM

P contains an action for m

unicipalities to evaluate opportunities for the collection and use of rainw

ater.





Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 34

Environm

ent C


pril 24, 2009

Action 28.1: The M

inistry of Environm

ent regulates sew

age sludge applications and should be added to the list of parties to be notified of substances potentially im

pacting the receiving environment.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains a strategy to monitor liquid w

aste discharges, and the im

pacts on the environment. It

also contains action items to w

ork with the province

to develop environmental quality objectives.

Biosolids applications are in accordance w

ith provincial requirem

ents. 35

Health C

anada letter dated M

ay 27, 2009

Action 25.1: This inform

ation should be used to prioritize w

orks for sewer separation or

implem

entation of measures to better m

anage high peak volum

es.

Information generated by environm

ental effects m

onitoring is used to determine strategies for system

m

anagement and infrastructure refinem

ents. This is review

ed by the Environm

ental Monitoring

Com

mittee (E

MC

) and Storm

water Interagency

Liaison Group (S

ILG) as subcom

mittees under the

Integrated Utility M

anagement A

dvisory Com

mittee

(IUM

AC

). 36

Ministry of

Agriculture and

Lands email

dated June 1, 2009

Action 27: This action m

ay require the use of bacterial source tracking to determ

ine the source of bacterial contam

inants.

The assessment of need for additional indicator tools

such as bacterial source tracking is part of the EM

C

role.

37 M

inistry of A


ail

Action 27: Investigate the relative costs of this type

of sampling and build them

into the “cost and resources” section of the LW

MP

.

The budgets for environmental m

onitoring are contained w

ithin MV

’s annual budgeting process.

SDD-122

7 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse Strategy 3.4: Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long—

term needs (Strategy #8 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 38

Ministry of H

ealth letter dated M

ay 27, 2009

Ensure that m

unicipal Integrated Storm

water

Managem

ent Plans (IS

MP

) are developed and im

plemented in a tim

ely manner; these plans w

ill need to ensure attainm

ent of any existing water

quality guidelines and objectives in receiving waters.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains an action item requiring the developm

ent of IS

MP

s by 2014.



daptive Managem

ent in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ent received.

Financial Plan

N

o comm

ent received.

Performance M

easures 39

Health C

anada letter dated M

ay 27, 2009

Periodic reassessm

ents of the list of parameters

should be made to consider em

erging contaminants.

Perform

ance measures w

ill be further developed and review

ed by the Integrated Utility M

anagement

Advisory C

omm

ittee (IUM

AC

). C

onsultation Process 40

Environm

ent C


pril 24, 2009

MV

is encouraged to participate in the consultations that w

ill take place on the proposed federal w

astewater effluent strategy, once they have been

prepared.

MV

intends to participate.

41 B

C M

inistry of A

dvanced E

ducation and Labour M

arket D

evelopment

letter dated March

26, 2009.

The Ministry of A

dvanced Education and Labour

Market D

evelopment does not consider itself to be a

direct stakeholder in the Liquid Waste M

anagement

Plan, but suggests that M

V offer consultation options

to public post-secondary institutions in MV

.

Com

ment noted. M

V has conducted an extensive

consultation program during the developm

ent of the LW

MP

, including providing input opportunities for post-secondary institutions.

SDD-123

8 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 42

Departm

ent of Indian and N

orthern Affairs

Canada letter

dated April 8,

2009

Would like to participate in the LW

MP

consultation process in the follow

ing manner: receive regular

correspondence regarding the status of the LWM

P

review, attend an intergovernm

ental workshop about

the LWM

P, receive inform

ation about upcoming

public consultation activities and review the draft

LWM

P through the M

inistry of Environm

ent.

MV

complied w

ith Departm

ent request.

43 B

C M

inistry of C

omm

unity D

evelopment

letter dated March

16, 2009


MP




P

review, m

eet with M

V staff to review

and discuss the draft LW

MP

, attend an intergovernmental w

orkshop about the LW

MP

, receive information about

upcoming public consultation activities, subm

it form

al comm

ents on the draft LWM

P and review

the draft LW

MP

through the Ministry of E

nvironment.

MV

complied w

ith Ministry request.

44 B

C H

ydro letter dated M

arch 31, 2009


MP




P

review, attend an intergovernm

ental workshop about

the LWM

P, receive inform

ation about upcoming

public consultation activities and submit form

al com

ments on the draft LW

MP

.

MV

complied w

ith BC

Hydro request.

45 E

nvironment

Canada letter

dated May 1,

2009

Indicated which E

nvironment C

anada staff mem

ber w

ould attend the Technical Forum on M

ay 6, 2009 and provide input via the B

urrard Inlet Environm

ental A

ction Program

/Fraser River E

stuary Managem

ent P

rogram.

Com

ment noted.

46 B

C M

inistry of H

ealth Living &

Sport letter dated

March 26, 2009

Forwarded M

V correspondence regarding LW

MP

R

eview to M

r. Andrew

Hazlew

ood, Assistant D

eputy M

inister of Population and P

ublic Health, M

inistry of H

ealthy Living and Sport for his inform

ation.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-124

9 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation P


ent Agency and M



omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 47

BC

Ministry of

Sm

all B

usinesses, Technical &

E

conomic

Developm

ent letter dated M

ay 21, 2009

Indicated that Ministry feedback w

ill be submitted

following the com

pletion of the electoral process and the receipt of policy direction from

Cabinet in early

June, 2009

Com

ment noted.

SDD-125


SDD-126

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation Input from

Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


esponses

004976099

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 6

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse G

eneral Plan Com

ments

1 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter dated May

20, 2009

Com

ments m

ade in April 2009 by the B

urrard Inlet E

nvironmental A

ction Program

and the Fraser R

iver Estuary M

anagement P

rogram (B

IEA

P-

FRE

MP

) Managem

ent Com

mittee have been

incorporated or addressed in the draft Liquid Waste

Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

).

Com

ment noted.

2 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter S

upport the LWM

P direction requiring adaptive

standards and integration with land use plans.

Com

ment noted.

3 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter U

nclear how the LW

MP

includes climate change

initiatives or responds to climate change in general.

Greenhouse gas (G

HG

) tracking and mitigation under

Strategy 1.3. Im

pacts and adaptation for treatment

plants under Strategy 3.1 and overall system

s under S

trategy 3.4. 4

BIE

AP

/FRE

MP

letter

The Canadian C

ouncil of Ministers of the

Environm

ent (CC

ME

) should be referenced in the final LW

MP

.

References added.

5 E

nvironmental

Monitoring

Com

mittee (E

MC

) C

orrespondence

Implem

entation section: The “timeline” colum

n should be clarified; target years are identified but do not specify “by that year” or “w

ithin that year”. This w

ill be important for short term

goals.

Timelines im

ply within the specified calendar year.

6 E

MC

C

orrespondence S

ection A: D

oes not recognize other legislation that plays a role in the LW

MP

such as Species at

Risk (Federal), the Fish P

rotection Act (P

rovincial) and the W

ater Act (P

rovincial).

LWM

P im

plementation continues to take into account

all regulations and legislation.

7 E

MC

C

orrespondence G

oal 1: Change sentence 2 to read: “P

rinciple objectives of rainw

ater managem

ent are preventing localized flooding from

rainwater runoff and

protecting urban streams from

polluted runoff and dam

aging storm flow

s, maintaining stream

health and fisheries value.”

Reference to fish and w

ildlife habitats has been added to the G

oal 1 rainwater and storm

water text.

SDD-127

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 6

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q

uestions and Metro V

ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 8

EM

C

Correspondence

Need to m

onitor how rainw

ater is infiltrated and reused. S

ome findings through S

urrey Integrated S

tormw

ater Managem

ent Plans (IS

MP

s) have show

n that existing creeks and fisheries waterw

ays m

ay dry up if water balances are altered.

Such m

onitoring needs and programs are best brought

forward by S

tormw

ater Interagency Liaison Group

(SILG

) and Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (E

MC

) as part of the plan implem

entation.

9 E

MC

C

orrespondence C

onsider a solution for the issue of groundwater

traveling down utility trenches and then em

erging and causing flooding problem

s in low lying areas,

creating problems w

ith infrastructure and private properties, such as pooling at the bottom

of hills and basem

ents or eroding backfills.

This issue pertains to construction practices—it is best

addressed through Regional E

ngineers Advisory

Com

mittee (R

EA

C) or as part of m

unicipal ISM

Ps.



raft LWM

P) 10

BIE

AP

/FRE

MP

letter

Education, outreach and source control are cost

effective options for protecting wastew

ater from

pollutants; support the identification of specific outreach program

s and target audiences.

Com

ment noted. This has been addressed under

Strategy 1.1 in the Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan

(LWM

P).

11 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter R

equire the implem

entation of stormw

ater and rainw

ater managem

ent measures and plans to

address the cumulative negative effects of altered

water quality and quantity on area w

atercourses and receiving w

aters.

Com

ment noted. This has been addressed under

Strategy 1.1 in the LW

MP

.

12 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter The LW

MP

does not explicitly comm

ent on pharm

aceuticals and how to address them

; this issue could benefit from

wider source control

initiatives such as education and public outreach.

Com

ment noted. P

harmacy take-back program

s are part of provincial extended producer responsibility (E

PR

) programs being m

anaged under the solid waste

planning. 13

EM

C

Correspondence

Implem

entation Step 3.2 iii b: W

ho will identify the

need to inspect private sewers; is this

implem

entation step meant to be reactive to

problems or w

ill sewer ow

ners be required to inspect and report?

Strategy 1.1 w

ill lead to linking private sewer inspection

to property disclosure statements at the tim

e of real estate transfer.

14 E

MC

C

orrespondence Im

plementation S

tep 3. iii b: This implem

entation step is vague.

Action has been re-w

ritten for clarity.

SDD-128

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 15

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 4: Identified that m

inimizing rainw

ater runoff at the site level does not address the overall w

atershed non-point of source pollution factor; additional references for pollution and pollution prevention and m

anagement are necessary.

Com

ment noted. N

on-point source pollution m

anagement is best addressed through the S

urrey Integrated S

tormw

ater Managem

ent Plans (IS

MP

) processes under S

trategy 3.4.

16 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 4: Focusing only on individual site measures

will not necessarily serve the needs of a w

atershed; site m

easures, in combination w

ith comm

unity facilities and sustainable infrastructure design, w

ill better serve the w

atershed, especially in re-developm

ent areas.

Com

ment noted. The IS

MP

process under Strategy

3.4 is expected to identify and address the watershed

specific needs.

17 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 7: Priority locations of S

anitary Sew

er O

verflows (S

SO

s) may not be associated w

ith high grow

th areas; SS

Os often occur dow

nstream of

older infrastructure sections which are w

eak and cannot handle the hydraulic grade line during the event.

Com

ment noted. S

trategy 1.2 will lead to the

development of S

SO

Managem

ent Plans that w

ill take this into account.

18 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 7: Look at the design heads of the trunk system

s and associated vulnerabilities and prioritize upgrades from

that point forward. This

should be separate and in addition to Inflow and

Infiltration (I&I).

Strategy 1.3 addresses these com

ments.

19 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 7: Evidence exists of S

SO

s occurring dow

nstream of high-density areas in S

urrey; num

erous breaks and surcharges in the north S

urrey trunk line, which has little new

development

through Surrey, but m

ore development from

upstream

sources.

Strategies 1.1 and 1.2. address this com

ment.


et weather overflow


raft LWM

P) 20

EM

C

Correspondence

Implem

entation Step 6.4 i &

ii: Clarify baselines for

annual reductions. If existing text is interpreted literally, full separation w

ill never be achieved. A

lso, current wording does not give a sense of the

overall timeline.

Addressed by new

text for Strategy 1.2.

SDD-129

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 21

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 7: S

hould include MV

infrastructure (in some

areas MV

’s system is undersized based on

upstream developm

ent, even with appropriate I&

I considerations).

Sizing of M

V infrastructure is addressed through

Strategies 1.3, and 3.1.

22 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 10: Clarify w

hat is expected from M

V

Mem

ber programs, such as type of m

onitoring, frequency and result subm

issions

Strategy 3.3 outlines the m

onitoring, while S

trategy 1.3 uses the m

onitoring results to inform operating

changes and needs for upgrades. 23

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 10: If this action refers to non-point of source

pollution, then more clarification is required.

Clarification is under S

trategy 3.3 though the Canadian

Council of M

inisters of the Environm

ent (CC

ME

) C

anada Wide S

trategy for Managem

ent of Municipal

Wastew

ater Effluents needs.

24 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 10: Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (E

MC

) and the Storm

water Interagency Liaison

Group (S

ILG) need to play roles.

SILG

and EM

C roles are identified in S

trategy 3.5.


ental impacts from

liquid waste m

anagement to a m

inimum


raft LW

MP)

25 B

IEA

P/FR

EM

P

letter S

upport the emphasis placed on collaboration,

particularly relative to agricultural runoff, septic-serviced areas, and m

arine pump-out areas.

Com

ment noted.

26 E

MC

/Port M

V

Implem

entation Step 8.3 i: M

ost, if not all, of the S

anitary Sew

er Overflow

(SS

O) locations w

ill lead to flow

s into Port M

V jurisdictional w

aters, either directly or indirectly. P

ort MV

requests to be consulted w

hen overflow locations are identified.

Consultation requirem

ents must be identified in the

LWM

P as is required under existing federal

legislation (Port A

uthorities Operations

Regulations).

Com

ment noted. S

SO

notification is the responsibility of the M

inistry of Environm

ent, the agency responsible for regulating liquid w

aste discharges.

Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid waste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context (Strategy #6 &

#8 in March 2009

Draft LW

MP)

27 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 22: “Prom

ote the collection and use of rainw

ater for irrigation and other non-potable water

uses,” is acceptable so long as it is not detrimental

to creek base flows and fisheries habitat.

Com

ment noted.

SDD-130

5 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 28

EM

C/ P

ort MV

A

ction 11: Many, if not m

ost, of the pleasure craft m

arinas in the region are Port M

V tenants. P

ort MV

supports this action and can likely assist w

ith its im

plementation.

Com

ment noted.



arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Strategy 3.2: U

se innovative approaches and technologies (Strategy #5 in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

N

o comm

ents received.




ent (Strategy #7 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

29 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 25.1: The Environm

ental Monitoring

Com

mittee (E

MC

) should be involved in this action. C

omm

ent noted.

30 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 28.4: This action could have major cost

implications for local governm

ents; Surrey

Integrated Storm

water M

anagement P

lans (ISM

Ps)

currently monitor benthics for w

atershed health.

This action is no longer explicit in the plan.

31 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 28.4: General sam

pling programs for non-

point of source or stormw

ater systems have not

been defined.


32 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 28.4: Consult E

MC

and Storm

water


ILG) to explore the

merits of this action and develop relevant goals.


33 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 29.2: Link the LWM

P needs w

ith established local system

s to avoid duplicate functions. This action is no longer explicit in the plan. IS

MP

s are required under S

trategy 3.4 34

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 29.2: C

onsider sharing data or having joint agreem

ents on automated system

s in the region. For exam

ple, Surrey currently operates six rainfall

stations, over 16 flow stations and approxim

ately 20 river level stations.

Com

ment noted.


arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

35 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 31.1 ii: Include the managem

ent of rainwater

runoff at the site level and non-point of source (N

PS

) pollution considerations.

Com

ment noted. S

trategy 1.1 addresses site-level rainw

ater managem

ent.

SDD-131

6 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 36

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 32.1: Include all M

V com

munities, even

those with com

bined sewerage areas.

ISM

P are required for all w

atersheds all areas, S

trategy 3.5. 37

EM

C

Correspondence

Action 32.2 ii: R

oads are not the only sources of N

on Point S

ource pollution problems and therefore

should not be highlighted separately.

Com

ment noted. A

ction is no longer explicit.

38 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 32.2 ii: Land use planning plays a role in N

PS

pollution; issues like sediment and erosion,

use of metal fences and storage, use of pesticides

and hot tub discharges all play a large role in the N

PS

effects beyond road runoff.

Com

ment noted. A


39 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 32.2 ii: Identified that aggressive municipal

street and catchbasin cleaning programs,

combined w

ith stormceptors, can lead to good

treatment of the road facility; A

ction 32.2 ii should be m

ore generic so as to capture the broader range of influences.

Com

ment noted. A


40 E

MC

C

orrespondence A

ction 35.3: Ensure that new

service areas do not overtax lim

ited or deficient MV

trunk systems that

exist downstream

until downstream

infrastructure is capable of servicing the catchm

ent area without the

undue risk of significant trunk failures or frequent overflow

events.

Com

ment noted. W

ording has been revised to require conform

ance with R

egional Grow

th Strategy. S

ystem

capacity is addressed by scenarios under Strategy 3.4

and basic servicing under Strategy 1.3.



daptive Managem

ent in March 2009 D

raft LWM

P)

No com

ments received.

Financial Plan 41

BIE

AM

P-FR

EM

P

letter S

upport the identification of a funding schedule for specific program

s and activities such as those supporting collaboration and innovation.

Budget schedules are not included as the B

oard and councils cannot authorize future budgets extending the full duration of the plan.

Performance M

easures 42

BIE

AP

/FRE

MP

letter

Perform

ance measures and reporting should be

linked to sustainability. P

erformance m

easures are linked to MV

sustainability reporting in S

ection B.

SDD-132

7 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Com

mittees (M

ay 31, 2008 – October 30, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


ancouver Responses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 43

EM

C

Correspondence

Goal 1: A

dd “minim

ize beach PO

STIN

GS

/ closures” to the final bullet.

Beach closures can occur due to m

any causes. C

ollaborative work w

ill continue to support this objective, but is not explicitly stated.


No com

ments received.

SDD-133


SDD-134

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation Technical Forum

Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, Com

ments, Q


esponses

004955601

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 7

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse G

eneral Plan Com

ments

1 Forum

Notes

Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P) priorities

include the protection of human health and the

environment and creating a legacy for younger

generations.

Com

ment noted. This is addressed under the G

oals of the LW

MP

.

2 Forum

Notes

No significant environm

ental concerns have been identified w

ithin the existing LWM

P.

Com

ment noted. U

nder Strategy 3.3, the LW

MP

continues to m

onitor the performance of the liquid

waste system

and impacts on the receiving

environment.

3 Forum

Notes

Need a “front end” to be added to the LW

MP

that m

akes the case for action. C

omm

ent noted. The Vision S

tatement S

ection of the LW

MP

includes information on the S

ustainable R

egion Initiative which provides a rationale for

action. Strategy 1.1: R

educe liquid wastes at their source (Strategy #1 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 4

Forum N

otes It is im

portant to create public support for the LWM

P

by identifying on the ground outcomes and engaging

a broad section of the comm

unity in education.

Com

ment noted. S

ource control outreach has been addressed under S

trategy 1.1 in the LWM

P.

5 Forum

Notes

MV

should take a watershed approach to source

control. The LW

MP

contains an action to develop storm

water m

anagement plans at a w

atershed scale.

6 Forum

Notes

Monitoring, enforcem

ent and increased regulation are critical to source control.

The LWM

P contains an action to increase inspection

and enforcement.

7 Forum

Notes

Organize forum

s where M

V perm

ittees can share ideas around liquid w

aste managem

ent; share best practices w

ith permittees.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop codes of

practice, guidelines and standards.

8 Forum

Notes

Provide incentives to industry and business to

implem

ent on-site treatment and reduce the im

pact on treatm

ent plants.

The LWM

P contains actions to reduce im

pacts on treatm

ent plants through source control, and an action to develop and evaluate business cases for integrated resource recovery opportunities.

SDD-135

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 7

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 9

Forum N

otes Is volum

e metering being considered?

Flow m

etering takes place at a regional level as part of the cost allocation process.

10 Forum

Notes

The flow of w

astewater should be reduced prior to

upgrades to the Waste W

ater Treatment P

lants (W

WTP

s).

The LWM

P contains num

erous actions to reduce flow

s in the collection system.

11 Forum

Notes

Industry and business need to be held more

accountable for the volume and quality of

wastew

ater discharge.

The LWM

P contains actions to w

ork with

stakeholders to develop Codes of P

ractice and S

tandards. 12

Forum N

otes W

hat type of incentives could convince homeow

ners to address inflow

and infiltration (I&I) issues?

The LWM


implem

ent a process for certification of private laterals as part of real estate transactions.

13 Forum

Notes

Com

municate the im

pacts of particular substances, such as pharm

aceuticals, on the environment.

The LWM


implem

ent outreach programs.

14 Forum

Notes

Ask business for an increase in innovation rather

than collecting development cost charges.

The LWM

P contains a goal to use liquid w

aste as a resource.

15 Forum

Notes

Encourage developm

ent that has a low-im

pact on the environm

ent. The LW

MP

contains a goal to reduce impacts by

using liquid waste as a resource.

16 Forum

Notes

What is an appropriate level to set regulatory

requirements for discharge into the sew

er system?

The LWM

P contains an action to review

and enhance sew

er use bylaws.

17 Forum

Notes

Consider a user-pay principle.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop new

regulatory instrum

ents. 18

Forum N

otes C

onsider on-site managem

ent of stormw

ater and rainw

ater within a w

atershed context. The LW

MP

contains an action to develop and im

plement Integrated S

tormw

ater Managem

ent P

lans (ISM

P).

