Utilities Committee Agenda Package

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:00 am 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

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

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

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

3. DELEGATIONS

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Designated Speaker: Laurie Ford That the GVS&DD Board support proceeding with a feasibility study of a Biosolids Drying Facility at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

5.2 Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant Designated Speaker: Laurie Ford That the GVWD Board support the 12‐month trial of drinking water treatment residuals for use as an alternate raw material in the production of cement at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. April 7, 2016

UC - 1 Utilities Committee Regular Agenda April 14, 2016 Agenda Page 2 of 3 5.3 Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Northeast Coquitlam Designated Speaker: Ed von Euw That the GVS&DD Board approve an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the properties in the City of Coquitlam as shown on District Drawing SA‐2376 Sheets 86 and 87.

5.4 Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary ‐ 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey Designated Speaker: Ed von Euw That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey.

5.5 Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities Designated Speaker: Jeff Gogol That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

5.6 Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey”, dated April 7, 2016.

5.7 Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows Designated Speaker: Larina Lopez That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows”, dated March 14, 2016.

5.8 2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report Designated Speaker: Rosanna Yau That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report” dated March 17, 2016.

5.9 Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016 Designated Speakers: Inder Singh and Andrew Wood That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016”, dated April 4, 2016.

5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015 Designated Speakers: Frank Huber and Mark Ferguson That the GVWD and GVS&DD Boards receive for information the report titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015”, dated March 24, 2016.

5.11 Seymour Salmonid Society – 2015 Annual Report Designated Speaker: Mike Mayers That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Seymour Salmonid Society ‐ 2015 Annual Report” dated March 16, 2016.

UC - 2 Utilities Committee Regular Agenda April 14, 2016 Agenda Page 3 of 3 5.12 Managers’ Report Designated Speakers: Tim Jervis and Simon So That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated April 4, 2016.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Intergovernment and Finance Committee Report dated January 30, 2016 titled “Update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project”

6.2 Correspondence from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Communities to Chair Moore dated February 29, 2016

6.3 Correspondence from the Corporation of Delta to Chair Moore dated March 22, 2016

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for April 14, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows:

“90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:

(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Utilities Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 14, 2016.

Membership: Mussatto, Darrell (C) – North Vancouver City Harper, Bill – New Westminster Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver Becker, John (VC) – Pitt Meadows Hicks, Robin – North Vancouver District Steves, Harold ‐ Richmond Cameron, Craig – West Vancouver Jordan, Colleen ‐ Burnaby Woods, Dave – Surrey Clay, Mike – Port Moody McDonald, Bruce – Delta Fox, Charlie – Langley Township Speirs, Craig – Maple Ridge

UC - 3 2.1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Utilities Committee held at 9:01 a.m. on Thursday, February 11, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Craig Cameron, West Vancouver (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Mayor Mike Clay, Port Moody Councillor Charlie Fox, Langley Township Councillor Bill Harper, New Westminster Councillor Robin Hicks, North Vancouver District Councillor Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Councillor Craig Speirs, Maple Ridge Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver (arrived at 9:05 a.m.) Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond Councillor Dave Woods, Surrey

MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair, Mayor John Becker, Pitt Meadows Councillor Bruce McDonald, Delta

STAFF PRESENT: Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 11, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 11, 2016 as circulated. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 1 of 6 UC - 4 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 November 12, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 12, 2015 as circulated. CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Shaun Hollingsworth and Brian Smith, Seymour Salmonid Society, regarding Seymour Rockslide Update and Proposed Mitigation Shaun Hollingsworth and Brian Smith, Seymour Salmonid Society (SSS), provided members with a presentation on the Seymour rockslide event and proposed mitigation efforts highlighting: history of the Seymour River; student hatchery involvement; activities; location of the rock slide; impact on salmon spawning habitat; tagging project results; salmon migration mitigation strategies; the Lower River Capture Project; fish passage in slide area; fish fence funding; feasibility study; restoration of fish passage; and the proposed strategy budget and vision statement.

9:05 a.m. Councillor Stevenson arrived at the meeting. 9:08 a.m. Councillor Cameron arrived at the meeting.

In response to questions, members were informed about projected costs, partnerships, consideration of public safety in mitigation options and collaborative efforts with the federal government related to fish access.

Presentation material titled “Seymour Salmonid Society Enhancing Fisheries on the North Shore Since 1987” is retained with the February 11, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2016 Utilities Committee Priorities and Work Plan Report dated January 22, 2016 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, and Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, providing the Utilities Committee with the priorities and work plan for the year 2016.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 2 of 6 UC - 5 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated January 22, 2016 titled “2016 Utilities Committee Priorities and Work Plan”. CARRIED Councillor Woods absent at the vote.

5.2 Seymour River Rockslide ‐ Status Update Report dated January 22, 2016 from Mike Mayers, Superintendent, Environmental Management and Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve, Water Services, providing an update on progress associated with restoration of a suitable Seymour River crossing, re‐establishment of essential trail connections, and related public engagement initiatives as well as proposed fish passage restoration activities by the Seymour Salmonid Society and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the Seymour River Canyon.

In response to questions, members were informed about collaboration with senior governments, funding, and the status of proposed strategies related to potential bridge crossings in the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report dated January 22, 2016, titled “Seymour River Rockslide ‐ Status Update”. CARRIED

5.3 2016 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Report dated January 14, 2016 from Frank Huber, Director, Major Projects, Management Systems and Utility Services, Water Services, and Mark Ferguson, Director, Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services, informing of the GVWD and GVS&DD capital projects under its purview for 2016, as approved by the Board on October 30, 2015.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report dated January 14, 2016, titled “2016 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects”. CARRIED

5.4 Consultation Results and Proposed Amendments to the Water Shortage Response Plan Report dated February 2, 2016 from Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, and Lisa Moffatt, Program Manager, Public Involvement, Water Services, providing an update on the Water Shortage Response Plan (the Plan) review process, including consultation results, and seeking GVWD Board authorization to amend the Plan as proposed in the report.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 3 of 6 UC - 6 Members were provided a presentation on consultation results and proposed 2016 amendments to the Metro Vancouver Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) highlighting: progress since November 2015; consultation summary since the fall of 2015 to date; issues identified by residents, businesses and local governments; proposed amendments; rationale for proposed amendments; and next steps.

In response to questions, members were updated on plans for a comprehensive WSRP review, as well as proposed amendments as they relate to types of watering, European Chafer beetle, and public education efforts for commercial car washing.

Members suggested consideration be given to exploring opportunities to promote non‐lawn landscaping, a consistent approach to local government enforcement efforts, and efficient irrigation systems being used in other regions.

Presentation material titled “Water Shortage Response Plan Consultation Results and 2016 Amendments” is retained with the February 11, 2016 Utilities Committee agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVWD Board: a) receive for information the report titled “Consultation Results and Proposed Amendments to the Water Shortage Response Plan”, dated February 2, 2016; and b) authorize amending the Water Shortage Response Plan as follows: i) amend Stage 2 to allow water to be used by commercial cleaning services for aesthetic cleaning; and ii) amend Stage 3 to allow previously issued local government exemption permits to water new lawns or for treatment to control the European Chafer Beetle to remain valid. CARRIED

5.5 Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary ‐ Township of Langley Report dated January 6, 2016 from Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, responding to a request from the Township of Langley for the GVS&DD Board to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include 3 properties located within the Township at 637 200th Street, 1381 200th Street, and 5277 224th Street and seeking Board approval to accommodate these requests.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the following properties located within the Township of Langley: i. 637 200th Street (Lot 6, Sec. 3, Township 7, NWD, Plan NWP21259);

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 4 of 6 UC - 7 ii. 1381 200th Street (N ½ Lot 1, Sec. 10, Township 7, NWD, Ex Plan 13509); and iii. 5277 224th Street (Lot 9, Sec. 6, Township 11, NWD, Plan NWP40747). CARRIED

5.6 Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Report Report dated January 20, 2016 from Fred Nenninger, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services, providing an update on the work underway for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant project.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant – Quarterly Report” dated January 20, 2016. CARRIED Councillor Fox absent at the vote.

5.7 Award of Phase B, Detailed Design Consulting Engineering Services: Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Transient Mitigation and Outfall Report dated January 13, 2016 from Tracey Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management, Financial Services, seeking GVS&DD Board authorization to award Phase B, Detailed Design Services, for an amount up to $10,270,884 (exclusive of taxes) to CDM Smith Canada ULC (CDM Smith) for the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Transient Mitigation and Outfall.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board authorize: a) Award of Phase B, Detailed Design Services, for an amount up to $10,270,884 (exclusive of taxes) to the Phase A consultant, CDM Smith Canada ULC; and b) The Commissioner and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation. CARRIED Councillor Fox absent at the vote.

5.8 Managers’ Report Report dated January 19, 2016 from Tim Jervis, General Manager, Water Services, and Simon So, General Manager, Liquid Waste Services, updating the Utilities Committee on attendance at 2016 Standing Committee Events including the American Water Works Association 2016 Annual Conference and Exposition Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference 2016, and the Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan.

Members were requested to contact the Committee Chair by February 26, 2016 if interested in attending either 2016 Committee event outlined in the report.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 5 of 6 UC - 8 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report” dated January 19, 2016. CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee receive for information the following Information Item: 6.1 Letter dated January 25, 2016 from ACEC‐BC to Premier Christy Clark re: Provincial Funding support for Metro Vancouver Priority Infrastructure Initiative – Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant. CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for February 11, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of the meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.” CARRIED

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Utilities Committee adjourn its regular meeting of February 11, 2016. CARRIED (Time: 10:54 a.m.)

______Janis Knaupp, Darrell Mussatto, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees

17405370 FINAL

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Utilities Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 6 of 6 UC - 9

5.1

To: Utilities Committee

From: Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 14, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board support proceeding with a feasibility study of a Biosolids Drying Facility at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.

PURPOSE To provide information on the unique opportunity available to use excess heat from the new cogeneration facility at the Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (AIWWTP) to dry biosolids, and seek support from the GVS&DD Board to proceed with a feasibility study of a biosolids drying facility at the AIWWTP.

BACKGROUND In keeping with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan to use liquid waste as a resource, and the Biosolids Management Plan Framework to use biosolids for land application, Metro Vancouver has been beneficially using biosolids as fertilizer safely and responsibly for the last 25 years. Biosolids are the heat treated solids removed from the treatment process at Metro Vancouver’s WWTPs. Like manure, biosolids are rich in plant nutrients and organic matter and can help build healthy, productive soils, improve soil water retention, and increase vegetation growth when applied to land. Metro Vancouver has successfully used its biosolids to rebuild soil and grow vegetation on mine sites, gravel pits and closed landfills, to fertilize rangeland, hayfields and forests, and in fabricated topsoil for use in regional parks, capital works projects, and sold for use for local landscaping.

In 2020 and 2030, biosolids production in the region is anticipated to increase substantially due to the planned upgrade of the two primary treatment plants to secondary treatment. In accordance with the Biosolids Management Plan Framework, Metro Vancouver has studied various alternatives to recover energy from biosolids, which would diversify the current biosolids management program and open up new markets for the future increased biosolids production. These studies have concluded that the most attractive option is to dry a portion of Metro Vancouver’s biosolids at AIWWTP using excess heat available from the cogeneration facility, and use the dried biosolids as a fuel.

BIOSOLIDS DRYER FEASIBILITY STUDY Metro Vancouver is in the process of replacing the four cogeneration engines at the AIWWTP with larger capacity engines to keep pace with increased production of biogas resulting from the Stage V plant expansion required for population growth. The cogeneration engines burn biogas generated in the digestion process and produce electricity and heat; the electricity is used to power plant processes, and the heat is used to heat the digesters and plant buildings. The existing engines are UC - 10 able to provide sufficient heat for the majority of the plant’s needs in the winter months, requiring very little supplemental fuel for heating purposes. In the warmer months, there is surplus heat available that cannot currently be used as there are no potential users close enough to the plant to make it cost effective. Upon replacement of the existing engines with larger machines, it is anticipated that there will be surplus heat available both in the winter and warmer months with no identified end users.

Metro Vancouver’s biosolids from AIWWTP, Lulu Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (LIWWTP), and Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGWWTP) are digested then dewatered in centrifuges, which produces material with a moisture content between 70‐78%. In order to dry the biosolids to create a potential fuel, significant heat energy is required to evaporate the majority of the water to create a pelletized product with 5‐10% moisture. The majority of drying facilities in North America burn fossil fuels to dry their biosolids, incurring costs and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

The upgrading of the cogeneration engines at AIWWTP presents a unique opportunity for Metro Vancouver to dry its biosolids using surplus heat available from the engines that would otherwise be wasted. It is anticipated that this heat would be sufficient to dry approximately half of Metro Vancouver’s biosolids after completion of secondary upgrades at the Lions Gate WWTP and Iona Island WWTP, requiring very little auxiliary fuel. A facility located at AIWWTP would be able to dry biosolids from any of the five Metro Vancouver WWTPs to the specifications required for using dried biosolids as a fuel source.

In order to determine the viability of this option, a feasibility study is required, which would confirm the heat available from the cogeneration engines and heat demand for the dryer throughout the year, identify potential air emissions and available emission control equipment, and establish the life cycle cost, footprint, and associated greenhouse gas emissions displaced by using dried biosolids as a fuel.

Upon completion of the feasibility study, staff would report back to the Committee and Board on the results with a recommendation on whether to proceed with the project.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board support proceeding with a feasibility study of a Biosolids Drying Facility at Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2. That the Utilities Committee receive the report for information and provide alternative direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The feasibility study is estimated to cost $250,000 to cover the intended scope of work. The budget and staff resources to support the feasibility study are included in the 2015 GVS&DD budget.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2020 and 2030, biosolids production in the region is anticipated to increase substantially due to the planned upgrade of the primary Lions Gate WWTP and Iona Island WWTP respectively to secondary treatment. The replacement of the AIWWTP cogeneration engines presents a unique opportunity to harness the excess heat to dry biosolids, potentially eliminating the need to use energy from fossil fuels. The dried biosolids would be available for use as a fuel, which would provide a new market for Metro Vancouver’s biosolids, diversifying and strengthening the program. In order to

UC - 11 determine the viability of this concept, a feasibility study is required, which would identify potential air emissions and available emission control equipment, establish the life cycle cost, footprint, and associated greenhouse gas emissions displaced. Should the Board support this study, staff will report back to the Committee and Board on the results, with a recommendation on whether to proceed with the project.

