METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT WATER COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
June 10, 2021 9:00 am 28th Floor Boardroom, 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia
A G E N D A1
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 June 10, 2021 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Water Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 10, 2021 as circulated.
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 May 13, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Water Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held May 13, 2021 as circulated.
3. DELEGATIONS
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 21, 2021 titled “2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update”.
5.2 Drinking Water Customer Information Guide That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated May 17, 2021 titled “Drinking Water Customer Information Guide”.
5.3 Update on Adult Coho Release Program in Coquitlam That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated May 27, 2021 titled “Update on Adult Coho Release Program in Coquitlam Lake”.
1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.
June 2, 2021
Water Committee Water Committee Regular Agenda June 10, 2021 Agenda Page 2 of 2 5.4 Manager’s Report That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 21, 2021 titled “Manager’s Report”.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS
9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Note: The Committee 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.
That the Water Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for June 10, 2021 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) and (i). “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district,” and (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor‐client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.”
10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Water Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of June 10, 2021.
Membership: Brodie, Malcolm (C) ‐ Richmond Bligh, Rebecca ‐ Vancouver Keithley, Joe ‐ Burnaby Elford, Doug (VC) ‐ Surrey Clark, Carolina ‐ Belcarra Martin, Gayle ‐ Langley City Asmundson, Brent ‐ Coquitlam Dingwall, Bill ‐ Pitt Meadows Svendsen, Ryan ‐ Maple Ridge Baird, Ken ‐ Tsawwassen First Nation Guichon, Alicia ‐ Delta Vagramov, Rob ‐ Port Moody Bell, Don ‐ North Vancouver City
Water Committee METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT WATER COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) Water Committee held at 9:01 a.m. on Thursday, May 13, 2021 in the 28th Floor Boardroom, 4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Malcolm Brodie*, Richmond Vice Chair, Councillor Doug Elford*, Surrey Councillor Brent Asmundson*, Coquitlam Chief Ken Baird*, Tsawwassen Councillor Don Bell*, North Vancouver City Councillor Rebecca Bligh*, Vancouver (arrived at 9:02 a.m.) Councillor Carolina Clark*, Belcarra Mayor Bill Dingwall*, Pitt Meadows Councillor Alicia Guichon*, Delta Councillor Joe Keithley*, Burnaby Councillor Gayle Martin*, Langley City Councillor Ryan Svendsen*, Maple Ridge Mayor Rob Vagramov*, Port Moody
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Towill, General Manager, Water Services Lauren Cichon, Legislative Services Coordinator, Board and Information Services
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 May 13, 2021 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2021 by adding an update on the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Paper under Item 5.6 Manager’s Report; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED
*denotes electronic meeting participation as authorized by Section 3.6.2 of the Procedure Bylaw
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Water Committee held on Thursday, May 13, 2021 Page 1 of 5
Water Committee 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 April 15, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes
9:02 a.m. Councillor Bligh arrived to the meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 15, 2021 as circulated. CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable’s 2020 Annual Report for Greater Vancouver Water District Report dated May 3, 2021, from Jesse Montgomery, Division Manager, Environmental Management, Water Services, providing the GVWD Board with the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable’s 2020 Annual Report in accordance with the Contribution Agreement between GVWD and the CRWR.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated May 3, 2021, titled “Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable’s 2020 Annual Report for Greater Vancouver Water District”. CARRIED
5.2 GVWD Watershed Wildfire Preparedness Update Report dated April 12, 2021, from Kevin Brown, Superintendent, Watershed Protection and Mike Mayers, Division Manager, Watershed and Environmental Management, Water Services, providing the Water Committee with an annual update on watershed wildfire preparedness in advance of the 2021 fire season.
Members were provided a video presentation on Metro Vancouver’s Watershed Protection Team and their work, which is not retained with the agenda.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated April 12, 2021 titled “GVWD Watershed Wildfire Preparedness Update”. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Water Committee held on Thursday, May 13, 2021 Page 2 of 5
Water Committee 5.3 Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 20-154: Pebble Hill Reservoir Unit No. 1 & 2 Seismic Upgrades Report dated April 23, 2021, from Roy Moulder, Director, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, and Goran Oljaca, Director, Engineering and Construction, Water Services, advising the GVWD Board of the results of Tender No. 20-154: Pebble Hill Reservoir Unit No. 1 & 2 Seismic Upgrades and recommending award of the contract in the amount of $7,062,500.00 (exclusive of taxes) to Bennett Mechanical Installations (2001) Ltd.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board: a) approve award of a contract in the amount of $7,062,500.00 (exclusive of taxes) to Bennett Mechanical Installations (2001) Ltd. resulting from Tender No. 20- 154: Pebble Hill Reservoir Unit No. 1 & 2 Seismic Upgrades, subject to final review by the Commissioner; and b) authorize the Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation once the Commissioner is satisfied that the award should proceed. CARRIED
5.4 Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2021 Report dated May 6, 2021, from Paul Kohl, Director, Operations and Maintenance, and Lucas Pitts, Acting Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services, providing the Water Committee and GVWD Board with the annual update on the current water supply and water consumption situation in advance of the approaching summer peak demand period.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 6, 2021, titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2021”. CARRIED
5.5 Update on the Cleveland Dam Safety Enhancements Program Report dated May 3, 2021, from Daniel Roberge, Director, Water Services, reporting on the status of Metro Vancouver’s initiatives to enhance public safety along the Capilano River downstream of the Cleveland Dam.
Members were provided a presentation regarding updates to the Cleveland Dam Safety Enhancements Program highlighting the spillway gate readiness, enhancements to the public warning system including the public warning system schedule, alarm notification protocol, and engagement and communications.
Presentation material titled “Cleveland Dam Safety Enhancements Program” is retained with the May 13, 2021 Water Committee agenda.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Water Committee held on Thursday, May 13, 2021 Page 3 of 5
Water Committee It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 3, 2021, titled “Update on the Cleveland Dam Safety Enhancements Program”. CARRIED
5.6 Manager’s Report Report dated May 3, 2021, from Marilyn Towill, General Manager, Water Services, updating the Committee on the Earthquake Early Warning – Strategic Response System, Annual Smolt Outmigration Request from Seymour Salmonid Society, Grouse Mountain Resort Improvements, and the Water Committee 2021 Work Plan.
In response to a question on the Coquitlam Lake Water Supply project, staff updated members that quite a bit of work has been done on this project over the past five years, and staff will be coming back with updates for the Committee and Board’s input and direction.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 3, 2021 titled “Manager’s Report”. CARRIED
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 Project Delivery Department – Governance Transition Report dated May 7, 2021, from Marilyn Towill, General Manager, Water Services, updating the Water Committee on an overview of two projects being delivered by the Project Delivery Department as part of the governance transition of oversight for the highest value, risk, consequence projects to the Finance and Intergovernment Committee. This report was considered by the Finance and Intergovernment Committee on May 12, 2021, and is presented to the Water Committee for information only.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 7, 2021 titled “Project Delivery Department – Governance Transition”. CARRIED
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Water Committee held on Thursday, May 13, 2021 Page 4 of 5
Water Committee 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for May 13, 2021 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) and (i) as follows: “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district,” and (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.” CARRIED
10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Water Committee adjourn its regular meeting of April 15, 2021. CARRIED (Time: 9:46 a.m.)
______Lauren Cichon, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Legislative Services Coordinator
45507755 FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the MVRD Water Committee held on Thursday, May 13, 2021 Page 5 of 5
Water Committee 5.1
To: Water Committee
From: Paul Kohl, Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services
Date: May 21, 2021 Meeting Date: June 10, 2021
Subject: 2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update
RECOMMENDATION That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 21, 2021, titled “2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update”.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GVWD owns and operates five drinking water supply dams that are regulated by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Dam Safety Branch. The GVWD Dam Safety Program is compliant with the requirements outlined in the provincial Dam Safety Regulation (BC Reg. 40/2016) as required for all dam owners in British Columbia. There were no significant concerns identified from the 2020 routine surveillance, monitoring, or formal dam inspections. Scheduled formal dam audits were carried out by provincial Dam Safety Officers at Cleveland Dam and Seymour Falls Dam in late October 2020. Pursuant to Section 14(2)(a) of the Dam Safety Regulation, GVWD issued an October 1, 2020 Incident Report on October 30, 2020 and an Additional Information Report on January 29, 2021 to the Dam Safety Branch. No further actions or requests for information have been received from the Dam Safety Branch.
PURPOSE To provide the Water Committee with an annual update on dam safety activities associated with the Cleveland, Seymour Falls, Palisade, Burwell, and Loch Lomond dams.
BACKGROUND The GVWD dam safety team monitors and reviews the performance of the five GVWD water supply dams to ensure they remain safe and continue to provide reliable sources of drinking water. A dam surveillance consultant is retained to carry out third party review and reporting on dam monitoring and inspection activities. The dam safety team supports the goals and initiatives of the Board Strategic Plan and Drinking Water Management Plan through contribution to the provision of clean, safe drinking water, and ensuring the long‐term financial and functional resilience of the dams.
WATER SUPPLY DAMS Cleveland Dam and Seymour Falls Dam Cleveland Dam (CLD) is a 92 m high concrete gravity dam that impounds Capilano Reservoir, while Seymour Falls Dam (SFD) is a 30 m high composite concrete and earth fill dam that impounds Seymour Reservoir. Both dams include outlets to release water downstream to their respective rivers, as well as water supply intakes to convey water for treatment at the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant. The reservoir areas upstream of the dams are kept clear of debris with a series of booms, which float on the reservoir surface and prevent the passage of debris towards the dams.
43525759
Water Committee 2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update Water Committee Regular Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Page 2 of 4
Alpine Lake Dams The alpine lake dams range in height from 5.8 m to 8.2 m. Palisade and Burwell Dams are rock fill dams with concrete slabs on the upstream faces, while Loch Lomond Dam is a concrete dam. All three alpine lake dams include spillways and outlets that allow for the release of water to their respective downstream reservoirs. Palisade Lake discharges to the Capilano Reservoir, while Burwell and Loch Lomond Lakes discharge to the Seymour Reservoir. The alpine lakes are primarily used to augment the summertime storage capacity of the two water supply reservoirs.
DAM SAFETY COMPLIANCE Cleveland Dam and Seymour Falls Dam fall under the Extreme Consequence classification of the provincial Dam Safety Regulation, while the three alpine lake dams fall under the Significant Consequence classification. The following work was completed in 2020 to ensure continued compliance with the Dam Safety Regulation:
Weekly site surveillance, at a minimum, was carried out at CLD and SFD, as required at Extreme Consequence dams.
Monthly site surveillance is typically required at Significant Consequence dams, unless otherwise specified in the Operation, Maintenance, and Surveillance (OMS) Manual. The alpine lake dams were inspected routinely by Metro Vancouver staff, in accordance with the OMS Manual, between June and September only, due to their remote locations and winter helicopter access restrictions.
Semi‐annual formal inspections were carried out at CLD and SFD, as required for Extreme Consequence dams. Annual formal inspections were carried out at the alpine lake dams, as required for Significant Consequence dams.
Annual test operation of mechanical, electrical, and communication components were carried out at all five dams, as required for Extreme and Significant Consequence dams.
Annual collection, analysis, and interpretation of readings from instrumentation is required for Extreme and Significant Consequence dams. CLD and SFD instrumentation readings were collected at various intervals, ranging from daily to annual. The data from instrumentation at the alpine lake dams is reviewed at least annually.
Annual review of contact information in the Emergency Response Plan (ERP), and if necessary, revision and submission to the Provincial Dam Safety Officer is required for Extreme and Significant Consequence dams. The internal and external contact information for all five dams was reviewed in the winter of 2020, and re‐submitted to the Dam Safety Officer as part of ERP revisions in the spring of 2021.
Water Committee 2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update Water Committee Regular Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Page 3 of 4
The OMS Manual and ERP for Extreme Consequence dams must be reviewed at minimum every seven years and revised and reported to the Dam Safety Officer, if necessary. The CLD and SFD documents were reviewed in the fall of 2020, with ongoing revisions in the spring of 2021.
The OMS Manual and Ancillary Response Plan (ARP) for Significant Consequence dams must be reviewed at minimum every ten years and revised and reported to the Dam Safety Officer, if necessary. The alpine lake dams documents were last reviewed and reported in July 2016.
A formal dam safety review must be carried out, with the report submitted to the Dam Safety Officer every seven years for Extreme Consequence dams. The last dam safety reviews for SFD and CLD were completed in 2014 and 2016; respectively, and the next reviews will be conducted in 2021 and 2023. No unsafe or unacceptable conditions in relation to the design, construction, or operation were identified for either dam.
A formal dam safety review is not required for Significant Consequence dams. To be proactive, a dam safety review was carried out for the alpine lake dams in 2012, with results indicating the dams are being operated and maintained in a satisfactory manner. Another dam safety review will be conducted following completion of ongoing assessments and related follow‐up activities.
Formal dam audits are carried out every five years by the provincial Dam Safety Officers at CLD and SFD. Scheduled dam audits were conducted in late October 2020. The audits noted the safety incident that occurred at CLD on October 1, 2020 and that GVWD was investigating. No other significant concerns or comments were provided.
Following the October 1, 2020 safety incident at Cleveland Dam, GVWD issued an Incident Report to the Dam Safety Branch on October 30, 2020, pursuant to Section 14(2)(a) of the Dam Safety Regulation. An Additional Information Report was issued to the Dam Safety Branch on January 29, 2021, following requests for further information received on December 7, 2020 and January 20, 2021. No further actions or requests for information have been received from the Dam Safety Branch.
DAM ASSET CONDITION The five drinking water supply dams are maintained and upgraded to ensure they continue to remain in good operating condition, and extend their service life. Issues are identified through surveillance, inspections, assessments and independent expert reviews. Improvement projects are prioritized and incorporated into GVWD’s operating and capital financial planning process.
ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications arising from this report. The cost of routine surveillance, monitoring and inspection activities form part of the Water Services O&M operating budget.
Water Committee 2020 GVWD Dam Safety Program Annual Update Water Committee Regular Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION The GVWD Dam Safety Program is compliant with the requirements of the provincial Dam Safety Regulation. No significant concerns were identified by the GVWD dam safety team or dam surveillance consultant from the 2020 routine surveillance, monitoring, and formal dam inspections. Scheduled formal dam audits were conducted by Dam Safety Officers at CLD and SFD in late October 2020. GVWD issued an October 1, 2020 Incident Report and an Additional Information Report to the Dam Safety Branch on October 30, 2020 and January 29, 2021, pursuant to Section 14(2)(a) of the Dam Safety Regulation. No further actions or requests for information have been received from the Dam Safety Branch.
Attachment Photos of the GVWD Water Supply Dams
43525759
Water Committee ATTACHMENT
GVWD Water Supply Dams: Cleveland Dam
Seymour Falls Dam
Water Committee Palisade Dam
Burwell Dam
Loch Lomond Dam
Water Committee 5.2
To: Water Committee
From: Inder Singh, Director, Interagency Projects and Quality Control, Water Services
Date: May 17, 2021 Meeting Date: June 10, 2021
Subject: Drinking Water Customer Information Guide
RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated May 17, 2021 titled, “Drinking Water Customer Information Guide”.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metro Vancouver and its member jurisdictions, in collaboration with the regional health authorities, are responsible for the provision of clean, safe drinking water to the region. To aid frontline staff in answering questions from the public, Metro Vancouver has developed an updated Drinking Water Customer Information Guide (The Guide). The Guide provides information on various topics such as the overall water system, treatment processes, water quality and associated regulations and guidelines, common issues and solutions, and frequently asked questions.