19 Forum

Notes

Identified the need for concise design objectives in regard to on-site rainw

ater managem

ent standards at the com

munity and m

unicipal level.

The LWM


implem

ent ISM

Ps.

20 Forum

Notes

Would on-site rainw

ater managem

ent be maintained

through enforcement?

The LWM


implem

ent ISM

Ps.

21 Forum

Notes

Use storm

water and rainw

ater as a resource. The LW

MP


plement IS

MP

s and an action to evaluate rainw

ater re-use.

SDD-136

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M



educe wet w

eather overflows (Strategy #2 in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 22

Forum N

otes The highest priority C

ombined S

ewer O

verflow

(CS

O) areas to address are beaches and the m

ain pipe trunks in M

V.

The LWM

P contains actions to prioritize C

SO

elim

ination.

23 Forum

Notes

A business case could be m

ade for accelerated CS

O

managem

ent to accomm

odate more grow

th and/or reduce the necessary size of treatm

ent plants.

The LWM

P contains actions to prioritize C

SO

elim

ination.

24 Forum

Notes

CS

Os are a key issue in the Fraser A

rea, New

W

estminster and B

urnaby; issue is being addressed, particularly in regard to infiltration inflow

.

The LWM

P contains an action to prevent C

SO

s caused by rainfall and snow

melt.

25 Forum

Notes

CS

O plans m

ust be created by municipalities,

including goals and timelines for im

plementation.

The LWM

P contains actions to develop priorities to

eliminate C

SO

s. 26

Forum N

otes It w

ill take time to im

plement sew

er separation. The LW

MP

contains actions to prioritize CS

O

elimination.

27 Forum

Notes

Sew

er separation at a rate of 1% a year fits w

ell with

the lifecycle of the pipes. The LW

MP


O

elimination.

28 Forum

Notes

CS

Os w

ill be replaced by 2050. The LW

MP


O

elimination.

29 Forum

Notes

Sew

er separation should include private laterals. The LW

MP

comm

its municipalities to C

SO

elim

ination and identifies timelines.

30 Forum

Notes

Take a watershed approach to sew

er separation. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to reduce wet

weather overflow

s. 31

Forum N

otes M

unicipalities must be held accountable for sew

er separation.

The LWM

P com

mits m

unicipalities to CS

O

elimination and identifies tim

elines. 32

Forum N

otes W

hat is the connection between C

SO

managem

ent issues and building the new

North S

hore Wastew

ater Treatm

ent Plant (W

WTP

)?

The North S

hore has separated sanitary sewer and

storm sew

er systems, so there is no connection.

33 Forum

Notes

CS

O volum

e is not a clear indicator of CS

O im

pact; better definitions and m

easures are needed. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to monitor im

pacts of liquid w

aste on the receiving environment.

34 Forum

Notes

Concerns about the tim

eline for CS

O upgrades.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

contains actions to prioritize C

SO elim

ination.

SDD-137

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 35

Forum N

otes C

oncerns about private property laterals; if MV

accelerated the tim

eline for sewer separation, the

public would be forced to do the sam

e.

The LWM

P contains an action to address the

Canadian C

ouncil of the Ministers of E

nvironment

(CC

ME

) Canada-w


anagement

of Municipal W

astewater E

ffluent to eliminate w

et w

eather overflows, including those from

private property.

36 Forum

Notes

Sew

er separation does occur when a property is re-

developed, even if the city pipe has not yet been separated.

The LWM

P contains an action w

ork with the real

estate industry to certify sewer laterals to be in good

condition. Strategy 1.3: R


pacts from liquid w

aste managem

ent to a minim

um (Strategy #3 in M

arch 2009 Draft

LWM

P) ** A



MP.

37 Forum

Notes

The University of B

ritish Colum

bia (UB

C)

comm

itment regarding on-site w

aste water treatm

ent m

ust inform decisions regarding N

orth Shore

Wastew

ater Treatment P

lants (WW

TPs).

UB

C is not a m

unicipality subject to the provisions of the LW

MP

. Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IRR

) business cases w

ill assess the UB

C initiative relative

to the Vancouver S

ewerage A

rea Treatment P

lant. 38

Forum N

otes S

upport expressed for upgrades at WW

TPs w

ith prim

ary treatment in a tim

ely manner.

The LWM


level wastew


orth Shore and

Vancouver sew


WS

-M

MW

E, Lions G

ate should proceed within a 10-year

timeline and Iona Island w


39 Forum

Notes

WW

TPs should not only protect public health, but

improve public health as w

ell. The LW

MP

contains an action to upgrade the W

WTP

s to secondary treatment.

40 Forum

Notes

Justification for upgrades to the WW

TPs m

ust be m

ade to maintain public trust.

The LWM

P contains an action to upgrade the

WW

TPs to secondary treatm

ent. 41

Forum N

otes The econom

ic cost of implem

enting IRR

at the W

WTP

s must be considered.

The LWM

P addresses financial issues in the

Financial Plan section. It also contains an action to

develop business cases for IRR

in each sewerage

area. 42

Forum N

otes The capacity of the W

WTP

s should not be expanded beyond the needs of the com

munity.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop asset

managem

ent plans. 43

Forum N

otes C

oncurrent upgrades to the Iona and North S

hore treatm

ent plants might drive up construction costs.

The LWM

P addresses financial issues and identifies

the need for cost-sharing on the treatment plant

upgrades.

SDD-138

5 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 44

Forum N

otes C

ontamination of killer w

hales is a WW

TP concern.

The LWM


onitor the im

pacts of liquid waste on the receiving

environment.

45 Forum

Notes

Upgrades to the W

WTP

s should be linked to energy planning.

The LWM

P contains strategies and actions to

address energy recovery from the liquid w

aste system

. 46

Forum N

otes C

onsider human health and environm

ental benefits w

hen exploring WW

TP options.

The LWM


onitor the perform

ance and impacts of the liquid w

aste system.

47 Forum

Notes

MV

must w

eigh the costs and benefits of a centralized system

against a distributed system.

The LWM

P contains actions to develop plans for

WW

TPs in the context of IR

R.

48 Forum

Notes

The lessons learned from other planning processes

should be applied to the planning process for the upgrades to the W

WTP

s.

The LWM

P contains actions to develop plans for

WW

TPs as w

ell as undertake IRR


erage area. 49

Forum N

otes M

V should consider integrating planning betw

een solid w

aste, liquid waste, energy and w

ater. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to pursue waste

resource recovery (including solid waste). A

ll of M

V’s m

anagement plans are integrated.

50 Forum

Notes

Should the level of treatm

ent be the same for all

types of waste w

ater? The LW

MP

contains an action to address the CC

ME

C

anada Wide strategy for m

unicipal wastew

ater effluents.

51 Forum

Notes

Action 10.1 is too vague. It should m

ake reference to the E

nvironmental M

onitoring Com

mittee (E

MC

) and the S

tormw

ater Interagency Liaison Group

(SILG

).

Action 10.1 has been replaced and rew

orded.

Strategy 2.1: Pursue liquid waste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context (Strategy #6 &

#8 in March 2009

Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 52

Forum N

otes The draft Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

) is the first to recognize the concept of Integrated R


R).

The LWM

P contains a goal to use liquid w

aste as a resource.

53 Forum

Notes

Support for U

BC

becoming self-sufficient in liquid

waste m

anagement and IR

R.

UB

C is part of the V

ancouver Sew

erage Area and

their initiative will be part of the IR

R business casing.

54 Forum

Notes

Current regulations create challenges for IR

R.

Com

ment noted. The LW

MP

contains actions to w

ork with all levels of governm

ent.

SDD-139

6 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 55

Forum N

otes IR

R im

plementation w

ould be a major paradigm

shift for M

V.

Com

ment noted.

56 Forum

Notes

An annual “dare to dream

forum” should be held for

all comm

ittees in regard to IRR

. S

trategy 3.2 includes the use of innovative approaches and technology and has an action to support dem

onstration projects. 57

Forum N

otes R

ainwater harvesting should be a com

ponent of IRR

. The LW

MP



erage area. It also contains an action to evaluate rainw

ater re-use. 58

Forum N

otes IR

R is not a “silver bullet” to solve the problem

s of liquid w

aste managem

ent. The LW

MP



erage area. 59

Forum N

otes IR

R should not be a delay tactic.

The LWM


R

business cases for each sewerage area in parallel

with treatm

ent plant planning. 60

Forum N

otes IR

R cannot com

promise public health.

The LWM

P contains an action to undertake an

annual audit of environmental m

anagement

systems.

61 Forum

Notes

IRR

is linked to conserving electricity. The LW

MP

contains actions to recover energy. 62

Forum N

otes IR

R could be difficult to im

plement at the Iona

treatment plant due to its rem

ote location and other logistical issues.

The LWM


R


63 Forum

Notes

A business analysis should be conducted for IR

R, to

inform future plant upgrades, address the risks and

uncertainty surrounding IRR

, and identify im

plementation opportunities.

The LWM


R


64 Forum

Notes

Do seed investm

ent funds exist for decentralized infrastructure located in com

munities? P

ilot projects are needed.

The LWM


R


65 Forum

Notes

What role does public procurem

ent play in IRR

? The LW

MP



erage area. 66

Forum N

otes D

ecision makers need to recognize the im

portance of IR

R. P

olitical will is needed for change.

The LWM


R


67 Forum

Notes

Show

IRR

leadership by investing in smaller,

decentralized waste w

ater infrastructure. The LW

MP



erage area.

SDD-140

7 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 68

Forum N

otes R

equire producers of waste to take m

ore responsibility for disposal.

The LWM


R


69 Forum

Notes

Use the best environm

ental and economical w

aste w

ater treatment technologies, including IR

R.

The LWM


R


70 Forum

Notes

The implem

entation of IRR

would contradict existing

liquid waste m

anagement plans.

The LWM


R


71 Forum

Notes

IRR

deals with w

ater managem

ent and relates back to the w

ater conveyance system.

The LWM


R


72 Forum

Notes

Is IRR

a way of displacing dem

and for reducing im

provements?

The LWM


R


73 Forum

Notes

What does IR

R m

ean for existing infrastructure? The LW

MP



erage area. 74

Forum N

otes N

eed to identify district and local uses of resource recovery.

The LWM


R


75 Forum

Notes

IRR

is an opportunity to integrate neighbourhoods. C

omm

ent noted. 76

Forum N

otes IR

R is a clim

ate change plan. C

omm

ent noted. 77

Forum N

otes G

aining comm

unity acceptance of IRR

at the im

plementation phase could be a challenge

Com

ment noted.

78 Forum

Notes

A clear “vision” for IR

R for use in public relations and

comm

unications is needed. The LW

MP



erage area, and an action for public outreach.

79 Forum

Notes

Solid “w

aste” and liquid “waste” have been caused

by overconsumption; “w

aste” would be reduced

through the implem

entation of IRR

.

Com

ment noted.

80 Forum

Notes

IRR

would have to be im

plemented gradually.

The LWM

P contains actions to w

ork with

municipalities to adapt plans and infrastructure.

81 Forum

Notes

A closed-loop system

could be created to protect the environm

ent through the implem

entation of IRR

. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to monitor the

receiving environment and im

plementation action to

ensure its protection. 82

Forum N

otes A

shortage of resources must be considered w

hen im

plementing IR

R.

The LWM


R


SDD-141

8 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 83

Forum N

otes The acceptance of technology, such as com

bustion w

aste collection odours, is an important IR

R factor.

The LWM


R




arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 84

Forum N

otes A

sset managem

ent priorities are the replacement of

old infrastructure, upgrading combined sew

ers and addressing other environm

ental issues.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains a strategy to manage assets and optim

ize liquid w

aste operations. 85

Forum N

otes C

ombine system

maintenance priorities in order to

gain funding. C

omm

ent noted.

86 Forum

Notes

LWM

P priorities need to be ranked by im

portance and better articulated in the LW

MP

. The LW

MP

contains strategies to manage assets

and optimize liquid w

aste operations, and develop scenarios and trends to assist the liquid w

aste system

. 87

Forum N

otes Include hum

an elements in a cost benefit analysis.

The LWM


anage assets and optim

ize liquid waste operations.

88 Forum

Notes

The system m

ust be flexible and adaptable. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to manage assets


aste operations. 89

Forum N

otes C

urrent asset managem

ent decisions must take

Integrated Resource R

ecovery (IRR

) and densification into consideration.

The LWM


R


90 Forum

Notes

Consider efficiencies for asset m

anagement

associated with innovation, com

bined use and coordination of asset stream

s.

The LWM


R


91 Forum

Notes

Consider and /or incorporate pilot projects into

managing assets.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop a

sustainability academy to support research and

demonstration projects.

92 Forum

Notes

Current infrastructure is not aligned to com

pliment

IRR

. The LW

MP



erage area. 93

Forum N

otes B

alance reinvestment and m

aintenance of existing infrastructure.

The LWM




94 Forum

Notes

Asset m

anagement should include private

infrastructure in buildings and private laterals. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to manage assets


aste operations, and actions that deal w

ith private connections.

SDD-142

9 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 95

Forum N

otes H

istorically, liquid waste infrastructure m

aintenance has been underfunded.

Com

ment noted.

96 Forum

Notes

All M

V liquid w

aste assets must be tracked.

The LWM




97 Forum

Notes

Improve energy efficiency of current system

. The LW

MP

contains a strategy to recover energy, nutrients and w

ater from liquid w

aste. 98

Forum N

otes Im

prove public understanding of infrastructure plans. The LW

MP

contains actions for public outreach. 99

Forum N

otes Increased population densification w

ill increase the efficiency of the current infrastructure.

The LWM





arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

N

o comm

ents received.





Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 100

Forum N

otes C

ontinue current level of monitoring activities.

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P)

contains a strategy to monitor the perform

ance of the liquid w

aste system and im

pacts on the receiving environm

ent. 101

Forum N

otes E

ncourage research and development at the federal

level in regard to contaminants.

The LWM

P contains actions to collaborate w

ith regulatory agencies.

102 Forum

Notes

Action 28.4 is too vague, should reference the

Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (EM

C) and the

Storm

water Interagency Liaison G

roup (SILG

).

Com

ment noted. The tw

o noted comm

ittees are referenced as part of S

trategy 3.5.


arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)


V Response colum


P. 103

Forum N

otes S

tormw

ater managem

ent is a unifying issue as rain falls everyw

here. The Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan (LW

MP

) contains an action to develop and im

plement

Integrated Storm

water M

anagement P

lans (ISM

Ps).

104 Forum

Notes

Watershed planning needs to be conducted on a

watershed w

ide-scale level and be tied into im

plementation, w

hich happens through planning departm

ents.

The LWM


implem

ent ISM

Ps.

SDD-143

10 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse 105

Forum N

otes M

unicipalities must discuss plans for storm

water

managem

ent with each other in order to drive

watershed planning.

The LWM


implem

ent ISM

Ps.

106 Forum

Notes

Who is leading the process of developing IS

MP

s? The LW

MP


plement IS

MP

s. Plan developm

ent is led by m

unicipalities. 107

Forum N

otes H

ow is storm

water m

onitoring made effective; how

are tim

ely answers achieved?

The LWM


onitor the receiving environm

ent with review

by the E

nvironmental M

onitoring Com

mittee (E

MC

). 108

Forum N

otes W

hose responsibility is it to develop and implem

ent IS

MP

s? This is a m

unicipal responsibility.

109 Forum

Notes

Consider the local context w

hen prioritizing ISM

P

implem

entation. The LW

MP


plement IS

MP

s on a watershed basis.

110 Forum

Notes

The implem

entation of ISM

Ps needs to be linked to

land-use planning on a watershed basis.

The LWM

P contains an action to develop IS

MP

s, w

ith consideration regarding land use. Strategy 3.5: U

se collaborative managem

ent to address evolving needs (Adaptive M

anagement in M

arch 2009 Draft LW

MP)

No com

ments received.

Financial Plan 111

Forum N

otes C

ost is the greatest concern on the North S

hore in regard to liquid w

aste managem

ent. This is addressed under the Financial P

lan section in the LW

MP

and Metro V

ancouver will seek senior

government cost sharing.

112 Forum

Notes

Costs could triple on the N

orth Shore, due to the

proposed upgrades. This is addressed under the Financial P

lan section in the LW

MP

and Metro V

ancouver will seek senior

government cost sharing.

113 Forum

Notes

Support cost-sharing for upgrades and m

aintenance by M

V partners and senior level governm

ents. C

omm

ent noted.

114 Forum

Notes

Look at the LWM

P from

a financial viewpoint,

combined w

ith an eye towards hum

an health. This is addressed under Financial P

lan Section in

the LWM

P.

115 Forum

Notes

Sustainability is an im

portant factor in financial planning; the federal governm

ent does not need to be approached to fund upgrades to the liquid w

aste m

anagement system

.

This is addressed under Financial Plan S

ection in the LW

MP

. Not approaching the federal governm

ent is contrary to B

oard direction.

Performance M

easures

N

o comm

ents received.

SDD-144

11 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C


Input (May 7, 2009)

Issues, C

omm


etro Vancouver R

esponses

# Source

Issue/Com

ment/Q

uestion M


esponse C

onsultation Process

N

o comm

ents received.

SDD-145


SDD-146

Liquid Waste M

anagement Plan C

onsultation LW

MP R

eference Panel R

ecomm

endations and Metro Vancouver R

esponses

004972726

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 8

#

Recom

mendation

Response

1 C

all the Plan

A Liquid R

esource Managem

ent Plan for M

etro V

ancouver.

The Waste M

anagement C

omm

ittee and Reference P

anel’s recomm

endations are accom

modated in the plan in a m

anner to be acceptable to the Minister.

For the updated plan, staff proposes a new title that accom

modates all the

perspectives: Integrated Liquid Waste and R

esource Managem

ent Plan: A

Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan for the G

VS

&D

D and M

ember M

unicipalities. 2

Adopt the goal of m

oving from protect to

improve the N

atural Environm

ent over time.

The Panel’s recom

mendation is accom

modated at a higher level by the

statement of principles in the S

ustainability Framew

ork. The legal context for the plan is the ‘E

nvironmental P

rotection Act’ and one of

the three principles of the Board’s S

ustainability Framew

ork is to: “Protect and

Enhance the N

atural Environm

ent”. 3

Undertake m

ore extensive monitoring of the

long-term cum

ulative impacts of m

ultiple contam

inants in effluents (both from point and

non-point sources).

The Liquid Waste M

anagement P

lan (LWM

P) proposes an Integrated U

tility M

anagement A

dvisory Com

mittee (IU

MA

C) w

hich will be responsible for

overseeing the current Environm

ental Monitoring C

omm

ittee (EM

C). The E

MC

w

ill continue to provide advice on monitoring program

s, which are expected to

continue to evolve during this plan as Canada-w

ide Strategy for the

Managem

ent of Municipal W

astewater E

ffluent (CW

S-M

MW

E) needs are

identified and addressed.

4 R

esolve the persistent and costly sanitary Inflow

& Infiltration issue by acting on policy

and legal tools that enable municipalities to

implem

ent timely and appropriate m

easures on private property.

The LWM

P has been am

ended after discussions with R

egional Engineer’s

Advisory C

omm

ittee (RE

AC

) to include requirements for m

unicipal inflow and

infiltration managem

ent plans.

5 R

e-focus Integrated RA

INw

ater/Storm

water

Managem

ent Plans on w

atershed targets and outcom

es so that there are clear linkages with

the land use planning and development

approval process.

The LWM

P is consistent w

ith the general intent of the Panel’s

recomm

endation. The specific intent will be the subject of individual m

unicipal storm

water m

anagement plans.

SDD-147

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 8

2 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation LW

MP

Reference P

anel R

ecomm

endations and Metro V

ancouver Responses

# R

ecomm

endation R

esponse 6

Mandate a renam

ed and ‘new S

ILG’

(Storm

water Interagency Liaison G

roup) to spearhead a regional team

approach to develop policy, legal and technical tools that w

ill enable ‘integrated solutions’ for rainwater

managem

ent, green infrastructure and integrated resource recovery.

The IUM

AC

and its subcomm

ittees (SILG

and EM

C) w

ill encompass the

responsibilities recomm

ended by the Reference P

anel.

7 Im

plement a consistent region-w

ide approach to neighbourhood (re)developm

ent and building design that integrates rainw

ater managem

ent, green infrastructure and integrated resource recovery.

Although the underlying principle is acceptable, the specific recom

mendation is

beyond the mandate of the LW

MP

. The IU

MA

C w

ill facilitate a more consistent region-w

ide approach through its m

andate linking and integrating the LWM

P w

ith other plans. In addition, a m

ore inclusive, approach is being developed by Metro V

ancouver to better integrate and align all M

etro Vancouver plans and Sustainability

Framew

ork. 8

Adopt the follow

ing four objectives as the guiding fram

ework so that the P

lan ensures a flexible and adaptable approach to regional sew

age treatment that strives for continuous

improvem

ent over time:

1) m

anage liquid discharges as a resource 2)

minim

ize discharges 3)

minim

ize financial risk, and 4)

maxim

ize the quality of the discharges.

The intent of the Panel’s recom

mended objectives are supported by LW

MP

strategies. H

owever, the current goals are broader and have been w

ell vetted w

ith the public and municipalities.

9 C

omm

it to constructing advanced treatment

plants in the North S

hore and Vancouver

Sew

erage Areas no later than 2020.