17529843

UC - 12 5.2

To: Utilities Committee

From: Laurie Ford, Program Manager, Utility Residuals Management, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 23, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

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

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board support the 12‐month trial of drinking water treatment residuals for use as an alternate raw material in the production of cement at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant.

PURPOSE To inform the Committee and Board of the opportunity to use drinking water treatment residuals as a raw material in the production of cement, and request support to proceed with an industrial trial at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant.

BACKGROUND Drinking water treatment residuals are the thickened, dewatered solids removed as a result of the drinking water filtration process at the Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Plant, and consist of materials from the source water (sediments and naturally occurring elements) and treatment chemicals (coagulants and polymers). Drinking water treatment residuals are a semi‐solid product with the physical consistency of moist clay, and a solids content ranging from 15 – 20%.

Metro Vancouver currently disposes of the drinking water treatment residuals at Vancouver Landfill. In keeping with the Board Strategic Plan’s direction to evaluate the recovery of resources from water operations, Metro Vancouver has been working for several years to identify potential beneficial uses for the drinking water treatment residuals and divert them from the landfill. One beneficial use option identified for drinking water treatment residuals is in cement production as a substitute for shale, a raw material used in the process. Staff approached Lafarge Canada Inc. (Lafarge) several years ago to explore the possibility of using drinking water treatment residuals at their plant, and analysis performed indicates it could be used to displace a small amount of their annual raw material requirements. This report is being brought forward to consider a 12‐month trial at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant.

BENEFICIAL USE IN CEMENT PLANTS The cement making process requires a combination of limestone, silica, alumina, and small quantities of iron. These materials are mixed together in a measured ratio and finely ground before being fired in a cement kiln. A combination of thermal and chemical processes in the kiln result in the production of clinker, which is a precursor and the major constituent of cement.

Lafarge Richmond has conducted initial testing of Metro Vancouver’s drinking water treatment residuals, and has confirmed that this material could potentially replace a portion of virgin red shale. The drinking water treatment residuals could potentially replace between 5,000 – 15,000 tonnes of UC - 13 red shale annually. At present, most of the shale used by Lafarge Richmond is supplied from a quarrying operation located in Sumas Mountain, Abbotsford. The primary benefit of using alternative material in the cement making process is the reduction in air emissions associated with extracting and transporting virgin raw materials. The air emissions are primarily associated with the diesel‐ powered mobile equipment used in the quarrying operations and the trucking of virgin shale from Sumas to Richmond.

In order to determine if drinking water treatment residuals are a viable alternative to shale in local cement production, Lafarge needs to identify any special handling requirements and resolve associated operational challenges. To do this, Lafarge has proposed a trial using drinking water treatment residuals at the Richmond plant over a 12‐month period.

Staff will report back to the Board with the results of the trial prior to entering into any long term agreement for beneficial use of drinking water treatment residuals.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVWD Board support proceeding with the 12‐month trial of drinking water treatment residuals for use as an alternate raw material in the production of cement at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant. 2. That the Utilities Committee receive the report titled “Industrial Trial of Drinking Water Treatment Residuals at Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant” dated March 23, 2016 for information and provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves alternative one, staff will proceed with the trial. The trial will result in a cost savings of approximately $250,000 to the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) in 2016, which is a 20% reduction to the 2016 Drinking Water Residuals Program budget of $1,268,000. If the trial demonstrates the viability of using the drinking water treatment residuals in cement, this beneficial use would help achieve the Board’s Strategic Plan goal, divert the material from landfill disposal and provide long term cost savings to the GVWD.

If the Board approves Alternative 2, the residuals would continue to be disposed at the Vancouver Landfill.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS Similar to other regional industrial operations, Lafarge requires an Air Quality Permit, which is issued and enforced by Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Regulation and Enforcement Division. Air dispersion modelling conducted during the permitting for the Lafarge facility established emissions limit levels that achieve ground level (ambient) concentrations that are protective of human health and the environment.

Quarterly stack tests are required as part of Lafarge’s Air Quality Permit, and any alternate raw materials or fuels must be stack tested prior to utilizing the materials in full scale operation. In September 2015, Lafarge tested a load of drinking water treatment residuals during their stack test. The results of these tests showed that levels for all permitted discharges were comparable to those recorded during the previous 5 years of stack testing, and are well within Lafarge’s Air Quality Permit limits. As such, drinking water treatment residuals are considered acceptable for use as an alternate material as per regional air quality regulations.

UC - 14

Should the trial proceed, additional stack testing and analysis will be performed, further informing Metro Vancouver of any air quality impacts or benefits of use of the drinking water treatment residuals.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Staff have been working on finding beneficial uses of drinking water treatment residuals, which have the potential to replace a portion of virgin red shale in local cement production. In order to determine if drinking water treatment residuals are a viable alternate raw material, Lafarge Richmond has proposed a 12‐month trial to identify any special handling requirements and resolve associated operational challenges. The trial would provide an immediate beneficial use alternative to disposal of drinking water treatment residuals, and provide a significant cost saving to the GVWD.

Stack test data performed by Lafarge in September 2015 during testing of a load of drinking water treatment residuals was well within Lafarge’s Air Quality Permit limits. Drinking water treatment residuals are considered acceptable for use as an alternate raw material as per regional air quality regulations. Staff recommend that Metro Vancouver proceed with a 12‐month trial of drinking water treatment residuals for use as an alternate raw material in the production of cement at the Lafarge Richmond Cement Plant. Staff will report back to the Board with the results of the trial prior to entering into any long term agreement for beneficial use of drinking water treatment residuals.

17732180

UC - 15

5.3

To: Utilities Committee

From: Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 21, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary – Northeast Coquitlam

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the properties in the City of Coquitlam as shown on District Drawing SA‐2376 Sheets 86 and 87.

PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the City of Coquitlam for GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) boundary in Northeast Coquitlam.

BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver received a Council resolution from the City of Coquitlam requesting that the GVS&DD Board extend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the properties in Northeast Coquitlam as identified in Attachment 1. The application proposes to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary (Attachments 2 and 3).

Metro Vancouver provides regional sewerage services to GVS&DD member municipalities. For a municipal property to receive sewerage services it must be located within one of Metro Vancouver’s Sewerage Areas. Sewerage Area boundaries are occasionally amended in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act, typically at the request of a GVS&DD member.

METRO 2040 CONSIDERATION Following adoption of Metro 2040 (the Regional Growth Strategy) in 2011, Metro Vancouver procedures regarding the amendment of regional sewer services are subject to the provisions of Metro 2040. Therefore any requests from member municipalities to amend a GVS&DD sewerage area must be presented to the GVRD Board for consideration of consistency with the provisions of Metro 2040. Once consistency with Metro 2040 has been established, the decision to amend the sewerage area rests with the GVS&DD Board, subject to technical considerations. The following summarizes the considerations for this boundary amendment:

 A council report and resolution supporting the Coquitlam request was received by Metro Vancouver.  A report was presented to the GVRD Board on February 26, 2016 (Attachment 4). The Board approved the following resolution:

That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam for the area shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and UC - 16 b) Forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

GVS&DD CONSIDERATION GVS&DD technical review generally includes an examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, and effects on service levels. In this case, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with Coquitlam to connect new land development to the regional system as new projects proceed. The Fraser Sewerage Area system has capacity to service future growth and local assessment will be made with Coquitlam.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the properties in the City of Coquitlam as shown on District Drawing SA‐2376 Sheets 86 and 87. 2. That the Board receive the report for information and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no immediate financial implications on the GVS&DD due to this amendment. The GVS&DD will work with Coquitlam once the City has identified their sewer service extensions to these properties.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The City of Coquitlam has requested that the GVS&DD amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include a number of properties located in Northeast Coquitlam as listed in Attachment 1. The GVRD Board has resolved that amending the FSA boundary to include these subject properties is consistent with the provisions of Metro 2040: Shaping Our Future. The GVS&DD will work with Coquitlam once the City has identified their sewer service extensions to these properties. There are no financial implications for the GVS&DD since the new development will be served by city sewers. Staff recommend that the proposed FSA boundary amendment be approved.

Attachments: 1. Properties to be included in the Fraser Sewerage Area 2. Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment (District File SA‐2376 Sheet 86) 3. Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment (District File SA‐2376 Sheet 87) 4. GVRD Report titled “Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam” dated January 13, 2016

17186175

UC - 17 Properties in Northeast Coquitlam to be included in the Fraser Sewerage Area

LOT 7036 SEC 19 TWP 40 LEASE 9474 LS 12 SEC 19 TWP 40 LOT 1 SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN 34286 LOT 4 SEC 18 TWP 40 DL 3233 GP1 NWD PLAN 45262 LOT 3 EXCEPT: PART SUBDIVIDED BY PLAN 46521; SEC 18 TWP 40 NWD P34286 LS 9 SEC 17 TWP 40 NWD LSD’S 11&12 & SW1/4 SEC 16 TWP 40 NWD LS 13 SEC 16 TWP 40 NWD LS 6 SEC 24 TWP 39 W OF COAST MERIDIAN LS 7 SEC 24 TWP 39 NWD LS 8 SEC 24 TWP 39 NWD LS 9 SEC 24 TWP 39 NWD LS 10 SEC 24 TWP 39 NWD REM LS 11 SEC 24 TWP 39 NWD BLOCK B SEC 17 TWP 40 E OF THE COAST MERIDIAN NWD EXCEPT P EPP50860 DISTRICT LOT 8196 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPC 1226 BLOCK C SECTION 17 TOWNSHIP 40 EAST OF THE COAST MERIDIAN NWD DISTRICT LOT 8198 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT DISTRICT LOT 8199 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOT A SEC 18 TWP 40 NWD PLAN EPP38414 EXCEPT PLAN EPP50860 LOT 3 SECTION 17 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPP43582 LOT 1 SECTION 17 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPP43S$0 LOT 1 SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN BCPSO759 LOT 6 SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN 46521 LOT 1 SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 40 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPP43396 LOT 1 SEC 18 TWP 40 NWD PLAN EPP43395 EXCEPT PLAN EPPSOS59 AND EPPSO86O DISTRICT LOT 8195 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOT 93 SEC 18 TWP 40 PLAN EPP5O86O NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOTS 95 TO 126 SEC 18 TWP 40 PLAN EPPSO86O NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOTS 131 TO 137 SEC 18 TWP 40 PLAN EPPSD86O NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOTS 128 AND 130 SEC 17 & SEC 18 TWP 40 PLAN EPPSO86O NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT LOT 130 SEC 17 TWP 40 PLAN EPP50860 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT

UC - 18 I

~---\ --- AREA TO BE ADDED TO THE FRASER SEWERAGE AREA T--T--

Design: ~M W_~ ~-+-~-+~-r------~ 1: 20000 ~-+-~-+~-r------~ Dro wn: ~.Ill-~ FRASER SEWERAGE AREA AMENDMENT Checked: __ DISTRI CT FILE SA-2376

1---A--+-D E C~J+S ~MW-+-J--,--M +---+--+--IS~S~U E~D ~FO~R~R~E~\1 E~W------1 Approve d Iss. Do te Desn Dr'n Chk'd App'd Description CITY OF COQUITLAM DRA'M NG NUMBER ZO Ba r Is 20mm On Orig.1nal Drawing. If Not On Man ager SHEET 86 ---- Th is Sheet Adj.Js t Scoles Acco rdingly SUPERSED ES PR IN TS OF THIS DRAWING NUM BER WITH LETTERS PREVIOUS TO ... A UC - 19 xref files: ------+- II I I

I I II I I - --_j L ------'--- AREA-~~ B1 ~D~--T TO THE FRASER LOCATION PLAN SEWERAGE AREA I I ---N.T.S. -t----- I I

EXISTING FRASER :.. :- SEWER AGE AR E A ~______,------~ BOUNDARY ::.··.- ~.::J:-~-.:·i·.. :·~·:-:i·:-w····~·:··~:-.-.::·:~·.:··r"·:·~·-::~:-:-~

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT Design: _MW__ SCALE: ~~-r-+--r-~-+------~ 1:1()(){)0 ~~-r-+--r-~-+------~ Drown: _.Ill __ FRASER SEWERAGE AREA AMENDMENT Checked: __ DISTRICT FILE SA-2376

1---A-+--DE_C.I---15f-M_W+---JM,---+-----,--+--+IS_S_ UE_D_F_O_R _R_EV1_E_W______-----l Approved Iss. Date Desn Dr'n Chk'd App'd Description CITY OF COQUITLAM DRA'MNG NUMBER ZO Bar Is 20mm On Orig'1nol Drawing. If Not On Manager SHEET 87 ----"""' Th is Sheet. Adj.Jst Scoles Accordingl y SUPERSEDES PRINTS OF THIS DRAWING NUMBER WITH LETTERS PREVIOUS TO ... A UC - 20 xref files: Section E 3.1

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planning, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2015

Subject: Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam, for the area as shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider whether the City of Coquitlam’s request to extend the GVS&DD Sewerage Area within the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) General Urban designation is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions.

BACKGROUND On October 26, 2015, Metro Vancouver received a request from the City of Coquitlam to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to include of number of properties in Northeast Coquitlam (Attachment). Metro 2040 requires that all requests to amend the sewerage area boundaries first be considered by the GVRD Board to determine consistency with the regional growth strategy.

Section 6.8 of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy, includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.

GVS&DD regional sewerage services have historically been provided within legally defined GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries. Any change in that boundary requires municipal Councils to request boundary amendment approval from the GVS&DD Board. Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 states that works and service provision to sites within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, including land with a regional General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment land use designation are generally acceptable for the extension of sewerage services, provided that the form of development complies, in the judgment of the GVRD Board, with the applicable Metro 2040 policies under those regional land use designations.

UC - 21 Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, therefore, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

Implementation of Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions The implementation of Metro 2040 has included a number of initiatives to achieve consistency between Metro 2040 policies and GVS&DD service provision. One of the initiatives addresses the boundary inconsistencies between the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and regional land use designations, and the GVS&DD Sewerage Service Boundaries.

There are many areas throughout the region where these boundaries are inconsistent. In some areas, the sewerage area boundaries do not include large areas of lands with a regional General Urban land use designation within the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB). In many locations, the sewerage area boundaries extend outside of the Urban Containment Boundary into lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural and Conservation and Recreation land use designation.

The discrepancies between the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and the GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries create some confusion regarding access to services within those areas. If a particular development site is outside of the existing sewerage area, the municipality must apply to Metro Vancouver both to confirm that the proposed development is consistent with Metro 2040 and to extend the sewerage area boundary. For planned development within the UCB, this boundary discrepancy creates unnecessary Metro Vancouver application and approval processes for member municipalities.