Given the type and category of inquiry, the Guide clarifies where the inquiry should be directed if further information is required and includes contact lists for each member jurisdiction and health authority.
PURPOSE To provide the GVWD Board information on the development of an updated Drinking Water Customer Service Guide to assist frontline staff in responding to public inquiries about drinking water.
BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver and its member jurisdictions provide clean, safe drinking water to over 2.7 million residents and businesses in the region through a complex regional treatment and transmission system and local distribution systems. The water is delivered in an affordable and cost effective manner in compliance with provincial and federal standards.
In the provision of drinking water to the region, Metro Vancouver, member jurisdictions and health authorities each manage response to public inquires pertaining to health considerations, aesthetic concerns and a general desire for a better understanding of the water system. The Guide assists in the dissemination of consistent messaging and provides instructions on response procedures where additional information might be required through subject matter experts.
45388080
Water Committee Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee: June 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2
DEVELOPMENT A draft version of this Guide was shared with the REAC Water Subcommittee and REAC for review and comment and the applicable edits and suggested improvements were incorporated into the final document.
ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. The cost of production and dissemination of the Guide and any required updates form part of current and future budgets.
CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver continues to fulfill its role in providing clean, safe drinking water to the region with multiple drinking water protection barriers in‐place, including watershed protection, water treatment and diligent operation of the transmission system. Member jurisdictions work to ensure the water quality is maintained to the end‐users. The regional water supply consistently meets or exceeds water quality standards and guidelines.
The Drinking Water Customer Information Guide provides Metro Vancouver, member jurisdictions and health authority front line staff with the information required to address various water quality inquiries from the public. The consistent messaging from all levels will help to reinforce public confidence in the drinking water throughout the region.
Attachment “Drinking Water Customer Information Guide”, dated May 2021 (38866035)
45388080
Water Committee WATER ATTACHMENT
Drinking Water Customer Information Guide May 2021 Orbit #38866035
Water Committee COVER: CAPILANO RESERVOIR
4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, V5H 0C6 www.metrovancouver.org
May 2021
Water Committee 1.1. Contents
1.0 How to Use This Guide...... 4 2.0 Working Together to Provide Clean, Safe Drinking Water...... 9 3.0 Water Sources and Supply...... 11
4.0 Water Treatment and Processes...... 13 5.0. Water Quality and Safety...... 15 6.0 Water Turbidity, Appearance, Taste, and Odour...... 19 7.0 Water Related Staining...... 21 8.0 Giardia and Cryptosporidium...... 21 9.0 Water Quality Issues and Solutions at a Glance ...... 22 10.0 Additional Resources...... 23
Table 1 Examples of Inquiries...... 5 Table 2 Metro Vancouver and Member Jurisdictions Contact Information...... 6 Table 3 Health Authorities Contact Information...... 8 Table 4 Greater Vancouver Water District Members...... 9 Table 5 Areas not serviced by the Greater Vancouver Water District...... 9 Table 6 2020 Water Quality Data of Untreated and Treated Water From the Three Sources...... 17 Table 7 Water Quality Issues...... 22
Navigate back to the Table of Contents by clicking this button.
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 3 Water Committee 1.0 How to Use This Guide
Metro Vancouver, member jurisdictions, and public health staff receive numerous inquiries about drinking water quality, drinking water processes, and treatment facilities. Metro Vancouver has created this Drinking Water Customer Information Guide to help front line staff respond to public inquiries about drinking water.
The guide includes information on where our water comes from, water quality issues and inquiries, and answers to frequently asked questions. It also includes contact information of appropriate positions who can provide answers.
1.1. Assess the Inquiry
If you are not able to answer a question, the first step is to determine whether the inquiry is related to:
• a health-related concern;
• an issue affecting the local water distribution system;
• Metro Vancouver’s water supply; or
• an inquiry from the media.
4 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee TABLE 1 EXAMPLES OF INQUIRIES:
Chlorine Health-related Health-related Perceived water- sensitivity and/or effects of concern related illness allergies chemicals
Local Localized Loss of water Taste and odour distribution Leaking mains system turbidity pressure concerns
Filtration, UV Metro Vancouver Secondary Chlorine levels disinfection, Watersheds water supply disinfection ozone disinfection
Inquiry from media Any topic that would be of interest to the news and media
1.2 Respond to the Inquiry
If the inquiry is a health-related concern: • Inquiries related to health issues should be directed to contact their physician
• If the concern is not physician related, refer them to the Health Authority of their area: Vancouver Coastal Health or Fraser Health
• For Health Authority contact information see Section 1.3, Table 3
If the inquiry is related to the local distribution system: • Contact the designated technical contacts in the jurisdiction in question
• For contact information see Section 1.3, Table 2
If the inquiry is related to the Metro Vancouver water supply: • Refer the inquiry to the Municipal Water Quality Coordinator or designated technical contact
• For contact information see Section 1.3, Table 2
If the inquiry is from the media: • Media inquiries regarding water quality issues that are not specific to local water supply should be directed to Metro Vancouver’s Division Manager of Media Relations (Don Bradley: 604-451-6107 or [email protected])
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 5 Water Committee 1.3. Water Quality Contact Information for Metro Vancouver, Member Jurisdictions, and Health Authorities
TABLE 2 METRO VANCOUVER AND MEMBER JURISDICTION CONTACT INFORMATION:
Contact Phone Email After hours
Metro Vancouver Information Centre 604-432-6200 [email protected] 604-451-6610 Information Centre
Village of Anmore Reception 604-469-9877 [email protected] 604-817-7745
Village of Belcarra Reception 604-937-4100 [email protected] 604-917-0113
Engineering Reception 604-294-7460 City of Burnaby [email protected] 604-294-7200 Public Works 604-294-7221
City of Coquitlam Reception 604-927-3500 [email protected] 604-927-3500
604-946-4141 then City of Delta Engineering Reception 604-946-3260 [email protected] press 1
City of Langley Engineering Reception 604-514-2997 [email protected] 604-534-3496*
Operations Centre 604-532-7300 Reception Township of Langley [email protected] 604-543-6700 Civic Engineering 604-533-6006 Reception Public Works operationscentre@ 604-463-9581 Operations Centre mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge 604-463-9581 Engineering Reception 604-467-7339 [email protected]
City of New Engineering 604-526-4691 [email protected] 604-526-4691 Westminster Operations
City of North Engineering Reception 604-983-7333 [email protected] 604-988-2212 Vancouver Operations Division 604-987-7155
District of North Water and Sewer 604-990-2311 [email protected] 604-990-3666 Vancouver Reception
Public Works City of Pitt Meadows 604-465-5454 [email protected] 604-465-2465 Operations
* For City of Langley emergencies outside of normal business hours, such as a water main break, flood, or critical service disruption, standby operations personnel can be notified through Surrey Fire Dispatch at 604-534-3496.
6 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee TABLE 2 CONTINUED
Contact Phone Email After hours
Engineering and City of Port Coquitlam 604-927-5420 [email protected] 604-543-6700 Public Works
City of Port Moody Operations Division 604-469-4574 [email protected] 604-469-4574
Dispatcher 604-270-8721 See website for inquiry Public Works Service City of Richmond 604-244-1262 submission: www.richmond.ca/ 604-270-8721 Centre contact/feedback.htm Water Manager 604-233-3334
See website for inquiry submission: www.surrey.ca/ City of Surrey Reception 604-591-4152 604-591-4431 city-services/667.aspx or [email protected]
See website for inquiry Tsawwassen First Reception 604-943-2112 submission: n/a Nation www.tsawwassenfirstnation.com
University Endowment Reception 604-660-1808 [email protected] 604-437-1078 Lands
UBC Utilities General Line 604-822-9445 [email protected] 604-822-2173
Reception 604-873-7000 Use the VanConnect app: City of Vancouver https://vancouver.ca/ 3-1-1 Inquiry within 3-1-1 vanconnect-desktop.aspx Vancouver
District of West Reception 604-925-7100 [email protected] 604-925-7100 Vancouver
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 7 Water Committee TABLE 3 HEALTH AUTHORITIES CONTACT INFORMATION:
Health Authority Areas covered Contact
City of Vancouver 604-675-3800
City of Richmond 604-233-3147
City of North Vancouver 604-983-6793
Vancouver Coastal Health District of North Vancouver 604-983-6793
District of West Vancouver 604-983-6793
University of British Columbia 604-675-3800
University Endowment Lands 604-678-3800
City of Burnaby
Village of Belcarra
Village of Anmore
City of Langley
City of Coquitlam
Drinking water complaint: City of Delta Environmental Health Services 207-2276 Bourquin Cr W City of New Westminster Abbotsford, BC, V2S 6A4 Fraser Health City of Port Coquitlam Drinking water complaint phone: 604-870-7900 or City of Pitt Meadows toll free: 1-866-749-7900
City of Port Moody
City of Surrey
Township of Langley
Tsawwassen First Nation
City of Maple Ridge
8 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 2.0 Working Together to Provide Clean, Safe Drinking Water
Metro Vancouver and its members work together to provide clean, safe drinking water to the region. The Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) membership consists of 18 municipalities, one Electoral Area, and one Treaty First Nation. Metro Vancouver, working together with the members of the GVWD, plans for and delivers regional- scale drinking water services to approximately 2.7 million people.
TABLE 4 GVWD MEMBERS
Village of Anmore Electoral Area A City of North Vancouver City of Richmond
Village of Belcarra City of Langley District of North Vancouver City of Surrey
City of Burnaby Township of Langley City of Pitt Meadows Tsawwassen First Nation
City of Coquitlam City of Maple Ridge City of Port Coquitlam City of Vancouver
City of Delta City of New Westminster City of Port Moody District of West Vancouver
Within Metro Vancouver there are member jurisdictions where there are sections within their area that are not serviced with GVWD water.
TABLE 5 AREAS NOT SERVICED BY GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT
Bowen Island Municipality Sections of City of Maple Ridge (use of wells)
Sections of District of West Vancouver - Sections of Township of Langley (use of wells) Montizambert Creek, Eagle Lake
Village of Lions Bay Sections of City of Delta (use of wells)
City of White Rock
What is Metro Vancouver’s role?
Metro Vancouver is responsible for:
• managing and protecting the supply watersheds
• treating the water at the source and throughout the Metro Vancouver network
• transmission of drinking water to local water distribution networks
• monitoring, testing, and reporting on Metro Vancouver water quality
• planning for Metro Vancouver water system’s sustainability
Once the water leaves Metro Vancouver’s water mains and enters into the local distribution mains, the water is the responsibility of the member jurisdiction.
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 9 Water Committee What is the role of Greater Vancouver Water District member jurisdictions?
Member jurisdictions are responsible for:
• distributing water within their boundaries;
• monitoring and reporting on local system water quality;
• recovering costs from residential and business customers (billing);
• bylaw enforcement of the Drinking Water Conservation Plan (lawn watering regulations); and
• planning for and maintaining their water distribution systems.
British Columbia’s health authorities have a key role in providing provincial government oversight of drinking water systems. The Metro Vancouver drinking water system falls within the purview of the two Health Authorities that cover the Lower Mainland: Vancouver Coastal Health, and Fraser Health.
How does water get to your home?
Metro Vancouver and its member jurisdictions work together to supply clean, safe drinking water to the region.
Metro Vancouver Water Reservoir 6 Metro 1 Vancouver Natural Reservoir Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Pump Station Metro Vancouver Water Main Dam or Intake Watershed 2 5 7 Local Pump 8 Station Metro Vancouver Raw Water Main 3 M V Metro Vancouver : Water Treatment 4 Local Facility 9 Water Main
Local Water O Distribution Water main connects to 10 Mains plumbing inside your home 11
METRO VANCOUVER WATER SOURCE
10 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee CAPILANO RESERVOIR
3.0 Water Sources and Supply
3.1 Where does our drinking water come from?
Our drinking water comes from rainfall and snowmelt source, where BC Hydro and Greater Vancouver Water in three mountain watersheds. Watersheds are areas District both retain Provincial Water Licences. The where streams and rivers drain to the same body of Coquitlam Dam is owned and operated by BC Hydro. water. The three watersheds – Capilano, Seymour and Metro Vancouver has an agreement with BC Hydro to Coquitlam – are closed to public access. Limited access purchase some of its water. helps protect the water supply from pollution or forest fires. The protected watersheds provide a pristine Metro Vancouver supplies approximately one billion source of drinking water for over 2.7 million residents in litres of drinking water each day (rising to over the Lower Mainland. These vast areas of forested land 1.5 billion in the summer) to member jurisdictions, also contribute to our clean air and provide habitat for through a network of five dams, two water treatment a wide range of wildlife. plants, 19 pump stations, 26 in-system storage reservoirs and tanks, eight disinfection facilities, and Rain and melting snow flow downhill through the over 520 km of transmission water mains ranging from watersheds’ creeks and streams into large collection 35 cm to 3 m in diameter. Thousands of additional local lakes called reservoirs. Metro Vancouver’s three distribution mains deliver water to the consumer’s tap. main reservoirs – also named Capilano, Seymour, and Coquitlam – store this water for drinking water supply. The Coquitlam Reservoir is the largest water
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 11 Water Committee Water is supplied by melting snow and 1 rainfall.
Seymour Watershed Rivers and streams run through Capilano Coquitlam 2 Watershed watersheds. Watershed ELECTORAL AREA A
LIONS BAY Water is gathered in 3 mountain reservoirs. LOWER SEYMOUR CONSERVATION NORTH Dams control the RESERVE VANCOUVER DISTRICT flow of water leaving Seymour Capilano 4 BOWEN ISLAND Filtration Plant WEST the reservoirs. VANCOUVER
BELCARRA Coquitlam Water ANMORE Treatment Plant Metro Vancouver NORTH treats your drinking VANCOUVER CITY COQUITLAM 5 PORT MOODY water to meet all ELECTORAL AREA A provincial and PORT COQUITLAM VANCOUVER federal standards. PITT MEADOWS MAPLE RIDGE Water is tested BURNABY NEW throughout the WESTMINSTER 6 system to ensure it’s clean and safe.
RICHMOND Pump stations 7 and supply mains SURREY distribute water to LANGLEY members. CITY LANGLEY DELTA TOWNSHIP R Local water mains P S deliver water TSAWWASSEN 8 FIRST NATION to homes and WHITE ROCK
businesses. 0 5 10 M
METRO VANCOUVER WATER SYSTEM MAP
3.2 How much water is used per person, a 0 per day, in Metro a 0 Vancouver? Toilets 24 Metro Vancouver residents use about 270 litres per Showers person per day. When you factor in commercial uses 2 Faucets (to run our industries, businesses, institutions, schools, 1 1 Washers and public facilities, for example) the average use is 17 about 420 litres per person per day. Leaks 12 These quantities reflect water use inside our homes, however of the total water used in the region, approximately 60% is for outdoor use. Our water use can increase by over 50% in summer, largely due to Other 4 Baths lawn watering and other outdoor uses. 3 Dishwashers 1 Residential End Use of Water, Residential End Use of Water, Adapted from Foundation. 2016 Research 2. Water Version
FromRESIDENTIAL Residential End Use INDOOR of Water, ANDVersion OUTDOOR 2. Water Research WATER Foundation. USAGE 2016
12 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 4.0 Water Treatment and Processes
This section addresses questions related to Metro Vancouver’s drinking water treatment. Please refer the customer to the Metro Vancouver website (search for “water treatment”) or to the Municipal Water Quality Coordinator.