The LWM

P contains an action to provide secondary level w

astewater

treatment for the N

orth Shore and V


ased on C

WS

-MM

WE

, Lions Gate should proceed w

ithin a 10-year timeline and Iona

Island within a 20-year tim

eline.

SDD-148

3 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation LW

MP

Reference P

anel R

ecomm


ancouver Responses

# R

ecomm

endation R

esponse 10

Conduct business case assessm

ents for Integrated R


R) before

proceeding with the engineering for

replacement treatm

ent plants in the North

Shore and V

ancouver Sew

erage Areas, and

still meet the 2020 com

mitm

ent.

The Panel’s recom

mendation is accom

modated in the LW

MP

.

11 S

trive to achieve Integrated Resource

Recovery progress increm

entally by comm

itting to business casing (using life cycle accounting approach) through com

munity-scale

opportunities such as the UB

C Living

Laboratory: Integrated Water and E

nergy P

roject.

The Panel’s recom

mended approach is current M

etro Vancouver practice and

the plan includes IRR

business casing in each sewerage area.

12 E

nsure effective source control in the industrial-com

mercial-institutional sector, and ultim

ately in the residential sector too, by providing additional financial incentives, enforcem

ent resources and autom

ated monitoring

technologies.

The Panel’s recom

mendation is reflected in the plan through a com

mitm

ent to im

proved source control programs.

13 M

ove from a facility-specific approach to a total

system w

ay-of-thinking about financing, constructing, operating and m

aintaining regional conveyance and treatm

ent infrastructure.

Metro V

ancouver’s current practices address this recomm

endation.

14 Increase the am

ortization period for treatment

plant financing from 15 years to 30 years to

achieve inter-generation equitability.

Given the pattern of expenditures over the total M

etro Vancouver utility

systems, inter-generation equitability is better served by a fifteen year

amortization period, w

hich is the Board’s current policy.

15 D

irect that rate-setting will adopt and im

plement

the principles of ‘polluter pay’ and equity to provide m

unicipalities (and homeow

ners and businesses) w

ith an incentive to reduce their w

et-weather flow

contributions to the regional conveyance and treatm

ent system.

After further discussion w

ith RE

AC

, the plan has been strengthened to reflect this recom

mendation.

SDD-149

4 Liquid W

aste Managem

ent Plan C

onsultation LW

MP

Reference P

anel R

ecomm


ancouver Responses

# R

ecomm

endation R

esponse 16

Develop m

ajor capital projects in a manner that

demonstrates value for m

oney, including protecting ratepayers / taxpayers from

the risks associated w

ith these major projects.

Metro V

ancouver’s current practice addresses this recomm

endation.

17 E

stablish a “stewarding com

mittee” to stew

ard the P

lan, and ensure ongoing action im

plementation occurs and stays true to the

vision.

The plan contains a new IU

MA

C w

hich will provide a regular com

mentary on

the plan. Additionally, the plan provides for periodic form

al public accountability sessions associated w

ith the biennial review of the plan.

The Board and its standing com

mittees retain responsibility for ensuring the

implem

entation of the plan occurs in a timely fashion, consistent w

ith the vision.

18 D

evelop and implem

ent a proactive and innovative education and com

munication plan

that builds broad-based public support for liquid resource and rainw

ater managem

ent.

The Panel’s recom

mendation is reflected through M

etro Vancouver’s current

practices and is included in the plan. Com

munication strategies specific to

liquid waste m

anagement w

ill continue to be developed to achieve clear and specific objectives under the direction of the G

VS

&D

D B

oard and its standing com

mittees.

19 C

ontinue to implem

ent and strengthen inter-departm

ental and inter-governmental

continuing education opportunities for Metro

Vancouver m

embers that align local actions

with provincial and regional goals, and result in

consistent expectations for region-wide

implem

entation of Plan elem

ents.

Mechanism

s are in place to achieve the objectives set out in the Reference

Panel recom

mendation.

SDD-150


To: Waste Management Committee From: Fred Nenninger, Regional Utility Planning Division Manager

Policy and Planning Department Date: November 6, 2009 Subject: Liquid Waste Management Plan Recommendation: That the Board adopt the Liquid Waste Management Plan, November 2009 (Attachment 1), and direct staff to forward the Plan to the GVS&DD member municipality councils for their endorsement prior to submitting the Plan to the B.C. Ministry of Environment for their approval. 1. PURPOSE At its February 2009 meeting, the Board endorsed the draft Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) and directed staff to undertake a formal consultation process based on the draft LWMP. Since that time, staff has undertaken the consultation process and the input received has been used to develop the final LWMP. The purpose of this report is to seek Board adoption of the LWMP and ask the Board to direct staff to submit the LWMP to the GVS&DD municipalities for their endorsement, prior to submitting the LWMP to the Ministry of Environment for their approval. 2. CONTEXT The current Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) was approved by the Province in 2002 with a requirement for review and updating every five years. The review started in 2007 with its adaptation to Metro Vancouver’s Sustainable Region Initiative format. A formal consultation process based on the discussion document titled “Strategy for Updating the Liquid Waste Management Plan” was undertaken in 2008 to obtain input from the public, municipal staff, and the LWMP Reference Panel. First Nations were also contacted for their input. Input received from this process was considered in developing the Draft Plan. The draft LWMP contained carry-forward actions from the previous plan and new actions to address sustainability needs and resource recovery opportunities. At its February 2009 meeting, the Board endorsed the draft LWMP and directed staff to undertake formal consultation on the draft LWMP in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Environment. The consultation plan was developed in close consultation with Provincial staff and included consultation with the regulators, municipalities, public, First Nations, and others. In addition, staff worked closely with the LWMP Reference Panel during 2008 and 2009. Separate reports were made by the Reference Panel to the Waste

Section E 1.2

SDD-151

Liquid Waste Management Plan Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3

Management Committee in May, June, and July 2009. A separate summary report on the LWMP consultation process is also being submitted to the Board. Key Changes in the LWMP The consultation process resulted in many suggested changes to the draft LWMP. Key changes included in the final LWMP are noted below:

• Integrated with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) new Municipal Wastewater Effluent Strategy

• Strengthened integration of resources and material recovery • New goal and focus on Integrated Resource Recovery • New action to create an Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee. (A

separate report on their Terms of Reference is also being submitted to the Board.) • Strengthened action to manage the entire sewerage system including private

property laterals • Action to base cost recovery on wet weather flows.

Implications Implementing the LWMP requires additional staff and budget resources for Metro Vancouver and its GVS&DD members. Completion timelines and estimated new costs for each LWMP action are listed in Attachment 2. The most significant cost is the upgrading of the Iona Island and Lions Gate wastewater treatment plants to secondary treatment at an estimated cost of $1,400,000,000. In a few instances, some costs are shown as “to be determined” as the development of business cases is required first. Next Steps Following adoption by the Board, the LWMP will be forwarded to GVS&DD member municipality councils for their endorsement prior to submitting the LWMP and Consultation Report to the B.C. Ministry of Environment for their approval. 3. ALTERNATIVES

1. That the Board adopt the Liquid Waste Management Plan, November 2009 (Attachment 1), and direct staff to forward the Plan to the GVS&DD member municipality councils for their endorsement prior to submitting the Plan to the

B.C. Ministry of Environment for their approval.

2. That the Board direct staff to undertake further work before resubmitting the Plan for consideration by the Board.

4. CONCLUSION The Province requires that the LWMP be reviewed and updated every five years. Based on input received from extensive consultation to date, the final LWMP is ready to be considered by the Board. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the final Plan so that it may be forwarded to the GVS&DD municipalities for their endorsement, prior to being submitted to the Province for their approval.

SDD-152

Liquid Waste Management Plan Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009

Page 3 of 3

Attachments: 1. Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management – A Liquid Waste Management

Plan for the GVS&DD and Member Municipalities, Metro Vancouver, November 2009 (eRIM doc. #004991397)

2. Implementation of the Liquid Waste Management Plan, November 2009

(eRIM doc. #004991770) 004960367

SDD-153


SDD-154

www.metrovancouver.org

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 9

A Liquid Waste Management Plan for the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage & Drainage District and Member Municipalities

Integrated Liquid Waste and

Resource Management

SDD-155

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

File: CP-18-01-LS5eRIM: 004991397

SDD-156

Table of Contents

Vision Statement 4

A. Sustainable Liquid Waste Management Plan 6

Governance 6

Roles and Responsibilities 6

Scope of the Plan 7

Linkages and Alignment 10

B. Goals, Strategies, Actions and Measures 13

Goal 1: Protect public health and the environment 13

Goal 2: Use liquid waste as a resource 21

Goal 3: Effective, affordable and collaborative management 23

Financial Plan 30

Performance Measures 31

Table 1 List of Members for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 7

Figure 1 Metro Vancouver Member Municipalities and Electoral Area A 8

Figure 2 Metro Vancouver Sewerage Areas and Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations 9

Figure 3 Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework 12

SDD-157

4 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Vision Statement Sustainable Region InitiativeMetro Vancouver has a vision to achieve what humanity aspires to on a global basis—the highest quality of life embracing cultural vitality, economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, all nurtured in and by a beautiful and healthy natural environment.

We will achieve this vision by embracing the principles of sustainability, not least of which is an unshakeable commitment to the well-being of current and future generations and the health of our planet, in everything we do.

As we share our efforts in achieving this vision, we are confident that the inspiration and mutual learning we gain will become vital ingredients in our hopes for a sustainable common future.

In 2002, Metro Vancouver adopted The Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) as its framework for decision making as well as the mechanism by which sustainability imperatives are moved from ideas into action. The SRI has been driven by three overarching principles which state that decision making must:

•have regard for both local and global consequences, and long term impacts;

•recognize and reflect the interconnectedness and interdependence of systems; and

•be collaborative.

These provide the foundation for the three sets of sustainability principles that guide Metro Vancouver:

•protectandenhancethenaturalenvironment(conserveanddevelopnaturalcapital);

•provideforongoingprosperity(conserveanddevelopeconomiccapital);and

•buildcommunitycapacityandsocialcohesion(conserveanddevelopsocialcapital).

SDD-158

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 5

Liquid WasteLiquid waste is the wastewater that is collected from homes, businesses, industries and institutions through vast networks of sewer pipes. Liquid waste is also the rainwater runoff and snowmelt that may be, or may become contaminated by washing and collecting pollutants from streets, lawns and gardens—most of this runoff enters creeks, rivers and the ocean untreated.

Traditionally, liquid waste has been viewed as an unusable output needing collection, treatment and disposal. However, stormwater can also be an asset in the natural environment in the form of creeks and other watercourses. Furthermore, as resources world-wide become scarcer and more expensive, liquid waste is increasingly recognized as a resource from which nutrients, energy, and water may be recovered and reused. Resource recovery can help to offset a portion of the costs associated with liquid waste management. In a fully sustainable system, there is no waste—everything is recycled and reused.

The long-term vision for liquid waste management in Metro Vancouver is that all elements of liquid waste will be efficiently recovered as energy, nutrients, water or other usable material or else returned to the environment as part of the hydrological cycle in a way that protects public health and the environment.

This vision and the Sustainable Region Initiative are supported by three goals:

Goal 1: Protect public health and the environmentPublic health and the environment are protected by managing sanitary sewage and stormwater at their sources, and providing wastewater collection and treatment services protective of the environment.

Goal 2: Use liquid waste as a resourceEnergy will be recovered from the heat in the sewage and from biogas generated in the treatment process. Materials which have nutrient value will be recovered from wastewater treatment plants. Water will be recovered from the wastewater treatment process and stormwater.

Goal 3: Effective, affordable and collaborative managementMonitoring, maintaining and investing in liquid waste infrastructure are essential to ensuring effective system performance and preventing costlier repairs. Innovative alternative approaches to traditional treatment systems will be explored. Opportunities for positive synergies with other utilities and regional management systems will be pursued—such as integrated stormwater management plans. Sources of risk will be identified and mitigated.

SDD-159

6 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

A. Sustainable Liquid Waste Management Plan

GovernanceThe BC Ministry of Environment allows all local governments to develop and periodically update a liquid waste management plan. Liquid waste management plans are authorized and regulated through the BC Environmental Management Act.

This plan authorizes discharges to the environment—water, air and land—associated with the management of liquid waste in Metro Vancouver according to the criteria set out in the plan and facility specific Operational Certificates.

Once each updated plan is approved, it becomes part of local liquid waste regulation through the BC Environmental Management Act. In the absence of an approved liquid waste management plan, the provincial Municipal Sewage Regulation governs.

Roles and Responsibilities The extent and complexity of the liquid waste systems, with roles and responsibilities being spread between broad levels of governance, require close co-ordination between the following groups.

Federal Government:

•EnvironmentCanada:regulatespollutants.

•FisheriesandOceansCanada:mandatedtoprotect fish populations and habitat in receiving waters and urban streams.

Provincial Government: •MinistryofEnvironment:regulatesliquidwaste

and approves Liquid Waste Management Plans.

•MinistryofCommunityandRuralDevelopment:

enables infrastructure financing and provides co-funding to local governments for civic projects.

•MinistryofHealth:regulateson-sitewastewatertreatment systems (such as septic tanks).

•MinistryofAgricultureandLands:encouragesresponsible agricultural land management.

Local Government: •MetroVancouverandtheGreaterVancouverSewerageandDrainageDistrict(GVS&DD):own, maintain and operate regional trunk sewers and major wastewater treatment plants, regulate industrial waste discharges, implement required regional actions in its plans, report on plan progress, and collaborate with others as appropriate.

•MunicipalmembersoftheGVS&DD:ownandmaintain collector sewers, implement municipal actions set out in the regional liquid waste management plan, manage stormwater systems, report on their progress on actions required in the plan, set local land use plans and community development standards.

First Nations: have constitutional rights which must be taken into account in the planning process.

Homeowners, businesses, institutions, and crown corporations: own and maintain private property sewer connections and private stormwater management systems.

SDD-160

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 7

Scope of the Plan While the plan covers the geographic area of Metro Vancouver (Figure 1), the majority of its actions are specific to Metro Vancouver’s wastewater collection and treatment systems, and the users connected to these systems, includingmunicipalities,businesses,andhomeowners.Inaddition,theplansetsspecificactionsforGVS&DDmembersregardingtheirmanagementofstormwaterrunoff.MajorGVS&DDfacilitiesandthesystemextentsareshowninFigure2.AllactionsintheplanareapplicabletotheGVS&DDanditsmembersaslistedinTable1.

Liquid waste management from sources such as on-site treatment and septic systems, agricultural runoff, and marine pump-out facilities for pleasure craft is cross-jurisdictional. Their management is addressed in the plan by Metro Vancouver and members though collaboration with senior government agencies and stakeholders.

City of Burnaby City of Port Moody

City of Coquitlam City of Port Coquitlam

CorporationofDelta City of Richmond

City of Langley City of Surrey

Township of Langley City of Vancouver

DistrictofMapleRidge DistrictofWestVancouver

City of New Westminster City of White Rock

City of North Vancouver University Endowment Lands

DistrictofNorthVancouver

DistrictofPittMeadows

Village of Anmore

Village of Belcarra

Bowen Island Municipality

Village of Lions Bay

Electoral Area A

Tsawwassen First Nation

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Members (GVS&DD)

METRO VANCOuVER MEMBERS

Table 1 List of Members for Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

SDD-161

8 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Fig

ure

1 M

etro

Van

couv

er M

emb

er M

unic

ipal

ities

and

Ele

ctor

al A

rea

A

SDD-162

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 9

Fig

ure

2 M

etro

Van

couv

er S

ewer

age

Are

as a

nd E

xist

ing

Was

tew

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

Loc

atio

ns

SDD-163

10 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Linkages and Alignment

Aligning with National InitiativesMetro Vancouver and its members actively participated with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to develop the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE). The Canada-wide Strategy was endorsed by the CCME in February 2009, and will be implemented in British Columbia by the Ministry of Environment.

The Canada-wide Strategy sets baseline wastewater management criteria, timelines and prioritization methodologies, and formalizes processes to assess environmental risk. This plan has been developed in accordance with the Canada-wide Strategy.

Aligning with Provincial InitiativesThe goals, strategies and actions have been aligned with senior government policies and positions

to ensure that Metro Vancouver’s and senior governments’ environmental and fiscal objectives and actions are mutually supportive and successful.

Key senior government plans and initiatives supported by this plan include:

• Integrated Resource Recovery: Integrated Resource Recovery (IRR) was formally defined by the Province in 2008 in a report commissioned by theMinistryofCommunityDevelopmenttitledResources from Waste: A Guide to Integrated Resource Recovery. It is a concept and approach that integrates the management of water, wastewater, energy and solid waste services to recover resources and value and to help increase resiliency. IRR planning and resource recovery actions in this plan support the BC Climate Action Plan, the BC Energy Plan, and Living Water Smart.

• BC Climate Action Plan: The success in achieving the province-wide target of 33% less greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (Live Smart BC) depends on the success of supporting initiatives of other provincial and local government plans. The actions set out in this plan will contribute to meeting these targets through its IRR approach and actions to recover energy, water and nutrients from wastewater and stormwater.

• The BC Energy Plan—A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership: In support of the provincial government’s vision for “clean energy leadership” and electricity self-sufficiency by 2016, this plan seeks to expand the production of biogas from wastewater, and to recover heat energy from wastewater for use in district heating systems. The IRR approach to integrating liquid and solid waste management will also support the BC Bioenergy Strategy: Growing Our Natural Energy Advantage. In partnership with municipalities and the private sector, initiatives in these areas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diversify the region’s sources of energy, provide renewable energy and increase our energy independence.

Flood management and constructed habitat, Eugene Creek, Surrey.

SDD-164

11N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

• Living Water Smart—British Columbia’s Water Plan: Water Smart objectives supported by this plan include the requirements to complete and implement municipal Integrated Stormwater Management Plans, support rainwater harvesting and water reclamation actions, the development of an understanding of what makes streams healthy, watershed management planning in priority areas, and helping address the impacts of climate change and climatic variability on local water resources. This will be supported by the ongoing work of a new overarching integrated utility management advisory committee which will enhance and continue the work of the current two inter-governmental committees: the Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) and Stormwater Inter-agency Liaison Group (SILG).

• A Guide to Green Choices—Ideas and Practical Advice for Land Use Decisions in BC Communities: Expressed in this guide is the need for “sustainable infrastructure” and “integrating communities with nature”. The commitment to IRR in this plan recognises and reinforces the links between community and effective infrastructure services. Municipal Integrated Stormwater Management Plans link the health of urban streams to the land use decisions and will seek to protect the health of urban streams by better managing rainwater where it falls.

• Burrard Inlet Environmental Management Plan and Fraser River Estuary Management Plan: These are joint plans involving federal and provincial agencies, Metro Vancouver, municipalities and crown corporations. This plan supports the long-term goals of improving the health of Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River estuary by upgrading wastewater treatment plants, eliminating combined sewer overflows, improving stormwater management, and ongoing environmental monitoring.

Linking with Metro Vancouver’s other plans

There is interdependence between the goals, strategies and actions in this plan and those in other regional plans.

• Drinking Water Management Plan (DWMP): The increased use of reclaimed wastewater for non-drinking water uses and harvesting of rainwater for landscape irrigation will help access alternatives to treated drinking water for use where high quality drinking water is not needed. These plans support provincial government targets for BC to become 33% more efficient in its water uses.

• Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions generated from liquid waste management and using wastewater heat to substitute for fossil fuel based heating supports Metro Vancouver’s climate change objectives.

uce emergency overflows due to power outages; and identify locations and

11

Releasing salmon fry, Silver Creek, Burnaby.

SDD-165

12 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

• Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP): Metro Vancouver will seek to produce biogas from co-managing liquid waste and organic solid wastes; technologies to make biodiesel from wastes, opportunities to derive marketable fertilizer products, recovered nutrients and compost will be explored.

• Regional Growth Strategy (RGS): The regional sewerage system will not be extended beyond the urban containment boundary except for overarching environmental or public health reasons.

The Sustainability Framework also provides a mechanism to collaborate with other organizations in areas of overlapping responsibilities such as transportation, economic development, culture, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship.

Figure 3 Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework

MEASuRES & TARGETS(Sustainability Report)

REGIONAL VISION

METRO VANCOuVER ROLE & MISSION

VALuES

SuSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

SuITE OF PLANSSuSTAINABILITY IN ACTION

•Water

•Sewerage

•SolidWaste Disposal

•Parks

•Housing

•LabourRelations

COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE

Service Delivery

Plans, Policy & Regulations

Political Leadership

•DrinkingWater

•SolidWaste

•LiquidWaste

•AirQuality

•Growth Management

•Housing

•Parks&Greenway

•EcologicalHealth

•Outreach

•Advocacy

•Education

SDD-166

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 13

B. Goals, Strategies, Actions and Measures

Goal 1: Protect public health and the environmentThe fundamental purpose of sewerage systems is preventing the spread of waterborne diseases and protecting the receiving environment from harm. Key management areas which support this goal are:

•Coordination of Infrastructure Capacity and Urban Development: The regional sanitary sewer system should be constructed to keep pace with development; the rate of urban development and redevelopment should be coordinated with the expansion of the regional sanitary sewer system.