Metro Vancouver staff have been working in collaboration with municipal staff to resolve boundary and administrative inconsistencies. For areas within the Metro 2040 UCB, municipalities were asked to identify planned urban development areas outside of the sewerage area boundary, and to submit a comprehensive sewerage area extension application package to Metro Vancouver. A comprehensive boundary extension would then avoid the need for numerous individual site-by-site boundary extension applications in the future. While affected municipalities are currently considering this comprehensive amendment option, some interim amendment applications may be required.

City of Coquitlam Sewerage Area Amendment Request At its October 19, 2015 Council meeting, the City of Coquitlam adopted a resolution to request that the GVS&DD Board extend the Fraser Sewerage Area to include a number of properties in Northeast Coquitlam. The application proposes to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary (see Map).

The subject area is contained within the Northeast Coquitlam Area Plan. This Plan includes Council- approved component Neighbourhood Plans for Smiling Creek and Partington Creek. Both areas are currently developing and are likely to be fully built out over the next ten to twenty years. The remainder of the subject area includes Northwest Burke, which is currently in the early stages of development of a land use concept, and the easterly portion of the northeast Coquitlam plan area, which is anticipated for a future neighbourhood planning process. The land use plans for the UC - 22 Northeast Coquitlam area include a range of housing types with supporting commercial, institutional, parks and recreational uses.

Metro 2040 Assessment Metro 2040 General Urban areas are intended for residential neighbourhoods supported by shopping, services, institutions, recreation facilities and parks. The planned development as conveyed in the Northeast Coquitlam plans is within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and has a regional General Urban land use designation; it is therefore generally consistent with applicable Metro 2040 policies.

If the proposed Sewerage Area extension is determined by the GVRD Board to be consistent with Metro 2040, the application will then proceed to the Utilities Committee and GVS&DD Board for assessment of technical capacity and servicing implications. If the GVS&DD Board then approves the proposed Sewerage Area extension, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with the City of Coquitlam to monitor future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems.

Map: Proposed Sewerage Area Extension

UC - 23 ALTERNATIVES That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam, for the area as shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro 2040 acceptance of the proposed sewerage area extension would have no direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver. However, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with Coquitlam in monitoring future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems. Any potential upgrades required to the regional system will be identified and assessed as development proceeds through the area.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro 2040 Section 6.8 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards.

Implementation of Metro 2040 has included a number of initiatives to achieve consistency between Metro 2040 policies and GVS&DD service provision. One of the initiatives addresses boundary inconsistencies between Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary / land use designations and the GVS&DD Sewerage Service Boundaries. Metro staff have been working in collaboration with municipal staff to resolve such boundary and administrative inconsistencies. This work is ongoing. While affected municipalities are currently considering this comprehensive amendment option, some interim amendment applications may be required. This report relates to one such amendment.

On October 19, 2015 the City of Coquitlam Council adopted a resolution to submit a comprehensive sewerage area amendment for Northeast Coquitlam (attachment). The application proposes to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 states that works and service provision to sites within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, including land with a regional General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment land use designation are generally acceptable for the extension of sewerage services, provided that the form of development complies, in the judgment of the GVRD Board, with the applicable Metro 2040 policies under those regional land use designations.

Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, therefore, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

UC - 24 The City of Coquitlam land use plans for future development in the subject area are generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies for the applicable Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation. Therefore, staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board accept the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area extension within the City of Coquitlam as being consistent with Metro 2040.

Attachment: Letter from City of Coquitlam dated October 26, 2015 re: Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary Amendment for Northeast Coquitlam.

UC - 25 Attachment

Coo uitlam ....-....-

October 26, 2015 Our File: 11-5340-01/000/2015-1 Doc#: 2109228.v1

Fred Nenninger Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8

Dear Mr. Nenninger:

RE: Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary Amendment for Northeast Coquitlam

The City ofCoquitlam by resolution of Council on October 19, 2015;

"Supported amending the Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary to include properties in Northeast Coquitlam as shown in Attachments A."

A full copy ofthe report to Council is attached which includes a listing ofthe affected properties. Please forward a copy of the Council report to the Metro Vancouver Board and GVS&DD Board along with the City's request to amend the sewerage boundary.

Feel free to contact me at 604-927-6207, ifyou have any quest ions. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to our request.

Dana Soong, P.Eng. Manager Utility Programs

Attachments: A. Map of Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment B. Report to October 19, 2015 Council

c. Heather McNeil, Division Manager, Regional Planning, Metro Vancouver Jozsef Dioszeghy, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works Jim Mcintyre, General Manager, Planning and Development

City of Coquitlam 3000 GUiidford Way, CoqUitlam, BC V38 ]N2 Office 6o4 927 3000 coquitlam.ca

UC - 26

5.4

To: Utilities Committee

From: Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 21, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Amendment of Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary ‐ 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue, Surrey.

PURPOSE This report responds to a request from the City of Surrey for GVS&DD Board approval to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA) boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Ave in Surrey.

BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver received a council resolution from the City of Surrey requesting an amendment of the FSA boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue, as shown in Attachment 1 to accommodate a 57 unit townhouse development.

Metro Vancouver provides regional sewerage services to GVS&DD member municipalities. For a municipal property to receive sewerage services, it must be located within one of Metro Vancouver’s Sewerage Areas. Sewerage area boundaries are occasionally amended in accordance with Sections 31 and 32 of the GVS&DD Act, typically at the request of a GVS&DD member.

 A council report and resolution supporting the Surrey request was received by Metro Vancouver.  A report was presented to the GVRD Board on February 26, 2016 (Attachment 2). The Board approved the following resolution:

That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and

UC - 27 b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

GVS&DD technical review includes an examination of financial, technical and operational impacts, and effects on service levels. It was concluded that:

 There are no financial impacts on the GVS&DD as any costs will be borne by the property owners.  GVS&DD analysis of the estimated flow projections shows negligible impacts on the FSA sewerage system.  The discharge will be domestic sewage.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board approve the amendment of the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue in Surrey. 2. That the GVS&DD Board receive the report for information and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to the GVS&DD as costs will be borne by the property owners.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The City of Surrey has requested that the GVS&DD amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue. The GVRD Board has resolved that amending the FSA to include these properties is consistent with the provisions of Metro 2040: Shaping Our Future. GVS&DD staff analysis has shown there are negligible impacts to the regional sewerage system and no financial impacts to the GVS&DD. Staff recommend that the FSA boundary be amended to include the subject property in the City of Surrey.

Attachments: 1. Fraser Sewerage Area Amendment (District File SA‐2376 Sheet 88) 2. GVRD Report titled “GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey” dated January 13, 2016

17188912

UC - 28 ------r------1 - -

~-----

LOCATION PLAN N.T.SI.I I I AREA TO BE ADDED TO THE FRASER i i I I SEWERAGE AREA I I

Design: ~MW_~ ~~-r-+--r-~-+------~ 1: 5000 ~~-r-+--r-~-+------~ Drown: ~.Ill -~ FRASER SEWERAGE AREA AMENDMENT Checked: __ DISTRICT FILE SA-2376

1--A-+-DE_C.I---15 f-M_W+--JM,---+----,--+--+IS_S_UE_D_ F_O_R _R_EV1_E_W______---l Approved 15005 - 36 AVENUE Iss. Do te Desn Dr'n Chk'd App'd Description CITY OF SURREY DRA'M NG NUMBER ZO Bar Is 20mm On Orig'1nal Drawing. If Not On Manager SHEET 88 ----"""' Th is Sheet. Adj.Js t Scoles Acco rdingly SUPERSED ES PR IN TS OF TH IS DRAWING NUMBER WITH LETTERS PREVIOUS TO ... A UC - 29 xref fil es: Section E 3.2

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider whether the City of Surrey’s request to extend the GVS&DD Sewerage Area within the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) General Urban designation is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions.

BACKGROUND On December 3, 2015, Metro Vancouver received a request from the City of Surrey to include a property in the Fraser Sewerage Area (attachment). The proposed development at 15005 36th Avenue is for 57 townhouse units. Metro 2040 requires that all requests to amend the sewerage area boundaries first be considered by the GVRD Board to determine consistency with the regional growth strategy.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment and the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation.

UC - 30 Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, therefore, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

City of Surrey Request At its November 30, 2015 Council meeting, the City of Surrey passed a resolution requesting that the GVS&DD Board extend the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue. The application proposed to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 UCB. The proposed sewerage area extension would allow development of a 57-unit townhouse complex within Surrey’s existing West Rosemary Heights neighbourhood. Table 1 provides site characteristics and Map 1 shows the location of the proposed sewerage extension site.

UC - 31

Table 1 – Site Characteristics of the Subject Property Address Metro 2040 Designation ALR Municipal OCP and Zoning 15005  Within the Urban No  OCP Urban Designation 36 Avenue Containment Boundary  Zoning Proposed - Comprehensive  General Urban Development (Townhousing)

The City of Surrey assessment states there are no anticipated negative impacts to the City’s sewer system or the GVS&DD’s sewer system.

Metro 2040 Assessment Metro 2040 General Urban areas are intended for residential neighbourhoods supported by shopping, services, institutions, recreation facilities and parks. The proposed development is located within the new, but largely developed, West Rosemary Heights neighbourhood. The proposed land use development of a 57-unit townhouse complex is consistent with the existing development in the area, and is consistent with the intent of the Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation.

Map 1. City of Surrey Proposed Sewerage Area Amendment

UC - 32 ALTERNATIVES That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro 2040 acceptance of the proposed sewerage area extension would have no direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver. However, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with the City of Surrey in monitoring future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems.

On November 30, 2015 the City of Surrey Council adopted a resolution to submit a sewerage area amendment to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue (attachment). The application proposed to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 UCB.

Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

The City of Surrey land use plans and proposed development of a 57-unit townhouse complex in the subject area are generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies for the applicable Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation.

UC - 33 Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board resolve that the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area extension within the City of Surrey is generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies.

Attachment: Letter dated December 3, 2015 re: 15005 - 36 Avenue in Surrey, BC – Application to include Property in Fraser Sewerage Area

UC - 34 Attachment

ltSURREY the future lives here.

December 3, 2015

Surrey File: 5340-30 (FSA)

REPLY TO: Utilities Division ATTENTION: Samantha Ward, P.Eng.

Metro Vancouver Liquid Waste Services 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H4G8

Attention: Mark Wellman, P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer, Policy Planning and Analysis

Dear Mr. Wellman:

Re: 15005 • 36 Avenue in Surrey, B.C. Application to Include Property in Fraser Sewerage Area

The City of Surrey (City), on behalf of the property owner, is applying to Metro Vancouver (MY) to include the above noted property in the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The proposed development on the property (fifty-seven (57) townhouse units) is anticipated to add a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of approximately 2.4 Us to the sanitary sewer system.

Enclosed are the property location map and Corporate Report. The Corporate Report was approved by City Council at their November 30,2015 meeting. Council minutes will be forwarded to MY as soon as they are available.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (604) 591-4326 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Yours truly, ~ 1 1 / vvv:~v1lf~UavJ amantha Ward, P.Eng. Project Engineer

SLW/clr Enclosure

c.c. - Manager, Utilities - Sewer Engineer - Ileana Kosa, Development Services

g:\wp.dncs\201 5\ulil itie.,\'teWet\ 120316 1 3.~1w. don CLR 121311 3 4:13 PM

Engineering Department 13450 104 Ave Surrey BC Canada V3T 1VB - 604 591 4 .40 F 604.591 .8693 www.eng1neenng.surrey.ca

UC - 35 5.5

To: Utilities Committee

From: Jeff Gogol, Environmental Regulatory Planner, Policy, Planning & Analysis, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 21, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

PURPOSE To seek endorsement from the GVS&DD Board for the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities and to receive direction to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw.

BACKGROUND Regulatory Need As part of Metro Vancouver’s source control strategy to proactively minimize contaminants from entering the sewers, Metro Vancouver is developing strategies to regulate wastes discharged to sewer from hospitals and acute care facilities. This is included in the 2016 Utilities Committee Work Plan. A number of hospitals and acute care facilities discharge non‐domestic wastes to Metro Vancouver’s sewer system. While the quantity of non‐domestic waste that are discharged from these facilities is far less than industrial facilities, they are still considered high‐volume dischargers and there is the potential for discharge of harmful contaminants to sewer. These contaminants may include heavy metals, acids and chemical compounds.

Authorization Metro Vancouver is authorized to manage its liquid waste through the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ILWRMP) approved by the Province. Primary source control strategies highlighted in the ILWRMP include:  review and enhance sewer use bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,  develop new regulatory instruments, such as Pollution Prevention Plans, to complement existing regulations, and  develop source control initiatives targeting endocrine‐disrupting chemicals, persistent organic pollutants and other micro‐contaminants found in wastewater.

Under the authority of the provincial Environmental Management Act, Metro Vancouver is authorized to enact Bylaws to regulate the discharge of non‐domestic waste into its sewerage and

UC - 36 drainage system at source. GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (the Sewer Use Bylaw) prohibits discharge from a high‐volume discharger (discharging more than 300 m3 in a 30 day period) unless that discharger is in compliance with the Sewer Use Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, a Code of Practice or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan.

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANNING APPROACH As the hospital and acute care facilities sector is considered a high‐volume discharger, some form of regulation is appropriate to ensure they are properly handling their wastewater prior to discharge to sewer. Some jurisdictions, including Metro King County in Seattle and the Capital Regional District in Victoria, issue site‐specific discharge permits that contain specific requirements that each operation must meet. In contrast, other jurisdictions, including the City of Toronto and the City of Hamilton, require that hospitals develop Pollution Prevention Plans that will assist in identifying ways of reducing and/or eliminating pollutants and wastes at the source.

Current Waste Discharge Permits issued by Metro Vancouver require industrial dischargers to monitor the quantity and quality of their wastewater to ensure compliance with permit limits. However, hospitals are large, complex sites where it is difficult to monitor the discharge of non‐ domestic wastes. Therefore, Metro Vancouver considers the use of Pollution Prevention Plans an effective strategy to regulate this sector.

Pollution Prevention Planning is a process used to examine operations and to eliminate or reduce pollution at the source. Pollution Prevention Plans also focus on the root causes of the problem and identify the most cost effective pollution prevention opportunities.