How is Metro Vancouver’s water treated? Why is ozone not used for secondary disinfection? The water from the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs Ozone is a very efficient disinfectant for many types of is filtered and treated at the Seymour Capilano microorganisms, but it breaks down quickly. Chlorine Filtration Plant (SCFP). Treatment after filtration includes provides a lasting disinfectant residual needed in the ultraviolet (UV) light and chlorine for disinfection, and distribution system to control bacterial regrowth. then the pH is adjusted using a combination of lime (calcium hydroxide) and carbon dioxide before it enters Are there plans to filter the Coquitlam water source? the transmission system. Currently, there are discussions of new treatment facilities for the Coquitlam water source. Given the The water from the Coquitlam reservoir is treated at the excellent source water quality, filtration has not been Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant (CWTP). At CWTP, required; however, options analysis for future addition ozone is used as a pre-treatment to help break down is underway. the organics and reduce disinfection by-products. Primary treatment is UV disinfection followed by What is secondary disinfection? chlorination. The pH is adjusted using a combination of Secondary disinfection used by Metro Vancouver is soda ash (sodium carbonate) and carbon dioxide. the addition of sodium hypochlorite solution (typically Secondary disinfection stations are located throughout <1.4 ppm) at the eight secondary disinfection stations the distribution system to help maintain chlorine throughout the region. The purpose of secondary residual and use liquid sodium hypochlorite solution as disinfection is to ensure that a disinfectant residual is the disinfectant. maintained throughout the system in order to preserve water quality by helping to prevent bacterial regrowth. Are there any public health concerns with ozone? Why is chlorine used for secondary disinfection? Bromate is an ozone treatment by-product for which the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality has Chlorine is the most widely used disinfectant in a health limit of 0.01 mg/L. Metro Vancouver’s water North America because of its proven effectiveness and that has been treated with ozone has <0.01 mg/L of its ability to maintain a residual in the water. bromate; this is because bromide is <0.01 mg/L in the source water.
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 13 Water Committee Where are secondary disinfection stations located? Are local pH levels harmful to fish? Metro Vancouver has eight secondary disinfection Depending on the variety of fish, it could be, especially stations: if a rapid change is made. It is recommended that the customer contact a pet store and obtain an aquarium • Boundary & Eton (Vancouver) water testing kit. • Central Park (Burnaby) Does tap water affect fish in their natural habitat? • Chilco & Alberni (Vancouver) If tap water is released directly into a pond, creek, or • Cape Horn (Coquitlam) any other body of water without treatment to remove • Clayton (Surrey) chlorine, there is potential that fish will be killed. When
• Kersland (Vancouver) watering the garden, washing a vehicle or cleaning the driveway, try to use as little tap water as possible. • Newton (Surrey) Try not to allow water to flow from garden hoses • Pitt River (Pitt Meadows) or sprinklers into storm sewers flowing to creeks or waterbodies. Are there any health risks associated with chlorine?
Chlorine is safe for water treatment. There may be Is fluoride added to the drinking water? some small risks associated with disinfection by- Fluoride is not added to the drinking water. The natural products when chlorine reacts with organic matter in level in the source waters is <0.05 mg/L. If the customer the water. The benefits of chlorination far outweigh is concerned about the dental aspect, fluoride drops known risks associated with its use in drinking and chewable tablets are available behind the counter water treatment. Chlorine’s effectiveness in killing at any pharmacy, in addition to the use of fluoridated microorganisms provides immediate benefits by toothpaste. protecting public health.
Will the chlorine levels in the tap water be harmful to fish? Yes. The necessary chemicals for chlorine removal and test kits are available at most businesses that supply fish and aquariums. Suppliers can provide information on chlorine removal.
14 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 5.0. Water Quality and Safety
Frequently asked questions regarding the general safety and quality of drinking water.
Are there regulations or standards for our Is Metro Vancouver’s water tested frequently? drinking water? Metro Vancouver’s water is tested daily for Yes, Metro Vancouver must comply with the microbiological, chemical, and physical characteristics. BC Drinking Water Protection Regulation and Act. Our A copy of the Drinking Water Quality Annual Report goal is to meet the requirements of the Guidelines for is available at metrovancouver.org by searching Canadian Drinking Water Quality. These regulations “water quality.” and guidelines have been established to protect human health and to address aesthetic considerations Can I have my tap water tested? such as taste, odour, and appearance. The results are If the concern is health related, the first step is to included in the Drinking Water Quality Annual Report. contact the local supplier and the health authority to discuss this possibility. The local supplier technical How does Metro Vancouver keep our water contact or health authority can request Metro clean and safe? Vancouver Quality Control laboratories conduct the Even though our water comes from rain and snowmelt, testing and provide the results to the local supplier or it still needs to be treated to make sure it’s clean and the health authority. If the customer would like testing safe for drinking. The Seymour Capilano Filtration done that Metro Vancouver does not do in accordance Plant treats water from both the Capilano and Seymour with the BC Drinking Water Regulation and Act or the reservoirs, while the Coquitlam Water Treatment Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, they Plant treats water from the Coquitlam Reservoir. All may use a private laboratory of their choosing at their our water is treated to the same high standards for own cost. drinking water, whether it is used for drinking, cooking and cleaning, watering lawns, or washing cars. Water is Use a private laboratory for the following examples: tested at the reservoirs, through the water mains, and • Testing water other than Metro Vancouver water again in each local distribution area to ensu re it’s clean (private wells, summer cabins, etc.) and safe all the way to your tap. • Testing for a parameter that is not in the How good is Metro Vancouver’s water? regulation or guideline Metro Vancouver uses a multi-barrier approach to ensuring high quality water. This includes protected watersheds, water treatment, and maintenance of water quality in the system. A monitoring program is in place across the entire system to ensure the water is safe and clean from the treatment facilities through to transmission to local distribution systems.
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 15 Water Committee How much fluoride is in the drinking water? Is there copper in the drinking water? The source water that comes from the Capilano, Metro Vancouver has a Corrosion Control Program in Seymour, and Coquitlam reservoirs is all below place to help reduce the release of copper from pipes detection limits for fluoride. There is a natural level in buildings caused by low pH in the region’s water. of less than 0.05 mg/ L. Metro Vancouver does not This reduction is achieved through an adjustment to pH add any fluoride. Please refer to the Drinking Water levels using naturally occurring minerals. Quality Annual Report to see the data. A copy of the Annual Report for Drinking Water is available at How much aluminum, chloride, copper, fluoride, iron, metrovancouver.org by searching “water quality.” lead, sodium is there in our drinking water? The answer depends on which source the customer How much chlorine is added to my water? receives water from: Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant At the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant the chlorine or the Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant. There are disinfection target leaving the plant is 0.80 - 1.0 mg/L. many factors to consider. The water system is operated At the Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant, the target is dynamically (direction of water flow through the mains, 1.2 - 1.5 mg/L. Due to operational changes, chlorine the proportion of flow coming from each plant). For levels may be adjusted. If required, the chlorine commonly asked parameters, please see the table is boosted at the secondary disinfection stations below. Provide customers with the “treated range” to help maintain chlorine levels in the local for the parameter in question. If the parameter is not distribution systems. included in this table, or the customer would like to see other parameters, please refer to the Drinking Water Is there lead in the drinking water? Quality Annual Report, Volume 1 Appendix 1 and 2. There is no detectible levels of lead in the source, If the customer would like more details, refer them to transmission system, and local distribution system the Drinking Water Quality Annual Report, available at water. However, in older homes and neighbourhoods, metrovancouver.org by searching “water quality.” there may be lead in the premise plumbing (in the faucet fixtures, soldering or the pipes themselves).
16 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee TABLE 6 2020 WATER QUALITY DATA OF UNTREATED AND TREATED WATER FROM THE THREE SOURCES:
2020 Untreated Treated Treated Canadian Canadian Parameter average average range guideline guideline concentration
Capilano Lake Source
Aluminum (total) µg/L 149 29 18-58 ≤100 Operational Chloride mg/L <0.5 2.5 2.0-3.2 ≤250 Aesthetic Copper (total) µg/L 4.0 <0.5 <0.5 ≤1000 Aesthetic Fluoride mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.5 Health Iron (total) µg/L 94 <5.0 <5.0-14 ≤300 Aesthetic Lead µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5 Health Sodium mg/L 0.6 1.6 1.3-1.8 ≤200 Aesthetic
Seymour Lake Source
Aluminum (total) µg/L 199 29 18-66 ≤100 Operational Chloride mg/L <0.5 2.5 2.0-3.2 ≤250 Aesthetic Copper (total) µg/L 19.9 <0.5 <0.5-0.7 ≤1000 Aesthetic Fluoride mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.5 Health Iron (total) µg/L 214 <6.0 <5.0-11 ≤300 Aesthetic Lead µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5 Health Sodium mg/L 0.6 1.6 1.3-1.8 ≤200 Aesthetic
Coquitlam Lake Source
Aluminum (total) µg/L 63 62 59-66 ≤100 Operational
Chloride mg/L <0.5 2.2 1.8-2.5 ≤250 Aesthetic
Copper (total) µg/L 4.2 <0.5 <0.5 ≤1000 Aesthetic
Fluoride mg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.5 Health
Iron (total) µg/L 52 52 35-97 ≤300 Aesthetic
Lead µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5 Health
Sodium mg/L 0.5 5.1 4.6-5.7 ≤200 Aesthetic
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 17 Water Committee What does “soft water” mean? Is bottled water safer than tap water? All three Metro Vancouver water sources are Metro Vancouver’s tap water is required to meet characterized as “soft” water, which means it is low even stricter regulations than bottled water. It comes in minerals, dissolved solids, saturated with dissolved from the rain and snow that falls on the mountains oxygen, and with a pH of less than 7. Our water is low and flows into the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam in minerals because its source is rain and snowmelt; reservoirs. Metro Vancouver’s tap water is safe it doesn’t spend a lot of time stored in rocks. Regions to consume; it is continuously monitored and is with hard water usually source their water from subjected to over 142,000 tests annually. It tastes rivers that have a lot of minerals, or have granite great, is inexpensive, and doesn’t contribute to plastic groundwater reservoirs. waste in landfills or oceans.
These natural properties make the water corrosive Does Metro Vancouver sell or give away water to toward metal piping systems. As of 2010, the pH bottled water companies? adjustment process for the Seymour Capilano No, Metro Vancouver’s customers are local Filtration Plant uses calcium hydroxide (lime) to governments and member jurisdictions within the increase the alkalinity to help keep the pH stable, Metro Vancouver region. We do not sell, give away, as well as carbon dioxide for pH adjustment. The or lease water to bottled water companies. Metro Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant uses sodium Vancouver encourages everyone in the region, carbonate (soda ash) to increase the alkalinity and wherever possible, to drink water from the tap. carbon dioxide for pH adjustment. These additives in no way impact the flavour, smell, or safety of our Should I boil my baby’s drinking water? drinking water. The Provincial Medical Health Officer recommends boiling water for baby’s formula. It is best to boil Does using a home water treatment device water for two minutes and let it cool before mixing guarantee that my water is safe? into a powdered or concentrated formula. For further Home water treatment devices may not be effective, information, please visit www.healthlinkbc.ca and unless specifically designed to address a particular search “boiled water.” water quality issue. These devices are not tested or regulated in Canada, and it is difficult to monitor Should immune-compromised individuals boil their their performance. If the customer wants to drinking water? install a water treatment device, have them ask a According to www.healthlinkbc.ca it is recommended professional to help choose a model that is designed that persons with weakened immune systems should to remedy the problems identified. Be aware that a consult with their doctor or nurse practitioner point-of-use device needs to be properly maintained whether extra precautions are required. https://www. or it could cause more water quality problems than healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/preventing-water- it is supposed to solve. Metro Vancouver and its borne-infection member jurisdictions cannot recommend or advise on any particular water treatment or filter device. The decision to use these products is a matter of personal preference.
The customer should seek the advice of a professional in choosing the appropriate device, and should ensure proper installation and maintenance.
18 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 6.0 Water Turbidity, Appearance, Taste, and Odour
Member jurisdictions’ Engineering and Public Works departments typically inform the affected area of construction, hydrant testing, and flushing and cleaning activities through advertisements in local newspapers or a notice delivered to homes.
Why is our tap water sometimes cloudy Are there public health concerns with source or discoloured? water turbidity? Cloudy water is caused by high sediment levels in the Source water turbidity can limit the effectiveness of water system either caused by source water turbidity disinfection. For this reason, Metro Vancouver takes or by significant changes in the flow of water in the steps to minimize the impacts of source water turbidity distribution system. through system operational changes, including disinfection levels. As water from the Seymour and Source water turbidity and colour could be caused by: Capilano sources is filtered, turbidity from the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant should not be an issue. Metro • Heavy rainfall resulting in erosion in the watershed, Vancouver will maximize the distribution of the filtered although at the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant water where possible during turbidity events from the with filtration, that is unlikely Coquitlam source. • High colour levels in the source water could be caused by natural iron and/or organics, although at The public will be advised by the Health Authorities the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant with filtration if a specific source water turbidity event affects the that is unlikely safety of the water. If there was prior notice that there could be noticeable turbidity and colour in the tap In-system turbidity and colour caused by: water, the customer may wish to collect some tap water • Local construction which disturbs water pipes, in advance. Also, if they wish boil the water before stirring up settled particles consuming.
• Flow reversals in the water systems
• High flows due to a fire or flusher truck-filling (street washer)
• High flows due to increased water demand during hot weather
• High flows due to water main flushing/cleaning or hydrant use/testing
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 19 Water Committee COQUITLAM WATERSHED
What is the cause of turbidity coming from the Are there testing standards for appearance watersheds? of my water? Due to the geology of Metro Vancouver watersheds, Yes. Metro Vancouver and member jurisdictions turbidity is a normal occurrence that sometimes follows test and monitor drinking water to meet standards periods of heavy rain and/or run-off from melting snow. set to protect human health as well as for aesthetic Periods of high turbidity have been documented back parameters such as colour and appearance to the 1920s when Metro Vancouver water system was (cloudiness). Metro Vancouver follows the Guidelines first established. for Canadian Drinking Water Quality for the parameters tested. Metro Vancouver’s tap water is continuously Why do the taste and odour of my tap water monitored for quality and over 142,000 tests are sometimes differ? conducted annually. Water naturally varies in taste and odour at different times of the year. Causes of change in taste or odour What should I do if I smell chlorine in my water? could be due to: Some people may notice chlorine tastes or odours more than others. The chlorine levels in our water are • new or old water mains; safe, but if the customer does not like the smell and • hot weather conditions; or taste, they can place a jug of tap water in the fridge or
• construction in the area stirring up settled turbidity in on the counter and allow it to sit for a couple of hours the pipes. before drinking it. For most people, this results in more appealing water, from a taste and odour perspective. For further information, please contact the Municipal Water Quality Coordinator.
20 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 7.0 Water Related Staining
The metals used in home plumbing systems may interact with water to produce staining. In the past, blue-green stains were common from the leaching of copper from copper water pipes due to our naturally soft, acidic water supplies. Corrosion control facilities at both the Seymour Capilano Filtration Plant and the Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant help manage this issue.
Note – This phenomenon is exacerbated in recirculation hot water systems such as those found in apartment buildings and condominium complexes.
Why do I have a brown stain on my sink and Why have my whites turned brown in the laundry? plumbing fixtures? This is most likely associated with either local or Brown stains are the most common in older homes with general turbidity events. If you notice discoloured or galvanized pipes (steel pipes that have been dipped in a cloudy water from your tap, do not do your laundry. protective zinc coating to prevent corrosion and rust) and Wait until your tap water runs clear before starting your may indicate corrosion and rust forming in the pipes. laundry again.