•Sanitary Sewer Source Control: Three main objectives for managing liquid wastes at their source are protection of health and the environment, protection of infrastructure and worker safety, and prevention of sewer overflows. Pollution prevention programs keep out of the sewers the pollutants that cannot be effectively treated at wastewater treatment plants and those that are harmful to workers or infrastructure. This is achieved through permitting, enforcement and outreach programs. Reducing the risk of overflows is supported by actions that maintain sewer capacity, such as permitted limits on commercial discharge volumes and ongoing pipe maintenance programs to keep out excessive rainwater and groundwater.

•Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Sanitary sewers overflow when their capacity is exceeded, often due to large volumes of groundwater and rainwater entering the system. Preventing sanitary sewer overflows means keeping groundwater and rainwater out of sanitary sewers (referred to as inflow and infiltration management); this is done through ongoing inspection and targeted

This plan has three goals, which are addressed by nine strategies and supporting actions for Metro Vancouver

and member municipalities The supporting actions are linked and reinforce each other; their implementation

requires collaboration and integration to ensure that they are not undertaken in isolation

During implementation of the plan, there will be collaboration between Metro Vancouver, its members and

other partners to ensure an informed and coordinated process

maintenance programs. To be effective, all regional, municipal and private sanitary sewers must be properly maintained. Private sewers connect homes, business and institutions to the municipal and regional systems, and account for approximately 50% of the approximate 15,000 km of sewers in the region. While the regional and municipal sewers continue to be kept in good repair through ongoing maintenance programs, private sewers have not been part of any comprehensive strategy. Long-term overflow elimination strategies depend on the reduction of inflow and infiltration through inspection and maintenance for all sewers as part of maintenance and redevelopment cycles over the coming decades. For the interim, storage and temporary treatment of chronic sanitary sewer overflows will be used to mitigate risks to the environment.

• Stormwater and Rainwater: The region contains over one hundred watersheds with creeks and rivers of all sizes. These provide habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as recreation to many. Stormwater impacts the health of these watersheds and can degrade their ecosystems. Member municipalities continue to undertake and will implement integrated stormwater management plans to better protect their watersheds. Integrated stormwater management plans (ISMPs) include managing rainwater at the site level, thereby minimizing stormwater runoff. To be effective, municipalities will integrate land use into their stormwater management plans, and appropriate site-level rainwater management practices into their community development policies.

SDD-167

14 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

•Combined Sewer Overflows: The region’s first sewers were built as a network of combined sewers before wastewater was treated. They carried sanitary sewage, and water from drains and enclosed creeks to outfalls in the Fraser River, Burrard Inlet and English Bay. While new trunk sewers and wastewater treatment plants have been built, they cannot cope with the large amount of rainwater entering combined sewers during wet weather, and the combined sewer system continues to have overflows at its remaining outfalls. Reducing combined sewer overflows is ongoing and long-term; combined sewers continue to be replaced with separate sanitary and storm sewers. Ultimately, combined sewer overflows will be reduced to meet criteria for sanitary sewer overflows, and combined sewers will either be eliminated or phased to become stormwater outfalls. Interim solutions include flow containment tanks, sewer separation prioritization, and flow routing to minimize the amount of sanitary sewage in overflows.

Municipalites will develop and implement ISMPs for combined sewer areas so that the impacts from future stormwater systems are proactively mitigated. Opportunities will be sought that use some of the combined sewer system to send the first flush of stormwater to wastewater treatment plants or divert stormwater discharges from sensitive waterbodies.

• Wastewater Treatment: This plan’s commitment to upgrade the remaining primary wastewater treatment plants to secondary treatment is consistent with the Federal-Provincial policy for secondary level treatment as the minimum Canada-wide standard. The plan calls for continued monitoring and assessment of the performance of wastewater treatment, and using the results to inform the process to improve treatment.

STRATEGy 1.1

Reduce liquid wastes at their source

This strategy seeks to enhance the effectiveness of

regional wastewater treatment plants and municipal

stormwater management programs by minimizing

liquid wastes at their source Actions that keep

excessive rainwater and groundwater out of sanitary

sewers will reduce the risk of sewer overflows,

and help maintain sewer capacity and treatment

effectiveness Managing rainwater and stormwater

runoff at the site level will reduce negative quality

and quantity impacts

Metro Vancouver will increase enforcement of the Sewer Use Bylaw, improve source control tools and update outreach and education programs. Metro Vancouver and municipal actions will jointly seek to reduce groundwater and rainwater entering sanitary sewers over the long-term.

Annacis Island wastewater treatment plant provides treatment for over 1,000,000 people.

SDD-168

15N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

This strategy will be implemented by the following actions:

MEtRo VANcoUVER WILL:

Source control

1.1.1 Review and enhance sewer use bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. 2012

1.1.2 Developnewregulatoryinstruments,such as Pollution Prevention Plans to complement existing regulations. 2014

1.1.3 Increase resources for permitting, and inspection to support and enforce sewer use bylaws. 2010

1.1.4 Investigate the implications of the use of domestic food grinders. 2012

1.1.5 Developandimplementtargetedoutreachplans to support liquid waste source control programs. Ongoing

Inflow and Infiltration and Rainwater Management

1.1.6 Developatemplatetoguidethepreparation and implementation of inflow and infiltration management plans as part of broader asset management plans and to support sanitary sewer overflow reduction strategies. 2011

1.1.7 Work with the real estate industry and their regulators, and the municipalities to develop and implement a process for the inspection and certification of private sewer laterals being in good condition as a required component of real estate transactions within Metro Vancouver. 2011

1.1.8 Developandimplementinflowandinfiltration management plans that identify reduction strategies and timelines to ensure wet weather inflow and infiltration are within targeted levels. 2012

1.1.9 Work with municipalities to review historical data and adjust as necessary the average inflow and infiltration allowance for regional trunk sewers and wastewater treatment

plants, and develop associated target allowances for municipal sewer catchments associated with a 1:5 year return frequency storm event for sanitary sewers to a level that ensures environmental and economic sustainability. 2013

1.1.10 Review progress in reducing inflow and infiltration every four years. every 4 years

1.1.11 Enhance enforcement of sewer use bylaw prohibition against the unauthorized discharge of rainwater and groundwater to sanitary sewers. 2010

1.1.12 Work with municipalities to: 2012

a) facilitate research on watershed-based stormwater management approaches;

b) identify improvements to stormwater bylaws to include on-site rainwater management requirements;

c) develop model utility design standards and options for neighbourhood design guidelines;

d) establish region wide baseline criteria for on-site rainfall management including variations for localized geology, rainfall and watershed conditions;

Private sewers connect homes and businesses to the municipal-regional sewer network.

SDD-169

16 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

e) establish mechanisms to ensure continued performance of on-site rainwater management systems; and

f) work with senior governments and industry to develop codes of practice, certification, guidelines and standards which support this plan.

1.1.13 Decreaseliquidwastevolumesthroughcomplementary initiatives in the Metro VancouverDrinkingWaterManagementPlan to reduce potable water consumption.Ongoing

MUNIcIPALItIES WILL:

Source control1.1.14 Review and enhance sewer use bylaws to

reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. 2012

1.1.15 Continue existing programs of permitting and inspection to support and enforce sewer use bylaws. Ongoing

1.1.16 Identify and regulate pesticides and lawn care products which negatively affect rainwater runoff quality and urban stream health. 2014

1.1.17 Continue outreach plans to support liquid waste source control programs. Ongoing

Inflow and Infiltration and Rainwater Management

1.1.18 Developandimplementinflowandinfiltration management plans, using the Metro Vancouver template as a guide, to ensure wet weather infiltration inflow and infiltration volumes are within Metro Vancouver’s allowances as measured at Metro Vancouver’s flow metering stations.Develop by 2012

1.1.19 Enhance enforcement of sewer use bylaw prohibition against the unauthorized discharge of rainwater and groundwater to sanitary sewers. 2010

1.1.20 Update municipal bylaws to require on-site rainwater management sufficient to meet criteria established in municipal integrated stormwater plans or baseline region-wide criteria. 2014

1.1.21 Update municipal utility design standards and neighbourhood design guidelines to enable and encourage on-site rainwater management. 2014

Separating combined sewers is a long-term program.

SDD-170

17N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

STRATEGy 1.2 Reduce wet weather overflows

While reducing the amount of rainwater and ground-

water in sewage is vital to reducing sewer overflows

over the long-term, interim overflow treatment, pri-

oritized and targeted sewer renewal and separation,

and integrated municipal-Metro Vancouver operation

strategies will mitigate the risks of overflows over

the short-term

Key municipal actions are to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows and reduce the risk of spills by: improving and co-ordinating sewer rehabilitation programs to keep rainwater and groundwater out of sanitary sewers; constructing interim high rate overflow treatment facilities; and separating the remaining combined sewers in Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver.



1.2.1 Prohibit the construction of new combined sewer systems other than those functioning as part of a strategy to reduce combined sewer overflows or to manage stormwater quality. Ongoing

1.2.2 Address the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) by working with Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver to develop and implement: priorities for sewer separation of catchments tributary to combined sewer outfalls; regional and municipal sequence for trunk and collector sewer separation; strategic use of existing combined sewers to manage rainwater quality runoff; and a strategy to separate combined sewer connections from private properties. 2014

1.2.3 Replace combined regional trunk sewers with separated sanitary and storm sewers as determined by the plans developed in 1.2.2. Ongoing

1.2.4 Work with municipalities to develop and implement municipal-regional sanitary overflow management plans which will: prevent sanitary overflows resulting from heavy rain and snowmelt occurring less than once every five years (for a 24 hour duration event); reduce emergency overflows due to power outages; and identify locations and schedules for appropriate system capacity improvements, wet weather containment, and point treatment and discharge to receiving waters of chronic overflows, including Cloverdale Pump Station, Katzie Pump Station, Lynn Pump Station. 2013


1.2.5 Work with Metro Vancouver to develop and implement municipal-regional sanitary overflow management plans as set out in 1.2.4. 2013

1.2.6 Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver will work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to 1.2.2 and, specifically, implement plans to prevent combined sewer overflows by 2050 for the Vancouver Sewerage Area and 2075 for the Fraser Sewerage Area and separate combined sewers at an average rate of 1% and 1.5% of the system per year in the Vancouver Sewerage Area and Fraser Sewerage Area respectively. Ongoing

SDD-171

18 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

STRATEGy 1.3 Reduce environmental impacts from liquid waste management to a minimum

Metro Vancouver and municipalities will maintain

and operate their liquid waste infrastructure and

make improvements to meet evolving regulatory

requirements and reduce risks to the environment

which may be identified through ongoing monitoring

and assessment programs Implementing secondary

level of wastewater treatment for the Vancouver and

North Shore Sewerage Areas is a significant action

supporting this strategy

Metro Vancouver and municipal actions include provision of basic sewer service levels and quantifying and managing air emissions including odours and greenhouse gases, associated with operating and maintaining wastewater collection systems.



System Operation and Maintenance

1.3.1 Developandimplementoperationalplansfor sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities to ensure infrastructure reliability and optimal performance. Ongoing

1.3.2 Maintain trunk sanitary sewer capacity for dry weather sewage conveyance levels plus the Metro Vancouver target inflow and infiltration allowance; as necessary upgrade trunk sewer systems to maintain hydraulic gradelines and safe operating levels which have been established based on measured flow. Ongoing

1.3.3 Work with municipalities to develop and implement emergency sanitary sewer overflow plans including contingency plans to minimize impacts of unavoidable sanitary sewer overflows resulting from extreme weather, system failures or unusual events. Ongoing

Secondary level wastewater treatment

1.3.4 Operate wastewater treatment plants which have secondary level treatment (Annacis Island, Lulu Island, North West Langley wastewater treatment plants) to meet requirements specified in each facility’s Operating Certificate and the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastwater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) National Performance Standards for wastewater effluent, including: Ongoing

(a) monthly average maximum Carbonaceous BiochemicalOxygenDemand(CBOD5 ): 25 mg/L; and

(b) monthly average maximum Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 25 mg/L.

Metro Vancouver and municipal sewer systems include a large network of sewage pumping stations.

SDD-172

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 19

1.3.5 Upgrade or replace Lions Gate (North Shore Sewerage Area) and Iona Island (Vancouver Sewerage Area) wastewater treatment plants to secondary level treatment to meet Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) requirements and timelines.

a) The intended site for the North Shore Sewerage Area secondary facility is the Metro Vancouver owned property located between Pemberton, Philips, and McKeen AvenuesandWestFirstStreetintheDistrictof North Vancouver. The existing outfall will be retained as part of the upgraded facility. The outfall discharges to embayed marine waters as defined in the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Regulation.

b) The intended site for the Vancouver Sewerage Area is the property immediately adjacent and east of the existing Iona Island plant in the City of Richmond. The existing outfall will be retained as part of the upgraded facility. The outfall discharges to open marine waters as defined in the Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Regulation.

c) Based on the CWS-MMWE and the assessment made by the Environmental Monitoring Committee, Lions Gate should proceed within a 10-year timeline and Iona Island within a 20-year timeline, subject to the appropriate financial arrangements being in place as indicated in the Financial Plan.

d) Metro Vancouver will seek assistance from both senior levels of government in resolving First Nations rights and title issues associated with these secondary treatment plant upgrades.

1.3.6 Maintain interim maximum daily concentration limits for wastewater effluent of130mg/LBOD5 at both Lions Gate and Iona Island plants and 130 mg/L TSS at Lions Gate and 100 mg/L TSS at Iona Island until such time as secondary treatment is operational, and operate the plants to meet requirements specified in each facility’s Operating Certificate. Ongoing

Other environmental impact mitigation actions:

1.3.7 Assess environmental monitoring results (see Strategy 3.3) to determine whether any actions are required to meet Ministry of Environment/Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) requirements.Ongoing

1.3.8 Continue odour control programs at wastewater treatment plants and implement odour control programs for targeted facilities in the regional sewer system and for relevant energy and material recovery processes (see Action 3.3.4). Ongoing

1.3.9 Developandimplementairemissionsmanagement programs for standby power generators and biogas production, including assessment of desirability of retrofit and accelerated asset replacement where appropriate. 2014

1.3.10 Developandimplementprogramstoreduce greenhouse gas emissions from the regional liquid waste management systems to help achieve federal, provincial and Metro Vancouver greenhouse gas targets (see Action 3.3.4). 2015

SDD-173

20 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9


System Operation and Maintenance

1.3.11 Developandimplementoperationalplans for municipal sewerage facilities to ensure infrastructure reliability and optimal performance. Ongoing

1.3.12 Work with Metro Vancouver to develop and implement emergency sanitary sewer overflow plans including contingency plans to minimize impacts of unavoidable sanitary sewer overflows resulting from extreme weather, system failures or unusual events. Ongoing

Other environmental impact mitigation actions:

1.3.13 Work with private marina operators, Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada to develop and implement regulations to ensure all new marinas and marinas where planned renovations exceed 50% of the assessed existing improvements value have pleasure craft pump-out facilities. Ongoing

1.3.14 Require all pleasure craft pump-out facilities to connect to a municipal sanitary sewerage system or a provincially permitted on-site treatment and disposal system or have established enforceable protocols for transporting liquid waste for disposal at a permitted liquid waste management facility. Ongoing

1.3.15 Continue existing municipal odour control programs and implement new programs for targeted municipal sewer facilities (see Action 3.3.4). Ongoing

1.3.16 Developandimplementairemissionsmanagement programs for standby power generators at municipal sewer pump stations. 2016

1.3.17 Developandimplementprogramstoreducegreenhouse gas emissions from municipal liquid waste management systems to help achieve federal, provincial and municipal greenhouse gas targets (see Action 3.1.5).Ongoing

REqUESt tHE MINIStRy oF ENVIRoNMENt:

1.3.18 Include Metro Vancouver and municipalities in the Ministry’s processes to review and establish official water uses and official water quality objectives for specific water bodies within Metro Vancouver. Ongoing

SDD-174

21N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Goal 2: Use liquid waste as a resourceThe goal of using liquid waste as a resource marks two important advances in thinking about liquid waste in the context of Metro Vancouver’s sustainability framework.

The first is the recognition that the traditional and still vitally important functions of liquid waste management to protect public health and the environment will ultimately be achieved most beneficially by converting liquid waste into usable resources. Liquid waste is a source of green energy and nutrients and, in addition to stormwater, it can provide alternative sources of water. Strategies are included in this plan to address these opportunities.

The second, which follows logically from the first, is the recognition that the opportunities for cost-effective resource recovery from liquid waste are magnified when explored in the context of integrated resource recovery from the whole range of urban management systems. This is essentially the implementation of the second ‘overarching imperative’ of the SRI framework: “Recognize and reflect the interconnectedness and interdependence of systems...”.

A major challenge for Metro Vancouver and its members will be to adapt the legacy sewerage and stormwater infrastructure of the 20th century to a more sustainable, integrated 21st century system focussed on integrated resource recovery. This will involve embracing new technologies and reshaping communities and their infrastructure so that the resources and energy recovered can be used efficiently and effectively: integrating a new kind of liquid waste infrastructure with building design, community and nature. This involves managing liquid wastes as a resource, minimizing discharges, minimizing financial risks, and maximizing the quality of discharges.

Biogas produced from wastewater supplies heat and power to the Iona Island

wastewater treatment plant.

SDD-175

22 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

STRATEGy 2.1Pursue liquid waste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context

Metro Vancouver will continue with its Biosolids

Management Plan Framework programs until new

options and supporting business cases have been

developed and implemented under this Strategy


2.1.1 Assess each sewerage area using an integrated resource recovery business case model that: 2012

(a) evaluates opportunities to expand the recovery of energy, nutrients and water from the liquid waste system, specifically:

•energyfrombiogasatwastewatertreatment plants including investigating new sludge and wastewater treatment technologies and the co-digestion of other organic wastes such as organics in municipal solid waste, oils and greases;

•heatenergyfromnewpumpstations,sewer replacement and rehabilitation and major wastewater treatment plant projects;

•biodieselfromtruckedliquidwaste,wastegrease and sewer grease;

•energyfrombiosolidsandsludge;

•nutrients,suchasphosphorousfromliquidwaste and biosolids; and

•alternativestopotablewaterfornon-drinking purposes, such as rainwater harvesting, greywater reuse and reclaimed treated wastewater;

(b) identifies linkages between liquid waste resource recovery opportunities and other systems (solid waste, drinking water, land use/buildings, parks, air quality, energy); and

(c) develops and evaluates business cases for integrated resource recovery/use opportunities.

2.1.2 Implement appropriate business cases based on the results of 2.1.1. Ongoing

2.1.3 Work with municipalities to adapt plans and infrastructure for long term needs based on the results of 2.1.1. Ongoing


2.1.4 Work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Ongoing

SDD-176

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 23

Goal 3: Effective, affordable and collaborative managementTo be sustainable, liquid waste management requires programs and services that are affordable and effective, now and in the future. Innovation, monitoring and assessment, maintenance and reinvestment, resilient liquid waste systems and risk management are important activities which help achieve this goal.

Managing assets and optimizing their operation requires ongoing inspection, condition assessments and performance modelling. This is supported by an extensive data collection network for sewer flows, rainfall and stream flows that provides information essential to assessing and planning performance of wastewater and drainage systems. Environmental monitoring and assessment programs inform Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Environment on the effectiveness of the region’s liquid waste management programs and whether changes may be needed.

Collaboration and program alignment among Metro Vancouver and its members help prioritize maintenance and reinvestment in wastewater collection and treatment systems. Stormwater management is made more effective by better integration of stormwater management and land useplanningandacommitmentbyGVS&DDmembers to implement their integrated stormwater management plans. Collaboration extends beyond Metro Vancouver and its members, and includes senior levels of government, academia and business—this fosters innovation. This plan promotes collaborative forums and dialogue through the development of a learning academy for liquid waste, partnerships in research, and advisory committees.

The new Columbia Street Pump Station helps reduce combined sewer overflows.

SDD-177

24 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

STRATEGy 3.1Manage assets and optimize existing sanitary sewerage operations

Long-term affordable sanitary sewerage

management requires ongoing assessment of

the system performance and its integrity Proper

maintenance of existing sewerage assets will, in the

long term, forestall the need for significantly higher

repair and replacement costs in the future

MEtRo VANcoUVER WILL:.

3.1.1 Assess the performance and condition of regional sewerage systems by: Ongoing

(a) inspecting regional sanitary sewers on a twenty year cycle; and

(b) maintaining current maps of sewerage inspection, condition, and repairs.

3.1.2 Create incentives to reduce inflow and infiltration by adjusting Tier I sewerage cost allocation formulae within each sewerage area from an average dry weather flow basis (25th percentile) to average wet weather flow (75th percentile) with appropriate adjustments for combined sewerage areas. Tier II cost allocation would remain unchanged. 2010

3.1.3 In consultation with municipalities, review Metro Vancouver’s safe-operating head for regional sewers. 2011

3.1.4 Developandimplementassetmanagementplans targeting a 100 year replacement or rehabilitation cycle for regional sewerage infrastructure. 2013 for plans

3.1.5 Update and implement asset management plans for wastewater treatment plants which address risks, including climate change and seismic events, and maintain performance in wet weather. 2013


3.1.6 Assess the performance and condition of municipal sewerage systems by: Ongoing

(a) inspecting municipal sanitary sewers on a twenty year cycle;

(b) maintaining current maps of sewerage inspection, condition and repairs; and

(c) using the Metro Vancouver “Sewer Condition Reporting Template Standard Report, November 2002” as a guide to ensure a consistent approach to sewer system evaluation and reporting.