CONSULTATION For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders, an Intentions Paper (Attachment 1) has been prepared that provides potentially impacted stakeholders with notice that new requirements for hospitals and acute care facilities are being considered and highlights the proposed requirements. Consultation on these proposed requirements will begin in spring 2016 and continue through to spring 2017. It is expected that in the order of 40 facilities, as well as the health authorities will be consulted under this initiative. Metro Vancouver will encourage input through a combination of meetings and online feedback. Specific mechanisms will be developed as part of the detailed consultation plan, to be developed in spring 2016.

ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVS&DD Board endorse the Intentions Paper ‐ Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities and direct staff to begin consultation on the development of a new regulatory bylaw. 2. That the Board receive the report for information and provide alternate direction to staff.

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

UC - 37 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As part of Metro Vancouver’s source control strategy to proactively minimize contaminants from entering the sewers, Metro Vancouver is developing strategies to regulate wastes discharged to sewer from hospitals and acute care facilities.

Discharges from hospitals and acute care facilities may contain some contaminants including heavy metals, acids and chemical compounds. Therefore, Metro Vancouver is proposing to begin consultation on a sector‐specific bylaw that would require that hospitals and acute care facilities submit and implement Pollution Prevention Plans for their wastewater discharges. Pollution Prevention Plans will assist in identifying ways of reducing and/or eliminating contaminants at the source. For the purpose of consultation with stakeholders, an Intentions Paper (Attachment 1) has been prepared that provides potentially impacted stakeholders with notice that new requirements for hospitals and acute care facilities are being considered and highlights the proposed requirements. The consultation process is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2016.

Attachment: Metro Vancouver Intentions Paper – Proposed New Bylaw for Hospitals and Acute Care Facilities

17404925

UC - 38

METRO VANCOUVER INTENTIONS PAPER PROPOSED NEW BYLAW FOR HOSPITALS AND ACUTE CARE FACILITIES

FEBRUARY 10, 2016

UC - 39 1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide potentially impacted stakeholders with notice that new regulatory requirements for sewage discharge from hospitals and acute care facilities are being considered.

The proposed bylaw will impact:

- Hospitals and acute care facilities within Metro Vancouver including: o Vancouver Coastal Health, o Fraser Health, o Providence Health Care, o Provincial Health Services Authority, and o Private-sector facilities.

Metro Vancouver will seek feedback on the proposed regulatory requirements from stakeholders beginning in spring 2016. This feedback will be used to refine the requirements and to develop a bylaw that will be presented to the Metro Vancouver Board in 2017.

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

 review and enhance sewer use bylaws to reduce liquid waste at source, including contaminants identified by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,  develop new regulatory instruments, such as Pollution Prevention Plans, to complement existing regulations, and  develop source control initiatives targeting endocrine-disrupting chemicals, persistent organic pollutants and other micro-contaminants found in wastewater.

Under the authority of the provincial Environmental Management Act, Metro Vancouver is authorized to enact Bylaws to regulate the discharge of non-domestic waste into its sewerage and drainage system at source. GVS&DD Sewer Use Bylaw No. 299, 2007 (Sewer Use Bylaw) prohibits the discharge from a high- volume discharger (discharging more than 300 m3 in a 30 day period) unless that discharger is in compliance with the Sewer Use Bylaw, a Waste Discharge Permit, a Code of Practice or an approved Pollution Prevention Plan.

Numerous hospitals and health care facilities discharge non-domestic wastes to Metro Vancouver’s sewer system. While the quantity of non-domestic waste that may be discharged from these facilities is far less than industrial facilities, they are considered high-volume dischargers and there is the potential for contaminants to be discharged to sewer. These contaminants may include mercury, silver and other heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, acids and a variety of chemical compounds. Some of these contaminants

UC - 40 could end up in the biosolids, which may prevent them from being beneficially used, or end up in the receiving waterways if treatment is only partially effective. Studies indicate that hospitals and health care facilities are one of the largest single point sources of pharmaceuticals (by concentration) discharged to sewer. Therefore, Metro Vancouver is developing options to regulate these institutions.

As the health care sector is considered a high-volume discharger some form of regulation is appropriate to ensure they are properly handling their wastewater prior to discharge to sewer. Some jurisdictions such as Metro King County in Seattle and the Capital Regional District in Victoria issue site-specific discharge permits that contain specific requirements that each operation must meet. In contrast, other jurisdictions, including the City of Toronto and the City of Hamilton, require that hospitals develop Pollution Prevention Plans that will assist in identifying ways of reducing and/or eliminating pollutants and wastes at the source.

Current Waste Discharge Permits issued by Metro Vancouver require industrial dischargers to monitor the quantity and quality of their wastewater to ensure compliance with permit limits. However, hospitals are large, complex sites where it is difficult to monitor the discharge of just the non-domestic waste streams. Therefore, Metro Vancouver considers the use of Pollution Prevention Plans an effective strategy to regulate this sector.

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

3. Goals for Metro Vancouver’s Source Control Program Metro Vancouver’s Source Control Program is intended to:  protect human health and safety,  protect the environment,  protect the sewers and sewage facilities and promote their efficient and cost-effective operation,  enhance biosolids quality, and  help ensure regulatory compliance of Metro Vancouver facilities.

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

Issue Within the health care sector, there is a multitude of substances that may be handled at these facilities. This combined with substantial variability in the day-to-day and even hour-to-hour operations at these facilities makes it impractical to control sewer discharges from these facilities by code of practice (intended for large numbers of similar facilities) or permit (issued for individual facilities).

UC - 41 Proposal Metro Vancouver is proposing to authorize the discharge of non-domestic liquid waste to sanitary sewer from hospitals and other health care facilities providing that the discharger registers with Metro Vancouver and the discharge is conducted in compliance with a Pollution Prevention Plan submitted by qualified professionals. The proposed pollution prevention plans will focus on the contaminants identified in the current Sewer Use Bylaw that may be present in their discharge as well as other compounds that may be present.

Rationale Pollution prevention planning, often used as part of an Environmental Management System, has been employed in the health care sector in many jurisdictions. Pollution prevention planning incorporates proactive analysis and planning and also allows flexibility to manage discharges from complex operations. Since health care facilities generally have access to qualified professionals for pollution prevention planning, Pollution Prevention Plans are considered an appropriate strategy to manage discharges to sewer.

Regulatory Fees

Issue There is a cost to regulate this sector which includes reviewing the submitted pollution prevention plans and determining compliance with the plan.

Proposal Consistent with Metro Vancouver’s cost recovery and user-pay fee principles, a one-time registration fee as well as an annual fee is being proposed. The fees are required to fund staff review of the Pollution Prevention Plans by staff as well as compliance promotion activities including audits, inspections, sampling and analysis. Table 1 summarizes the proposed charges.

Table 1 - Fee Schedule for Compliance Promotion Facility Type Registration Fee Annual Regulatory Fee Hospitals – Major $2,500 $2,500 Hospitals – Small and other Health Care $1,000 $1,000 Facilities

Metro Vancouver will work with stakeholders to further define the scale of the facility types for fee purposes.

Rationale Staff time is required to work with dischargers as well as to review submitted Pollution Prevention Plans. This fee will recover the additional staff time required for compliance promotion.

UC - 42 5. Proposed Implementation Process Time will be required by the institutions to complete a Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore, Metro Vancouver is proposing that the completed plans be submitted one year after the adoption of the new Bylaw by the Metro Board. However, Metro Vancouver is seeking comment on this proposed timeline from affected stakeholders to determine the best timeline based on size, complexity and type of operation.

6. Metro Vancouver’s Role in Supporting Compliance Documents outlining implementation of pollution prevention planning for the health care sector already exist from other jurisdictions. Metro Vancouver will work with stakeholders to develop materials and a template to aide in the creation of the plan. In addition, Metro Vancouver staff will be available as a resource as required. Failure to submit a plan would be subject to the penalties contained in the Sewer Use Bylaw.

7. Metro Vancouver is Committed To:  Working with impacted stakeholders to provide information on the issue and develop a solution that is fair, efficient and transparent;  Supporting stakeholders in the implementation process through clearly communicating requirements and timing of implementation

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

Spring Summer Fall Winter

 Detailed  Draft requirements  Stakeholder  Draft bylaw consultation plan  Broad stakeholder consultation  Confirm final  Targeted notification (meetings and requirements with stakeholder online input) stakeholders interviews  Refine requirements

UC - 43

9. Providing Feedback Metro Vancouver will encourage input through a combination of meetings and online feedback. Specific mechanisms will be developed as part of the detailed consultation plan, to be developed in spring 2016.

Stakeholders will be able to contact Metro Vancouver at [email protected] starting May 2016.

UC - 44 5 5.6

To: Utilities Committee

From: Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications Division, External Relations

Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey”, dated April 7, 2016.

PURPOSE To inform the Committee of the results of the grease pilot behavior change project conducted in the City of Surrey, with the collaboration of City of Surrey staff, in the fall of 2015.

BACKGROUND The improper disposal of grease causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. In the fall of 2015, Metro Vancouver worked with the City of Surrey to conduct a pilot project to test approaches to encourage residents to dispose of grease in the green bin, instead of down sinks and other drains. The theme and creative for the pilot, tested through advance focus groups, was “Grease Clogs Pipes” with the tagline “Wipe it, green bin it”. The pilot ran from November 2 to December 14, 2015.

2015 GREASE PILOT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF SURREY

Evaluation of Pilot Project To assess the project’s effectiveness, Metro Vancouver conducted a post‐pilot survey in December 2015 and efforts are currently underway to measure grease build‐up in sewers in two areas of the City of Surrey. These findings, and an evaluation of the project, will be used to inform a second grease pilot project in the City of Richmond and consideration of a broader, regional campaign in the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

A telephone survey of 500 City of Surrey residents was conducted December 10‐28, 2015. The main findings are as follows:

 The campaign reached 15% of City of Surrey residents. o The campaign was most successful among ethnic minority residents and residents under 35 years.

 Those who saw the campaign remembered the main message and it influenced how they disposed of grease. o The majority of residents who saw the advertising recall, unprompted, the messages, “wipe grease and place in green bin” or “do not dispose grease into drain”.

UC - 45 o Most residents (60%) who saw the advertising say they are less likely to dispose of grease in drains, with 50% saying they would dispose of grease in the green bin and another 15% indicating they would put it in the green bin/garbage.

 Among residents who recall the advertising, all media channels reached one‐in‐five or more residents. o Transit stops reached half (53%) of those who recalled the campaign. Other successful channels included newspapers (41%), ethnic newspapers 26%) and YouTube (23%). o Ethnic minority residents were far more likely to have experienced the advertising in ethnic newspapers or various online sources, such as YouTube and Google.

Additional indicators include grease measurement and an evaluation report. The City of Surrey is measuring grease build‐up in pipes in two areas throughout 2016: 1) 60th to 72nd Avenue and from 125th to 136th Street (Newton area) and 2) south of 32nd Avenue, west of 140th Street (Ocean Park and Crescent Beach areas). Because grease builds up slowly in most areas, a longer measuring time is needed to establish trends. Measurement results are not yet available and will be included in a future report to Committee. In evaluating the project, results suggest that outreach could be improved by the addition of retail and other partners (such as grocery stores), enhanced engagement on social media and more emphasis of the personal benefits of proper grease disposal (i.e. avoiding clogs in your home). These findings will be incorporated into 2016 grease outreach approaches.

2016 GREASE PILOT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF RICHMOND In 2016, Metro Vancouver will be working with the City of Richmond to conduct a grease pilot project supported through the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund. The main outreach portion of the project is anticipated to take place in October 2016. In advance of the launch of the pilot, Metro Vancouver will be conducting a survey of Richmond residents to better understand grease disposal habits and barriers to correct disposal. In addition, staff are currently working with the City of Richmond to identify areas to measure grease impacts so that a baseline can be established to help measure the effectiveness of the project. While the pilot will have a significant focus on the residential sector, a component of the pilot will also work with the restaurant sector, focusing on compliance with bylaw requirements and greater use of practices that reduce the amount of grease going into grease traps. A post‐campaign awareness survey will be conducted in the fall of 2016 to help evaluate the project. The findings from the 2015 and 2016 pilot projects will be used to consider and inform a regional grease behavior change campaign the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. There are no alternatives presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2015 pilot project with the City of Surrey had a budget of $130,000. The 2016 pilot project in Richmond has a budget of $170,000 supported by the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The improper disposal of grease causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. A 2015 pilot with the City of Surrey tested approaches to encourage residents to dispose of grease in the green bin, instead of down sinks and other drains. The pilot used the theme “Grease Clogs Pipes”, with the tagline “Wipe it, green bin it”. According to a post‐pilot survey in December 2015, the campaign reached 15% of

UC - 46 City of Surrey residents and of those most residents (60%) indicated they are less likely to dispose of grease in drains, with 50% indicating they would dispose of grease in the green bin and another 15% indicating they would put it in the green bin/garbage.

These findings will inform a second grease behavior change pilot to be undertaken with the City of Richmond. The main outreach portion of the pilot is expected to take place in October 2016. Metro Vancouver is currently working with the City of Richmond to conduct a survey of residents’ grease disposal habits and to establish a measurement baseline that will help evaluate the project’s effectiveness. The findings from both the 2015 and 2016 pilots will be used in the consideration of a region‐wide grease behavior change campaign the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

Attachments and References: 1. Grease Disposal Ad Campaign – A Survey of City of Surrey Residents 2. Grease Disposal Ad Campaign Website: http://www.metrovancouver.org/grease

17754942

UC - 47 Grease Disposal Ad Campaign

A SURVEY OF CITY OF SURREY RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

December 2015 DRAFT

UC - 48 Table of Contents

Introduction 03 Observations 04 Executive Summary 05 Research Findings 09 Where Should We Dispose Waste? 10 Where Do We Dispose Waste? 18 Grease Use 26 Advertising awareness 31 Impact of advertising 37 Demographic Profile 40

UC - 49 Introduction

Overview Methodology

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one Surveys 500 adult residents. electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Metro Vancouver operates and maintains a regional sewer system. The disposal Field dates: December 10 to 28, 2015. of greases is a meaningful difficulty in the operation of the Population: City of Surrey. sewer system. Methodology: Online. Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research with Weighting: The final data were weighted to match the the goal of exploring usage and disposal behaviours among City age and gender distribution of the City of of Surrey residents. Specifically, the research answers the Surrey. following business questions: Languages: Surveys were conducted in English. • How residents dispose various household waste? Margin of error: The overall results of this study reflect a • What types of grease are used by residents? probability sample of 500. A probability • How much grease is used by residents? sample of 500 carries a margin of error +/‐ • Did residents see or hear the grease disposal advertising? 4.4 percentage points 95% of the time. • What do residents remember about the advertising? Charts may not sum due to rounding.