8.0 Giardia and Cryptosporidium
Information Centre staff at Metro Vancouver and the local suppliers are not expected to answer health-related questions pertaining to Giardia and Cryptosporidium beyond the general inquiries as follows. If the customer would like more information, advise them to contact their local Health Authority or their physician. The Health Authority contact number is listed under Section 1.3.
What are Giardia and Cryptosporidium? report is accessed on metrovancouver.org by searching Giardia and Cryptosporidium are microscopic parasites, “water quality.” which can cause gastrointestinal illness. They are parasites carried by animals and have been found in Is there any risk of infection from Giardia and surface water (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks and ponds). Cryptosporidium in the drinking water? Metro Vancouver’s disinfection program utilizes How often is Giardia and Cryptosporidium tested in ultraviolet disinfection at both the Seymour Capilano Metro Vancouver water? Filtration Plant and the Coquitlam Water Treatment Metro Vancouver currently tests for Giardia and Plant. UV disinfection inactivates the cyst and oocysts Cryptosporidium in source water on a monthly basis. of these parasites. Ozone also provides some Giardia inactivation at the Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant. Has Giardia and Cryptosporidium been detected in Metro Vancouver source water? Note - Giardia and Cryptosporidium are protozoan parasites that reside in the environment in the cyst Metro Vancouver’s monitoring program has found and oocyst stages, respectively. These thick shelled Giardia and Cryptosporidium to be occasionally forms protect the organism, until they transform to the present at low levels in its three sampling sites. trophozoite or feeding stage once ingested by the host For more information, see the ‘Drinking Water (Health Canada). Quality Annual Report, Volume 1, Appendix 4. The
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 21 Water Committee 9.0 Water Quality Issues and Solutions at a Glance
TABLE 7 WATER QUALITY ISSUES:
Water Quality Solution – Metro Vancouver and Cause Solution - Public Issue Member Jurisdictions
Source water turbidity Heavy rainfall Filtration at SCFP When advanced notice is given, – cloudy or coloured set aside water for drinking water Management of Water System Operation at and cooking CWTP to minimize turbidity throughout the distribution system
Distribution system Changes in local operating Notification prior to planned events When advanced notice is given, turbidity – cloudy or conditions (e.g. local system set aside water for drinking and coloured water hydrant flushing) cooking
Corrosion – staining of Leaching of metals in pipes pH adjustment and corrosion control Keep temperature of hot water plumbing fixtures facilities at the treatment plants as low as practical
Chlorine odour, Higher level of chlorine in Water filtration during the treatment process Keep a jug of tap water in metallic taste and drinking water from the reduced the amount of chlorine needed for the fridge other taste treatment plant or from disinfection secondary disinfection station
Metals natural seasonal Water filtration process to reduce levels If a filter is used in the home, changes maintain it according to manufacturer’s instructions
Lead in the water Pipes, pipe fittings, faucets Metro Vancouver pipes do not contain lead. If faucets and fixtures contain and fixtures that may contain Any remaining levels of lead are due to brass that may contain lead, lead connections or fixtures that need replacing. flush water for several minutes to clear stagnant water, or replace fixture.
Waterborne In surface waters from animals Closed Watershed Policy Adhere to Closed Parasites – Giardia/ Watershed Policy Cryptosporidium Ultraviolet disinfection at SCFP and CWTP
Filtration treatment at SCFP
Ozone treatment at CWTP
Distribution system – Disinfection depleted along Secondary disinfection with Chlorine None Bacterial regrowth the distribution system Local system water main flushing
Reservoir cleaning and exercising program
Disinfection By- Chemicals formed from the Water filtration during the treatment process None products reaction of chlorine in the reduces the amount of chlorine needed for disinfectant with organic disinfection at SCFP matter that is naturally occurring in the water source Ozone pre-treatment at CWTP to reduce the amount of organics in the water
22 Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide Water Committee 10.0 Additional Resources
Drinking Water Conservation Plan http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/WaterPublications/DrinkingWaterConservationPlan.pdf
Lawn Watering Regulations http://www.metrovancouver.org/lawns
Watersheds and Reservoirs http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/sources-supply/watersheds-reservoirs
Metro Vancouver | Drinking Water Customer Information Guide 23 Water Committee Water Committee 5.3
To: Water Committee
From: Heidi Walsh, Director, Watershed and Environmental Management, Water Services
Date: May 27, 2021 Meeting Date: June 10, 2021
Subject: Update on Adult Coho Release Program in Coquitlam Lake
RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report dated May 27, 2021 titled “Update on Adult Coho Release Program in Coquitlam Lake”.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following Board support in July 2020, GVWD partnered with Kwikwetlem First Nation (KFN), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), BC Hydro and the Port Coquitlam and District Hunting and Fishing Club (PCDHFC) to capture and transport 62 adult coho salmon from the Coquitlam River below the dam to Cedar Creek, a main tributary to Coquitlam Lake. In May of 2021 BC Hydro fisheries consultants completed monitoring work in the Cedar Creek area and confirmed the success of the adult release when they found emergent coho fry in the creek. These fry are the first coho naturally spawned in the upper watershed since the original Coquitlam River Dam was built over 115 years ago. This marks a significant milestone in salmon recovery for the Coquitlam River system and a significant cultural event for the Kwikwetlem First Nation. Metro Vancouver (MV) is proud to support this initiative.
PURPOSE In the July 2020 GVWD Board meeting, support was endorsed for a joint request from KFN and DFO to release adult coho salmon above the Coquitlam River Dam. This information report is being brought to the GVWD Board to provide an update on the success of the adult coho salmon releases conducted during the fall of 2020.
BACKGROUND In early 2020 Water Services staff received a formal request from DFO, supported by KFN, to release a small number of adult coho salmon into the watershed upstream of Coquitlam River Dam. Prior to this, in 2012, the GVWD Board authorized the release of 15,000 (+/‐ 5000) sockeye salmon adults into the upper watershed following a detailed water quality impact (limnology) study completed by an expert consultant panel. Due to the poor sockeye returns over the subsequent years, KFN was eager to expand the request to include coho salmon which have much better adult return rates in the Coquitlam River system. The GVWD Board supported the request at their July 2020 meeting, in time for the fall spawning season. This report provides an update on the release efforts last fall and the subsequent monitoring work done this spring to determine the success of the program.
Water Committee Update on Adult Coho Release Program in Coquitlam Lake Water Committee Regular Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2
ADULT COHO RELEASES KFN, PCDHFC, DFO, BC Hydro and MV, collaborated through the late summer and fall of 2020 to capture and release 62 coho adults into Cedar Creek, one of Coquitlam Lake’s main tributaries. This creek is immediately adjacent to Coquitlam Island on the eastern shoreline and is an area of great cultural significance to KFN. Capture and release efforts went well and KFN members were able to participate in the release events.
Juvenile Monitoring In late May, 2021 BC Hydro consultants found emergent coho fry in the pools of Cedar Creek, marking the first coho juveniles hatched into waters upstream of Coquitlam River Dam in approximately 115 years. These fry will live and grow in Coquitlam Lake and its tributaries until the spring of 2022 when they will out‐migrate as smolts down the Coquitlam and Fraser Rivers to the Salish Sea. Smolt outmigration will be facilitated through the BC Hydro dam spill release gates. It is hoped that some of these fry will return to the Coquitlam River as adults in the 2024 or 2025 spawning season completing the cycle.
Historic Significance While there are a variety of fresh water fish species native to Coquitlam Lake that spawn annually in its waters, these coho are the first natural Pacific salmon to spawn and incubate in waters upstream of Coquitlam River Dam in over 115 years.
This marks a significant event in salmon restoration on the Coquitlam River system and an important joint effort between, KFN, PCDHFC, DFO, BC Hydro, and MV. MV is proud to continue to offer support for this important initiative.
ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. All work by MV staff is completed on an in‐kind basis.
CONCLUSION The release of 62 coho salmon adults into Cedar Creek, a main tributary to Coquitlam Lake, in the fall of 2020 was a culturally and ecologically significant event. Coho fry found in the waters of Cedar Creek in May 2021 are an encouraging sign of early success in this aspect of salmonid restoration in the Coquitlam River Watershed. Ongoing collaboration with our partner agencies and the Kwikwetlem First Nation on fisheries restoration opportunities in the Coquitlam River Watershed will be a key aspect of our contribution to regional fisheries conservation and restoration.
Attachments 1. Photos of Adult Coho Releases – September 2020 2. Photo of Fry – May 2021
45890637
Water Committee ATTACHMENT 1
Release of adult coho salmon into Cedar Creek in fall 2020
Release of adult coho salmon into Cedar Creek in fall 2020
Water Committee ATTACHMENT 2
Coho Fry – May 2021
Water Committee 5.4
To: Water Committee
From: Marilyn Towill, General Manager, Water Services
Date: May 21, 2021 Meeting Date: June 10, 2021
Subject: Manager’s Report
RECOMMENDATION That the Water Committee receive for information the report dated May 21, 2021, titled “Manager’s Report”.
1. Grouse Mountain Regional Park – Tree Cutting Incident
MVRD Parks has a licence agreement with GVWD to operate Grouse Mountain Regional Park on an area of surplus water district land. In the fall of 2019, MVRD staff working at the Park observed several cut and limbed trees in close proximity to the main Grouse Grind Trail and subsequently observed two individuals with an electric chainsaw cutting trees in the same area. Staff intervened and identified the two individuals as known members of the local mountain climbing community. Further investigation determined that a total of 23 trees had been cut, 12 trees modified by limbing, and 14 mountain climbing bolts drilled into rocks. Significant ground disturbance was also observed. RCMP attended the scene and over the following months, a thorough investigation was launched by Metro Vancouver.
The investigation determined that the activity had damaged a unique habitat with high intrinsic vulnerability, high conservation value, and an ‘old‐growth’ ecosystem that is highly sensitive to disturbance. The oldest trees felled were determined by an arborist to be between 100 and 125 years old, located in a tree stand with other trees up to 250 years in age.
In March 2020, two individuals were charged with six counts under the MVRD ‐ Regional Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 1177, 2012 and on April 21, 2021, they plead guilty to one count each for the tree damage and travelling off‐trail. The first‐time offenders were fined $5,000 and $1,500, respectively, and prohibited under Court Order from entering Grouse Mountain Regional Park for 12 months.
This was a precedent setting case and it is expected that these prosecutions will act as a deterrent to the community at large to avoid future offences of this nature on parkland and greenspaces throughout the province.
2. First Narrows Isolation Chamber Improvements Since November 2020, Metro Vancouver’s Construction Division has been completing a series of upgrades to the First Narrows Crossing North Shaft Chamber and upstream isolating valves, which have been in service since the mid‐1930’s. The project includes replacing the existing valves with new
44976555
Water Committee Manager’s Report Water Committee Regular Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2 high performance metal and rubber seated butterfly valves and required four separate operational shutdowns of the First Narrows Crossing to facilitate the work.
Following the final phase of work in early March 2021, after replacing the 90‐year‐old gate valve on the Capilano Main No. 4, a leak was discovered within the north wall of the chamber. The water main was immediately taken out of service to investigate the source of the leak. The investigation identified a previously unknown coupling that was concealed within the wall of the chamber. The repair work was immediately undertaken to replace this coupling and repairs were completed by mid‐April.
During the investigation and follow up repair work, the First Narrows Tunnel and Capilano Main No. 5 remained safely in service as a result of the isolation upgrades completed during this project. The valve upgrade project replaced the original single valve isolations within the chamber with dual valves, providing improved reliability, safety and operational flexibility ‐ a design which meets current best practices for water distribution systems.
New Valves Installed in First Narrows North Shaft Chamber
3. Work Plan
Attachment Water Committee 2021 Work Plan
Water Committee ATTACHMENT
Water Committee 2021 Work Plan Priorities 1st Quarter Status Annual Energy Management Program Update Complete Capilano Hydropower Project Business Case Update Complete Corrosion Control Program – Copper Pipes Protection Complete Long Term Financial Plan Pending Residential Water Metering – Overview of Local Experience Pending Water Meter Replacement Program Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5 Million (as applicable) Complete Water Policies (as applicable) Complete 2nd Quarter Coquitlam Lake Water Supply Project Update Pending Drinking Water Customer Information Guide In Progress Drinking Water Management Plan Update Complete First Nation Engagement Updates Complete GVWD Water Quality Annual Report Complete Lawn Water Regulations Communication & Regional Water Conservation Campaign Complete Seymour Salmonid Society 2020 Annual Report Complete Status of GVWD Capital Expenditures Complete Water Services Wildfire Preparedness Update Complete Water Supply Update for Summer 2021 Complete Water Use‐by‐Sector Report Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5 Million (as applicable) Pending Water Policies (as applicable) Pending 3rd Quarter Annual Dam Safety Program Update In Progress Status of GVWD Capital Expenditures Pending Quality Management System for Drinking Water Update Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5 Million (as applicable) Pending Water Policies (as applicable) Pending 4th Quarter Annual Budget and 5‐year Financial Plan – Water Services Pending Environmental Management Framework Pending Regional Water Conservation Campaign and Water Regulations Communications 2021 Pending Regional Water Supply System Seismic Resiliency Study Pending Status of GVWD Capital Expenditures Pending Summer 2021 Water Supply Performance Pending Watershed Fisheries Initiatives Annual Update Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5 Million (as applicable) Pending Water Policies (as applicable) Pending
44976555
Water Committee 6.1
To: Water Committee
From: Cheryl Nelms, General Manager, Project Delivery
Date: May 28, 2021 Meeting Date: June 10, 2021
Subject: Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework
This report was received by the Metro Vancouver Regional District Board on May 28, 2021, and is being presented to the Water Committee for information only.
At its May 28, 2021 meeting, the Metro Vancouver Regional District Board received, for information, the attached report titled “Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework”, dated May 3, 2021.
This report is being provided to the Water Committee for information as it provides an update on implementation of best practices for capital projects at Metro Vancouver as requested by the Board. It is focused on improvement areas related to project oversight and governance following an interjurisdictional review of practices by organizations delivering large capital programs and the introduction of a stage gate process for key decision points over the lifecycle of capital projects.
Attachment “Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework” dated May 3, 2021 (Doc #45715643)
45714726
Water Committee ATTACHMENT
To: Finance & Intergovernment Committee
From: Cheryl Nelms, General Manager, Project Delivery
Date: May 3, 2021 Meeting Date: May 12, 2021
Subject: Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework
RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD Board receive for information the report dated May 3, 2021 titled “Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metro Vancouver is implementing best practices related to governance and oversight on capital projects. A key deliverable is to implement a formalized stage gate framework, with the goal of supporting the Metro Vancouver Board and Committees in achieving greater insight and clarity into highest value, risk and consequence projects, including more consistent information with which to make decisions over the lifecycle of a project. A stage gate is a point in time where the governing body makes go/no-go decisions at defined points throughout the project lifecycle. The implementation of stage gates as a key measure to improve project governance is based on a KPMG review of Metro Vancouver project delivery practices and a review of governance practices and stage gate frameworks used by other jurisdictions.
PURPOSE This report is the fifth in a series of updates on implementation of best practices for capital projects at Metro Vancouver as requested by the Board. It is focused on improvement areas related to project oversight and governance following an interjurisdictional review of practices by organizations delivering large capital programs and the introduction of a stage gate process for key decision points over the lifecycle of capital projects.
BACKGROUND In the fall of 2019, the Board expressed interest in undertaking a review of Metro Vancouver’s capital project delivery practices in order to ensure value for our residents. Since the formation of the Project Delivery Department in February 2020, Metro Vancouver has been conducting a high level review of practices related to project delivery. This work started with a review by an independent consultant (KPMG) and continues to progress with input from external advisors who bring expertise in reviewing, overseeing and constructing multibillion dollar projects.