3.1.7 Work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. Ongoing

3.1.8 Developandimplementassetmanagementplans targeting a 100 year replacement or rehabilitation cycle for municipal sewerage infrastructure and provide copies of such plans to Metro Vancouver. 2014 for plans

Installing Metro Vancouver trunk sewers, South Surrey.

SDD-178

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 25

STRATEGy 3.2

Use innovative approaches and technologies

This plan seeks improvement through innovation,

using local research and development and adapting

successes from elsewhere, to address pollutants

of emerging concern, improve wastewater

treatment, implement more sustainable stormwater

management practices and reduce long-term

financial burdens


3.2.1 With financial support from provincial and federal governments and the University of British Columbia, develop the Annacis Island Sustainability Academy to support innovative research and demonstration projects in liquid waste management. Facility by 2011

3.2.2 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. Ongoing

3.2.3 Undertake an annual internal audit of best practices of one regional liquid waste management sub program and environmental management system to identify opportunities for innovation and improvements. Annually


3.2.4 Undertake a tri-annual internal audit of best practices of one municipal liquid waste management sub-program in each municipality to identify opportunities for innovation and improvements. Triennially

STRATEGy 3.3 Monitor the performance of the liquid waste system and impacts on the receiving environment

Monitoring will inform the operation of infrastructure,

the understanding of the potential for impacts from

discharges and infrastructure planning


3.3.1 Continue to monitor the ambient environment conditions of relevant water bodies in the region in conformance with the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) requirements, and work with the Ministry of Environment in developing EnvironmentalQualityObjectives.Ongoing

Rainwater infiltration treats stormwater and rebalances groundwater and creek flows.

SDD-179

26 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

3.3.2 Continue to monitor the quantity and characteristics of Metro Vancouver’s liquid waste point discharges to the environment in conformance with the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CWS-MMWE) requirements to meet Environmental DischargeObjectives.Ongoing

3.3.3 Continue to operate its regional data collection network for sewers, rainfall and streams and use that data to assess the effectiveness of actions taken under this plan. Ongoing

3.3.4 In collaboration with municipalities, estimate and document the greenhouse gas emissions and odours associated with the operation of the municipal and regional liquid waste management systems (see Actions 1.3.8, 1.3.10, 1.3.15, and 1.3.17). 2012

3.3.5 Estimate and report on the frequency, location and volume of sewage overflows from regional combined and sanitary sewers, and where feasible identify and address the probable causes. Ongoing


3.3.6 In collaboration with Metro Vancouver, estimate and document the greenhouse gas emissions and odours associated with the operation of the municipal and regional liquid waste management systems. 2014

3.3.7 Estimate and report on the frequency, location and volume of sewage overflows from municipal combined and sanitary sewers, and where feasible identify and address the probable causes. Ongoing

3.3.8 Maintain and, if necessary, expand the existing municipal sewer flow and sewer level monitoring network. Ongoing

Monitoring at the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant laboratary.

SDD-180

27N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

STRATEGy 3.4Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term needs

Metro Vancouver and municipalities will identify risks

which threaten the continued integrity of liquid waste

management operations and infrastructure and

create more resilient and adaptable systems which

address these risks to contribute to the overall goal

of a resilient region

The actions in the strategy require integration

and collaboration This is essential to developing

and interpreting scenarios as well as developing

management plans such as integrated stormwater

management plans Climate change, Fraser

River freshet, demographic change and aging

infrastructure are examples of uncertainties

and factors which continue to be assessed and

assimilated into scenarios that assist Metro

Vancouver and municipalities in identifying options

that increase long-term resiliency and manage risks


3.4.1 Designandadaptinfrastructureandoperations to address identified risks and long-term needs, including risks associated with climate change. Ongoing

3.4.2 In collaboration with municipalities and the Integrated Partnership for Regional Emergency Management (IPREM) develop emergency management strategies and response plans for municipal and regional wastewater collection and treatment systems, including identifying and maintaining a system of emergency wastewater overflow locations. 2015

3.4.3 Ensure liquid waste infrastructure and services are provided in accordance with the Regional Growth Strategy and coordinated with municipal Official Community Plans. Ongoing


3.4.4 In collaboration with Metro Vancouver and the Integrated Partnership for Regional Emergency Management (IPREM) develop emergency management strategies and response plans for municipal and regional wastewater collection and treatment systems. 2015

3.4.5 Adapt infrastructure and operations to address risks and long-term needs. Ongoing

3.4.6 Ensure liquid waste infrastructure and services are provided in accordance with the Regional Growth Strategy and coordinated with municipal Official Community Plans. Ongoing

3.4.7 Developandimplementintegratedstormwater management plans at the watershed scale that integrate with land use to manage rainwater runoff. Plans by 2014

STRATEGy 3.5 Use collaborative management to address evolving needs

A key feature of the plan is collaborative

management— collaboration in monitoring progress,

identifying challenges, and finding solutions to

overcome challenges Through collaboration,

Metro Vancouver and its members will continue to

adapt and evolve their liquid waste management

operations and infrastructure and create more

resilient and adaptable systems


3.5.1 Establish a new overarching committee, the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee (IUMAC), to advise Metro Vancouver on plan implementation, particularly from the perspectives of integrated planning and resource recovery across utility systems. 2010

SDD-181

28 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

3.5.2 Continue to receive advice from the Environmental Monitoring Committee (EMC) and Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG) as subcommittees under IUMAC. Ongoing

3.5.3 Use the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program and the Fraser River Estuary Management Program Management Committee (BIEAP-FREMP) as the senior level forum for discussion of policy and assessment of the scientific work related to the plan, and for resolving toxicity concerns and any disputes among its members related to implementing the plan. Ongoing

3.5.4 Biennially produce a progress report on plan implementation for distribution to the Ministry of the Environment that: By July 1st biennially

(a) summarizes progress from the previous two years on plan implementation, for all Metro Vancouver actions, including the status of performance measures.

(b) includes summaries and budget estimates for proposed LWMP implementation programs for the subsequent two calendar years.

3.5.5 Hold a public accountability session based on the biennial reports (Actions 3.5.4 and 3.5.8 by making the report available through Metro Vancouver’s website and by holding a special meeting of the Metro Vancouver Waste Management Committee to receive public comments and input on the report.Biennially

3.5.6 Report directly to the Ministry of Environment annual progress on integrated stormwater management plan implementation and all occurrences of sanitary sewer overflows. By March 1st annually

3.5.7 In collaboration with members and the Ministry of Environment, undertake a comprehensive review and update of the plan on an eight year cycle. Every eight years

SDD-182

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 29


3.5.8 Biennially produce a progress report on plan implementation for distribution to the Ministry of the Environment that: By July 1st biennially

(a) summarizes progress from the previous two years on plan implementation for all municipal actions, including the status of performance measures.

(b) includes summaries and budget estimates for proposed LWMP implementation programs for the subsequent two calendar years.

3.5.9 Report through Metro Vancouver to the Ministry of Environment annual progress on integrated stormwater management plan implementation and all occurrences of sanitary sewer overflows. By March 1st annually

3.5.10 Work with Metro Vancouver to give effect to 3.5.2, 3.5.5, and 3.5.7. Ongoing

Trees improve habitat and reduce stormwater impacts, Still Creek, Vancouver.

SDD-183

30 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9

Financial Plan Metro Vancouver and its members recover most of the costs to build, operate and maintain their liquid waste infrastructure from users. These are not adequate, however, to wholly finance major capital projects such as upgrading primary plants to secondary treatment, and therefore, historically senior levels of governments have provided significant cost sharing for major capital projects.

While pricing mechanisms can more equitably allocate the costs among the users of municipal and Metro Vancouver’s liquid waste management services, they do not offer new revenue sources.

Through the IRR process, opportunities to access resources from the liquid waste system to create new revenues may be possible, but these are uncertain and cannot be relied upon to address the funding needs of this plan.

This plan includes a commitment to upgrading both the Lions Gate and Iona Island primary treatment plants to secondary level treatment. Given the significant cost and that the work is designed to fulfill environmental policy goals shared by all three levels of government, this plan assumes provincial and federal financial commitments will be forthcoming.

Metro Vancouver and member municipalities will seek infrastructure funding from both senior levels of government consistent with the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. In addition, Metro Vancouver will work with its member municipalities to ensure that the cumulative cost implications of this plan are mitigated through appropriate financial strategies such as rate smoothing.

SDD-184

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 9 31

Performance Measures Performance measures document progress in achieving the goals of the LWMP, and are useful for the adaptive management process. Performance measures will be further developed by the Integrated Utility Management Advisory Committee, and will be used in reporting on the Liquid Waste Management Plan implementation progress.

Goal 1: Protect public health and the environment •compliancewithparametersspecifiedinthe

operating certificates for wastewater treatment plants

•dischargesthatdonotmeetProvincialwaterquality guidelines

•numberofsanitaryseweroverflows— frequency, location and volume

•sanitarysewagevolumesincombined sewer overflows

•beachclosuredaysandlocations

•watershedandstreamhealthindicatorsasset out in the integrated stormwater management plan template

Goal 2: Use liquid waste as a resource•quantitiesandtypesofenergyandmaterials

recovered from the liquid waste system

Goal 3: Effective, affordable and collaborative management•wetweatherpeakingfactorsatkeyregional

monitoring points

•average[24hour]flowsatregionalflowmonitoring stations and at wastewater treatment plants

•metresofsewerpipeinspectedand renewed annually

•annualoperations,maintenanceandcapitalexpenditures for liquid waste management

•numberandarea[hectares]ofintegratedstormwater management plans completed

SDD-185

PRINTEDINCANADAONRECYCLEDPAPER

SDD-186

Imp

lem

en

tatio

n o

f the L

iqu

id W

aste

Man

ag

em

en

t Pla

n

004994012 N

ovember 2009

1

Goal 1

Protect public health and the environment

Task By

Timeline

Implications

(additional cost &

resources to current level)

Strategy 1.1 R

educe liquid wastes at their source

Source control

1.1.1 R

eview and enhance sew


aste at source, including contaminants

identified by the Canadian E

nvironmental P

rotection Act.

Metro Vancouver

2012 included in current

programs

1.1.2 D

evelop new regulatory instrum

ents, such as Pollution P

revention Plans to com

plement existing

regulations. M

etro Vancouver 2014

$100,000/y

1.1.3 Increase resources for perm

itting, and inspection to support and enforce sewer use bylaw

s. M

etro Vancouver 2010

$500,000/y for 4 additional

staff

1.1.4 Investigate the im

plications of the use of domestic food grinders.

Metro Vancouver


programs

1.1.5 D

evelop and implem

ent targeted outreach plans to support liquid waste source control program

s. M

etro Vancouver ongoing

$100,000/y

Inflow and Infiltration and R

ainwater M

anagement

1.1.6 D

evelop a template to guide the preparation and im

plementation of inflow

and infiltration m

anagement plans as part of broader asset m

anagement plans and to support sanitary sew

er overflow

reduction strategies. M

etro Vancouver 2011

$200,000

1.1.7 W

ork with the real estate industry and their regulators, and the m

unicipalities to develop and im

plement a process for the inspection and certification of private sew

er laterals being in good com

ponent of real estate transactions within M

etro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver

2011 $200,000

1.1.8 D

evelop and implem

ent inflow and infiltration m

anagement plans that identify reduction strategies

and timelines to ensure w

et weather inflow

and infiltration are within targeted levels.

Metro Vancouver

2012 $1,000,000/y

1.1.9 W

ork with m

unicipalities to review historical data and adjust as necessary the average inflow

and infiltration allow

ance for regional trunk sewers and w

astewater treatm

ent plants and develop associated target allow

ances for municipal sew

er catchments associated w

ith a 1:5 year return frequency storm

event for sanitary sewers to a level that ensures environm

ental and economic

sustainability.

Metro Vancouver

2013 $100,000

1.1.10 R

eview progress in reducing inflow

and infiltration every four years M

etro Vancouver

every four years

included in current program

s

1.1.11 E

nhance enforcement of sew

er use bylaw prohibition against the unauthorized discharge of

rainwater and groundw

ater to sanitary sewers.

Metro Vancouver

2010 $50,000/y for ½

additional staff

ATTA

CH

MEN

T2

SDD-187

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 2

N

ovember 2009

2

1.1.12 W

ork with m

unicipalities to:

(a) facilitate research on w

atershed-based stormw

ater managem

ent approaches;

(b) identify im

provements to storm

water bylaw

s to include on-site rainwater m

anagement

requirements;

(c) develop m

odel utility design standards and options for neighbourhood design guidelines;

(d) establish region-w

ide baseline criteria for on-site rainfall managem

ent including variations for localized geology, rainfall and w

atershed conditions;

(e) establish m

echanisms to ensure continued perform

ance of on-site rainwater m

anagement

systems; and

(f) w

ork with senior governm

ents and industry to develop codes of practice, certification, guidelines and standards w

hich support this plan.

Metro Vancouver

2012 $500,000

1.1.13 D

ecrease liquid waste volum

es through complem

entary initiatives in the Metro V

ancouver D

rinking Water M

anagement P

lan to reduce potable water consum

ption. M

etro Vancouver

ongoing included in current

programs

Source control

1.1.14 R

eview and enhance sew


aste at source, including contaminants

identified by the Canadian E

nvironmental P

rotection Act.

Municipalities

2012 $1,500,000

1.1.15 C

ontinue existing programs of perm

itting and inspection to support and enforce sewer use

bylaws.

Municipalities


programs

1.1.16 Identify and regulate pesticides and law

n care products which negatively affect rainw

ater runoff quality and urban stream

health M

unicipalities 2014


s

1.1.17 C

ontinue outreach plans to support liquid waste source control program

s. M

unicipalities ongoing

Included in current program

s

Inflow and Infiltration and R

ainwater M

anagement

1.1.18 D

evelop and implem

ent inflow and infiltration m

anagement plans, using the M

etro Vancouver

template as a guide, to ensure w

et weather infiltration inflow

and infiltration volumes are w

ithin M

etro Vancouver’s allow

ances as measured at M

etro Vancouver’s flow

metering stations.

Municipalities

develop by 2012

$4,000,000 plus additional costs to

implem

ent

1.1.19 E

nhance enforcement of sew

er use bylaw prohibition against the unauthorized discharge of

rainwater and groundw

ater to sanitary sewers.

Municipalities

2010 to be determ

ined by each

municipality

1.1.20 U

pdate municipal bylaw

s to require on-site rainwater m

anagement sufficient to m

eet criteria established in m

unicipal integrated stormw

ater plans or baseline region-wide criteria.

Municipalities

2014 $1,500,000

SDD-188

N

ovember 2009

3

1.1.21 U

pdate municipal utility design standards and neighbourhood design guidelines to enable and

encourage on-site rainwater m

anagement.

Municipalities

2014 $1,500,000

Strategy 1.2 R

educe wet w

eather overflows

1.2.1 P

rohibit the construction of new com

bined sewer system

s other than those functioning as part of a strategy to reduce com

bined sewer overflow

s or to manage storm

water quality.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

1.2.2 A

ddress the Canada-w


anagement of M

unicipal Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-M

MW

E) by w

orking with B

urnaby, New

Westm

inster and Vancouver to develop and im

plement:

priorities for sewer separation of catchm

ents tributary to combined sew

er outfalls; regional and m

unicipal sequence for trunk and collector sewer separation; strategic use of existing com

bined sew

ers to manage rainw

ater quality runoff; and a strategy to separate combined sew

er connections from

private properties.

Metro Vancouver


programs

1.2.3 R

eplace combined regional trunk sew

ers with separated sanitary and storm

sewers as

determined by the plans developed in 1.2.2.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

1.2.4 W

ork with m

unicipalities to develop and implem


m

anagement plans w

hich will: prevent sanitary overflow

s resulting from heavy rain and snow

melt

occurring less than once every five years (for a 24 hour duration event); reduce emergency

overflows due to pow

er outages; and identify locations and schedules for appropriate system

capacity improvem

ents, wet w

eather containment, and point treatm

ent and discharge to receiving w

aters of chronic overflows, including C

loverdale Pum

p Station, K

atzie Pum

p Station, Lynn P

ump

Station.

Metro Vancouver

2013 $60,000,000

1.2.5 W

ork with M

etro Vancouver to develop and im

plement m

unicipal-regional sanitary overflow

managem

ent plans as set out in 1.2.4. M

unicipalities 2013

$1,500,000

1.2.6 B

urnaby, New

Westm

inster and Vancouver w

ill work w

ith Metro V

ancouver to give effect to 1.2.2 and, specifically, im

plement plans to prevent com

bined sewer overflow

s by 2050 for the Vancouver Sew

erage Area and 2075 for the Fraser Sewerage Area and separate com

bined sew

ers at an average rate of 1% and 1.5%

of the system per year in the V

ancouver Sew

erage A

rea and Fraser Sew

erage Area respectively.

Municipalities


programs

SDD-189

N

ovember 2009

4

Strategy 1.3 R


pacts from liquid w

aste managem

ent to a m

inimum

System

Operation and M

aintenance

1.3.1 D

evelop and implem

ent operational plans for sewerage and w

astewater treatm

ent facilities to ensure infrastructure reliability and optim

al performance.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

1.3.2 M

aintain trunk sanitary sewer capacity for dry w

eather sewage conveyance levels plus the M

etro V

ancouver target inflow and infiltration allow

ance; as necessary upgrade trunk sewer system

s to m

aintain hydraulic gradelines and safe operating levels which have been established based on

measured flow

. M

etro Vancouver


programs

1.3.3 W

ork with m

unicipalities to develop and implem

ent emergency sanitary sew

er overflow plans

including contingency plans to minim

ize impacts of unavoidable sanitary sew

er overflows resulting

from extrem

e weather, system

failures or unusual events. M

etro Vancouver


programs

Secondary level wastew

ater treatment

1.3.4 O

perate wastew

ater treatment plants w

hich have secondary level treatment (A

nnacis Island, Lulu Island, N

orth West Langley w

astewater treatm

ent plants) to meet requirem

ents specified in each facility’s O

perating Certificate and the C

anada-wide S


ent of Municipal

Wastew

ater Effluent (C

WS

-MM

WE

) National P

erformance S

tandards for wastew

ater effluent, including:

(a) monthly average m

aximum

Carbonaceous Biochem

ical Oxygen D

emand (C

BOD

5 ): 25 mg/L;

and (b) m

onthly average maxim

um Total S

uspended Solids (TS

S): 25 m

g/L.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

SDD-190

N

ovember 2009

5

1.3.5 U

pgrade or replace Lions Gate (N

orth Shore S

ewerage A

rea) and Iona Island (Vancouver

Sew

erage Area) w

astewater treatm

ent plants to secondary level treatment to m

eet Canada-w

ide S


ent of Municipal W

astewater E

ffluent (CW

S-M

MW

E) requirem

ents and tim

elines. a)

The intended site for the North S

hore Sew

erage Area secondary facility is the Metro

Vancouver owned property located betw

een Pem

berton, Philips, and M

cKeen A

venues and W

est First Street in the D

istrict of North V

ancouver. The existing outfall will be retained

as part of the upgraded facility. The outfall discharges to embayed m

arine waters as

defined in the Environm

ental Managem

ent Act M

unicipal Sew

age Regulation.

b) The intended site for the V

ancouver Sew

erage Area is the property imm

ediately adjacent and east of the existing Iona Island plant in the C

ity of Richm

ond. The existing outfall will

be retained as part of the upgraded facility. The outfall discharges to open marine w

aters as defined in the E

nvironmental M

anagement A

ct, Municipal S

ewage R

egulation. c)

Based on the C

WS

-MM

WE

and the assessment m

ade by the Environm

ental Monitoring

Com

mittee, Lions G


eline and Iona Island within a

20-year timeline, subject to the appropriate financial arrangem

ents being in place as indicated in the Financial P

lan. d)

Metro V

ancouver will seek assistance from

both senior levels of government in resolving

First Nations rights and title issues associated w

ith these secondary treatment plant

upgrades.

Metro V

ancouver

$1,400,000,000

1.3.6 M

aintain interim m

aximum

daily concentration limits for w

astewater effluent of 130 m

g/L BO

D5 at

both Lions Gate and Iona Island plants and 130 m

g/L TSS

at Lions Gate and 100 m

g/L TSS

at Iona Island until such tim

e as secondary treatment is operational, and operate the plants to m

eet requirem

ents specified in each facility’s Operating C

ertificate. M

etro Vancouver

ongoing $25,000,000 for Iona Is. by 2020

Other environm

ental impact m

itigation actions

1.3.7 A

ssess environmental m

onitoring results (see Strategy 3.3) to determ

ine whether any actions are

required to meet M

inistry of Environm

ent/ Canada-w


anagement of M

unicipal W

astewater E

ffluent (CW

S-M

MW

E) requirem

ents. M

etro Vancouver

ongoing

monitoring


s cost of response to be determ

ined

1.3.8 C

ontinue odour control programs at w

astewater treatm

ent plants and implem

ent odour control program

s for targeted facilities in the regional sewer system

and for relevant energy and material

recovery processes (see Action 3.3.4).