UC - 50 Observations

Metro Vancouver’s grease advertising campaign has Some media were more effective at reaching specific reached 15% of City of Surrey residents. The audiences. Ethnic minority residents were far more campaign was most successful among ethnic minority likely to have experienced the advertising in ethnic residents and residents under 35 years. The campaign newspapers or various online sources, such as also has directionally higher penetration among Youtube and Google. residents who recently used grease for food Behaviour has changed among those residents who preparation. recall the campaign’s main message. A majority of The campaign utilized a moderately diverse set of residents who saw the advertising recall unprompted, advertising media to reach its audience. The the messages, “wipe grease and place in green bin” or campaign utilized about a half dozen media to “do not dispose grease into drain”. Moreover, a communicate its messages “grease clogs pipes” and majority of residents who saw the advertising are now “wipe it, green bin it” to its target audience. Among “less likely” to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in residents who recall the advertising, all media reached drains, opting for the appropriate alternatives of one‐in‐five or more residents, with one exception: garbage and green bin. Transit stops reached half of those who recall the campaign.

UC - 51 Executive Summary

UC - 52 Executive Summary

Waste disposal perceptions Waste disposal behaviour Where should we dispose different waste types? Where do we dispose different types of waste? Below are the top ways City of Surrey residents (“residents”) Residents typically dispose the following types of waste in different believe the following types of waste should be disposed: ways: Dairy (like yogurt): food scraps bin (54%); drain or toilet (21%). Dairy (like yogurt): food scraps bin (50%), drain (25%); garbage Fat, grease and oil: food scraps bin (49%); garbage (23%). (13%). Fat, grease and oil: food scraps bin (46%); garbage (30%); drain Fruits and vegetables: food scraps bin (78%); compost (10%). (11%). Meat: food scraps bin (75%); garbage (11%). Fruits and vegetables: food scraps bin (76%), garbage (8%); Plate scrapings: food scraps bin (74%); garbage (11%). compost (6%). Wet wipes: garbage (72%); food scraps bin (4%); toilet (3%). Meat: food scraps bin (68%); garbage (15%). Plate scrapings: food scraps bin (66%); garbage (18%); drain (6%). What do we think should go into our toilet or drain? Wet wipes: garbage (63%); toilet (3%). Looking specifically at the drains and toilets, meaningful groups of grease users do believe certain food items should be disposed of via What do we dispose in our toilet or drain? the drains and/or toilets that lead to the region’s sewer system: Looking specifically at the drains and toilets, meaningful groups of • Dairy like yogurt: 21% grease users dispose of certain items via the drains or toilets that • Fat, grease and oil: 8% lead to the region’s sewer system: • Fruits and vegetables: 4% • Dairy like yogurt: 25% • Plate scrapings: 4% • Fat, grease and oil: 11% • Fruits and vegetables: 4% • Plate scrapings: 6%

UC - 53 Executive Summary (cont’d)

Grease use drain, the average is 3.1 tablespoons. Among grease users who do not dispose of grease or plate scrapings into the drain, the average Do we use grease? is 1.8 tablespoons. Seven‐in‐ten (70%) residents used fats, oils, and greases for food preparation in the past week (“grease users”). Larger households Advertising awareness are more likely to have used fats, oils, and greases in the past week Have we seen or heard any advertising about than smaller households. disposing of fats, oils, and greases? Eighteen percent (18%) of residents have seen or heard advertising Types of grease about how to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the past two What types of grease do we use? months. The largest proportion (88%) of grease users used vegetable oil at least once in the past week. About six‐in‐ten (62%) used butter and What was the grease advertising like? thirty‐eight percent (38%) used fats leftover after cooking meats. A One‐half (51%) of residents who saw this advertising recall that it small minority (13%) used Ghee. was an ad about wiping grease with a paper towel or newspaper and disposing of it into the food scraps bin. One‐third (33%) cite Yesterday’s leftovers the message, don’t dispose into the drain or toilet and a minority (15%) recall the message that grease clogs the city drains. How much leftover grease did we have yesterday? Over half (53%) of grease users had less than five tablespoons left over after cooking and eating. Thirteen percent (13%) had none left Who sponsored the advertising? over. One‐quarter (24%) of residents who saw the advertising cite the City of Surrey as the sponsor. Thirteen percent (13%) identified The average amount of grease left over was 2.1 tablespoons; the Metro Vancouver or Greater Vancouver. This equates to two median, 2 tablespoons. percent (2%) of all Surrey residents. Among residents who dispose of grease or plate scrapings into the

UC - 54 Executive Summary (cont’d)

Have we seen or heard any advertising with these Several media reach a higher proportion of South Asian residents: images? • Youtube: South Asian (53%); Caucasian (6%). • Other websites: South Asian (50%); Caucasian (10%). Fifteen percent (15%) of residents recall advertising with the • Ethnic newspaper: South Asian (47%); Caucasian (5%). images shown. Awareness is directionally higher among men than • Google: South Asian (46%); Caucasian (3%). women (18% versus 13%). Grease users are more likely than non‐ grease users to have seen or heard this advertising (17% versus 11%). Where would we now dispose of fats, oils, and greases? Recall is higher among ethnic residents than Caucasian residents: Having seen the advertising, one‐half (49%) of residents tell us they • South Asian (20% aware) will now dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the green bin; fifteen • Other non‐Caucasian (19%) percent (15%) in the garbage. None who have seen the campaign • Caucasian (12%) would now dispose of grease into the drain.

Where did we see this advertising? Would we now dispose of fats, oils, and greases into The grease advertising was most commonly seen in the following the drain? media among those who recall the campaign: Having seen the advertising, six‐in‐ten (60%) residents tell us they • Transit stops/bus shelters: 53% total awareness; including 32% are now less likely to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the drain; unaided. seventeen percent (17%) are about as likely. • Newspaper: 41% total awareness; including 14% unaided. • TV: 34% total; all unaided. Two‐in‐ten (19%) are now more likely to dispose of fats, oils, and • Ethnic newspapers: 26% total awareness. greases in the drain. Note that based on their responses to other • Youtube: 23% total aided; including 1% unaided. questions in the survey, we suspect that a significant portion of this • Other websites: 22% total, including 9% unaided. group misunderstood this question. • Google: 20% total aided. • Facebook: 19% total aided; including 1% unaided. • Door hanger: 9% total aided; including 2% unaided.

UC - 55 Research Findings

UC - 56 Where Should We Dispose Waste?

UC - 57 What do we think should go into our sewer system?

Dairly like yogurt 21%

Fat, grease and oil 8%

Fruits and vegetables 4%

Plate scrapings 4%

B1. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding Wet wipes 3% disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items? Meat 2% Base: Total.

UC - 58 Where should we dispose of dairy (like yogurt)?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 54% bin, or Green Bin

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 18%

Garbage 10%

Backyard or worm composter 4%

Toilet 3%

Feed to pets 2%

B1a. Municipalities have different Other 1% expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where Don't buy this item 3% should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Don't know 5% Base: Total.

UC - 59 Where should we dispose of fat, grease and oil?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 49% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 23%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 7%

Backyard or worm composter 3%

Toilet 1%

Feed to pets <1%

Don't know 13% Base: Total.

UC - 60 Where should we dispose of fruit and vegetables?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 78% bin, or Green Bin

Backyard or worm composter 10%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 3%

Garbage 3%

Feed to pets 2%

Toilet <1% B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. Other 1% To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items? Don't know 2% Base: Total.

UC - 61 Where should we dispose of meat?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 75% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 11%

Feed to pets 5%

Backyard or worm composter 4%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 2%

Other 1% B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. Don't buy this item 2% To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Don't know 2% Base: Total.

UC - 62 Where should we dispose of plate scrapings?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 74% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 11%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 4%

Backyard or worm composter 3%

Feed to pets 2%

Other <1% B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. Don't buy this item 1% To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Don't know 3% Base: Total.

UC - 63 Where should we dispose of wipes like wet wipes for babies and other cleaning?

Garbage 72%

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 4% bin, or Green Bin

Toilet 3%

Backyard or worm composter 1%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator <1%

Feed to pets <1%

B1a. Municipalities have different Other <1% expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where Don't buy this item 15% should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Don't know 5% Base: Total.

UC - 64 Where Do We Dispose Waste?

UC - 65 What goes into our sewer system?

Dairly like yogurt 25%

Fat, grease and oil 11%

Plate scrapings 6%

Fruits and vegetables 4%

Wet wipes 3% B2. And if you’re being honest with yourself how do you dispose of these items? Meat 2% Base: Total.

UC - 66 Where do we dispose of dairy (like yogurt)?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 50% bin, or Green Bin

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 22%

Garbage 13%

Toilet 3%

Feed to pets 2%

Backyard or worm composter 2%

Other 2%

Don't buy this item 3% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Don't know 3% Base: Total.

UC - 67 Where do we dispose of fat, grease and oil?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 46% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 30%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 10%

Backyard or worm composter 2%

Toilet 1%

Feed to pets 1%

Other 1%

Don't buy this item 4% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Don't know 5% Base: Total.

UC - 68 Where do we dispose of fruit and vegetables?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 76% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 9%

Backyard or worm composter 6%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 4%

Feed to pets 2%

Other 1%

Don't buy this item <1% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Don't know 1% Base: Total.

UC - 69 Where do we dispose of meat?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 68% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 15%

Feed to pets 6%

Backyard or worm composter 3%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 2%

Other 1%

Don't buy this item 3% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Don't know 2% Base: Total.

UC - 70 Where do we dispose of plate scrapings?

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 66% bin, or Green Bin

Garbage 18%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator 6%

Feed to pets 3%

Backyard or worm composter 2%

Other 2%

Don't buy this item 1% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Don't know 3% Base: Total.

UC - 71 Where do we dispose of wipes like wet wipes for babies and other cleaning?

Garbage 63%

Food scraps bin like a yard waste 4% bin, or Green Bin

Toilet 3%

Feed to pets <1%

Other 1%

Don't buy this item 27% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items? Don't know 1% Base: Total.

UC - 72 Grease Use

UC - 73 In the past week, have you used oils, fats or greases when cooking?

No, 30%

Yes, 70%

C1. In the past week, have you used oils, fats, or greases in cooking or food preparation?

Base: Total.

UC - 74 Do we dispose grease or plate scrapings into the drain?

Yes, 15%

No, 85% B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these:

Oils, fats and greases?

Plate scrapings

Base: Total.

UC - 75 Which cooking oils, fats and greases do we use? PAST WEEK

Vegetable oils (including olive 88% oil)

Butter 62%

Fats leftover after cooking meats 38% (e.g., bacon fat)

Ghee 13%

Nut oils 10%

C2. Which of these cooking oils, fats, and greases have you used in the past Other 3% week? Please include fats and oils to prepare foods and fats and greases leftover after cooking. None 1% Base: Those who answered.

UC - 76 How much leftover grease did we have yesterday? HOUSEHOLDS WITH LEFTOVER GREASE

None 13%

Up to 1 tablespoon 5%

1.5 tablespoon 16%

2 tablespoon 15%

3‐4 tablespoon 9% Mean: 2.1 tablespoons (30.5 ml)

Median: 2 tablespoons (29.6 ml) 5 tablespoon 7% C3. In your home yesterday, in total how many tablespoons (or 15 mL More than 6 tablespoons 8% spoons) of oils, fats and greases were left over in pots, pans and meal plates after cooking and eating?

Don't know 27% Base: Total answered.

UC - 77 Advertising Awareness

UC - 78 Have you seen ads about grease?

Yes, 18%

No, 82%%

D1. In the past two months, have you seen or heard any advertising about disposing of fats, oils, and greases?

Base: Total.

UC - 79 What was the advertisement’s message?

Wipe with paper towel/newspaper; 51% put in green bin

Do not drain in kitchen / toilet 33%

Clogs the city drainage 15%

Instruction about disposing waste 3%

Do not waste food or water 1%

Throwing/Dumping garbage on 1% garbage day

Other 8% D2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s None / Nothing 3% message?

Base: Seen or heard ads about Don’t know / Can't remember 5% disposing grease.

UC - 80 Who sponsored these advertisements?

Surrey 24%

Metro Vancouver/GVRD 13%

Other municipality 6%

Other government body 3%

Other 12% D3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?

Don't know 43% Base: Seen or heard ads about disposing grease.

UC - 81 Recognition of shown advertisements

Yes, 15%

No, 85%

D4. Now we are going to show you some advertising. Do you recall advertising with this message and an image like this? SHOW IMAGES.

Base: Total.

UC - 82 Where did you see these advertisements?

Transit stops/bus shelters 32% 53%

Newspaper 14% 41%

Television 34% 34%

Ethnic newspaper 26%

Youtube 23%

Other websites 22%

Google 20% D5a. Where did you see or hear this Facebook 19% advertising? OPEN‐END D5b. Did you see this advertising in Door hanger 9% the following locations or media?

Base: Aware of advertising. Unaided Aided

UC - 83 Impact of advertisement

UC - 84 Now that you’ve seen this ad, how would you dispose of grease, fats, and oils? Wiping with paper and disposing 25% in green bin

Green bin 25%

Dispose in garbage / green bin 15%

Garbage (Unspecified) 8%

Disposing in proper ways 3% (General) Dump in can and then into 2% garbage / green bin

Feed animals / birds 2%

D6. Now that you’ve seen this Back yard compost 1% advertising, even if you do not regularly cook with greases, how Other 6% would you now dispose of fats, oils, and greases?

Don’t know 14% Base: Aware of advertising.

UC - 85 How likely are we to dispose of fats, greases, and oils down the drain?

More likely 19%

About as likely 17%

Less likely 60%

E1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more or less likely to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the kitchen Don't know 4% sink, drain or garburator?

Base: Aware of advertising.

UC - 86 Demographic Profile

UC - 87 Demographic profile

Aware of Metro Demographics Overall Van advertising Gender Male 49% ▲57% Female 51% ▼43%

Age 18‐34 30% ▲38% 35‐44 19% 17% 45‐64 35% 35% 65+ 16% ▼10%

Number in household Demographic profile of: One 15% ▼9% The total sample (overall) Two 34% 31% Aware of food scraps advertising Three or more 51% ▲59%

UC - 88 Demographic profile cont’d

Aware of Metro Demographics Overall Van advertising Type of home Detached house 53% ▼43% Apartment/Condo 17% ▲20% Townhouse 23% 23% Other 6% ▲14%

Ethnicity Caucasian 60% ▼49% South Asian 22% ▲30% Other non‐Caucasian 19% ▲24%

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Aware of food scraps advertising

UC - 89 Justason Market Intelligence Inc. | Vancouver Focus® [email protected] JustasonMI.com 1156 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z1V8 +1 604 638 1121

UC - 90 5.7

To: Utilities Committee

From: Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications Division, External Relations

Date: March 14, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Wipes Pilot Project with the City of Pitt Meadows”, dated March 14, 2016.