These reviews are critical to responding to the complex challenges presented by the unprecedented scale of Metro Vancouver’s capital projects, the layers of complexity, and market influences. The reviews have identified opportunities for improvement within the areas of leadership, governance, commercial practices, stakeholder engagement, and technical knowledge.
Updates on best practice framework to the Metro Vancouver Board to date have included: • April 15, 2020 – KPMG review of capital project delivery challenges and best practice response.
44553967 Water Committee Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework Finance & Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Page 2 of 6
• October 2, 2020 – Progress update on activities undertaken by the Project Delivery Department. • November 18, 2020 – Capital project cost estimating best practices introduced. • February 10, 2021 – Governance update and draft terms of reference for an external expert advisors panel for highest value, risk, consequence projects.
This fifth update to the Board provides information on project governance and oversight in other jurisdictions and the introduction to a stage gate process for Metro Vancouver. The annual budget and contract approval process is currently being used as a surrogate for a stage gate process in the organization and there are limited guidelines for staff to standardize information presented to the Board for decision making on highest value, risk, consequence projects. The intent of this work is to draw upon inter-jurisdictional best practices for the governance of highest value, risk, consequence projects to improve the processes and information provided for decision making by the Board using current approval mechanisms.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM CAPITAL PROJECT GOVERNANCE PRACTICES REVIEW From December 2020 to February 2021, six North American jurisdictions were interviewed to learn how they governed and managed their capital projects. Jurisdictions were chosen by Metro Vancouver based on the size and complexity of their water and wastewater capital programs. The jurisdictions were: Toronto, Victoria Capital Regional District, San Francisco, Halifax, District of Columbia (Washington, DC), and Edmonton.
The comparator jurisdictions employ a broad range of governance frameworks to operate and manage water and wastewater (and in some cases other) utilities and related capital projects. At one end of the spectrum, Toronto manages and operates its utilities and capital projects internally. At the other end of the spectrum, Edmonton has privatized the ownership and operation of their water and wastewater utilities and the delivery of capital projects required to support it.
Table 1: Capital Project Governance Practices Toronto Capital San Francisco Halifax DC Edmonton Regional District In-house city Project board Independent Crown Multi-state Privatized management for core area commission corporation independent wastewater authority treatment project
Elements of good capital project governance1 A rigorous governance framework guides capital project owners in effective decision making and lays the groundwork for project success. Project owners who implement robust governance practices that are specifically designed to meet the demands of the capital project delivery process are the ones most likely to achieve their cost, schedule, performance, and quality goals. Good capital project governance generally has the following characteristics:
1. Clearly defined objectives 2. Robust project oversight
1 Informed by: PWC: Successful capital project delivery: The art and science of effective governance
Water Committee Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework Finance & Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 6
3. Clear roles, responsibilities, and authorities 4. Effective risk management 5. Rigorous project reporting and communication
The five criteria above were used to evaluate the maturity of project governance for successful project delivery.
GOVERNANCE PRACTICE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MV The review of governance practices across these various jurisdictions has resulted in the following recommendations with respect to highest value, risk, consequence capital project governance at Metro Vancouver.
Clearly Defined Objectives • Identify and recommend clear project objectives and associated performance targets for capital projects for endorsement by the Board. These objectives should include cost, scope, schedule, and potentially other objectives that the Board wants to achieve through its projects. • Collect data to track and measure project progress against performance targets.
Robust Project Oversight • Establish an expert project oversight group with the skills and experience required to effectively oversee projects. • Consider using project outcomes to manage projects instead of relatively low value dollar approval limits and contract approvals. • Formalize a process for the Board to review highest value, risk, consequence projects at stage gates with the benefit of input from an expert project oversight board.
Clear Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities • Continue with implementation of a centralized project management organization for highest value, risk, consequence capital projects. The core responsibilities of this group should be to: o Develop a clear project charter to define roles and responsibilities and authorities for efficient management and decision making; o Develop standardized processes, procedures, tools, and methodologies for managing and monitoring projects and for progress reporting; o Define KPIs and targets for projects; o Define project management oversight and support needs; o Recommend and assist with implementation of specific project management processes, procedures, and tools for individual projects; o Provide project management and contract administrative support through advice or through dedicated or shared staff; and, o Develop a database for key project information and lessons learned to improve future delivery practices. • Operations and maintenance groups that identify the need for a project should work together with the capital construction group throughout the project lifecycle, including when seeking approvals where changes in requirements or performance metrics occur.
Effective Risk Management • Focus attention early in the development of any capital project on assessing risks associated with construction and other project risks, and develop plans to continually assess, monitor and mitigate them should they arise. Water Committee Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework Finance & Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 6
• Evaluate a range of forms of construction contracts for projects to allocate risk and incentivize innovation and ensure the team has the skills and experience to manage the contract models being used.
Rigorous Project Reporting and Communication • Ensure there are clear project success criteria in place that are reported against. • Implement an external oversight group and have project managers present their results to them. • Develop a consistent project and progress reporting structure that is reviewed at each level of oversight using the same data.
Each of these recommendations is now being planned for and/or implemented. Those recommendations that affect the way the MV Board oversees projects will be brought forward for the Board’s consideration. One of these is that the MV Board should review highest value, risk, consequence projects at stage gates with the benefit of input from an expert advisors panel.
STAGE GATE FRAMEWORK AND CAPITAL PROJECT GOVERNANCE To continue to improve project delivery across Metro Vancouver’s portfolio of highest value, risk, consequence capital projects in line with the findings identified above, a project management framework will be developed that will provide the overarching foundation for the planning and delivery of highest value, risk, consequence capital projects. The project management framework will consist of processes, systems, and controls, anchored in project management best practices. A cornerstone element of this project management framework will be a formalized stage gate process for highest value, risk, consequence projects which can then be scaled for other projects across the organization.
As outlined in the attached white paper, a stage gate process provides decision makers with the opportunity to make informed decisions at key points through the entire project lifecycle.
Figure 1: Indicative Stage Gate Process
The stage gate process is used to determine whether a project is situated to meet objectives and therefore continues to warrant investment. When a decision is made to proceed to the next phase, the project team is authorized to spend the funds that were allotted for the next set of planned work activities. Stage gate reviews provide key communication opportunities as projects move through the project lifecycle. They also provide a formal means of controlling project risk, monitoring scope changes, and maintaining stakeholder interest. These reviews are also a means of ensuring implementation of standardized project management processes.
Water Committee Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework Finance & Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 6
Metro Vancouver’s current approach uses the annual budget and contract approval processes as a surrogate for stage gating. This report introduces the implementation of a formalized stage gate process to improve consistency and provide guidance to staff for checks and balances across the life cycle of a project. In addition, the new process will ensure that communication and decision making for the highest value, risk, consequence projects are not limited to the annual budget and contract approval processes.
The following are the lenses that are used to assess the information provided during the stage gate reviews.
• Alignment with organizational strategic goals • Structure of the project/program • Value proposition • Risk mitigation plan • Organizational implementation capacity • Impact/ outcome measurement
At stage gate reviews, the project will either be endorsed to proceed for budget approval of the next stage/phase, terminated, or required to reconsider/revise all or part of the current stage/phase.
A stage gate process can be applied to all projects regardless of their classification (scale, risk, and complexity). How it is applied, the level of documentation, and the composition of decision makers are all scalable. Many organizations assess projects based on risk and complexity in addition to the project budget (scale) to determine the level of project governance and oversight required. The Project Management Office will be developing a project classification approach to determine which projects are considered highest value, risk, consequence projects in the organization.
Next Steps for Implementing the Stage Gate Process The Project Delivery department is developing and implementing a stage gate process for highest value, risk, consequence capital projects that fall under the oversight of the Finance and Intergovernment Committee. An external expert advisors panel will provide input for the consideration of the Finance and Intergovernment Committee’s at stage gates for highest value, risk, consequence capital projects. Upcoming projects that are coming to Finance and Intergovernment Committee for stage gate reviews include: Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Definition; Coquitlam Water Supply Project Definition; and construction for Langley Wastewater Treatment Plant Project.
ALTERNATIVES No alternatives are provided. This is an information report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no specific financial implications from this report.
CONCLUSION This report is the fifth in a series of updates on implementation of best practices for capital projects at Metro Vancouver as requested by the Board. In order to support the Metro Vancouver Board and Committees in achieving greater insight and clarity into highest value, risk, consequence projects, including more consistent information with which to make decisions over the lifecycle of the project. Formalizing a stage gate process for Metro Vancouver and implementing it across the organization Water Committee Project Delivery Best Practice Response – Capital Project Governance & Stage Gate Framework Finance & Intergovernment Committee Regular Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 6
will significantly improve the effectiveness of decision making and likelihood of success for capital projects for the organization. Processes under development will be consistent with best practices across other similar jurisdictions delivering large capital programs.
Attachments 1. “Capital Project Governance Practices in Selected Jurisdictions and Recommendations for Metro Vancouver”, dated February 2021 by Dana Hayden (Doc# 44611172) 2. White paper “How a stage gate process enables informed decision making”, dated March 2021 by Catherine Ella (Doc# 44553865)
44553967
Water Committee Attachment 1
HAYDEN CONSULTING SERVICES February 2021
Capital Project Governance Practices in Selected Jurisdictions and Recommendations for Metro Vancouver
Background
The purpose of this report is to provide information about practices evident in a selection of other jurisdictions related to their project management of major capital projects and programs.
During December 2020 to February 2021, Cheryl Nelms and Dana Hayden interviewed 6 North American jurisdictions learn how they governed and managed their capital projects. Jurisdictions were chosen by Metro Vancouver (MV) based on the size and complexity of their water and wastewater capital programs. The jurisdictions were: Toronto, Victoria Capital Regional District, San Francisco, Halifax, District of Columbia and Edmonton.
Appendix A provides a summary of information obtained from each jurisdiction. Appendix B includes questions that were provided in advance to representatives of these jurisdictions to consider prior to zoom meetings with their executive representatives.
Discussion
The jurisdictions examined employ a broad range of governance frameworks to operate and manage water and wastewater (and in some cases other) services and related capital projects. The jurisdictions interviewed and the models they utilize are:
B.C.’s Capital Regional District – Project Board for core area wastewater treatment project Halifax – Crown corporation District of Columbia Water – Multi-state independent authority San Francisco - Independent Commission Edmonton – privatized Toronto – in-house city management
Water Committee
Elements of good capital project governance1
A rigorous governance framework guides capital project owners in effective decision making and lays the groundwork for project success. Project owners who implement robust governance practices that are specifically designed to meet the demands of the capital project delivery process are the ones most likely to achieve their cost, schedule, performance and quality goals. Good capital project governance generally has the following characteristics:
1. Clearly defined objectives Clear project definition through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets, including cost and schedule estimates and anticipated project scope but potentially also other performance measures such as employment, safety, carbon reduction, impacts on ratepayers, indigenous partnerships etc.
2. Robust project oversight Clearly understanding the performance of projects against a range of measures such as cost, schedule, and quality at every stage in a project’s life cycle is vital to project success. Independent and unbiased expert perspectives assist in anticipating and managing issues that arise during a project.
3. Clear roles, responsibilities and authorities Having clear roles and authorities for those involved in the planning and development of projects leads to better project management. Planning and construction should be informed by end users so that transition to operations is smooth.
4. Effective risk management Project owners need to account for the unique risks that each project presents and have plans in place to manage them. An important part of risk management is the implementation of a contract framework that is best suited to those risks and to have staff with the experience to manage them.
5. Rigorous project reporting and communication To effectively communicate about and report on the status of projects, organizations need common sources of information and a standard set of key performance indicators that align with project and corporate goals.
“In our experience advising on the planning and execution of capital projects across multiple industries, project owners who implement robust governance practices that are specifically designed to meet the demands of the capital project delivery process are the ones most likely to achieve their cost, schedule, and performance and quality goals.”2
1 Informed by: PWC: Successful capital project delivery: The art and science of effective governance
2 Daryl Walcroft, US Capital Projects & Infrastructure Leader, PWC
2 Water Committee The 5 governance practices noted above were considered in the context of the jurisdictions interviewed and are summarized in Appendix A.
Key Themes and Recommendations for MV
Criterion 1: Clearly Defined Objectives
The success of a project is as closely tied to thorough project definition as it is to execution quality. Clear project performance definition in terms of cost, scope and schedule but also other performance measures such as employment, safety, carbon reduction, impacts on ratepayers, indigenous partnerships etc. inform all stakeholders about what the owner considers important for success. Without sufficient definition, post-contract changes will likely proliferate, introducing further complexities into project delivery.
Key Themes from our review
• The more that governance is delegated to project or fiduciary Boards the greater the likelihood that clear project performance measures and targets are established. • When the role of oversight is delegated to a project or fiduciary Board it requires & enables the establishment of clear project deliverables to provide clarity on what the board is expected to achieve. • The more outsourced governance is the less likely that “social” objectives are established and tracked. • In many jurisdictions, performance objectives are identified but no targets have been set for them so it’s very difficult to know if the objectives have or have not been met. • In several jurisdictions the data to report on performance measures beyond scope, schedule and cost are not available or collected making consistent and meaningful tracking against them impossible.
Recommendations for MV
• MV staff should develop and recommend clear project objectives and associated performance targets for its capital projects for endorsement by the MV Board. These objectives should include cost, scope and schedule, and potentially other objectives that the MV Board wants to achieve through its projects. • MV staff should collect data to track and measure project progress against performance targets.
Criterion 2: Robust Project Oversight
Clearly understanding the performance of projects against a range of measures such as cost, schedule, and quality at every stage in a project’s life cycle is vital to project success. Having a
3 Water Committee clear line of sight into project performance at each stage in a project’s life cycle requires time and the application of appropriate skills and experience to provide oversight.
An important component of oversight is the anticipation of, and potential mitigation of challenges and issues. This may include construction issues such as geotechnical challenges, unforeseen soil contamination, regulatory approvals etc., and also issues that may not specifically be related to construction such as misalignment of objectives between contractors and the project owner, stakeholder challenges, and/or natural and uncontrollable challenges such as earthquakes and pandemics.
Independent and unbiased expert perspectives that address very complex and challenging issues faced over the life cycle of the project and that assist in anticipating and managing issues that arise during a project results in improved project outcomes.
Key themes from our review
• In most jurisdictions elected officials with a broad range of accountabilities had neither the time or the subject matter expertise to provide effective oversight of complex capital projects or programs. • Elected officials in most jurisdictions have delegated their oversight role to individuals that have skills and experience to understand the implications of construction project performance as they proceed. Different jurisdictions have delegated more or less of the elected officials’ oversight role. • The more independent the oversight is, the greater the use of subject matter experts. • Where capital project oversight is performed by elected officials, controls based on dollar value of contracts or variance against approved budget are commonly used as a surrogate for project management oversight. • Using cost and contract approvals as project management tools tends to lead to inefficient allocation of capital. • All jurisdictions where cost and contract approvals were used as the oversight checkpoint were planning to change associated policies and processes due to its inefficiency. • The greater the delegation of responsibilities the less likelihood that political interests and/or issues influence project decisions. • Those jurisdictions implementing the greatest rigor all use a stage gate process to review the progress of projects.
Recommendations for MV
• MV should put in place a project oversight board that has the expertise required to effectively oversee projects. • MV should consider using project outcomes to manage projects instead of relatively low value dollar approval limits and contract approvals.
4 Water Committee
• MV should formalize a process for the MV Board to review major projects at stage gates with the benefit of input from an expert project oversight board.