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

1.3.9 D

evelop and implem

ent air emissions m

anagement program

s for standby power generators and

biogas production, including assessment of desirability of retrofit and accelerated asset

replacement w

here appropriate. M

etro Vancouver 2014

assessment


s – im

plementation

costs to be determ

ined

SDD-191

N

ovember 2009

6

1.3.10 D

evelop and implem

ent programs to reduce greenhouse gas em

issions from the regional liquid

waste m

anagement system

s to help achieve federal, provincial and Metro Vancouver greenhouse

gas targets (see Action 3.3.4).

Metro Vancouver

2015

development


s – im

plementation

costs to be determ

ined

System

Operation and M

aintenance

1.3.11 D

evelop and implem

ent operational plans for municipal sew

erage facilities to ensure infrastructure reliability and optim

al performance.

Municipalities


programs

1.3.12 W

ork with M

etro Vancouver to develop and im

plement em

ergency sanitary sewer overflow

plans including contingency plans to m

inimize im

pacts of unavoidable sanitary sewer overflow

s resulting from

extreme w

eather, system failures or unusual events.

Municipalities


programs

Other environm

ental impact m

itigation actions

1.3.13 W

ork with private m

arina operators, Ministry of E

nvironment and E

nvironment C

anada to develop and im

plement regulations to ensure all new

marinas and m

arinas where planned renovations

exceed 50% of the assessed existing im

provements value have pleasure craft pum

p-out facilities. M



s

1.3.14 R

equire all pleasure craft pump out facilities to connect to a m

unicipal sanitary sewerage system

or a provincially perm

itted on-site treatment and disposal system

or have established enforceable protocols for transporting liquid w

aste for disposal at a permitted liquid w

aste managem

ent facility. M



s

1.3.15 C

ontinue existing municipal odour control program

s and implem

ent new program

s for targeted m

unicipal sewer facilities (see A

ction 3.3.4). M



s

1.3.16 D

evelop and implem

ent air emissions m

anagement program

s for standby power generators at

municipal sew

er pump stations.

Municipalities


programs

1.3.17 D

evelop and implem

ent programs to reduce greenhouse gas em

issions from m

unicipal liquid w

aste managem

ent systems to help achieve federal, provincial and m

unicipal greenhouse gas targets (see A

ction 3.3.4). M


development


s – im

plementation

costs to be determ

ined

1.3.18 Include M

etro Vancouver and m

unicipalities in the Ministry’s processes to review

and establish official w

ater uses and official water quality objectives for specific w

ater bodies within M

etro V

ancouver.

Request of the M

inistry of E

nvironment


programs

SDD-192

N

ovember 2009

7

Goal 2

Use liquid w

aste as a resource Task B

y Tim

eline Im

plications (additional cost &

resources to current

level)

Strategy 2.1 Pursue liquid w

aste resource recovery in an integrated resource recovery context

2.1.1 Assess each sew

erage area using an integrated resource recovery business case model that:

(a) evaluates opportunities to recover resources; specifically: •

energy from biogas at w

astewater treatm

ent plants including investigating new sludge

and wastew

ater treatment technologies and the co-digestion of other organic w

astes such as organics in m

unicipal solid waste, oils and greases;

• heat energy from

new pum

p stations, sewer replacem

ent and rehabilitation and major

wastew

ater treatment plant projects;

• biodiesel from

trucked liquid waste, w

aste grease and sewer grease.

• energy from

biosolids and sludge; •

nutrients, such as phosphorous from liquid w

aste and biosolids; and •

alternatives to potable water for non-drinking purposes, such as rainw

ater harvesting, greyw

ater reuse and reclaimed treated w

astewater;

(b) identifies linkages between liquid w

aste resource recovery opportunities and other systems

(solid waste, drinking w

ater, land use/buildings, parks, air quality, energy); and

(c) develops and evaluates business cases for integrated resource recovery/use opportunities.

Metro Vancouver

2012 $5,000,000

2.1.2 Im

plement appropriate business cases based on the results of 2.1.1.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing

to be determined

2.1.3 W

ork with m

unicipalities to adapt plans and infrastructure for long term needs based on the

results of 2.1.1. M

etro Vancouver


programs

2.1.4 W

ork Metro V

ancouver to give effect to 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. M



s

SDD-193

N

ovember 2009

8

Goal 3

Effective, affordable and collaborative managem

ent Task B

y Tim

eline Im



level)

Strategy 3.1 M

anage assets and optimize existing liquid w

aste operations

3.1.1 A

ssess the performance and condition of regional sew

erage systems by:

(a) inspecting regional sanitary sewers on a tw

enty year cycle; and

(b) maintaining current m

aps of sewerage inspection, condition, and repairs.

Metro Vancouver

ongoing $150,000/y

3.1.2 C

reate incentives to reduce inflow and infiltration by adjusting Tier I sew

erage cost allocation form

ulae within each sew

erage area from an average dry w

eather flow basis (25

th percentile) to average w

et weather flow

(75th percentile) w

ith appropriate adjustments for com

bined sewerage

areas. Tier II cost allocation would rem

ain unchanged. M

etro Vancouver 2010


s

3.1.3 In consultation w

ith municipalities, review

Metro V

ancouver’s safe-operating head for regional sew

ers. M

etro Vancouver 2011


s

3.1.4 D

evelop and implem

ent asset managem

ent plans targeting a 100 year replacement or

rehabilitation cycle for regional sewerage infrastructure.

Metro V

ancouver 2013 for

plans $200,000/y

3.1.5 U

pdate and implem

ent asset managem

ent plans for wastew

ater treatment plants w

hich address risks, including clim

ate change and seismic events, and m

aintain performance in w

et weather.

Metro Vancouver


programs

3.1.6 A

ssess the performance and condition of m

unicipal sewerage system

s by:

(a) inspecting municipal sanitary sew

ers on a twenty year cycle;

(b) maintaining current m

aps of sewerage inspection, condition and repairs; and

(c) using the Metro V

ancouver “Sew

er Condition R

eporting Template S

tandard Report, N

ovember

2002” as a guide to ensure a consistent approach to sewer system

evaluation and reporting.

Municipalities

ongoing

development


s – im

plementation to

be determined

3.1.7 W

ork with M

etro Vancouver to give effect to 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.

Municipalities


programs

3.1.8 D

evelop and implem

ent asset managem

ent plans targeting a 100 year replacement or

rehabilitation cycle for municipal sew

erage infrastructure and provide copies of such plans to M

etro Vancouver.

Municipalities

2014 for plans

to be determined

in plans (1% of

region equals $60,000,000/y)

Strategy 3.2 U

se innovative approaches and technologies

3.2.1 W

ith financial support from provincial and federal governm

ents and the University of B

ritish C

olumbia, develop the Annacis Island Sustainability Academ

y to support innovative research and dem

onstration projects in liquid waste m

anagement.

Metro V

ancouver facility by

2011 $9,000,000

SDD-194

N

ovember 2009

9

Goal 3


ent Task B

y Tim

eline Im



level)

3.2.2 C

ollaborate with local and senior governm

ents, academic institutions and industry in research on

wastew

ater treatment technology and storm

water m

anagement and associated dem

onstration projects, training and developm

ent of educational toolkits. M

etro Vancouver ongoing

$800,000/y

3.2.3 U

ndertake an annual internal audit of best practices of one regional liquid waste m

anagement

sub program and environm

ental managem

ent system to identify opportunities for innovation and

improvem

ents. M

etro Vancouver annually

$150,000/y

3.2.4 U

ndertake a tri-annual internal audit of best practices of one municipal liquid w

aste managem

ent sub-program

in each municipality to identify opportunities for innovation and im

provements.

Municipalities

triennially $720,000/y

Strategy 3.3 M

onitor the performance of the liquid w

aste system and im

pacts on the receiving environm

ent

3.3.1 C

ontinue to monitor the am

bient environment conditions of relevant w

ater bodies in the region in conform

ance with the C

anada-wide S


ent of Municipal W

astewater

Effluent (C

WS

-MM

WE

) requirements, and w

ork with the M

inistry of Environm

ent in developing E

nvironmental Q

uality Objectives.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

3.3.2 C

ontinue to monitor the quantity and characteristics of M

etro Vancouver’s liquid w

aste point discharges to the environm

ent in conformance w

ith the Canada-w

ide Strategy for the

Managem

ent of Municipal W

astewater E

ffluent (CW

S-M

MW

E) requirem

ents to meet

Environm

ental Discharge O

bjectives. M

etro Vancouver


programs

3.3.3 C

ontinue to operate its regional data collection network for sew

ers, rainfall and streams and use

that data to assess the effectiveness of actions taken under this plan. M

etro Vancouver


programs

3.3.4 In collaboration w

ith municipalities, estim

ate and document the greenhouse gas em

issions and odours associated w

ith the operation of the municipal and regional liquid w

aste managem

ent system

s (see Actions 1.3.8, 1.3.10, 1.3.15, and 1.3.17).

Metro Vancouver

2012 $200,000

3.3.5 E

stimate and report on the frequency, location and volum

e of sewage overflow

s from regional

combined and sanitary sew

ers, and where feasible identify and address the probable causes.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s


ith Metro V

ancouver, estimate and docum

ent the greenhouse gas emissions

and odours associated with the operation of the m

unicipal and regional liquid waste m

anagement

systems.

Municipalities

2014 $1,500,000

3.3.7 E

stimate and report on the frequency, location and volum

e of sewage overflow

s from m

unicipal com

bined and sanitary sewers, and w

here feasible identify and address the probable causes. M



s

SDD-195

N

ovember 2009

10

Goal 3


ent Task B

y Tim

eline Im



level)

3.3.8 M

aintain and, if necessary, expand the existing municipal sew

er flow and sew

er level monitoring

network.

Municipalities


programs

Strategy 3.4 Provide resilient infrastructure to address risks and long-term

needs

3.4.1 D

esign and adapt infrastructure and operations to address identified risks and long-term needs

including risks associated with clim

ate change. M

etro Vancouver

Ongoing


s


ith municipalities and the Integrated P

artnership for Regional E

mergency

Managem

ent (IPREM

) develop emergency m

anagement strategies and response plans for

municipal and regional w

astewater collection and treatm

ent systems, including identifying and

maintaining a system

of emergency w

astewater overflow

locations. M

etro Vancouver 2015


s

3.4.3 E

nsure liquid waste infrastructure and services are provided in accordance w

ith the Regional

Grow

th Strategy and coordinated w

ith municipal O

fficial Com

munity P

lans. M

etro Vancouver


programs


ith Metro V

ancouver and the Integrated Partnership for Regional Em

ergency M

anagement (IPR

EM) develop em

ergency managem

ent strategies and response plans for m

unicipal and regional wastew

ater collection and treatment system

s. M

unicipalities 2015


s

3.4.5 A

dapt infrastructure and operations to address risks and long-term needs.

Municipalities


programs

3.4.6 E

nsure liquid waste infrastructure and services are provided in accordance w

ith the Regional

Grow

th Strategy and coordinated w

ith municipal O

fficial Com

munity P

lans. M



s

3.4.7 D

evelop and implem

ent integrated stormw

ater managem

ent plans at the watershed scale that

integrates with land use to m

anage rainwater runoff

Municipalities

plans by 2014

costs vary by w

atershed – range from

m

illions to tens of m

illions of dollars spread over

decades

Strategy 3.5 U

se collaborative managem

ent to address evolving needs

3.5.1 Establish a new

overarching comm

ittee, the Integrated Utility M

anagement A

dvisory Com

mittee

(IUM

AC

), to advise Metro V

ancouver on plan implem

entation, particularly from the perspectives

of integrated planning and resource recovery across utility systems.

Metro Vancouver


programs

3.5.2 C

ontinue to receive advice from the E

nvironmental M

onitoring Com

mittee (E

MC

) and Storm

water


ILG) as subcom

mittees under IU

MA

C.

Metro V

ancouver ongoing


s

SDD-196

N

ovember 2009

11

Goal 3


ent Task B

y Tim

eline Im



level)

3.5.3 U

se the Burrard Inlet E

nvironmental A

ction Program

and the Fraser River E

stuary Managem

ent P

rogram M

anagement C

omm

ittee (BIEA

P-FR

EM

P) as the senior level forum

for discussion of policy and assessm

ent of the scientific work related to the plan, and for resolving toxicity

concerns and any disputes among its m

embers related to im

plementing the plan.

Metro V

ancouver O

ngoing included in current

programs

3.5.4 B

iennially produce a progress report on plan implem

entation for distribution to the Ministry of the

Environm

ent that:

(a) summ

arizes progress from the previous tw

o years on plan implem

entation for all Metro

Vancouver actions, including the status of perform

ance measures

(b) includes summ

aries and budget estimates for proposed LW

MP

implem

entation programs for

the subsequent two calendar years.

Metro V

ancouver by July 1

st biennially


s

3.5.5 H

old a public accountability session based on the biennial reports (Actions 3.5.4 and 3.5.8) by

making the report available through M

etro Vancouver’s w

ebsite and by holding a special meeting

of the Metro V

ancouver Waste M

anagement C

omm

ittee to receive public comm

ents and input on the report.

Metro Vancouver

biennially included in current

programs

3.5.6 R

eport directly to the Ministry of E

nvironment annual progress on integrated storm

water

managem

ent plan implem

entation and all occurrences of sanitary sewer overflow

s. M

etro Vancouver

by March 1

st annually


s


ith mem

bers and the Ministry of E

nvironment, undertake a com

prehensive review

and update of the plan on an eight year cycle. M

etro Vancouver

ongoing every eight

years


s

3.5.8 B

iennially, through Metro V

ancouver, produce a progress report on plan implem

entation for distribution to the M

inistry of the Environm

ent that:

(a) summ

arizes progress from the previous tw

o years on plan implem

entation for all municipal

actions, including the status of performance m

easures.

(b) includes summ

aries and budget estimates for proposed LW

MP

implem

entation programs for

the subsequent two calendar years.

Municipalities

by July 1st

biennially included in current

programs

3.5.9 R

eport through Metro V

ancouver to the Ministry of E

nvironment annual progress on integrated

stormw

ater managem

ent plan implem

entation and all occurrences of sanitary sewer overflow

s. M

etro Vancouver

by March 1

st annually


s

3.5.10 W

ork with M

etro Vancouver to give effect to 3.5.2, 3.5.5 and 3.5.7.

Municipalities


programs

SDD-197


SDD-198


To: Waste Management Committee From: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: September 15, 2009 Subject: Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson

Crescent, Township of Langley Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the residential building at 24845 Robertson Crescent in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 49 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson Crescent, Township of Langley”. 1. PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the Township of Langley for Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary. 2. CONTEXT Sewerage and Drainage area boundaries are occasionally amended at the request of a member municipality in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act. District procedure regarding amendments to sewerage area boundaries requires the examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, land use compliance, effect on service levels, local and community interests and regional interests. The GVS&DD has received a request from the Township of Langley to expand the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) boundary to include the property at 24845 Robertson Crescent as illustrated on Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 49 (Attachment). The following summarizes the considerations for this boundary expansion:

• The application was approved by Township of Langley Council on June 22, 2009. • An existing municipal sewer is adjacent to the parcel in question. • There will be no financial impact on the GVS&DD. • There will be no significant impact to the service levels provided by the GVS&DD

system. • The onsite sewage treatment system on this property is no longer working properly.

Current environmental and health setback regulations do not allow for a new septic system due to the proximity of the potable well serving the property and an environmentally sensitive creek tributary to the Salmon River.

Section E 1.3

SDD-199

Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson Crescent, Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3

4972553

• The subject property is located within the Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) Green Zone. However, there is an existing municipal sewer adjacent to the property and the service expansion will not have a significant affect on LRSP policies provided the FSA expansion includes the building footprint only.

3. ALTERNATIVES The Board may: a) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the

residential building at 24845 Robertson Crescent in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 49 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson Crescent, Township of Langley”.

The onsite sewage treatment system at this property is no longer functioning properly. A new onsite system cannot be installed as it would be unable to meet current provincial regulations regarding separation between septic fields and drinking water wells. A municipal trunk sewer is currently under construction adjacent to the property. To avoid large areas of Green Zone lands being included in the sewerage area, the proposed expansion should be limited to the footprint of the building to be connected. or b) Reject the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the footprint of the

residential building at 24845 Robertson Crescent in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 49 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 24845 Robertson Crescent, Township of Langley”

Rejecting the FSA expansion to include these properties would prevent measures to safely manage sewage. 4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends alternative a) above - that the application be approved with the FSA expansion limited to the footprint of the building to be connected. Attachment Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 49

SDD-200

SDD-201


SDD-202


To: Waste Management Committee From: Mike Stringer, Senior Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: September 15, 2009 Subject: Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th

Ave., Township of Langley Recommendation: That the Board approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the building footprint of the structures proposed to be built on the properties described as LT 2 & 3, SEC 2, TWP 7, NWD, PL BCP11402 in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 48 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th Ave., Township of Langley”. 1. PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the Township of Langley for Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary. 2. CONTEXT Sewerage and Drainage area boundaries are occasionally amended at the request of a member municipality in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act. District procedure regarding amendments to sewerage area boundaries requires the examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, land use compliance, effect on service levels, local and community interests and regional interests. Municipal sewer lines have recently been extended to service the Highpoint subdivision in south Langley and as a result properties along 200th Street are now adjacent to a sanitary sewer. The township is considering an application for an equestrian themed nine lot subdivision along 200th street which would include a limited scale equestrian service centre. The minimum proposed lot size is 1.72 ha. The zoning will remain RU-1 after the subdivision and all newly created lots will conform to the Small Farm/Country Estate designation. The GVS&DD has received a request from the Township of Langley to expand the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) boundary to include:

a) LT2, SEC 2 TWP 7, NWD, PL BCP11402 b) LT3, SEC 2 TWP 7, NWD, PL BCP11402

as illustrated on Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 48 (Attachment).

Section E 1.4

SDD-203

Amendment – Fraser Sewearge Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th Ave., Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3

4972544

The following summarizes the considerations for this boundary expansion: • The applications were approved by Township of Langley Council on September 26,

2006. • An existing municipal sewer is adjacent to the two parcels in question. • There will be no financial impact on the GVS&DD. • There will be no significant impact to the service levels provided by the GVS&DD

system. • Properties in this area currently use traditional private septic systems to handle their

sewage. A number of the septic fields are failing. The Langley Surficial Soil Map indicates that soil in this area has poor drainage characteristics and a geotechnical site assessment carried out in 2005 indicates the water table is very high.

• Environmentally sensitive watercourses running through and adjacent to the subject properties would be protected from potential septic system failures by providing a permanent sanitary sewer connection to these properties.

• The two parcels are within the ALR and Green Zone. The land usage will be limited to the use and lot size policies as specified for the Small Farm/Country Estate designation as per the Township’s current Rural Plan.

• The Agricultural Land commission has approved subdivision of the parcels into nine equestrian themed lots.

• The land use is supported by the ALC and an existing municipal sewer is adjacent to the property. The proposed expansion of the FSA would not have a significant affect on Liveable Region Strategic Plan policies provided that the expansion is limited to include only the building footprint of the structures proposed to be built on the subject properties.

3. ALTERNATIVES The Board may: a) approve the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the building footprint of

the structures proposed to be built on the properties described as LT 2 & 3, SEC 2, TWP 7, NWD, PL BCP11402 in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 48 and described in the report titled “Amendment – Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th Ave., Township of Langley”.

A Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) expansion for the subject properties would help maintain the quality of water in the Brookswood aquifer. Proposed land use would not be inconsistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) policy to the extent that the properties remain within the Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) and land use is consistent with ALR regulations. To minimize development pressures on Green Zone lands, the proposed sewerage area expansion should be limited to include only the area defined by the footprint of the buildings to be connected on each of the subject properties. or b) Reject the expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the properties located

along 200th Street in the Township of Langley as shown on plan SA-2376, Sheet 32. The properties in this area are currently using traditional private septic systems to handle their sewage. The septic fields of a number of these systems are failing. Much of the area is underlain with fine textured soil that has poor drainage characteristics. Groundwater in

SDD-204

Amendment – Fraser Sewearge Area Boundary – 200th Street, North of 4th Ave., Township of Langley Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009

Page 3 of 3

4972544

the area can be high enough to flood septic fields. The water from these systems eventually makes its way into the Brookswood aquifer which is the main source of drinking water for a large portion of the area. Rejecting the FSA expansion to include these properties would prevent measures to improve wastewater management for these properties. 4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends alternative a) above - that the application be approved with the FSA expansion limited to the footprint of buildings. Attachment Drawing No. SA-2376, Sheet 48

SDD-205

SDD-206

004992319

GVS&DD Board Meeting: November 27, 2009

To: Board of Directors From: Environment and Energy Committee Date: November 10, 2009 Subject: Discharge of Grease into the Sewer System Environment and Energy Committee Recommendation: That the Board send a letter to the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, and a copy to the Premier’s office, underscoring the importance of amendments to provincial legislation which would provide the GVS&DD with ticketing powers and the ability to increase the level of fines available under the Sewer Use Bylaw; and highlighting both the economic and environmental reasons why the legislative amendments are required. At its November 10, 2009 meeting, the Environment and Energy Committee was provided with an update under the “Manager’s Report” on the discharge of fats, oils and greases into the sewer system. The Committee was informed that Metro Vancouver has previously requested that the provincial government amend its legislation to enable ticketing and more substantive fines for Sewer Use Bylaw violations, and that Minister of Environment has submitted a request to the Treasury Board proposing that the necessary legislative changes be considered in 2011. Concerns were expressed about the timeline, noting that without the provincial legislative amendments, the GVS&DD does not have a credible deterrent to violators. Concerns were also expressed that the discharge of these materials to sewer may cause costly blockages and repairs, sewage overflows, expensive treatment, breaches of provincial law and/or adverse environmental impacts. The Committee subsequently passed the recommendation as presented above. Attachment: “Discharge of Grease into the Sewer System”, an excerpt from the “Manager’s Report” dated October 30, 2009.