PURPOSE To inform the Committee of the results of the 2015 wipes pilot behavior change project conducted in the City of Pitt Meadows in the fall of 2015 with the collaboration of City of Pitt Meadows staff.

BACKGROUND The improper disposal of wipes causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. In the fall of 2015, Metro Vancouver conducted a pilot project with the City of Pitt Meadows to test approaches to encourage residents to dispose of wipes in the garbage and not the toilet. The pilot used the theme “Adult Toilet Training” with the tagline “Never Flush Wipes” and was focused on reaching female wipes users, using a range of channels. The campaign ran from September 14 to the end of November with the majority of the campaign activity taking place in September and October of 2015.

2015 WIPES PILOT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF PITT MEADOWS Evaluation of Pilot Project To help assess the project’s effectiveness, Metro Vancouver conducted a post‐pilot survey in November 2015. Metro Vancouver has also been monitoring the number of wipes entering the Baynes Road pump station. These findings, and an evaluation of the project, will be used to inform a regional outreach/behavior change campaign set to launch on April 21, 2016.

A telephone survey of 300 women in the City of Pitt Meadows was conducted from November 23 to December 6, 2015. The results were generally positive and showed that:

 The campaign reached a large proportion of the target audience (female City of Pitt Meadows residents): o One‐half of women surveyed (51%) recall wipes advertising with the message “don’t flush wipes”. o Overall, the campaign reached women from all demographic groups, with high awareness in the target age of 25 to 64.

UC - 91

 People saw the advertising through a range of channels: o Four communications channels had 20% awareness or higher and nine had 10% or higher (awareness reflects the percentage of people who remember seeing or hearing a particular form of advertising). o The most successful channels were: newspaper flyers (40%), banner over Harris Road (39%), posters in public washrooms (27%) and Facebook (21%). o The pink port‐a‐potty was seen by 13% of people, but this number is likely higher as 11% report seeing wipes messaging at community events and this was the only tactic used at events.

 People remembered the main message: o Of those that saw the advertising, 76% recalled seeing a banner or poster with the message “don’t flush wipes”. o A minority (23%) remembered the Adult Toilet Training theme (with prompting).

 The campaign had an impact on behaviour: o Nearly all residents (93%) who saw the advertising would now dispose of wet wipes in the garbage. (It should be noted that many residents said they were already disposing of wipes in the garbage.) o Of the ones who say they are flushing wipes less, 35% said this was due to the campaign.

Metro Vancouver has been measuring the amount of wipes entering the Baynes Road pump station before, during and after the pilot (from May 11 to December 12, 2015). Prior to the pilot, an average of 18 wipes/hour were entering the pump station. This dropped to nine wipes/hour in September and October and to six wipes/hour in November and December. A Go‐Pro camera was also used to measure the overall amount of wipes‐like objects entering the pump station. The average number of objects dropped from 475 objects/hour before the project, to 234 objects/hour during the project, to 72 objects/hour after the project. It is not possible to determine whether all of these objects were wipes, but the overall decrease does suggest an increased general awareness of what should not be put down the toilet. Metro Vancouver will take periodic measurements in 2016 to see if this pattern continues.

In evaluating the project’s components, the targeted and slightly unusual creative materials were seen to be one the project’s strengths, generating strong media coverage and allowing for public discussion of a private habit. Other strengths included reaching the audience at the right place (in bathrooms) and having a focused target audience (female wipes users). Outreach could be improved by the addition of retail and other partners (such as drugstores and plumbers), enhanced engagement on social media and more emphasis of the benefits of responsible wipes disposal. These findings will be incorporated into the 2016 regional campaign.

The results also show the importance of community channels and reaching people in relevant locations. One of the most noticed communications channels – posters in public washrooms – cost very little because of support from the City of Pitt Meadows, which posted them in their municipal facilities. This tactic can be expanded in a regional campaign.

UC - 92 2016 REGIONAL WIPES CAMPAIGN Building on the success and learnings of the pilot with the City of Pitt Meadows, Metro Vancouver will launch a regional outreach campaign to encourage proper disposal of wipes. The campaign will officially launch on April 21 and will run for six to eight weeks. Some elements may continue through the summer.

Campaign Elements and Approach The campaign will use the creative concepts developed in the pilot project and will focus on reaching women in public washrooms, which was shown to be one of the most successful channels used in the pilot. The campaign tone will remain light and humorous, and will use many of the elements used in the 2015 pilot, along with new elements to re‐enliven the campaign.

Key elements of the 2016 regional campaign will include:  posters and decals in women’s washrooms  pink port‐a‐potty at community events around the region (may also include joint events with the Metro Vancouver water wagon throughout the summer)  online advertising  new online “toilet training” quiz and series of humorous video tips  social media engagement through Twitter, Facebook and blogs, with the aim of increasing sharing of social media elements

In addition, Shoppers Drug Mart has generously agreed to support the wipes campaign by placing signage in their stores across the region. The signage will feature the campaign artwork (a tip card) and will be attached to shelves where diaper wipes and personal hygiene wipes are sold. The signage is expected to be in place from the end of April into early June.

Member Engagement The pilot campaign results have been presented and shared with members through the communication coordinators network and there is support to move forward with a regional campaign. Members are encouraged to participate in the campaign by putting up co‐branded posters in bathrooms in their community facilities, which was proven to be one of the most effective tactics from the 2015 pilot project. Members can also participate in the campaign by hosting the mobile port‐a‐potty at community events and using their social media channels to promote the campaign. Metro Vancouver is also able to customize materials for municipalities to help address specific needs or problem areas.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. There are no alternatives presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The pilot wipes behavior change campaign with the City of Pitt Meadows had a budget of 85,000. A regional wipes outreach program will be launched on April 21, 2016 with a budget of $200,000.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The improper disposal of wipes causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. A 2015 pilot project with the City of Pitt Meadows tested approaches to encourage residents to dispose of wipes in the garbage and not the toilet. The pilot used the theme “Adult Toilet Training”, with the tagline “Never Flush

UC - 93 Wipes”. Focused on reaching female wipes users, the materials and approach used in the pilot project were proven successful at raising awareness of wipes issues among the target audience. One‐half of women surveyed (51%) recalled the campaign, with nearly all (93%) indicating they now dispose of wet wipes in the garbage.

Measurements taken at the Baynes Road pump station showed that the average number of wipes entering the station dropped from 18 wipes/hour before the project to six wipes/hour after the project. Monitoring with a Go‐Pro camera also showed a drop in the overall number of objects entering the pump station, from 475 objects/hour before the project to 72 objects/hour after the project. Metro Vancouver will take periodic measurements in 2016 to see if this pattern continues.

The findings from the 2015 pilot are being used to inform a regional wipes behaviour change campaign, including more engagement through social media, an improved online experience and developing partnerships. The regional wipes campaign will begin on April 21, 2016 and run for 6‐8 weeks. The campaign will continue with the same creative materials and tone, and will include additional elements to re‐engage the public. In addition, Shoppers Drug Mart stores across the region will be placing signage featuring campaign artwork (a tip card) on shelves where baby wipes and personal hygiene wipes are sold. Members are supporting the campaign by placing posters in the washrooms of their municipal facilities, hosting the mobile decaled port‐a‐potty at community events and by using their social media channels to disseminate campaign messages.

Attachments and References:

1. Wet Wipes Ad Campaign – A Survey of Female Residents of Pitt Meadows 2. Wet Wipes Ad Campaign Website: www.neverflushwipes.ca

17749111

UC - 94 Wet Wipes Ad Campaign

A SURVEY OF FEMALE RESIDENTS OF PITT MEADOWS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

December 2015

UC - 95 Introduction 03 Observations 04 Executive Summary 05 Research Findings 08 Wipes Usage 09 Wipes Disposal 18 Wipes Advertising 25

UC - 96 2 Introduction

Methodology

Surveys 300 adult women. Field dates: November 23, 2015 to December 6, 2015. Population: Pitt Meadows. Methodology: Telephone. Weighting: The final data were weighted to match the age of Pitt Meadows female residents 25 years old and older. Languages: Surveys were conducted in English. Margin of error: A probability sample of 300 carries a margin of error +/- 5.7 percentage points 95% of the time. Charts may not sum due to rounding.

UC - 97 4 Metro Vancouver’s wet wipes advertising campaign Residents recall the main message and their successfully reached a large proportion of female Pitt behaviour has been impacted. A majority of residents Meadows residents. One-half of women recall wipes who saw advertising about disposing wet wipes recall, advertising with the message “don’t flush wipes”. without prompting, the primary message, “don’t flush Overall, the campaign reached women from all wipes”. Nearly all residents would now dispose of wet demographic groups. Awareness is also high among wipes in the garbage. A sizable proportion who now the campaign’s target of 25 to 64 year olds. “more often” dispose of wet wipes in the garbage cite The campaign’s broad reach can be attributed in part the influence of the campaign. to the diverse set of advertising media. The campaign utilized about a dozen media to get the message “don’t flush wipes” to its target audience. Four media had 20% awareness or higher and nine had 10% or higher. While most were visual to take advantage of the eye-catching design, the locations were diverse enough to help achieve a broad reach.

UC - 98 4 UC - 99 5 Wet wipes users Where we use wipes Do we use wet wipes? Where do we use wipes most frequently? One-half (51%) of residents have used wet wipes in the past month. Six-in-ten (59%) of wipes users use them most frequently in their Wet wipes usage decreases with age: bathroom, followed by the kitchen (16%). One-in-ten (10%) use • 25 to 34 (75%) them most frequently in the bedroom. • 35 to 44 (67%) • 45 to 64 (45%) Wipes disposal • 65 and older (19%) Where do we dispose of different types of wipes? Nearly all (94%) residents who use baby wipes dispose of them in What type of wet wipes do we use? the garbage; 1% in the toilet. One-half (51%) of wet wipes users used wipes for kitchen and Nine-in-ten (90%) residents who use wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning at least once over the past month. Nearly two- bathroom cleaning dispose of them in the garbage; 2% in the toilet. in-ten (18%) used them at least daily. The vast majority (87%) of residents who use wipes for makeup One-half (48%) used wipes for babies, including thirty-five percent removal use the garbage for disposal. (35%) who used them at least daily. Residents ages 18 to 34 are Eight-in-ten (82%) residents who use adult personal hygiene wipes most likely to use these products (67% versus 7% to 27% among dispose of them in the garbage; 13% use the toilet. other age groups). Thirty-seven percent (37%) used wipes for makeup removal, including two-in-ten (21%) who used them at least daily. Two-in-ten (20%) used personal hygiene wipes for adults, including seven percent (7%) who used them at least daily. Twelve percent (12%) used other types of wipes.

UC - 100 6 Do we dispose of wipes in the garbage more or less sponsor. This equates to 12% of all adult women in Pitt Meadows. often now than two months ago? Eighteen percent (18%) identify City of Pitt Meadows. Two-thirds (68%) of wipes users dispose of wet wipes into the garbage about as often as they did two months ago. Fourteen Have we seen or heard any advertising with the percent (14%) do so more often (a lot + a little), which can largely message “never flush wipes”? be attributed to exposure to Metro Vancouver’s wipes disposal One-half (51%) of residents recall advertising featuring the awareness campaign. message “never flush wipes” often set on a pink background. Among these residents, one-quarter recall the “adult toilet Seventeen percent (17%) of residents dispose of wet wipes in the training” theme. garbage less often. This is due almost entirely to reduced wet wipes consumption. Where did we see this advertising? The wipes advertising was most commonly seen in the following Advertising awareness media: Have we seen or heard any advertising about • Newspaper flyers: 40% total awareness; including 21% disposing of wet wipes? unaided. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) residents have seen or heard advertising • Posters in public washrooms: 27% total; including 4% unaided. about how to dispose of wet wipes in the past two months. • Facebook: 21% total aided; including 6% unaided. • TV: 18% total; all unaided. What was the wet wipes advertising like? • Youtube: 15% total aided; including 9% unaided. • Other websites: 14% total, including 5% unaided. Three-quarters (76%) of residents who saw this advertising recall • Pink port-a-potty: 13% total aided; including 5% unaided. that it was a banner or poster with the message “don’t flush wet • Community events: 11% total aided; including 5% unaided. wipes”. Seventeen percent (17%) recall a video advising that “wipes clog pipes”. Where would we now dispose wipes? Who sponsored the advertising? Having seen the advertising, the vast majority (93%) of residents tell us they will now dispose wet wipes in the garbage. A very small Two-in-ten (22%) residents who saw the wet wipes advertising minority (2%) will now dispose wet wipes in the toilet. correctly identify Metro Vancouver or Greater Vancouver as the

UC - 101 7 UC - 102 8 UC - 103 9 Do we use wet wipes?

No, 49% Yes, 51%

C1. In the past month, have you used any pre-moistened disposable wipes? This includes those for baby care, personal hygiene, make up removal, and house cleaning.

Base: Total.

UC - 104 10 What types of wipes do we use? OVERALL SUMMARY (PAST MONTH)

Wipes for kitchen and bathroom 51% cleaning

Baby wipes 48%

Wipes for makeup removal 37%

Personal hygiene wipes for 19% adults

C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Other types of wipes 12% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 105 11 How often do we use baby wipes?

Several times a day (over the past month) 30%

Once a day (over the past month) 5%

Several times a week (over the past month) 6%

Once a week (over the past month) 3%

Less often (over the past month) 1%

Not at all (over the past month) 52% C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Don't know 3% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 106 12 How often do we use personal hygiene wipes for adults?

Several times a day (over the past month) 3%

Once a day (over the past month) 4%

Several times a week (over the past month) 1%

Once a week (over the past month) 1%

Less often (over the past month) 6%

Not at all (over the past month) 81% C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Don't know 4% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 107 13 How often do we use wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning?

Several times a day (over the past month) 14%

Once a day (over the past month) 4%

Several times a week (over the past month) 9%

Once a week (over the past month) 13%

Less often (over the past month) 7%

Not at all (over the past month) 49% C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Don't know 4% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 108 14 How often do we use wipes for makeup removal?

Several times a day (over the past month) 8%

Once a day (over the past month) 13%

Several times a week (over the past month) 9%

Once a week (over the past month) 2%

Less often (over the past month) 3%

Not at all (over the past month) 63% C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Don't know 3% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 109 15 How often do we use other types of wipes?