Criterion 3: Clear Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities
A good governance framework enables project owners to clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities for decision making and accountabilities (who is responsible for doing what) using tools such as project charters or governance authority matrices. Because large capital projects often have multiple stakeholders, it is crucial to assign, define, and communicate all players’ roles and responsibilities. Clarity on this front helps to avoid redundant control functions or gaps in important management tasks among various groups within the organization. Involving end users (operations group) in the design and development of projects ensures that the end project meets operational needs.
Key themes from our review
• Clarity in roles and responsibilities (Project charter) benefits capital project development regardless of the governance model. • Many jurisdictions did not have standard processes, procedures or tools to manage and report on progress. • In jurisdictions where responsibility for capital construction is separate from operations the relationship between the two is often strained and results in complications related to project scope, cost, and schedule and relationships with project stakeholders. • Operations groups that identify the need for a project need to participate throughout the project life cycle, working together with the capital construction group, including seeking approvals where changes in requirements or performance metrics occur.
Recommendations for MV
• MV should continue with its implementation of a centralized project management organization for its major capital projects. The core responsibilities of this group should be to: • Develop a clear project charter to define roles and responsibilities and authorities for efficient management and decision making; • Develop standardized processes, procedures, tools, and methodologies for managing and monitoring projects and for progress reporting; • Define KPIs and targets for projects; • Recommend and assist with implementation of specific project management processes, procedures, and tools for individual projects; • Provide project management and contract administrative support through advice or through dedicated or shared staff; and, • Develop a database for key project information and lessons learned to improve future delivery practices.
5 Water Committee
• MV’s Operations groups that identify the need for a project should work together with the capital construction group throughout the project lifecycle, including when seeking approvals where changes in requirements or performance metrics occur.
Criterion 4: Effective Risk Management
Capital project owners typically appoint contractors to design and deliver their projects, and many contract out the project’s day-to-day construction management. Many assume that once the contracts are in place the contractor will execute the project as planned. This assumption can be dangerous.
From the outset of project planning, project owners should take into account the level of in- house resources and their technical and commercial skill set to monitor and direct performance. They also need to account for the unique risks that each project presents, and ensure they implement a contract framework best suited to those risks and have staff with experience in the contract management approach selected.
When private sector firms bid on public construction contracts they effectively “price” those risks and include the cost of managing them into their bids. Effective contracting strategies allocate risk to the party that is most able to deal with it so that projects can be implemented at the best cost. Different contracting models (e.g. Design-Build, Design-Bid- Build, Construction Management, Design-Build-Finance, Design-Build-Finance-Operate, etc.) provide the opportunity to allocate risks to the party best able to manage them and to incent innovation.
Good governance helps ensure that incentives connect directly to valid corporate objectives and drives out any elements that do not. In addition, contract terms should carefully articulate the contractor’s responsibilities to establish, maintain, and report on defined performance metrics and specify the owner’s rights to access and audit the underlying project information.
Key themes from our review
• Most jurisdictions focus on construction related risks only. • Construction risks are used to determine contingency funding levels, but it’s unclear whether they are explicitly used to define the types of construction contracts used. • Several jurisdictions utilize a variety of construction contracts. • Where external construction and governance related expertise is employed there is a greater level of confidence in forecast budgets and contingency. • Unless there is rigor in allocating costs to risks and “retiring” risks when the likelihood of them is over construction staff have a tendency to “hide” unused contingency funds to avoid having to request additional funding for their projects.
6 Water Committee
Recommendations for MV
• MV should focus attention early in the development of any capital project on assessing risks associated with construction and other project risks and develop plans to address them should they arise. • MV should evaluate a range of forms of construction contracts for its projects to allocate risk and incent innovation and ensure it has the skills and experience to manage the contract models it uses.
Criterion 5: Rigorous Project Reporting and Communication
A lack of defined performance metrics, and untimely or infrequent communication between project owners, contractors and stakeholders can increase project costs and cause delays.
Contract documents should clearly define expectations regarding the nature, frequency, and level of detail to be included in progress reports to the owner. Real-time and complete information regarding the status of the project’s performance allows good project management decisions and allows the owner to take actions to mitigate risks. Similarly, current and complete information on potential and pending changes to work allows the owner to make appropriate decisions regarding the scope of work and related commercial issues.
To effectively communicate about and report on the status of projects, organizations need common sources of information and a standard set of key performance indicators that align with project and corporate goals. Once reports are developed, members of the project team and leadership team need to discuss them and agree on next steps. In addition, project status reports across the company should report the same type of information in the same format and from the same databases.
Key themes from our review
• Where the governance structure requires project managers to present project progress against defined criteria to experts not involved in their project there is more rigour in how those projects are managed (reinforces accountability), less instance of cost overruns and other contractual issues. • Project progress reporting was identified by each jurisdiction as critical but most jurisdictions did not have systems or tools in place for ‘smart’ enterprise reporting. • Project data management was identified as important for costing future projects.
Recommendations for MV
• MV should ensure there are clear project success criteria in place that are reported against. • MV should implement an external oversight group and have project managers present their results to them.
7 Water Committee
• MV should develop a consistent project and progress reporting structure that is reviewed at each level of oversight using the same data.
Conclusion
The jurisdictions reviewed employ a range of governance models, practices and procedures to implement capital projects. To improve MV’s governance model to better reflect good project governance criteria identified for successful capital project implementation, the following actions are recommended.
Summary of Recommendations to Strengthen MV Capital Project Governance
Clearly Defined Objectives • MV staff should develop and recommend clear project objectives and associated performance targets for its capital projects for endorsement by the MV Board. These objectives should include cost, scope and schedule, and potentially other objectives that the MV Board wants to achieve through its projects. • MV staff should collect data to track and measure project progress against performance targets.
Robust Project Oversight • MV should put in place a project oversight board that has the expertise required to effectively oversee projects • MV should consider using project outcomes to manage projects instead of relatively low value dollar approval limits and contract approvals. • MV should formalize a process for the MV Board to review major projects at stage gates with the benefit of input from an expert project oversight board.
Clear Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities • MV should continue with its implementation of a centralized project management organization for its major capital projects. The core responsibilities of this group should be to: • Develop a clear project charter to define roles and responsibilities and authorities for efficient management and decision making; • Develop standardized processes, procedures, tools, and methodologies for managing and monitoring projects and for progress reporting; • Define KPIs and targets for projects; • Define project management oversight and support needs; • Recommend and assist with implementation of specific project management processes, procedures, and tools for individual projects; • Provide project management and contract administrative support through advice or through dedicated or shared staff; and,
8 Water Committee
• Develop a database for key project information and lessons learned to improve future delivery practices. • MV’s Operations groups that identify the need for a project should work together with the capital construction group throughout the project lifecycle, including when seeking approvals where changes in requirements or performance metrics occur.
Effective Risk management • MV should focus attention early in the development of any capital project on assessing risks associated with construction and other project risks and develop plans to address them should they arise. • MV should evaluate a range of forms of construction contracts for its projects to allocate risk and incent innovation and ensure it has the skills and experience to manage the contract models it uses.
Rigorous Project Reporting and Communication • MV should ensure there are clear project success criteria in place that are reported against. • MV should implement an external oversight group and have project managers present their results to them. • MV should develop a consistent project and progress reporting structure that is reviewed at each level of oversight using the same data.
9 Water Committee
Appendix A Summary of Information from Jurisdictions Interviewed3
Criterion 1: Clearly Defined Objectives
A B C D E F
Cost, schedule Performance measures Utility C elected officials Clear Defined by Utility E. Utility F and scope are and targets for cost, have delegated this role to performance Customer rates are set contractor and tracked. scope and schedule the Commission. objectives and by the Board and can’t management clearly defined by targets defined by be exceeded. Board define Ad hoc Utility B elected Commission has Utility D. These also approves performance Use of social officials in project established performance are reviewed schedules and measures and procurement board terms of measures for cost, scope each year by the requires reduced targets (both objectives e.g., reference and and schedule, but also now municipality. energy consumption for projects and at risk youth mandate. Project sustainability and over time. Metrics are staff work) that employment. Board instituted others. environment, flow rates Independent collected for these include and maintenance utilities measures. performance Only a few Any potential deviation frequency. They are commission measures and projects have from cost, scope and considering adding reviews all Have “go/no go” targets performance schedule measures to respond to projects and objectives to increase established by measures. performance metrics climate change, good approves them equity and diversity Utility F elected requires project board neighbor objectives, air only if they are and employment of officials that to seek Utility B quality etc. consistent with minority and women are in Utility F’s approval. rates/objectives. owned businesses. No contract with Project metrics to measure targets for these are the contractor. Data are tracked to project performance are Data are tracked set but contractors are report on all generally lacking. to measure required to report on Data are performance measures. against efforts. tracked to
3 Jurisdiction names removed for confidentiality.
Water Committee performance report on all measures. KPIs.
Criterion 2: Robust Project Oversight
A B C D E F
Staff at various Project board Commission Utility D corporation Utility E provides The contractor’s levels have this. No performs this established by was established to oversight on capital board uses internal independent role on behalf of elected officials to provide oversight on projects on behalf of project boards that oversight exists. Utility B elected oversee water and behalf of elected elected officials from receive regular Utility A elected officials. Staff wastewater. They officials. Utility D multiple states. reports. No officials use cost and report to the oversee all aspects of board has 4 (elected) elected officials are contract approvals project Board operations, councillors and 3 Board of Directors is involved in as a surrogate for monthly, and construction, public private sector 11 representatives governance but oversight. more often if consultation, etc. representatives with from districts (6) and they have issues arise. expertise in capital jurisdictions (5). All performance-based No use of stage gate The Commission is construction. appointed by the regulations in place process but KPMG All project stages made up of 5 mayor. Board is that Utility F has recommended are reviewed by members appointed Utility D Board composed of approves. Staff are that they do this the project by the mayor. Each reviews projects at businesspeople, incentivized to with council. board. has a specific various stages and engineers, persons achieve desired The project oversight role: uses a stage-gate with utility and performance board has full workforce, process. construction outcomes for authority to environmental, background, etc. projects and for implement financial, management. studies, reviews construction etc. Utilities commission Board has sub etc. as it sees fit provides independent committees that do a Use a formal stage to oversee They don’t use a assessment of Utility thorough review of gate process for projects. stage gate process to D capital projects and projects with staff. internal approvals review projects. must approve them of projects (1. before they proceed. concept, 2.
11 Water Committee
A B C D E F
Even though they Water and sewer financial envelope meet every 2 weeks, issues are voted on by approval, 3. budget Commissioners are Districts only. Policy request, 4. Release challenged to be able issues and governance of funds, 5. change to spend the is overseen by entire orders required time on any board. given project given the range of Board presents its responsibilities plans to customers assigned to them. each year to present their plans and rate A Board of impacts. Wards Supervisors (elected) (customer Capital Planning representatives) Committee receives present to Board of reports from the Directors. Commissioners
Criterion 3: Clear Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities
A B C D E F
Operating division Project board hires Robust authority Good internal Board and its sub Every 5 years the does longer term and directs staff matrix in place that accountability. committees receive Contractor prepares planning and working on project. is applied to every Cost of service presentations from an application for determines capital RFP, contract modelling in place. staff. revenue needs that program and Clear authority matrix award and policy. Staff recommend includes an requests funding and roles and Presentation of major capital projects operations plan and from Council. projects to the required. a capital plan. This
12 Water Committee A B C D E F
Then capital responsibilities The Commission utilities commission Board presents to must have an division procures developed. meets every 2 has created rigor in customers during efficiency factor and manages on weeks to review project planning. the year to present included. The behalf of progress. plans and proposed Contractor approves operating Strong communication Good integrated rates. or not. divisions. between project staff There is a lack of resource plan (IRP) and operations staff in integration with a 25- year Approvals are based Clear project If inadequate Utility B. Several between outlook to deal with on implications to charter in place funding project staff will operations division water and rates, not inputs – Project managers operations staff continue to work for and capital wastewater. New IRP i.e., outcome are required to return to council Utility B on the project division. This leads every 5 years focused and not present their to request in operations after its to a lack of controlled by inputs. performance additional funds. complete. accurate Good relationship Only issues brought metrics to the prioritization of with municipal staff. forward once a Contractor Board Operations projects. Utilities commission budget is approved which approves divisions do long lets them know if the are legal. them. These must term planning. Fairly heavy level relationship is too include net income, of bureaucracy and close. If politicians don’t safety etc. Some tension politics resulting in like what the rates between prolonged project look like (and Decision authority is operating divisions decision making therefore the clear. Decisions are and capital adversely budget for Utility E) pushed down to the construction impacting project they can change lowest level divisions. outcomes. them (even though possible. they have a 10-year budget).
13 Water Committee Criterion 4: Effective Risk Management
A B C D E F
Risk registry exists for A well- Have a well- Utility D Board has a Construction related Use standard schedule, cost and developed risk established suite separate committee risks are assessed and construction related scope but not register in place of tools to dedicated to contingency risk management otherwise. for the project manage risks but assessing risks. established based on assessment and that includes the risk them. Don’t reduce allocation of Traditional Design Bid both management Utilities commission contingency as contingency. Build delivery construction and process is only challenges project project proceeds until approach was non- well defined for team, schedule, risk milestones are Project managers outlined as a key construction construction management reached. Tends to present their contract approach. risks. Risks are projects. framework, size of “hide” dollars from performance against assigned to contingency etc. – finance dept. targets with metrics Larger projects (e.g. managers to They have a limit very rigorous. Large resulting in poor regularly. tunneling) attracts track. on contingency project reviews are relations. greater political depending on the public. Have a “controllable oversight. Portions type of project. Board sub- capital” performance reviewed by Contingency Outside experts committees meet measure that requires board at each estimates are challenge Utility D with staff and do a them to be within +/- meeting. regularly assumptions as part thorough review of 5% of their forecast exceeded. of utilities projects and costs. Several different commission process. determine when they types of Have done CM, are ready to go to the contracts used in DBB but no P3s. Board. the project. Every 2 years Construction they “re- management, design baseline” their build, and design bid project budgets. build approaches applied.
14 Water Committee Criterion 5: Rigorous Project Reporting and Communication
A B C D E F
Don’t have Monthly reporting Board of Commissioners Utility D staff have Committees of the Contractor staff good tools in to project board. is responsible for good control on Board meet with oversee all capital place to reviewing and approving projects with external staff monthly and projects. Staff measure how Monthly reports everything but doesn’t advisors (engineers, do a thorough report to Board they have include information have the time to lawyers, review of progress. and its committees achieved on project status question risk assessment accountants). regularly against objectives. and pending or contract Monthly program performance challenges to allow implementation. Good relations reports on all criteria established Once a project for corrective and between Utility D and projects. for their project. is approved anticipatory actions. Have annual reports, municipalities. oversight financial reports. Board does Contractor beyond staff is Project board IRP in place and presentations to produces quarterly minimal unless meetings are open Also have a waste- water reviewed publicly at customers a few reports that are additional funds and closed, and capital report where utilities commission times a year to get reviewed by the are required. stakeholders can they report on all their input. utilities committee make presentations projects quarterly. Annual report back to of the city. or see information commission on what The Board of online. was approved and Directors presents Anything outside of what was spent its plan to Utility E plan that Staff meet regularly commission. counsellors request with citizen is tracked and stakeholders. costed. There is little long- Quarterly reporting term objective to Utility B setting beyond the wastewater 5-year plan. committee of Utility B Council.
15 Water Committee Appendix B: Public Sector Capital Infrastructure Projects Questions for Other Jurisdictions
Introduction/Background:
Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one Electoral Area and one Treaty First Nation that collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services. Its core services are drinking water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management. Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, plans for urban growth, manages a regional parks system and provides affordable housing. The regional district is governed by a Board of Directors of elected officials from each local authority.