Section E 2.1

SDD-207

ATTACHMENT Discharge of Grease Into the Sewer System At its October 6, 2009 meeting, the Environment and Energy Committee requested that staff provide information on measures taken to control the discharge of grease into the sewer system. The discharge of fats, oils and greases to sewer from restaurants and other sources to sewers represents a substantial and unfair cost to municipal taxpayers. Metro Vancouver’s Sewer Use Bylaw contains a Code of Practice (Code) which imposes conditions upon restaurants discharging to sewer. The Code is currently under review to enhance requirements. However, the level of compliance with the current code is very poor. Ticketing of non-compliant restaurants is considered the most effective means of improving compliance, as the cost of taking a restaurant to court and the small fines available for violations of Metro Vancouver’s Sewer Use Bylaw make prosecution impractical. However, Metro Vancouver’s sewerage utility, the GVS&DD, does not have ticketing powers similar to municipalities or regional districts. Various staff, legal counsel and Chairpersons for the GVS&DD, over the years dating back at least until 1994, have requested that the province amend its laws to enable ticketing and increase the level of fines available for prosecution of Sewer Use Bylaw violations. We are advised that the province has plans to amend its legislation in 2011 to provide the GVS&DD ticketing powers and also to increase the level of fines available under the bylaw. However, there is no guarantee that this will be done. Consequently, until such time as Metro Vancouver is able to offer a credible deterrent to violators, it is likely that restaurants will continue to discharge fats, oils and grease to sewers and taxpayers will incur unnecessary and unfair costs for maintaining sewer lines and treatment of these wastes. Further the discharge of these materials to sewer results in an increased risk that Metro Vancouver will violate federal or provincial laws at its primary plants, Iona and Lions Gate, as these plants are currently operating close to permitted levels.

SDD-208

GVS&DD Board Meeting Date: November 27, 2009

To: Board of Directors From: Kelly Weilbacher, Office Manager and Assistant to the Corporate Secretary Date: November 18, 2009 Subject: Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – November

2009 Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated November 18, 2009, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – November 2009”. Attachment(s): A. Covanta

Section E 3.1

SDD-209


SDD-210

Gold River EfW Project Introduction Covanta Energy Corporation, in partnership with Green Island Energy are pleased to present a summary of our proposal for a long-term, sustainable waste disposal option that will serve as an integral part of Metro Vancouver�s solution for the region�s waste disposal challenges. Covanta�s proposal includes the construction of an Energy-from-Waste (�EfW�) facility in Gold River as well as enhancements to Metro Vancouver�s local resource recovery and recycling systems that would create more than $1 billion in economic stimulus for the Province.

With current landfill resources expected to close or reach capacity in 2010, Covanta is offering Metro Vancouver an alternative sustainable waste management solution. Covanta will redevelop the former Gold River Pulp and Paper Mill into a �State of the Art� EfW facility capable of converting as much as 750,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste into 90 megawatts (735 gigawatts) of clean, renewable energy annually.

Covanta has also identified a site near the Fraser River to serve as a new integrated resource recycling facility. This facility will capture and divert recyclables from the waste stream and facilitate the transfer of unrecyclable waste to Gold River after the waste is turned into Refuse Derived Fuel (�RDF�). The site has direct barge access for shipping RDF to Gold River and can be operational and able to receive waste as early as Q1, 2013.

The financial impact of the development, construction, and operation of the Project would create significant economic stimulus to the British Columbia. The Project, which has received the endorsement of the Village of Gold River, the Strathcona Regional District and the Council of Chiefs of the Mowachaht / Muchalaht First Nations.

The Project will act as an integral part of the Metro Vancouver system and offers synergies with long-term plans to increase recycling rates and develop �In Region� EfW facilities. The Project will have one of the largest processing capacities of any facility in North America and enjoy economies of scale that will provide Metro Vancouver with cost-effective and firm disposal capacity.

The Project is permitted by the Ministry of Environment (�MOE�) and has the support of the host community and local First Nations. In 2006, BC Hydro awarded the Project an Electricity Purchase Agreement, which was approved by the BC Utilities Commission. Covanta is North America�s leading provider of waste-related energy services to the public sector. Each year, our modern EfW facilities turn approximately 16 million tons (US) of waste into nearly 8 million megawatt hours of clean renewable electricity and 10 billion pounds of steam. Covanta owns and/or operates 60 power and/or steam generation facilities.

Synergy with the Integrated Solid Waste Management System The Project can serve as an integral part of the Metro Vancouver waste management system and can compliment Metro Vancouver�s current plans to increase recycling rates and site new EfW capacity within the Region. The flexible terms of our proposal would allow Metro Vancouver to continue to pursue future development of a local EfW facility to meet the increase in waste volume while benefiting from an immediate solution. With our integrated resource recycling facility in operation within two years, the Project allows for immediately available capacity to solve the Region�s waste disposal supply and demand imbalance.

Environmental Benefits Covanta�s experience demonstrates that EfW is the most responsible means of solid waste disposal. In addition to its energy benefits, EfW avoids the conversion of greenfields into landfills. Although North America is blessed with abundant open land, the continuous use of this land for burying waste is not sustainable. EfW offers Metro Vancouver a more environmentally responsible means of solid waste disposal than landfilling. It uses a state-of-the-art process to reduce the volume of waste which must ultimately be disposed of, generates valuable renewable energy, protects valuable ground water supplies and results in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions when compared to current landfilling practices in the Province. To help clarify this matter, Covanta commissioned an apples-to-apples comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) of waste management options which include Covanta�s Gold River Power Project and a similarly-sized WTE facility located in the Lower Mainland. WTE scenarios (either in region or in Gold River) were found to have a superior greenhouse gas (GHG) profile than landfilling. The Gold River project yielded a higher GHG reduction than �in region� EfW primarily due our ability to be operational by 2013.

Proposed Business Structure Covanta proposes to provide Metro Vancouver with a solution to its growing waste needs that is competitive with current disposal costs and environmentally superior to current disposal methods. The proposed structure is designed to coincide with Metro Vancouver�s efforts to increase recycling rates within the Region. The proposal offers a Service Fee paid per tonne of waste received at the Covanta resource recovery facility. The price per tonne would escalate with the CPI index. The project could accept as much as 750,000 tonnes per year. The contracted volumes would decrease in step with improvements to recycling rates and would permit MV to reduce the contract tonnage

SDD-211

KWeilbach

Text Box

ATTACHMENT A

when it commissions its own �In Region� EfW facility in the MV area. In the business arrangement proposed, Covanta/GIE would assume all of the risk for the development, construction cost escalation, energy pricing volatility, financing, and operational risk for the entire term of the contract. Based on currently schedules, the plant will be operational in the first quarter of 2013.

Technical Overview Covanta plans to capitalize on the existing infrastructure at the former Gold River Pulp and Paper Mill, including a deep-sea port, power transmission lines and existing power generation assets. Covanta will modernize these assets to allow us to operate a major �green� energy power project at the site that will deliver 90 MWs of electrical power to the BC Hydro grid. New assets will include two new boilers, a fuel unloading and RDF handling system, a state-of-the-art air pollution control system and a turbine generator. The Project is connected to the grid via existing transmission lines. Pre-processed RDF will be delivered in bales by barge/ship. State-of-the-art air pollution control equipment will be utilized for the Project at the onset. As an industry leader in environmental services, Covanta utilizes advanced air pollution control devices on its EfW facilities that historically perform significantly better than governmental requirements.

Conclusion Covanta is pleased to present our proposal for a long-term, sustainable waste disposal option that can serve as an integral part of Metro Vancouver�s solution for the Region�s waste disposal challenges. In summary, the Project offers Metro Vancouver and the region the following benefits:

► EfW provides a secure long-term waste disposal option for Metro Vancouver that will provide clean, renewable power to the BC Hydro system;

► The Project, which has received the endorsement of the Village of Gold River, Strathcona Regional District and the Council of Chiefs of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations, would generate an estimated $1 billion in economic activity within the Province;

► The proposed business structure will fit with Metro Vancouver�s goal of increasing recycling and diversion;

► The Project provides an environmentally superior means of disposing of waste that results in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions when compared to current landfilling practices in the Province;

► As the lead developer and operator for the Project, Covanta brings an unequaled depth of experience in the planning, design, development, construction and operation of EfW facilities;

► The Project will have no negative impact to the Fraser Valley air shed; and

► Covanta/GIE would assume all of the risk for the development, construction cost escalation, energy pricing volatility, financing, and operational risk for the entire term of the contract.

SDD-212

REPORTS NOT INCLUDED ON CONSENT AGENDA

SDD-213


SDD-214

Section G 1


To: Waste Management Committee From: Ray Robb, Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department Jeff Gogol, Environmental Regulatory Planner, Policy and Planning Department Date: October 7, 2009 Subject: Amendment to GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 Recommendation: That the Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2009”;

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2009”.

1. PURPOSE To propose amendments to the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”. The amendments include new disposal rates for trucked liquid waste and revision of language for radioactive waste discharges to sanitary sewer. 2. CONTEXT The GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Bylaw) as amended on May 23, 2008 is enabled by the Environmental Management Act and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act to regulate the discharge of non-domestic waste to sewer. The Bylaw provides the regulatory framework to control, at source, non-domestic effluent from industrial, commercial and institutional sources. The Bylaw is implemented and enforced through the Liquid Waste Regulatory program. Metro Vancouver presently accepts domestic trucked waste, such as septic tank, holding tank and portable toilet wastes at the Iona, Annacis and North West Langley Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP). Non-domestic trucked wastes are primarily accepted at the Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant. The bylaw specifies the rate to be charged for the loads accepted at the wastewater treatment plants and is updated on an annual basis. The rates were last changed in May 2008. The new rates, proposed to be effective January 1, 2010, are as follows (with 2008 rates in brackets): Septic Tank Waste (Domestic) $7.62/m3 ($6.93/m3)

Trucked Waste (Non-Domestic) $86.40/m3 ($73.23/m3)

SDD-215

Amendment to GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 Waste Management Committee Meeting Date: November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 2

The proposed increase in the rates is to recover the increased costs of treating liquid wastes at the wastewater treatment plants. The proposed change in the text for Radioactive Wastes in Schedule “A” is to achieve consistency with federal laws governing the discharge of radioactive substances to the environment, specifically the Federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its regulations. The attached proposed amendment brings the bylaw in line with the Federal statutes. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Board could:

a) provide comments on the revised bylaw and request staff to incorporate these comments into a further revision; or

b) give three readings to and adopt the revised bylaw Staff recommends alternative (b). 4. CONCLUSION This amendment updates the Sewer Use Bylaw to better recover Metro Vancouver’s costs to treat Trucked Liquid Waste and to reflect Federal statutes with respect to Radioactive Waste. Attachment Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2009 (004979567)

SDD-216

ATTACHMENT

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT AMENDING BYLAW NO. 252, 2009

A Bylaw to Amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District has adopted “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”, to manage the direct or indirect discharge of non-domestic waste to any sewers and drains connected to a Sewage Facility operated by the District; AND WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District wishes to amend “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007”; NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007” is

hereby amended as follows:

(a) Replacing section 1.1 of Schedule “F” with the following: “1.1 For disposal of Septic Tank Waste or Trucked Waste: Septic Tank Waste $7.62 per cubic metre Trucked Waste $86.40 per cubic metre Rates become effective January 1, 2010.”

(b) Replacing the text in section 5 of Schedule “A” with the following:

“Waste radioactive substances in excess of quantities or concentrations specified for release to the environment under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and Regulations or amended versions thereof, or under a licence issued in accordance with s. 24(1) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.”

2. This Bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Amending Bylaw No. 252, 2008”.

SDD-217

ATTACHMENT

READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this ____ day of ____________ 2009. RECONSIDERED, PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________ 2009. Chairperson

Secretary

SDD-218

Housing Committee Meeting Date: November 20, 2009

To: Housing Committee From: Lorraine Copas, Senior Housing Planner, Policy and Planning Department Eric Aderneck, Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department Date: November 5, 2009 Subject: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost

Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Recommendations: That the GVS&DD Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009; and

b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009.

1. PURPOSE At the GVS&DD meeting on July 31, 2009, the Board directed staff to amend the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge By-Law No. 187, 1996, to allow regional development cost charges to be waived for Not For Profit Rental Housing, Transitional and Supportive Housing, and For Profit Affordable Rental Housing where affordability is secured for a minimum of 20 years. This report puts forward a new Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw for consideration and adoption by the GVS&DD Board. If adopted, the Bylaw will take effect January 1, 2010. 2. CONTEXT Waiving regional development cost charges to support the development of affordable housing was identified as one of the possible actions to be implemented through the Board adopted Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Following discussion of the alternatives as well as consideration of the potential financial implications, at their meeting on July 31, 2009, the GVS&DD Board directed staff to amend the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge By-Law No. 187, 1996. In support of this direction, staff has prepared the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 which has been included as Attachment 1 to this report. This Bylaw sets out the conditions under which a wavier or refund of regional development cost charges will be granted for affordable housing purposes along with the

Section G 2

SDD-219

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Housing Committee Meeting Date: November 20, 2009 Page 2 of 5 criteria that will be used to determine eligible developments. Rather than amending the existing Bylaw, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 will replace the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 187, 1996 as this has the same effect and is administratively easier to accommodate. In addition to establishing the conditions under which regional development cost charges will be waived or refunded for affordable housing purposes, the new Bylaw also includes some minor housekeeping items such as refinements or clarification of the definitions used in the Bylaw. These changes, however, are housekeeping in nature and not material in consequence. The new Bylaw includes provisions to waive the collection of regional development cost charges for self-contained residential units that are no larger in area than 29 square metres. These exemptions are in keeping with the exemptions granted under Bill 27- 2008 –The Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act adopted by the Provincial government in May 2008. In addition to setting out the conditions under which regional development cost charges will be waived, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 also make provisions for regional development cost charges to be refunded. These provisions are discussed in more detail in the implementation section of this report and apply to instances where the conditions for waiver may not be fully met at the subdivision approval or building permit stage as required under the Bylaw but which could be met at the time of occupancy. Taking these situations into consideration, provisions have been included in the Bylaw which allow for a refund or credit to be granted once the conditions as set out in the Bylaw are fully satisfied. The specific details related to this provision are discussed in more detail under the implementation section in this report. Eligible Developments This section sets out the criteria used to determine which developments are eligible for a waiver or refund of regional development cost charges. In keeping with the directions put forward to the GVS&DD Board in July 31, 2009, eligible developments included: • Not For Profit Rental Housing • Transitional and Supportive Housing • For Profit Affordable Rental Housing where affordability is secured for 20 years. Not For Profit Rental Housing Including Transitional and Supportive Housing In the case of Not For Profit Rental Housing, the waiver or refund of regional development cost charges would apply to developments which have secured capital or operating funding under government supported housing supply programs. This includes housing for low income families, seniors and those with special housing needs including Transitional and Supportive Housing for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. As set out in the Bylaw, a waiver or refund will be granted for Dwelling Units that are owned, managed and operated for affordable housing purposes where day to day management including tenant selection and tenant placement is the responsibility of a Public Housing Body.

SDD-220

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Housing Committee Meeting Date: November 20, 2009

Page 3 of 5

The Bylaw defines Public Housing Body as it is defined in the Residential Tenancy Act and includes British Columbia Housing Management Commission, the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, the City of Vancouver, the City of Vancouver Public Housing Corporation, the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, or any housing society or not-for-profit municipal housing corporation that has an agreement regarding the operation of a residential property with the government of British Columbia, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission, or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For Profit Affordable Rental Housing In the case of a For Profit Affordable Rental Housing development, the development may be owned or managed by either a private or institutional owner that does not meet the definition of Public Housing Body. Regional development cost charges would be waived or refunded only for the Dwelling Units which are rented at below market rates consistent with the criteria set out in the Bylaw and where the units are secured for a minimum of 20 years through a lease agreement with a Public Housing Body or through a covenant registered on title pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act. Under the proposed Bylaw, regional development cost charges will also be waived or refunded for rental units in strata developments provided that the rent that is charged for the unit includes any and all strata fees and that the rent for the unit meets the conditions set out in the Bylaw. This includes rents at below market rates as well as provisions to ensure that the units remain affordable for a minimum of 20 years. Attachment 2 provides some examples of the rent and income criteria that would apply to For Profit Affordable Rental Housing based on the eligibility criteria and conditions set out in the Bylaw. Implementation The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act authorizes the GVS&DD to waive or reduce regional development cost changes for eligible developments. As set out in the Bylaw, member municipalities must collect regional development cost charges at the time that approval of a subdivision is granted or at the time that a building permit is obtained. In the case of the changes which have been proposed under the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009, one of the challenges in the implementation is that it is possible that all of the conditions as set out in the Bylaw may not be fully satisfied at the subdivision approval or building permit stage. Therefore, the implementation of the Bylaw contemplates a system where Metro Vancouver through the GVS&DD will waive or refund development cost charges for any new developments which reaches completion after January 1, 2010 provided the conditions set out in the Bylaw are met at the time of occupancy. In adopting this approach in the implementation of the Bylaw, the objective is to complement municipal actions and strategies currently in place to support the development of affordable housing as well as to provide the development sector with an opportunity to benefit from the changes which have been introduced through this Bylaw provided they meet the requirements around affordability and that they are willing to make the units available either through a lease with a Public Housing Body as defined in the Bylaw or through a covenant registered on title. The Bylaw also waives the collection of regional development cost charges for self-contained, residential units that are no larger in area than 29 square metres.

SDD-221

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Housing Committee Meeting Date: November 20, 2009 Page 4 of 5 In terms of the collection and remittance of regional development cost charges, it is anticipated that member municipalities will be responsible for the implementation of the policies set out in the Bylaw including confirming that a development is eligible to be considered for either a waiver or a refund of regional development cost charges. Member municipalities will also be responsible for collecting and remitting regional development cost charges to Metro Vancouver until such time as it can be demonstrated that the conditions as set out in the Bylaw have been fully met. In the event that the conditions have been satisfied subsequent to the collection and remittance of regional development cost charges, a member municipality may apply for a refund or credit provided the necessary documentation is in place. A letter will be sent out to all of the member municipalities indicating that the GVS&DD Board will be considering the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253 2009 and that if adopted the new Bylaw will take effect January 1, 2010. In addition, staff has been working with members of the region’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and TAC Housing Subcommittee to ensure that this initiative complements and supports municipal actions. 3. ALTERNATIVES It is recommended that the GVS&DD Board: a) introduce and give first, second and third reading to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009, and b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 [Recommended] or c) direct staff to undertake further analysis on specific implementation questions and report back at a future meeting. 4. CONCLUSION The waiver of regional development cost charges for affordable housing was identified as an important priority in the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy which was adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors in November 2007. At the meeting of the GVS&DD Board on July 31, 2009, the Board directed staff to amend the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge By-Law No. 187, 1996, to allow regional development cost charges to be waived for Not For Profit Rental Housing, Transitional and Supportive Housing, and For Profit Affordable Rental Housing where affordability is secured for a minimum of 20 years. This report puts forward a new Bylaw -Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009, for consideration and adoption by the GVS&DD Board to accommodate these changes. If the Bylaw as set out in Attachment 1 to this report is adopted, it would take effect January 1, 2010.

SDD-222

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Housing Committee Meeting Date: November 20, 2009

Page 5 of 5

ATTACHMENTS 1 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 (eRIM doc. #004989949). 2 Examples of Target Rent Ranges and Income Thresholds for the For Profit Affordable Rental Housing (eRIM doc. #004990009). 004987911

SDD-223


SDD-224

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009 Page 1 of 17

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE BYLAW NO. 253, 2009

WHEREAS: A. Pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater

Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (“the GVS&DD”) may, by bylaw, impose development cost charges on every person who obtains approval of a subdivision or a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure from a Member Municipality;

B. Development cost charges provide funds to assist the GVS&DD in paying capital costs

incurred to provide, construct, alter or expand sewerage facilities to service development within the area of the GVS&DD, excluding the portion of capital costs charged by the GVS&DD to Member Municipalities under section 54 of the Act;

C. Pursuant to the Act, development cost charges are not payable in certain circumstance

and the GVS&DD may waive or reduce development cost charges for eligible developments;

D. Member Municipalities collect the development cost charges imposed under this Bylaw

and remit them to the GVS&DD; E. The GVS&DD and a Member Municipality may enter into an agreement under section

58.3 of the Act under which all, some or some portion of the development cost charges under this Bylaw that would otherwise apply are not required to be collected and remitted by the Member Municipality and the Member Municipality agrees to pay to the GVS&DD an amount equal to the development cost charges that the Member Municipality would have collected under this Bylaw but for such an agreement; and

F. In setting development cost charges under this Bylaw, the GVS&DD has considered:

a. future land use patterns and development and the phasing of works and services; and

b. how development designed to result in a low environmental impact may affect

the capital costs of infrastructure referred to in section 58.2(2) of the Act.