Several times a day (over the past month) 1%

Once a day (over the past month) 2%

Several times a week (over the past month) 2%

Once a week (over the past month) <1%

Less often (over the past month) 1%

Not at all (over the past month) 88% C2. Over the past month, which disposable wipes have you used even occasionally? Would that be… Don't know 6% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 110 16 Bathroom 59%

Kitchen 16%

Bedroom 10%

Other 14%

C3. Where in your home do you use disposable wipes most frequently? Don't know 1% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 111 17 UC - 112 18 Do we dispose of any type of wet wipe into the toilet?

Yes, 2%

Net result based on:

B2. How do you dispose of these: Wipes like wet wipes for babies and other cleaning?

C4. And how do you usually dispose of No, 98% these wipes at home? Base: Total.

UC - 113 19 Garbage 94%

Toilet 1%

Elsewhere 1%

C4. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home? Don't know 4% Base: Total excluding those who “never use” baby wipes.

UC - 114 20 Garbage 82%

Toilet 13%

C5. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home?

Don't know 5% Base: Total excluding those who “never use” personal hygiene wipes.

*Caution, small base size

UC - 115 21 wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning?

Garbage 90%

Toilet 2%

C4. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home? Don't know 7% Base: Total excluding those who “never use” wipes for kitchen and bathroom cleaning.

UC - 116 22 wipes for makeup removal?

Garbage 87%

Toilet 5%

Elsewhere 2%

C4. And how do you usually dispose of these wipes at home?

Don't know 6% Base: Total excluding those who “never use” wipes for makeup removal.

UC - 117 23 ?

A lot | A little Why dispose wipes in garbage MORE often? More often 7% 14% THE CAMPAIGN 35% Why dispose wipes in garbage LESS often? Less often 6% 16% USE FEWER WIPES 45%

About the same 68% C5. Are you now disposing these wipes into the garbage more often or less often than two months ago?

C6. Why do you dispose wipes into the garbage more/less often? Don’t know 1% Base: Wipes users.

UC - 118 24 UC - 119 25 Have we seen or heard any advertising about wet wipes?

No, 42%

Yes, 58%

D1. In the past two months, have you seen or heard any advertising about disposing of wet wipes?

Base: Total.

UC - 120 26 What was the wipes advertising like?

Banner /poster with message: 76% "Don’t flush wipes"

Video about how wipes clog 17% pipes/sewers

Wipes aren’t biodegradable 4%

Other 5%

D2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message? Please be specific. Don’t know 4% Base: Total seen advertising.

UC - 121 27 Who sponsored this advertising?

Metro Vancouver/Greater 22% Vancouver

City of Pitt Meadows 18%

City (unspecified) 10%

Government 3%

Other 21% D3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising? Don’t know 31% Base: Total seen advertising.

UC - 122 28 Have we seen or heard any advertising with the message “never flush wipes”?

25 to 34 50%

35 to 44 65% No, Yes, 49% 51% 45 to 64 51%

65+ 33%

D4. The advertisements featured the message “never flush wipes” and were often set on a pink background. Do you recall advertising with this message?

Base: Total.

UC - 123 29 Have we seen or heard any advertising with an “adult toilet training” theme?

Yes, 23%

D5. These advertisements may also No, 77% have utilized the theme “adult toilet training”. Do you recall seeing or hearing this theme?

Base: Total seen or heard advertising.

UC - 124 30 Newspaper flyers 21% 40%

Banner/poster on Harris Road 39% 39%

Posters in public washrooms 4% 27%

Facebook 6% 21%

TV 18% 18%

Youtube 9% 15%

Other websites 9% 14%

Pink port-a-potty at events 5% 13%

Community events 5% 11% D6. Where did you see or hear this Radio 6% 6% advertising?

Google 6% D7. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media? Bus stop/train station 5% 5% Base: Total seen or heard advertising. Unaided Aided

UC - 125 31 Where would we now dispose of wipes?

Garbage 93%

Toilet 2%

Food scraps bin 1%

D8. Even if you are not a regular wet wipes user, how would you now dispose of wet wipes now that you’ve Other 4% seen the advertising?

Base: Total seen or heard advertising.

UC - 126 32 metro vancouver

Justason Market Intelligence Inc. | Vancouver Focus®UC - 127 [email protected] JustasonMI.com 503 - 1080 Howe Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z 2T1 +1 604 638 1121

5.8

To: Utilities Committee

From: Rosanna Yau, Superintendent ‐ Water Services Laboratories

Date: March 17, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: 2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report” dated March 17, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Board with a summary of the 2015 GVWD Quality Control Annual Report on drinking water quality.

BACKGROUND Each year Metro Vancouver is required, under the Provincial Drinking Water Protection Regulation, to produce an annual report on drinking water quality. The annual report is also a requirement of the Drinking Water Management Plan. The annual report provides the key results and findings associated with Metro Vancouver’s program of continuous monitoring and assessment of drinking water quality in the region. The annual report also provides an assessment of drinking water quality relative to the existing drinking water standards and guidelines and highlights any unusual occurrences. Municipal monitoring results are also discussed in the Annual Report where relevant.

In accordance with Section 11 of the Drinking Water Protection Regulation, the annual report will be sent to the Chief Medical Health Officers of the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health Authorities. Additionally, the annual report will be made accessible to the public through public libraries in the region, including Metro Vancouver’s library and Information Centre, and will be posted on Metro Vancouver’s website.

WATER QUALITY/TREATMENT HIGHLIGHTS A summary of the main items relevant to water quality during 2015 follows: a) Source Water Quality i) In 2015, the turbidity levels of the delivered water easily met the requirements of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ).

ii) The Capilano water supply was out of service at the beginning of the year. Capilano source water commenced treatment at the Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Plant (SCFP) in April 2015 following commissioning of the Twin Tunnels project. Heavy rainfall events in early November resulted in Capilano source water turbidity peaking at 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Even with the higher turbidity, the delivered filtered Capilano water was predominately less than 0.1 NTU for the entire year.

UC - 128

iii) The Seymour supply was in service for the entire year and source turbidity was generally less than 1 NTU throughout the year except during heavy rainfall events in September which resulted in source water turbidity peaking at 11 NTU. Even with the higher turbidity, the delivered filtered Seymour water was predominately less than 0.1 NTU.

iv) The Coquitlam supply was in service for the entire year. The average daily turbidity from the unfiltered Coquitlam source was over 1 NTU for eighteen days. At no time in 2015 was the average daily turbidity over 5 NTU. Water treatment levels were increased during periods of higher turbidity in accordance with operating protocols.

v) The microbiological quality of the three source waters was good in 2015. All three sources easily met the bacteriological requirements outlined in the GCDWQ.

vi) Results of the analyses of the source water for herbicides, pesticides, volatile organic compounds and radionuclides were all found to be below the recommended limits for these substances as listed in the GCDWQ. b) Water Treatment i) The Twin Tunnels Project enabled the Capilano source water to be treated at the SCFP and subsequently returned to the Capilano distribution system commencing in April 2015.

ii) The SCFP provided full filtration and the plant performance, as measured by the quality of the delivered water, was excellent in 2015. The daily average turbidity of water leaving the clearwells to enter the GVWD transmission system was less than 0.06 NTU.

. Turbidity levels for individual filters met the turbidity requirements of the GCDWQ except for two minor excursions in January 2015. . Filtration consistently removed iron, colour and organics from Capilano and Seymour source waters. . Levels of total aluminum in filtered water were consistently below the GCDWQ operational guideline value of 0.2 mg/L for direct filtration plants using aluminum‐based coagulants. The maximum value for 2015 was 0.05 mg/L.

iii) UV treatment is the primary disinfectant for water originating from the Coquitlam source, resulting in water treatment meeting requirements as specified in the GVWD’s operating permit.

iv) The secondary disinfection stations within the distribution system performed as required. c) Distribution System Water Quality i) Bacteriological water quality in the GVWD transmission mains and in‐system storage reservoirs was excellent in 2015. Of approximately 11,000 regional samples collected for testing in 2015, none were positive for E. coli.

UC - 129

ii) Bacteriological water quality was excellent in the distribution systems of the member jurisdictions. Of approximately 21,000 municipal samples collected for testing in 2015, a high percentage (99.8%) were free of total coliforms, which was similar to 2014 (99.9%). In 2015, no E. coli was detected.

iii) The running average levels of the trihalomethane group of chlorine disinfection by‐ products detected in the delivered water in the GVWD and municipal systems were well below the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) specified in the GCDWQ. The running average levels for the haloacetic acid group of chlorine disinfection by‐products in the GVWD system were below the Canadian Guideline MAC.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The GVWD Quality Control Annual Report is included within the annual operating budget for the Drinking Water Quality Control Program.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As illustrated by the 2015 Quality Control Annual Report, Metro Vancouver’s water quality monitoring program continues to fulfill its role in confirming that the multiple protection barriers for drinking water that the GVWD has in place including watershed protection, water treatment and ongoing operation of the water system to maintain water quality, are working effectively and that the drinking water provided by the GVWD to its customers met or exceeded water quality standards and guidelines in 2015.

UC - 130

5.9

To: Utilities Committee

From: Inder Singh, Director, Policy, Planning and Analysis, Water Services Andrew Wood, Director, Operations and Maintenance, Water Services

Date: April 4, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD Board receive for information the report titled “Water Supply Forecast and Water Consumption Update for Summer 2016”, dated April 4, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee and Board with the annual update on the current water supply and water consumption situation in advance of the approaching summer peak demand period.

BACKGROUND Water supply and water consumption status reports have normally been provided to the Committee and Board each spring.

Current Source Water Supply Situation Snowpack Snowpack measurements are taken at five separate locations across the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam watersheds. The late March 2016 survey results indicate that the depth and water equivalent of the current snowpack is approximately 75% and 83% of historical average respectively for that time of year indicating the likelihood of slightly below normal spring runoff from snowmelt. However, current snowpack levels are well above the record low levels (less than 10% of historical average) measured in spring 2015.

While snowpack is important, it should be noted that our region’s water supply is not solely dependent on snowpack. Overall precipitation in the form of rainfall through the fall, winter and spring contributes to the water levels in the three reservoirs that serve Metro Vancouver.

Stored Water ‐ Source Lakes

a) Capilano Lake At the time of writing, Capilano Lake is 95 percent full. The lake is currently being refilled in stages and is expected to be 100 percent full by mid‐May. b) Seymour Lake Seymour Lake is currently being managed under the spring operating protocol with the lake currently at 85 percent of full summer storage capacity. It is expected that the lake will be at 100 percent of full summer storage capacity by early June.

UC - 131 c) Coquitlam Lake The Coquitlam Lake level is controlled by B.C. Hydro within criteria established by agreement with the GVWD. It is anticipated that BC Hydro will have Coquitlam Lake sufficiently full to provide for adequate summer domestic water supply and the necessary allocation for fisheries flows in the Coquitlam River. d) Alpine Lakes The GVWD’s three alpine lakes, Palisade, Burwell and Loch Lomond, which are used as reserves for Capilano and Seymour Lakes during the late summer period, are all expected to be at 100 percent of capacity by mid to late May.

Trends in Water Consumption/Use This section discusses trends in water consumption/use, as well as some of the factors affecting water use. Figure 1 shows water use in the region in litres per capita per day for the years 1985 to 2015. This is total water use in the region inclusive of all water users. Figure 1 – Peak Day and Average Day Per Capita Water Use in the Region

The upper (red) line in Figure 1 is the peak day water use, or the highest day of water use for the year. The peak day usage occurs on a hot‐dry summer day when many people in the region are sprinkling their lawns. Peak day water use, and to a lesser extent average day water use, vary depending on summer weather conditions, being higher in years with hot, dry summers such as 2003, 2009 and 2015 and lower in years with cool‐wet summers such as 2011 and 2013.

The Board established a target for reduction in peak day per capita water use of 1% per year, compared to 2010 levels. During the overall period since 2010, peak day per capita water use has declined by an average of about 2% per year, exceeding the Board’s target.

UC - 132 Lawn sprinkling regulations have long been used by the GVWD and local governments to reduce peak demands on the regional and municipal water systems, respectively. These restrictions help to:

 Manage overall water use throughout the summer to conserve water storage in the source lakes;  Reduce peak water demands; and,  Reduce pumping and other operational costs and defer costly new supply infrastructure.

In 2011, to help reduce peak hour and peak day demands, the Board revised the Water Shortage Response Plan to spread lawn sprinkling over seven days of the week and restrict permitted times for lawn sprinkling to morning hours only.

The lower (black) line in Figure 1 is the average daily water use over the year. Since 1993, municipalities and Metro Vancouver have progressively increased their water conservation actions contributing to a decline of 28 percent in average day per capita water use between 1993 and 2015. The Board also established a target for average day per capita water use to trend downward by one percent per year, compared to 2010 levels. The downward trend between 2010 and 2015 is about 2% per year, which exceeds the regional target.

During the winter, outdoor water use is minimal and water use is insensitive to weather conditions. Figure 2 shows winter per capita water use between 1993 and early 2016. Figure 2 – Winter Per Capita Water Use in the Region (inclusive of all users)

UC - 133 The rate of decline in winter per capita water use has increased since the implementation of the Drinking Water Management Plan in 2005 and municipal water conservation actions, such as the requirement for low flow toilets in new construction.

Figure 3 shows service population and total water use in billions of liters per day. The decline in per capita water use in the region has offset the impact of population growth, keeping total consumption relatively steady.

Figure 3 – Population Growth and Water Use

System Operations Outlook for Summer 2016 Source Lake Capacity Water usage patterns will be monitored throughout the summer period so adjustments can be made within the transmission system to meet the regional water demand appropriately across the three main source lakes. Additional withdrawals from Coquitlam Lake have also been secured from BC Hydro. As well, the completion of the Twin Tunnels and Capilano Pump Station will enable the use of Capilano water through the fall, when in the past it has been taken off‐line due to turbidity. The three alpine lakes will also be utilized as required, to levels within their refillable storage limits.

Transmission System Capacity Additional infrastructure continues to be required to meet the demand for water in the rapidly growing areas in the northeast sector and south of the Fraser River. A number of projects recently completed or currently in progress, including the Maple Ridge Main (West), Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station, Angus Drive Main and Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel will significantly improve the capacity of the transmission system to supply water to these areas during peak demand periods.

UC - 134 The Maple Ridge Main (West) was placed into service in early summer 2015 and the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station and Angus Drive Main are both expected to be operational for summer 2016. The Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel is scheduled for completion in late 2016.