Metro Vancouver has a large capital infrastructure program in progress. It has recently established a capital project delivery unit, headed by General Manger Cheryl Nelms. Cheryl Nelms is leading a review of the way in which Metro Vancouver currently manages and oversees the implementation of its capital program and is seeking to learn more about what is working and what is not working with respect to the governance and oversight of capital projects in other jurisdictions. She is being assisted in this work by Dana Hayden. As part of this work, Cheryl Nelms and Dana Hayden would like to learn more about how your capital projects are governed, what works and potentially what challenges you are facing in implementing your capital projects.
We would greatly appreciate it if you would share your insights on capital infrastructure project governance. In particular, we are interested in learning about how you support project management and expenditure decision-making, accountability and transparency to: • Monitor and control projects; • Set performance measures and track them; • Measure benefits and manage risks; • Ensure a smooth transition to operations; and, • Translate and incorporate “lessons learned”
The following questions are intended to guide our discussion.
Governance Structure/Model
Public infrastructure projects are often complicated and costly and as a result project oversight is particularly important. Some public sector organizations rely on in-house expertise to oversee projects, and some use fiduciary boards or advisory boards to utilize skills/expertise that may not be held by staff. We would like to understand what type of structure(s) you use.
1. Please describe/explain the type of governance structure you have in place for your capital projects: a. Do you have a Chief Project Officer for your capital project(s)? (i.e. even if you have a team of people working on capital projects, is there someone individually who is accountable for managing the project(s)?)
16
Water Committee
b. Do you have a project board? c. Do you have an oversight board? d. Does your oversight board provide direction to staff managing capital projects (fiduciary board) or does it provide advice to those managing capital projects (advisory board)? e. Do you have a single capital project or several, and does your project board or oversight board (if you have one) deal with more than one project?
2. What process did you undertake to establish the governance structure you have? a. How did you determine that the governance structure you have was the best one for your jurisdiction? b. Does the structure include elected individuals? c. Was the structure endorsed by elected officials? d. What are the skills/experience that you have at each (and different) levels of your governance/oversight? e. Do you use internal staff to populate these structures or do you use expertise from outside your organization? f. If you have a project board, who decided which persons would be on these boards and who selected them? g. Did that process involve public disclosure of the delegation of any responsibilities of the elected officials?
3. What are the advantages of the structure you have in place? What works well?
4. What are the disadvantages of the structure you have in place? If you could change some things what would you change?
Public accountability and decision-making authority
Elected officials use different ways to “control” and provide oversight for public sector capital infrastructure projects, for example, through expenditure limits, or by putting in place oversight boards with elected and/or non-elected individuals. Where a non-staff fiduciary or advisory board is used, elected officials may be wary of delegating responsibility for high value/cost projects to individuals who are not staff. We would like to understand who is accountable for ensuring your projects are well implemented, what authorities are delegated to them, and what reports are produced. You may have this documented in a project charter, or it may be that the easiest way to explain this to us is with an organization chart.
1. What kinds of decisions can be made by whom at what level in the governance/oversight structure that you have in place? a. How are decision making authorities and accountabilities established? b. Are there financial limits or other constraints that are important in your oversight model? c. Do you have a project charter that lays out these decision rules? i. If so can you share it?
17
Water Committee
2. Do you contract specific types of services or expertise? What types of services do you acquire through contract (e.g. legal, procurement advice, fairness advisor, etc.)?
3. What is the reporting system that you have in place? a. How/how often do you report to senior management, elected officials, the public? b. What types of information is included in reports? c. Can you share an example of your reports?
Project Objectives
The public, and therefore elected officials, have high expectations for public sector capital infrastructure projects. In addition to key performance indicators such as cost, scope and schedule, there are often project objectives related to public amenities, safety, job creation, economic development, etc. We would like to understand what objectives (key performance indicators) are important for your project(s), and how you collect data to report on them.
1. How do you define project objectives? Who approves/endorses them?
2. Did you establish key performance indicators (KPIs) beyond cost, scope and schedule for your project(s) and if so what kind of KPIs do you track?
3. How do you measure/collect data to report on your KPIs?
Risk Management
Anticipating and managing risks is vital in large capital infrastructure projects. Some jurisdictions focus on risks associated with cost and schedule, and others use a more fulsome risk register that attempts to identify different types of risks, to quantify the likelihood of them occurring, and what actions will be taken by the organization to manage them. Often contingencies are established to manage risks. We would like to understand how you identify and manage risks, and whether you establish/allocate contingency funds to manage them.
1. How do you manage risks? 2. Do you use a risk register? 3. Who establishes your risk register? 4. What types of risks do you consider? 5. Do you establish project contingency funds associated with identified risks? 6. Are risks assigned to/managed by particular individuals? 7. How often is your risk register reviewed/updated, and who reviews it?
Integration with Operations
In some cases those individuals who will be operating a capital infrastructure project when it is built are involved in its construction. Sometimes construction is overseen by others, and then the project is “handed off” to those operating it. We would like to understand how you manage, or plan to manage, the transition from construction to operations.
18
Water Committee 1. How do you manage integration or hand-off between those responsible for construction of the capital project and those who will manage it? a. Are “operators” part of the capital construction team (the same team?) b. If these groups are separated, how is/will the handoff be managed? c. If these groups are separated, what challenges do you believe you’ll have to manage.
Lessons Learned
Capital Infrastructure projects often take many years to plan, procure and implement. During that process, there are key learnings that ideally should be passed on so that the next projects can benefit from that knowledge. Often key staff or individuals will retire, be promoted or leave projects before they are completed. We would like to learn about how you manage the transfer of knowledge to take advantage of lessons learned.
1. Do you have a process in place to manage the transfer of knowledge from person to person, or from project to project? 2. Is the process effective? 3. If you could do something differently with respect to knowledge transfer what would you do?
19
Water Committee Attachment 2 STAGE-GATE FRAMEWORK: How a stage gate process enables informed decision making.
Date: 20 March 2021
Water Committee Table of Contents 1 Background ...... 3 2 What is Stage-Gating? ...... 3 2.1 Key Components ...... 4 2.1.1 Stage Gates ...... 4 2.1.2 Gate Reviews ...... 5 2.1.3 Project Management Framework & Project Governance, Gate Committees and Gate Reviews 7 2.1.4 Gate Keeper ...... 10 2.1.5 Applicability ...... 11 3 Implementation of a Stage Gate Model – Leading Practices ...... 12 4 Complementary Project Delivery Improvement Initiatives ...... 14 5 Implementing a Stage-Gate Framework at Metro Vancouver ...... 14 6 Conclusion ...... 14 7 References ...... 16
2
Water Committee 1 Background
Metro Vancouver is in the process of planning and implementing several significant capital infrastructure projects related to liquid waste and water services for the region. There is an understanding that the size, complexity, and volume of these projects requires a new approach.
One of the overall findings of the KPMG review completed in early 2020, was that Metro Vancouver needs to adapt how capital projects are delivered within the organization. The review also observed that there is no standardized or fully implemented stage gate process across the organization for approvals at key project milestones. Metro Vancouver has historically used the annual capital budget process and contract award approval process as surrogates for a formal stage gate process. Although staff in the Water and Liquid Waste utilities mapped out a Stage Gate Process for the utilities in 2018, only Stage Gate 1 (the very start of the project lifecycle) for minor capital (<$250K) projects has been implemented.
This is not consistent with other similar capital-intensive public-sector organizations delivering complex and high-risk projects. Decision makers should be provided with the opportunity to make informed decisions through the following lenses for the entire project lifecycle. This allows them to be strategically positioned to allow for early, timely and effective oversight.
Alignment Structure Value Risk Implementati Impact on Capacity Does the How is the Does the Are risk Can the Will it achieve project align project/progra project mitigation project be outcomes? with the m structured? represent plans in place delivered How will these organization’s good value? for the within the be measured? strategic project? department’s goals? existing capacity?
The objective of this whitepaper is to describe what a Stage-Gate model is, including how leading practices have been implemented in other organizations. The paper concludes with next steps and the expected outcomes of implementing a Stage-Gate Framework across Metro Vancouver’s portfolio of large capital projects.
This whitepaper is one of a series of improvement initiatives, consistent with the KPMG review, to enhance project delivery throughout Metro Vancouver.
2 What is Stage-Gating? Developed in the 1940s for large-scale engineering projects, the stage-gate process is a linear project management concept punctuated by stages of development followed by benchmarks for assessment.
It is used to determine whether a project is situated for success and therefore continues to warrant investment. When a decision is made to proceed to the next phase, the project is authorized to spend the funds that were allotted for the next set of planned work activities.
3
Water Committee
To make a decision at a gate, a project review at the end of each phase, should include: a revalidation of the project; confirmation that the intended benefits are still relevant and attainable; and an overall determination of the ongoing viability of the project.
Project Gates and Project Gate Reviews are both concepts that provide key communication opportunities as projects move through the project lifecycle.
Gates and Gate Reviews also provide a formal means of controlling project risk, monitoring scope changes, and maintaining stakeholder interest. Within an organization, Gate Reviews are also a means of project management process deployment and change management. 2.1 Key Components
The key components of a Stage-Gate model are:
1) Stage Gates 2) Gate Review 3) Gate Committees 4) Gate Keepers 2.1.1 Stage Gates Stage Gates are key points in a project where a formal review of the project's current state is performed. They appear at the phase transitions of projects and represent a point in the project where the sponsor and stakeholders will review risk, expense, and reward. When a Stage Gate is encountered, a Gate Review is held to determine if the project should proceed or not and under what conditions.
Stage Gates are governance check points that support informed business decisions during the selection and delivery of a project or program.
Defining Each Gate
Typically project gates follow transitions within a Project Lifecycle. The Project Lifecycle is the full set of activities from the beginning to the end in a project. The lifecycle is divided into phases, which can be sub-divided into stages.
The Project Management Institute (PMI) describes the life cycle of a project in five phases including: conception and initiation, planning, execution, performance/monitoring, and project close. The following Environmental Scan summarizes how several organizations describe their project phases:
Government of UK Government BC Hydro Seattle Public PMI Canada Utilities Initiation Policy Initiation Initiation Conception and Initiation Planning and Feasibility Identification Options Analysis Planning Identification Appraise and Select Definition Define Definition Design Implementation Deliver Implementation Construction Execution
4
Water Committee Close-out Operate, Embed Close-out Project Close and Close
Typical Project Stage-Gate Model: Gate approval points are positions at the end of key stages in the project life cycle to allow decision- makers to confirm that the proposed project solution remains in alignment with business needs and priorities. Each gate is a formal approval point, which presents key information to management, typically categorized in terms of cost, schedule, scope, procurement, and risk.
According to BC Hydro’s Project Lifecycle (see Figure 1), the project lifecycle is the full set of activities from the beginning to the end in a project. The lifecycle is divided into four phases, which are, in turn, sub-divided into stages. The stages are determined based on the major parts of project performance (e.g. Initiation; Identification – needs, conceptual design, feasibility; Definition – preliminary design, regulatory approval; Implementation – detailed design, procurement, construction, commissioning & acceptance, and completion) and the need for control by the organization’s management applying gates and checkpoints for go/no go decision making.
For each project that advances through to completion, the Initiation, Identification, Definition, and Implementation phases are always required, but the magnitude of the content and the rigour of review will vary depending on the individual project.
Procurement activities occur throughout all phases and are required to comply with procurement policy and practices.
Figure 1 – BC Hydro’s Project Lifecycle with gates.
2.1.2 Gate Reviews
Gate Reviews should accomplish the following:
• A review of the project by decision makers (ie not the project team).
• Assessment of readiness for project to go forward.
• A revalidation of the project's purpose.
5
Water Committee
• A recap of recent project history.
• A look into the project's near-term plans.
• A re-commitment of resources.
• Expenditure authorization for the next phase and procurement contracts.
Defining the Gate Review Process
Gate reviews provide decision makers input at specific points in the project life cycle when further progress entails higher investment and commitment1. At the Gate Review the project manager advises on progress made to-date, changes since the last Gate Review, and the plan for the work between this Gate and the subsequent Gate. To be effective Gates should address the two key causes of project failure: scope changes and risk. Formal (change order) and informal scope changes (unknown complexity), and new risks and risk assessments should be Gate topics. Gate Reviews give decision makers visibility into the project's progress to-date, changes since the last Gate, and the project manager's plan for the near term. At this point decision makers may let the project proceed, delay, alter, or cancel the project before further work is performed.
A gating decision typically is known as a go/no-go decision. The decision may recommend any one of the following:
Decision Meaning GO Proceed Continue to invest in the project. GO Proceed with Continue to invest in the project acknowledging that certain conditions conditions must be met prior to the next gate NO Not ready to proceed Finalize outstanding items to meet any necessary conditions and GO then return to the gate to confirm readiness to proceed NO Terminate the project Cancel the project as it is not longer considered viable or is no GO longer aligned to organizational priorities
As a result of a successful Gate Review, the project manager has obtained the concurrence that the work to-date is satisfactory, risk is controlled, scope is being addressed, the plans are sound, and the organization remains committed to the project.
Gates and Gate Reviews are not periodic. Gates occur at phase transitions and thus are paced by the rate of progress and complexity of the project. Gate Reviews address progress to-date, scope, detail plans for the next phase, sponsor recommitment, and authorization to proceed into the next phase. Gates represent a point in time when the project manager may be told to execute the next phase per the plan, rework one or more of last phase's deliverables, or revise and resubmit the plans for the phase. A Gate Review can also cancel a project if the project's purpose and benefit are no longer consistent with the risk, required resources, or strategy of the organization.
1 https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/contemporary-gate-philosophy-implemented-outcome-7786. Stratton, R. W. (2003). Project gates: "Chutes and Ladders®" for project managers. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2003—EMEA, The Hague, South Holland, The Netherlands. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
6
Water Committee
2.1.3 Project Management Framework & Project Governance, Gate Committees and Gate Reviews
2.1.3.1 Project Management Framework & Project Governance A Project Management Framework includes a project governance structure that includes authority limits, decision making roles, quality assurance needs, reporting structure, accountabilities, and responsibilities.
The main participants in project governance are as follows:
• Project Sponsor o Accountable for enabling the successful planning, definition, implementation, transition, and close-out of the project. o Decides if a project is ready to proceed to a gate. • Project Approval Authority (ie Gate Committee) o Provides clear, documented approval within the boundaries of scope, budget, risks, and benefits. o Conducts a due diligence review commensurate with the scale, complexity and risk of the project prior to granting of approval. • Project Manager o Manages the project on behalf of the organization, including managing, within their authority level, the financial and human resources. o Prepares the Gate Review submissions after Initiation Gate Review o Authority is delegated by the Project Sponsor. o Accountable to the Project Sponsor for the successful delivery of the project, and for achieving the approved project outcomes within the approved cost and schedule. • Gatekeeper (Corporate Project Management Office) o Manages the integrity and rigour of the stage-gate process on behalf of the organization. o Supports the stage-gate process by presenting submissions to the Gate Committee and provides integrated advice and administrative support. o Ensures that the Gate Committee’s membership includes relevant Subject Matter Experts (SME). o Establishes the processes, templates, and tools, and training. o Provides guidance and advisory services for the Stage Gate process to Project Managers. o Performs a challenge function and advises Gate Committee members on submission readiness. o Executes the analysis on project health and provides a means of direct escalation of issues and risk to the Project Sponsor. • Business Owner o Responsible for identifying the need/opportunity. o Prepares the Gate Review for the Initiation Gate Review. o Ensures that the project deliverables meet user requirements, business processes and overall operational service needs. • Benefit Owner
7
Water Committee
o Responsible for accepting the identified benefits. o Representative of the client stakeholder (e.g. O&M). • External Project Steering Committee (Typically in place only for large complex and high risk projects) o Provides expert advice to augment skills and experience of organizations. o Provides expert advice related to project management, risk management, reporting, stakeholder engagement, design and construction, and delivery methods.