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

1.0 REPEAL OF BYLAW

1.1 Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 187, 1996 is hereby repealed.

ATTACHMENT 1

SDD-225


2.0 CITATION

2.1 The official citation for this Bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 253, 2009”.

2.2 This Bylaw may be cited as the “Development Cost Charge Bylaw”.

3.0 INTERPRETATION 3.1 Definitions. In this Bylaw:

(a) “Apartment Residential Use” means any Dwelling Unit which is or will be situated in any building or structure that consists of, or will consist of, at least two floors containing four or more Dwelling Units, other than Dwelling Units that are Townhouse Residential Use;

(b) “Building Permit” means any permit required by a Member Municipality that

authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure; (c) “Combination Development” means any Development that comprises two or

more of the following uses:

(i) Apartment Residential Use; (ii) Single Family Residential Use; (iii) Townhouse Residential Use; and (iv) Non-Residential Use;

(d) “Community Charter” means the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26;

(e) “Development” means:

(i) a Subdivision; or (ii) the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure for

which a Building Permit is obtained;

(f) “Dwelling Unit” means a room, a suite of rooms or a building or structure that is used or is intended to be used as an individual self-contained private residence which must contain cooking appliances, a sink, a toilet, a washbasin and a shower or bath, or facilities for the installation of same, whether such equipment or facilities are provided to each such room, suite of rooms, building or structure or are shared and includes accessory uses that are customary ancillary uses to such residences;

(g) “Effective Date” means January 1, 2010;

(h) “Floor Area” means:

SDD-226


(i) the floor area of the building or structure (measured from the outside

edge of all exterior walls of the building or structure), less the number of square feet of the floor area of the building or structure that is used or is intended to be used for the parking of motor vehicles and the storage of bicycles; or

(ii) in the case of an alteration or extension of less than the entire building

or structure, the portion of the building or structure to which the Building Permit applies (measured from the outside edge of any exterior walls in such portion of the building or structure), less the number of square feet of the floor area of the building or structure that is used or is intended to be used for the parking of motor vehicles and the storage of bicycles;

(i) “For Profit Affordable Rental Housing” means Dwelling Units in a

Development comprising Residential Use or Combination Development that will be rented or sublet;

(i) at below market rental rates so that the Rent charged does not

exceed the lesser of; (1) 80% of the average market rent for the Member

Municipality where the Dwelling Unit is located; or (2) 80% of the average market rent for all of the Member

Municipalities

as identified or reported in Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation’s most recent rental market survey;

(ii) to persons who have an annual household income that falls:

(1) at or below 80% of the Median Household Income if

the Dwelling Unit has 3 or more bedrooms; (2) at or below 70% of the Median Household Income if

the Dwelling Unit has 2 or more bedrooms; (3) at or below 60% of the Median Household Income if

the Dwelling Unit has 1 bedroom; (4) at or below 50% of the Median Household Income if

the Dwelling Unit is a bachelor suite.

(j) “Fraser Sewerage Area” means the area established from time to time by the

GVS&DD under the Act as the Fraser Sewerage Area and shown outlined on the drawing attached as Schedule A to this Bylaw;

SDD-227


(k) “GVS&DD” means the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District; (l) “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act” or “Act” means

the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, SBC 1956, c. 59; (m) “Land Title Act” means the Land Title Act, RSBC 1996, c.250; (n) “Local Government Act” means the Local Government Act, RSBC 1996, c.

323;

(o) “Lulu Island West Sewerage Area” means the area established from time to time by the GVS&DD under the Act as the Lulu Island West Sewerage Area and shown outlined on the drawing attached as Schedule A to the Bylaw;

(p) “Median Household Income” means the median household income for the

Greater Vancouver Regional District or Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area as reported by Statistics Canada in its most recent census;

(q) “Member Municipality” means:

(i) a municipality that is a member of the GVS&DD; and (ii) with respect to Electoral Area “A”, the Greater Vancouver Regional

District;

(r) “Minister” means the member of the Executive Council appointed under the Constitution Act charged by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the administration of the Local Government Act;

(s) “Municipal Charges” means development cost charges imposed by a Member

Municipality under either the Local Government Act, Community Charter or the Vancouver Charter;

(t) “Not For Profit Rental Housing” means those Dwelling Units in a Development

comprising a Residential Use or Combination Development that are or will be:

(i) operated as rental housing for tenants who meet eligibility criteria related to income, number of occupants, health or other similar criteria; and

(ii) owned, leased or otherwise held by a Public Housing Body; but does not include: (iii) a community care facility under the Community Care and Assisted

Living Act, SBC 2002, c. 75; (iv) a continuing care facility under the Continuing Care Act, RSBC 1996,

c. 70;

SDD-228


(v) a public or private hospital under the Hospital Act, RSBC 1996, c. 200;

(vi) a Provincial mental health facility, an observation unit or a psychiatric

unit designated under the Mental Health Act, RSBC 1996, c. 288; or (vii) a housing based health facility that provides hospitality support

services and personal health care;

(u) “Non-Residential Use” means any building or structure or any portion of any building or structure that is not Apartment Residential Use, Single Family Residential Use or Townhouse Residential Use but for greater certainty, does not include any portion of any Residential Use building or structure that is not part of a Dwelling Unit and is used or is intended to be used solely for the purpose of gaining access to and from Dwelling Units, solely for the maintenance of the building or structure or solely by the occupants of the Dwelling Units in the building or structure;

(v) “North Shore Sewerage Area” means the area established from time to time by

the GVS&DD under the Act as the North Shore Sewerage Area and shown outlined on the drawing attached as Schedule A to this Bylaw;

(w) “Parcel” means any lot, block or other area in which land is held or into which it

is legally subdivided and for greater certainty, without limiting the foregoing, including a strata lot under the Strata Property Act;

(x) “Public Housing Body” means the British Columbia Housing Management

Commission, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the City of Vancouver, the City of Vancouver Public Housing Corporation, the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, any housing society or not-for-profit municipal housing corporation that has an agreement regarding the operation of residential property with:

(i) the government of British Columbia; (ii) the British Columbia Housing Management Commission; (iii) the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation;

(y) “Rate Schedules” means the schedules of development cost charge rates for

each Sewerage Area that are attached as Schedules B, C, D and E to this Bylaw; (z) “Rent” means money paid or agreed to be paid, or value or a right given or

agreed to be given, by or on behalf of a tenant to a landlord in return for the right to rent a Dwelling Unit, for the use of common areas and for services or facilities and includes any and all strata fees, regardless of whether such fees are paid directly to the landlord, but does not include any of the following:

(i) a security deposit;

(ii) a pet damage deposit;

SDD-229


(iii) a fee prescribed under section 97 (2) (k) of the Residential Tenancy

Act; (aa) “Residential Tenancy Act” means the Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002, c.

78;

(bb) “Residential Use” means Apartment Residential Use, Single Family Residential Use and Townhouse Residential Use;

(cc) “Sewerage Area” means any of the GVS&DD’s four sewerage areas, being the

Vancouver Sewerage Area, the North Shore Sewerage Area, the Lulu Island West Sewerage Area and the Fraser Sewerage Area;

(dd) “Sewage Facility” means any work, service or plant of the GVS&DD for

conveying, disposing of or treating sewage or waste water; (ee) “Single Family Residential Use” means:

(i) a Parcel that results from a Subdivision that is used or may be used for a single building or structure that contains up to three Dwelling Units; or

(ii) a Dwelling Unit that is or will be situated in a single building or

structure that is constructed, altered or extended on a single Parcel and that contains up to three Dwelling Units;

(ff) “Strata Property Act” means the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c. 43;

(gg) “Subdivision” means a subdivision of land into two or more Parcels, whether by

plan, apt descriptive words or otherwise, under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act;

(hh) “Townhouse Residential Use” means any Dwelling Unit which is or will be

situated in any building or structure containing four or more Dwelling Units and which has a principal entrance which provides direct outdoor access at or from ground level;

(ii) “Vancouver Charter” means the Vancouver Charter, SBC 1953, c. 55; (jj) “Vancouver Sewerage Area” means the area established from time to time by

the GVS&DD under the Act as the Vancouver Sewerage Area and shown outlined on the drawing attached as Schedule A to this Bylaw;

4.0 DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES 4.1 Application of Development Cost Charges. Subject to sections 4.2 and 4.3, every

person who obtains:

(a) approval of a Subdivision from a Member Municipality; or

SDD-230


(b) a Building Permit from a Member Municipality; must pay the applicable development cost charges set out in this Bylaw to that Member Municipality on behalf of the GVS&DD prior to the approval of the Subdivision or the issuance of the Building Permit.

4.2 Exemptions from Development Cost Charges. Development cost charges are not payable under this Bylaw if:

(a) the Development is not and will not be capable of being serviced by a Sewerage

Facility of the GVS&DD or by a Sewerage Facility of a Member Municipality that is connected to a Sewerage Facility of the GVS&DD;

(b) the Development will not impose new capital cost burdens on the GVS&DD;

(c) a development cost charge has previously been paid for the same Development

unless, as a result of further Development, new capital cost burdens will be imposed on the GVS&DD;

(d) the Building Permit authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a

building or structure or part of a building or structure that is, or will be, after the construction, alteration or extension, exempt from taxation under subsection 220(1)(h) of the Community Charter;

(e) the Building Permit authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a

building that will, after the construction, alteration or extension:

(i) contain fewer than four self-contained Dwelling Units; and

(ii) be put to no other use other than the Residential Use in those Dwelling Units;

(f) the value of the work authorized by the Building Permit does not exceed $50,000

or such other amount which the Minister may prescribe by regulation; or (g) the Building Permit authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of self-

contained Dwelling Units in a building in which:

(i) each Dwelling Unit is no larger in area than 29 square metres [312.153 square feet]; and

(ii) each Dwelling Unit is to be put to no use other than Residential Use in

those Dwelling Units. 4.3 Waiver of Development Cost Charges. The GVS&DD will waive, or refund to the

applicable Member Municipality on behalf of the registered owner ,development cost charges that are otherwise payable under this Bylaw for:

SDD-231


(a) Dwelling Units that meet the definition of For Profit Affordable Rental Housing if the following conditions are satisfied before an occupancy permit is issued for them:

(i) occupancy of the Dwelling Units is subsequent to January 1, 2010;

and

(ii) the owner covenants with the GVS&DD to use the Dwelling Units as For Profit Affordable Rental Housing for at least 20 years and the covenant is registered under section 219 of the Land Title Act; or

(iii) the owner, if the Development is subject to the Strata Property

Act, has filed a Rental Disclosure Statement pursuant to section 139 of that Act that sets out a rental period of at least 20 years and the owner covenants with the GVS&DD to use the Dwelling Units as For Profit Affordable Rental Housing for at least 20 years and the covenant is registered under section 219 of the Land Title Act; or

(iv) the owner enters into a lease agreement with a Public Housing

Body pursuant to which the Public Housing Body agrees to sublet and operate the Dwelling Units as Not For Profit Rental Housing for at least 20 years;

(b) Dwelling Units that meet the definition of Not For Profit Rental Housing before an

occupancy permit is issued for them and whose occupancy is subsequent to January 1, 2010.

4.4 Calculation of Development Cost Charges. Development cost charges imposed under this Bylaw will be calculated in accordance with the rates set out in the Rate Schedules. The rates set out in the Rate Schedules may be different in relation to one or more of the following:

(a) different Sewerage Areas;

(b) different classes of Sewerage Facilities;

(c) different areas within a Sewerage Area;

(d) different uses;

(e) different capital costs as they relate to different classes of Development; or

(f) different sizes or different numbers of lots or units in a Development.

4.5 Combination Development. Without restricting the generality of section 4.4, the development cost charges for a Combination Development will be calculated separately for the portion of the Combination Development attributable to each of Apartment

SDD-232


Residential Use, Single Family Residential Use, Townhouse Residential Use and Non-Residential Use and will be the sum of the development cost charges for each such use, calculated according to the Rate Schedules.

4.6 Payment, Collection and Remittance of Development Cost Charges. Development

cost charges imposed under this Bylaw must be paid to the Member Municipality of the GVS&DD approving the Subdivision or issuing the Building Permit, as the case may be, as follows:

(a) at the same time as any Municipal Charges as may be levied on the

Development under a bylaw of the Member Municipality are payable to the Member Municipality; or

(b) if no Municipal Charges will be levied on the Development under a bylaw of the

Member Municipality, as follows:

(i) where an application is made only for Subdivision, prior to the issuance of the approval of the Subdivision by the Member Municipality; or

(ii) where an application is made only for a Building Permit or for both

Subdivision and for a Building Permit, prior to the issuance of the Building Permit by the Member Municipality.

4.7 Payment of Development Cost Charges by Instalments. The development cost

charges imposed under this Bylaw may not be paid by instalments unless a regulation under either subsection 58.2(6) of the Act or subsection 933(6) of the Local Government Act applies to the Development and authorizes the payment of development cost charges in instalments.

5.0 COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES 5.1 Collection of Development Cost Charges by Member Municipalities. Subject to

section 6.1, each Member Municipality must:

(a) collect the development cost charges imposed on a Development under this Bylaw; and

(b) not issue approval of a Subdivision or issue a Building Permit for any

Development unless the development cost charges imposed under this Bylaw have been paid

in accordance with Part 4.0.

5.2 Separate Account. Subject to section 6.1, each Member Municipality must establish

and maintain a separate account for the development cost charge monies collected

SDD-233


under this Bylaw and deposit and hold these monies in that separate account, in trust for the GVS&DD, until the monies are remitted to the GVS&DD under section 5.4.

5.3 Remittance of Development Cost Charges by Municipalities. Each Member

Municipality, within 30 days after June 30 and December 31 of each year, must remit to the GVS&DD the total amount of development cost charges collected by the Member Municipality under this Bylaw during the six month period previous to such date, or an amount equal to such development cost charges if the Member Municipality did not collect development cost charges under this Bylaw, together with the statement referred to in section 5.4.

5.4 Statements. Each Member Municipality must provide statements to the GVS&DD, in

respect of each Sewerage Area within the Member Municipality, pursuant to section 5.3, for every six month period comprising January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, setting out:

(a) the number and type of use of all Residential Use Parcels or Dwelling Units on

which development cost charges were levied by it under this Bylaw;

(b) the aggregate floor area of all Non-Residential Use buildings or structures on which development cost charges were levied by it under this Bylaw (calculated in accordance with the Rate Schedules);

(c) the legal description and civic address of each Parcel on which development cost

charges were levied by it under this Bylaw, whether such development cost charges were levied in respect of a Subdivision or a Building Permit;

(d) the date and amount of each payment of development cost charges levied by it

under this Bylaw and where section 4.7 applies to permit development cost charges levied under this Bylaw to be paid by instalments, the amount of instalment payments remaining to be paid to it and the dates for payment of such remaining instalments;

(e) the total amount of all development cost charges levied by it under this Bylaw

and the total amount of all remaining instalment payments;

(f) the number, legal description, civic address and type of use of all Parcels in respect of which Subdivisions were approved where no development cost charges were levied by it under this Bylaw; and

(g) the number and type of use of all Dwelling Units and the aggregate floor area of

all Non-Residential Use buildings or structures (calculated in accordance with the Rate Schedules) in respect of which Building Permits were required where no development cost charges were levied by it under this Bylaw.

5.5 Records. Each Member Municipality shall retain, for a period of four years, sufficient records to support the statements and payments referred to in sections 5.3 and 5.4.

SDD-234


5.6 Inspection and Review of Municipal Records. The GVS&DD may, at any time,

subject to first giving reasonable notice to any Member Municipality, inspect any and all records of the Member Municipality relating to the information required under section 5.4, the calculation, collection and remittance by the Member Municipality of development cost charges levied under this Bylaw, and the calculation and remittance by the Member Municipality of any payments required under Part 6.0. Each Member Municipality shall permit any employee or agent of the GVS&DD to inspect the records referred to above and to make and take away copies of those records.

6.0 REPLACEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES 6.1 Municipal Agreements. Despite any other provision of this Bylaw, the GVS&DD may

enter into an agreement or agreements with any Member Municipality under which:

(a) all, some or some portion of the development cost charges under this Bylaw that would otherwise apply are not required to be collected and remitted by the Member Municipality; and

(b) the Member Municipality agrees to pay to the GVS&DD an amount equal to the

development cost charges that the Member Municipality would have collected under this Bylaw but for such an agreement, in the manner and at the times set out in the agreement, or otherwise in the same manner and at the same times that development cost charges would otherwise have been payable.

6.2 Failure to Remit Development Cost Charges. If a Member Municipality fails, for any

reason, other than under an agreement under section 6.1, to collect any development cost charges payable under this Bylaw or to remit to the GVS&DD any development cost charges collected by it, the Member Municipality must pay to the GVS&DD on demand an amount equal to the development cost charges that the Member Municipality should have collected or remitted under this Bylaw.

7.0 INTERPRETATION 7.1 Severability. If a portion of this Bylaw is held to be invalid it shall be severed and the

remainder of the Bylaw shall remain in effect. 7.2 Schedules. Schedules “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “E” are attached to and form part of this

Bylaw.

SDD-235


8.0 EFFECTIVE DATE 8.1 This Bylaw comes into force and takes effect on January 1, 2010. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME this _____ day of _____________________2009. RECONSIDERED, PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _____ day of _____________2009.

__________________________________________ Lois E. Jackson, Chair

__________________________________________ Paulette A. Vetleson, Secretary

SDD-236


SCHEDULE A

SDD-237


SCHEDULE B

FRASER SEWERAGE AREA – DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES

Description

1. Single Family Residential Use 2. Townhouse Residential Use 3. Apartment Residential Use 4. Non-Residential Use

Rate

$1,731 per Dwelling Unit $1,515 per Dwelling Unit $1,082 per Dwelling Unit $0.811 multiplied by the number of square feet of Floor Area.

SDD-238


SCHEDULE C

LULU ISLAND WEST SEWERAGE AREA – DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES

Description


Rate

$1,077 per Dwelling Unit $942 per Dwelling Unit $673 per Dwelling Unit $0.505 multiplied by the number of square feet of Floor Area.

SDD-239


SCHEDULE D

NORTH SHORE SEWERAGE AREA – DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES

Description


Rate

$1,291 per Dwelling Unit $1,129 per Dwelling Unit $807 per Dwelling Unit $0.605 multiplied by the number of square feet of Floor Area.

SDD-240


SCHEDULE E

VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AREA – DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE RATES

Description 1. Single Family Residential Use 2. Townhouse Residential Use 3. Apartment Residential Use 4. Non-Residential Use 004989949

Rate

$944 per Dwelling Unit $826 per Dwelling Unit $590 per Dwelling Unit $0.443 multiplied by the number of square feet of Floor Area.

SDD-241

Examples of Target Rent Ranges and Income Thresholds For the For Profit Affordable Rental Housing

Rent Levels At 80% of Market Rates (CMHC 2008) Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 BedroomMetro Vancouver 604$ 748$ 923$ 1,014$ North Shore Sewerage Area Nort Vancouver City 609$ 695$ 866$ 1,105$ North Vancouver District 638$ 753$ 908$ 1,067$ West Vancouver District 714$ 923$ 1,403$ 2,186$ Fraser Sewerage Area Burnaby 529$ 654$ 825$ 925$ New Westminster 498$ 592$ 746$ 942$ Delta 493$ 578$ 740$ 861$ Surrey 462$ 567$ 702$ 770$ White Rock 528$ 625$ 794$ 1,022$ Langley City and Langley Township 492$ 592$ 698$ 794$ Tri-Cities 510$ 597$ 746$ 917$ Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 420$ 522$ 669$ 790$ Vancouver Sewerage AreaCity of Vancouver/UBC/UEL 623$ 749$ 1,054$ 1,399$ Lulu Island Sewerage Area City of Richmond 594$ 714$ 850$ 969$

Income Thresholds -Eligible Households Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 BedroomMetro Vancouver 24,160$ 29,920$ 36,928$ 40,576$ North Shore Sewerage Area Nort Vancouver City 24,352$ 27,808$ 34,656$ 44,192$ North Vancouver District 25,536$ 30,112$ 36,320$ 42,688$ West Vancouver District 28,544$ 36,928$ 56,128$ 87,456$ Fraser Sewerage Area Burnaby 21,152$ 26,144$ 32,992$ 36,992$ New Westminster 19,936$ 23,680$ 29,824$ 37,696$ Delta 19,712$ 23,136$ 29,600$ 34,432$ Surrey 18,464$ 22,688$ 28,096$ 30,784$ White Rock 21,120$ 24,992$ 31,744$ 40,864$ Langley City and Langley Township 19,680$ 23,680$ 27,936$ 31,776$ Tri-Cities 20,416$ 23,872$ 29,856$ 36,672$ Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 16,800$ 20,864$ 26,752$ 31,616$ Vancouver Sewerage AreaCity of Vancouver/UBC/UEL 24,928$ 29,952$ 42,176$ 55,968$ Lulu Island Sewerage Area City of Richmond 23,776$ 28,576$ 34,016$ 38,752$

Targeted Income Range (For Profit Affordable Rental Housing)Targeted Income Threshold

Targeted Rent Range (For Profit Affordable Rental Housing)Targeted Rent Range (80% of market)

004990009

ATTACHMENT 2

SDD-242

gvsdd board agenda package - november 27, 2009€¦ · director joe trasolini, port moody director...

Documents