2.1.3.2 Role of the Gate Committees The gate committee is an essential component of the project governance process. It provides oversight and endorsement at identified points along the project life cycle. At the gate meeting, the project will either be endorsed to proceed for budget approval of the next stage/phase, be terminated or will be required to repeat all or part of the current stage/phase. The gate committee will also review requests for other approvals such as increases to the project budget or change orders for procurements.
During the project life cycle, the gate committee may also receive mid-phase project briefings related to specific issues. The gate committee may provide advice or approve a recommended action, depending on the issue.
Typically, the composition of the gate committee is linked to the scale, risk and complexity of the projects under consideration. For example, the BC Hydro Board of Directors is the “Gate Committee” for projects greater than $45 M. For Government of Canada projects, a dollar threshold is not the driver for projects approved at the cabinet committee “Treasury Board” responsible for Expenditure Management. All departments and agencies must submit projects that are determined to be high risk and complexity and that exceed the capacity of the department.
Regardless of the composition of the Gate Committee, or the size, risk, and complexity of the project under consideration, the following are the lenses that are used to assess the information provided during the gate reviews.
Decision Body Lenses
Implementation Alignment Structure Value Risk Capacity Impact
Does the project How is the Does the Are solid risk Can the project be Will it align with the program or proposal mitigation delivered within the achieve organization’s project represent good plans for the department’s existing outcomes? strategic goals? structured? value? project? capacity? How will these be measured?
2.1.3.3 Gate Reviews The following is a description of typical gates, key decisions, and considerations:
GATE 1: Initiation: Approval to proceed to Planning Phase.
8
Water Committee
The goal of the initiation phase is to determine whether a problem or opportunity is worthy of additional investment in the time and resources required to gather data, refine the understanding of the issue, and assess possible responses or solutions.
The key decision for the Gate Board is to authorize expenditures for the Planning Phase (ie seed funding and resource allocation).
Key Considerations for Gate Committee Members:
1. Is this a valid need/opportunity (problem statement) aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives? Investment Plan? 2. Does this represent a priority for our resources? 3. Is the scope of the problem statement clearly defined? Is it related or aligned with any other need/opportunity? 4. Are the right alternatives being considered?
GATE 2: End of Planning: Approval to proceed to Definition Phase. The goal of this phase is to study the benefits and costs, as well as other non-financial criteria of each option, including the option of no project – i.e. maintaining the status quo. This is typically summarized in a business case which includes a clear problem definition and documents the study and evaluation of several options through reasoned analysis and clear criteria. It reflects both quantitative and qualitative analyses. This analysis culminates in a recommended solution to the problem statement.
The recommended solution should include a project plan (e.g. scope statement, project budget, project schedule, procurement options analysis and strategy, risk management plan, communications plan, and human resourcing plan). The source of funds as well as consideration of ongoing life cycle costs and any decommissioning costs (if replacing an existing asset) should also be included. The objective is to present the information decision makers need to make an informed choice. For many organizations, the proposed solution sets the project baseline that is used to compare variances as the project is further developed.
At this gate, the Gate Committee makes the following key decisions:
1) Approves the project (or not). 2) Authorizes expenditures for the Definition Phase (for project definition and/or preliminary design, technical studies, advisory services if required). 3) Authorizes contracts for procurements within the Definition Phase.
Key Considerations for Gate Committee Members:
1. Does the recommended solution maximize the benefit to the organization? 2. Is the recommended solution timely? 3. Is the recommended solution scope clear enough to proceed to the Definition phase? 4. Does the project plan address all key aspects of project delivery in a complete and effective way? Is the project adequately resourced? 5. Are the risks to complete Definition phase as proposed adequately managed?
GATE 3: End of Definition: Approval to proceed to Implementation Phase.
9
Water Committee
At the end of the Definition Phase, the cost estimate for the project should be available as well as the final business case, and project plan for the implementation process.
It is at this gate that the Gate Committee makes the following key decisions:
1) Approves proceeding to implementation (or not). 2) Authorizes expenditures for the Implementation phase. 3) Authorizes contracts for procurements (design, construction, equipment, etc.). 4) Authorizes real estate transactions (if required).
Key Considerations for Gate Committee Members:
1. Does the recommended solution maximize benefits to the organization and key stakeholders? 2. Is the project still affordable? Is funding available? 3. How does the project affect other projects within the overall capital portfolio? 4. How are costs going to be contained? 5. Are the risks to completing the Implementation phase as proposed adequately managed?
Gate 4: End of Implementation: Approval to Close the Project
In this phase, project outcomes are examined to ensure that the work is complete and has met all the project objectives. Understand if there are any material deficiencies or outstanding needs for expenditures and how they are going to be addressed.
Key considerations:
1. Did the project meet its objectives? 2. Is the project complete, including resolution of all outstanding deficiencies or defects? 3. Reviewing and accepting any ongoing Indigenous, environmental and/or stakeholder commitments. 2.1.4 Gate Keeper
The Gate Keeper’s role in the Gate Review is to make sure the project proceeds with an enterprise-wide re-commitment to the (current) scope, required resources, estimated risk, and other enterprise and project interests. The Gate Keeper should be neutral regarding the outcome of the Gate Review. The Gate Keeper should chair the Gate Review meeting, set the agenda, and invite the participants. The Gate Keeper should also know good project management principles and what should be expected of project managers considering their experience and their project.
Gate Keeper staff support the process by presenting cases to the Gate Committee and provide integrated advice and administrative support. They also perform a challenge function and advise Gate Committee members on the readiness of submissions. Gate Keepers also establish the processes, templates, and tools.
Gate Keeper staff manage the integrity and rigour of the Stage-Gate process for the organization. A key task is to review submissions for:
10
Water Committee
• clarity, completeness, and quality • business case and value for money • compliance with existing legal and policy requirements • program operations and viability • risk and mitigation • design and implementation • alignment • regulatory quality and adherence to the organizational directives on social and economic priorities 2.1.5 Applicability
A Stage Gate process can be applied to all projects – regardless of their classification (scale, risk, and complexity). How it is applied, the level of documentation and who the decision makers are – is all scalable.
Many organizations assess projects based on risk and complexity, in addition to the project budget (scale) to determine the level of project governance and oversight required. The Government of Canada uses the following categories to assess project risk and complexity:
• Project Characteristics o The greater the complexity of a project, the greater the potential for risk and the greater the need for a high level of project management maturity or capacity. o This category is designed to build a profile of the project, its level of complexity and potential for risk and areas of concern. • Strategic Management Risk o This category is intended to establish the project's alignment with the objectives and/or priorities of the organization and its commitment to the project. • Procurement Risk o When a project includes significant procurement activities, the importance of clear scope, requirements, risks, and cost constraints is only increased. A sound understanding of the scope, requirements, risks and time and cost constraints for both the project and any and all related contracts is critical in order to support the selection of the best contractors (vendors) and the awarding of applicable contracts. • Human Resources Risk o This category assesses the extent to which the project has the right skill sets in place to deliver the approved project scope. How a project is staffed will greatly influence a team's ability to manage the project’s identified complexity and risk. • Business Risk o This category is to determine the state of readiness of the business for adopting the services being provided by the project. • Project Management Integration Risks o This category is to assess whether the right strategies, controls, and project management skills and supporting activities are in place to:
11
Water Committee . Plan a project effectively through integrating the planning elements of scope, schedule, cost, and risk; and . Keep the project on track through aggregating scope, schedule, cost, and risk progress information, taking corrective action where needed to remain in alignment with the plan. • Project Requirements Risks o This category is to assess various aspects of the requirements of the project. This includes the actual nature of the requirements as well as some related issues such as how difficult requirements are to gather and how well they are documented. To what extent do the specific requirements of the project add risk and complexity?
In many organizations, even projects assessed as low risk/complexity, and dollar thresholds are subject to the gating process. What differs between those low risk/complexity and high risk/complexity projects is the depth and breadth of documentation, the composition of the Gate Committee and the authority to make the decision to proceed or not. These are concomitant with the delegated authorities within the organization.
With this approach, only projects that are high risk and high complexity are submitted to the highest level of authority or decision making. Decision makers are thus strategically positioned to allow for early and timely oversight.
3 Implementation of a Stage Gate Model – Leading Practices
Organizations that employ a Stage-Gate model in their capital investment decisions have the following commonality in its design and implementation.
Investment/Long-term Capital Planning Frameworks
Capital intensive organizations are generally guided by high level three-to-five-year investment plans (or long-range capital plans) that are informed by asset management plans and specific project plans. These high-level plans are supported by and reflect program/business plans that are updated annually or bi- annually.
These plans guide organizations and provide a basis for prioritizing specific problems, opportunities and infrastructure or other capital projects. Integrating these priorities across business lines also ensures that resources are allocated and re-allocated based on a set of criteria established through strategic planning processes.
Once this strategic investment planning and project management framework is set, organizations can then allocate resources to investigate specific issues, problems, or opportunities and to make recommendations. This may mean developing a business case for implementing a response to the issue, or it may mean no additional action is recommended.
These investment/long-term capital plans are typically approved at the highest level of governance in an organization. By presenting a multi-year, prioritized, integrated plan to decision makers, they are provided with a holistic picture of investments at the enterprise level and are strategically positioned to
12
Water Committee
allow for early and timely oversight. Once approved, the investment plan provides the spending envelope that the organization works within to undertake the stated priorities in the plan.
However, the inclusion of proposed projects in the investment/long-term capital plan does not automatically confer the approval of the project. The authority to advance the project is granted through the organizations’ project approval process (typically a Stage-Gate model). Thus, the project is not a project until is actively “approved” by the appropriate body delegated to approve projects and associated expenditures.
Challenge and Support Function
To actively manage a meaningful investment planning and project management framework, most organizations have dedicated resources that provide both a challenge function to the proposed investments and act as a gate keeper for the Stage Gate process. This function ensures that Gate Committee members are provided with accurate information and sound advice for making decisions. This is achieved through a rigorous scrutiny of project proposals. Through its challenge and oversight role, this function provides an enterprise perspective for Gate Committee members, strengthening how the organization is managed and ensuring value for money in spending and results for stakeholders.
This function also provides advice and guidance to departments/business lines who are preparing project submissions, and it provides recommendations to Gate Committee members on expenditure and management policies as well as developing standardized tools, templates, and processes.
Integration of Procurements and Property Decisions within Projects
Project-based procurements and real property (land) transactions are fully integrated into the governance, management, and oversight of projects. Procurement options analyses, procurement strategies are key elements of project approval documentation. Procurement contracts are approved within the context of the entire project/program.
Standardized Project Management Frameworks
Project Management Frameworks provide mandatory processes for project approvals - supported by tools, templates, and guidance documents. These include clear accountabilities and definitions re: key reviews and oversight, delegated authorities, and terms of reference for committees. One important element of standardized project management frameworks is cost estimating.
Application: All Projects + Full Project Life Cycle
Generally, Stage Gate processes apply to all projects regardless of scale, risk, and complexity. While projects with lower scale/risk/complexity and dollar thresholds are subject to the gating process, the nature of the documentation, the composition of the Gate Committee and the authority to make the decision to proceed or not, would be concomitant with the delegated authorities within organizations.
In addition, the Stage-Gate process applies to the full project life cycle (i.e. every phase/stage from Initiation through to Close-out).
13
Water Committee
4 Complementary Project Delivery Improvement Initiatives
Following the creation of the Project Delivery Department in Metro Vancouver in 2020 and the work completed by KPMG, best practice reviews have been undertaken including: Governance and Cost Estimation. Recommendations from these reviews also referenced stage gate processes as follows:
• Cost Estimation Framework identified a Best Practice: “Formalized cost and scope stage gate process.” • The Interjurisdictional Governance Review recommended: o Put in place a project oversight committee that has the expertise required to effectively oversee projects. o Consider using project outcomes to manage projects instead of relatively low value dollar approval limits and contract approvals. o Formalize a process for the Committee to review major projects at stage gates with the benefit of input from an expert project oversight committee.
To continue to enhance project delivery across Metro Vancouver’s portfolio of large capital projects, and to complement the other targeted initiatives (Cost Estimating Framework, Interjurisdictional Governance Review) a Project Management Framework will be developed that will provide the overarching policy foundation for the planning and delivery of projects. The Project Management Framework will consist of processes, systems, and controls, anchored in project management best practices. Embedded within the project management framework will be an approach to project gating.
5 Implementing a Stage-Gate Framework at Metro Vancouver
These next steps focus on Stage Gate Framework, and it is expected that Metro Vancouver will also consider other initiatives in all areas of project delivery. It is understood that this work will be led by the corporate Project Management Office (PMO) who will work collaboratively across Metro Vancouver.
• Formalize stage-gate approach, scaled based on size and complexity/risk. • Prepare a road map for implementing the Stage-Gate Framework across the entire organization. • Develop guidelines for project classification considering project size, risk, complexity, and cost estimate. • Assess competencies, identify gaps in project management expertise. • Develop tools, templates, and guidelines to enable and support the Stage-Gate Framework. • Develop and deliver training for the stage-gate process. • Collaborate with other similar agencies to identify and apply best practices and lessons learned.
6 Conclusion
The benefits of a Stage-Gate process are clear, tried, and true and have been adopted by similar capital- intensive organizations to Metro Vancouver. To ensure that the management of programs and projects provide value for money and that they are delivered successfully, timely and cost effectively,
14
Water Committee
expectations for their direction must be set. There is a requirement to ensure that there are appropriate processes and controls in place to effectively manage projects, deliver expected results and limit risk to stakeholders.
Key benefits of a Stage Gate process:
• Defines what points where go/no go decisions will be made. o Describes what information and documentation will be provided for those decisions. • Defines the project baseline: o Scope, schedule, cost, risk and other critical socio-economic objectives (e.g. Indigenous participation, equity, diversity, heritage, sustainability). • Adopts a risk-based approach to the management of projects.
While Metro Vancouver has mapped out a credible Stage-Gate process, it has not been implemented past Stage-Gate 1 and only applies to projects less than $250k – essentially minor capital projects.
Formalizing a Stage Gate process for Metro Vancouver and implementing it across the organization, starting with the major capital projects that are now under the responsibility of the Project Delivery Department, will significantly improve the consistency and effectiveness of decision-making and likelihood of success for capital projects for the organization.
15
Water Committee 7 References 1. Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes, Government of Canada: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32594
This directive ensures that government projects and programmes are effectively planned, implemented, monitored, controlled and closed, so that the expected benefits and results are realized for Canadians.
2. Project Delivery Standard 1.2, HM Government, Government Functional Standard GovS002: Project Delivery: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/project-delivery-functional- standard#:~:text=The%20Project%20Delivery%20Functional%20Standard,It%20contains%207%20m ain%20elements%3A&text=Governance%20and%20roles%20of%20portfolios,Portfolio%20manage ment
The standard sets expectations for the direction and management of portfolios, programmes, and projects in government.
3. Chapter 1 SPU Design Process, Seattle Public Utilities: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SPU/Engineering/1DesignProcessFinalRedacted.p df
This chapter of the Design Standards and Guidelines (DSG) explains a typical design process from project initiation through commissioning for a Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) traditional design bid-build project. The primary audience for this chapter is SPU engineering staff. DSG standards are shown as underlined text.
16
Water Committee