Meeting Peak Day Demands Summer peak day and peak hour demands can challenge the ability of the transmission system to meet service levels in parts of the region. The last significant peak day demand occurred in summer 2009. The demand conditions experienced during the hot summer weather in July 2009 stretched the ability of the regional transmission system to meet minimum target service levels, most notably in the southern and eastern parts of the region. These areas are both geographically furthest from the sources and are experiencing the fastest growth in population. It should be noted that peak day demands are not spread equally across the region, but tend to be higher where less residential density exists and lower where densification is occurring and there are fewer lawns and gardens.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report; no alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS During the hotter and drier summer months, the demand for water increases significantly over that in the winter, putting additional stress on the water supply system. Metro Vancouver’s wholesale peak summer water rate is 25% higher compared to the off‐peak period. This seasonal pricing reflects the cost of building larger infrastructure and higher operating costs such as increased pumping to meet peak summer demands.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION With the existing snowpack levels only slightly below average, and significantly above spring 2015 levels, it is expected that source lake storage will be sufficient to ensure adequate water supply for the 2016 summer season. Overall precipitation in the form of rainfall through the fall, winter and spring also contributes to the water levels in the three source reservoirs.

Per capita water use in the region continues to decline, off‐setting the impact of population growth and keeping total consumption relatively steady. In November 2015, the Board amended the Water Shortage Response Plan to extend Stage 1 Lawn Sprinkling restrictions from June 1 – September 30 to May 15 – October 15. Metro Vancouver staff are working with municipal staff to implement a water conservation campaign in support of the May 15 initiation of the lawn sprinkling regulations. In the event of an extreme drought or unusually high demand for water, Metro Vancouver has the ability to implement additional demand management measures, if necessary.

Improvements in the transmission system, including the new Maple Ridge Main West, the Angus Drive Main and the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station, will improve the capacity of the transmission system to supply water during peak demand periods.

17661868

UC - 135 5.10

To: Utilities Committee

From: Frank Huber, Director ‐ Major Projects, Management Systems & Utility Services, Water Services

Mark Ferguson, Director ‐ Project Delivery, Liquid Waste Services

Date: March 24, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVWD and GVS&DD Boards receive for information the report titled “Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015”, dated March 24, 2016.

PURPOSE To report on the status of the utilities capital expenditures. Utilities capital projects are typically multi‐year in nature; therefore, this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion.

BACKGROUND The Capital Expenditure reporting process as approved by the Board provides for regular status reports on capital expenditures with interim reports sent to the Utilities, Zero Waste and Performance and Audit Committees in June/July and October/November and a final year‐end report to the Committees and Board in April. This is the third and final in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2015.

In addition to this report, due to its size and complexity, separate detailed updates on the Lions Gate Secondary WWTP Upgrade Project are provided to the Utilities Committee and Board quarterly.

DISCUSSION The capital projects are separated into two types: “Ongoing” and “Completed”. Narrative information is provided describing key aspects of specific projects and each project is presented in the context of Total Projected Project Costs to Completion as compared to the Total Approved Budget.

Appendix A contains summary financial information on “Ongoing Projects” and “Completed Projects”. The information presented is for Total Projected Completion which will generally cover multiple years. Capital project budgets typically include a minimum contingency of 10%. Individual project financial information is included as follows: Schedule 1 – Water, and Schedule 2 – Sewerage and Drainage (Liquid Waste).

Appendix B provides narrative information for specific projects.

UC - 136 ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Ongoing Capital Projects: The Water District is projecting to spend $31.2 million (1.9 %) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 1.

The Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) is projecting to spend $37.8 million (4.2 %) less than the approved total project budgets for those projects in progress and included in Schedule 2.

It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required.

Completed Capital Projects: These are projects that have been completed during 2015, some of which may extend over multiple years. Overall the Water District and Sewerage and Drainage District (Liquid Waste) projects in this category are under spent by $5.1 million (15.0 %) and $9.9 million (22.1 %) respectively.

Capital expenditures are funded internally through debt charges. As capital expenditures are incurred, short term financing is secured and converted twice per year to long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority. If capital expenditures are less than budgeted for the year, the savings in debt charges create a surplus which may go against future capital expenditures via the Contribution to Capital Program to reduce borrowing.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The capital expenditure reporting process approved by the Board provides for interim reports to Committees in June/July and October/November, and a final year‐end report to the Board in April of each year. This is the third and final in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2015.

Both Districts (Water and Sewerage & Drainage) are projecting to be under spent for both ongoing and completed capital projects to December 31, 2015.

It is anticipated that in aggregate, ongoing capital projects in both Districts will be slightly under spent because the full contingency is not required.

Attachments and References: Appendix A: Capital Expenditure Summary Information as at December 31, 2015 Schedule 1: Water District Capital Expenditures Schedule 2: Sewerage & Drainage District (Liquid Waste) Capital Expenditures Appendix B: Capital Project Status Information, December 31, 2015

Orbit # 17687523

UC - 137 APPENDIX A

Capital Expenditure Summary Information As at December 31, 2015

Total Projected Expenditures to Ongoing Projects Completion ACE/ Total Budget Projected Variance Water $1,590,165,000 $1,621,397,822 $31,232,822 Liquid Waste $858,784,706 $896,629,377 $37,844,671 Total Ongoing Projects: $2,448,949,706 $2,518,027,199 $69,077,493

Total Actual Completed Projects Expenditures ACE/ Total Budget Variance Water $28,646,573 $33,721,195 $ 5,074,622 Liquid Waste $35,054,795 $44,983,202 $ 9,928,407 Total Completed Projects: $63,701,368 $78,704,397 $15,003,029

UC - 138 Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2015

ON-GOING PROJECTS

Drinking Water Treatment Cap Seymour Capilano Filtr Project North Vancouver 829,610,924 827,400,000 820,000,000 (7,400,000) (e) 99% 2016 Y Filtration Plant component completed over budget in 2009. A0163 Coq UV Disinfection Construct Coquitlam 95,280,504 96,500,000 110,000,000 13,500,000 (d)(f) 99% 2016 Y 924,891,428 923,900,000 930,000,000 6,100,000 Infrastructure Growth Cap A0036 Maple Ridge Main Stage II Maple Ridge 18,509,343 19,580,000 19,580,000 - (b) 99% 2016 Y A0140 Coquitlam Intake No 2 Coquitlam 611,956 3,130,000 3,130,000 - 20% 2018 Y A0164 Burnaby Mtn PS 2 Pre Design Burnaby 238,856 250,000 300,000 50,000 (d) 99% 2016 Y A0171 Barnston Maple Ridge PS Pitt Meadows 45,544,192 46,500,000 46,500,000 - (c) 98% 2016 N Equipment delivery delays. A0203 Seymour Main No 5 North North Vancouver 570,336 800,000 1,000,000 200,000 (d) 85% 2016 N Geotechnical investigation delays. A0208 Annacis No5 Conceptual Design New West / Surrey 1,968,871 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 98% 2016 N Shaft site selection delays A0214 Port Mann Mn No 2 North Design Coquitlam 1,530,704 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 99% 2016 N Permitting and property acquisition delays. A0215 Port Mann Mn No 2 South PreDes Surrey 337,835 400,000 500,000 100,000 (d) 99% 2016 Y A0218 Kennedy Newton Main Surrey 222,817 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 23% 2016 N Delays due to scope change. A0219 Coquitlam Main 4 Cape Horn Pre Coquitlam 21,332 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 2% 2018 Y A0226 Angus Drive Main Construction Vancouver 24,384,127 28,000,000 28,000,000 - 93% 2016 N Miscellaneous construction delays. A0237 S Delta Main No 1 Upgde Design Delta 1,292,589 1,650,000 1,750,000 100,000 (d) 80% 2016 N TFN grant funding delays. A0241 Hellings Tank No 2 - Pre Des Delta 588,842 800,000 800,000 - 74% 2016 N Preliminary design delays. A0243 Fleetwood Reservoir Pre-Design Surrey 787,090 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 61% 2016 Y A0247 Jericho Reservoir Pre Design Township of Langley 536,753 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 45% 2016 Y A0249 S Delta Main No 1 Pre build Delta 1,596,633 4,200,000 4,200,000 - 50% 2016 N TFN grant funding delays. A0251 Newton Pumping Improvements Surrey 147,237 250,000 250,000 - 65% 2016 Y A0254 Port Mann Main No 2 N Constr Coquitlam 2,165,200 24,100,000 24,100,000 - 12% 2017 Y A0262 SDM1 12th to 28th Ave Constr Delta 92,122 11,700,000 11,700,000 - 1% 2016 N TFN grant funding delays. A0263 Hellings Tank No 2 Det Des Delta 606 900,000 900,000 - 0% 2016 Y A0265 Fleetwood Res Detailed Design Surrey - 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 0% 2016 Y A0272 Port Mann Main 2 S Prebuild Surrey 1,184,829 1,800,000 2,000,000 200,000 (d) 98% 2016 Y A0276 Annacis Tunnel Prelim.Design New Westminster 302,546 8,000,000 8,000,000 - 5% 2017 Y A0277 Annacis Tunnel Detailed Design New Westminster - 28,000,000 28,000,000 - 0% 2018 Y A0286 COQ4 Central Pre Design Coquitlam 19,765 1,670,000 1,670,000 - 1% 2018 Y A0287 Port Mann Main 2 South Design Coquitlam 10,016 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 1% 2018 Y 102,664,596 192,730,000 193,380,000 650,000 Infrastructure Maintenance Cap A0002 Des and Cons Remed E2 Shaft P1 North Vancouver 1,419,618 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 95% 2016 Y A0075 Phase 2Rem Cons E2 Drain CI Da North Vancouver 806,637 850,000 850,000 - 95% 2016 Y A0134 Douglas Road Main 2 Stage 1 Burnaby 10,298,383 11,300,000 12,500,000 1,200,000 (a) 99% 2016 Y A0146 Douglas Rd Main 2 Stage II Burnaby 10,354,521 10,355,000 11,000,000 645,000 (a) 99% 2016 Y A0170 DRM2 13th Ave Section Pipes Burnaby 12,873,382 14,500,000 16,000,000 1,500,000 (a) 90% 2016 N Tie-ins being coordinated with Burnaby. A0181 DRM2 Kincaid Section Des Const Burnaby 9,321,559 12,300,000 12,300,000 - 80% 2016 N Delayed crossover chamber construction. A0182 DRM2 Delta Sect Des Construt Burnaby 14,787,974 15,400,000 16,600,000 1,200,000 (d) 95% 2016 N Municipal connection at Delta Avenue under review. A0207 DRM2 Still Creek Design Burnaby 223,474 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 14% 2016 N Procurement delays. A0211 E2 Shaft Phase 3 Test Wells North Vancouver 3,888,606 4,100,000 4,500,000 400,000 (d) 95% 2016 N Drilling delays due to challenging ground conditions. A0212 Annacis 3 Scour Construction Regional 309,636 310,000 814,000 504,000 (a)(h) 99% 2016 N Permitting delays. A0217 SSU Serpentine Riv Xing Rehab Surrey 284,158 325,000 480,000 155,000 (d) 98% 2016 N Delays in contract award. UC - 139 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 1.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 1 Summaryof 4 4/8/2016 Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2015

Total Project Total Total Expected 8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on Prog Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule? To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments A0222 SCFP CW Chambers Roof Upgrade North Vancouver 492,410 500,000 500,000 - 98% 2016 Y A0235 SCFP Storage Building North Vancouver 307,492 2,400,000 2,400,000 - 25% 2016 N Design delays; construction started December 2015 A0236 Westburnco 1 Trsfmr & MCC Repl New Westminster 82,562 942,000 942,000 - 20% 2016 Y A0244 Central Park WPS Starters Burnaby 271,161 2,100,000 2,100,000 - 17% 2017 N Delays due to scope change. A0250 Douglas Rd Main 2 Van Heights Burnaby 26,075 480,000 480,000 - 5% 2016 N Procurement delays. A0252 Cleveland Dam Drumgate Resurf North Vancouver 68,571 1,135,000 1,135,000 - 6% 2016 N Schedule revised due to operational constraints. A0259 SCFP CW Roof Imp Phase 2 North Vancouver 736,940 800,000 800,000 - 98% 2016 Y A0260 SCFP CW Cols Remediation Const North Vancouver 47,405 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 5% 2017 Y A0269 CDEA T505 Adit Upgrades North Vancouver 254,825 300,000 390,000 90,000 (a)(d) 99% 2016 Y A0273 Lynn Valley Main Replacement North Vancouver 16,317 600,000 600,000 - 10% 2016 N Project schedule under review. A0274 37 Ave Main Replace Pre Des Vancouver 45,494 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 10% 2016 Y A0275 LCOC Building Envelope Repair Burnaby 1,791,607 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 99% 2016 Y A0281 SCFP Concrete Coatings Design North Vancouver 8,671 250,000 250,000 - 5% 2016 Y 68,717,479 86,897,000 92,591,000 5,694,000 Infrastructure Risk Mgmt Cap A0160 Cleveland Dam ADAS Phase II North Vancouver 775,189 800,000 800,000 - 99% 2016 Y A0162 P Mann Water Supply Tunnel Con Surrey/Coquitlam 195,429,068 224,000,000 239,000,000 15,000,000 (d) 85% 2016 N Shaft construction and tunnelling delays. A0167 Second Narrows Water Tunnel North Vancouver/Burnaby 5,516,790 5,550,000 5,550,000 - 99% 2016 N Additional assessment undertaken. A0188 Seymour Falls Dam ADAS Ph II North Vancouver 272,325 300,000 300,000 - 91% 2016 N Design delays. Construction being coordinated with other work at Seymour Falls Dam. A0193 Braid St Main No 2 Design New Westminster 425,749 500,000 500,000 - 90% 2016 N Deferred to accommodate Queensborough Main replacement. A0209 Mackay Creek Mitigation PreDes North Vancouver 893,446 950,000 1,000,000 50,000 (d) 99% 2016 Y A0223 Convert to Blk Sodium Hypochi Coquitlam 1,165,480 8,300,000 8,300,000 - 14% 2017 Y A0225 Capilano Main No9 Prebuild North Vancouver 5,553,464 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 93% 2016 Y A0231 Second Narrows Tunnel Det Dsgn North Vancouver/Burnaby 1,747,847 15,000,000 15,000,000 - 12% 2017 Y A0233 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Des North Vancouver 320,287 420,000 500,000 80,000 (d) 90% 2016 Y A0238 Coquitlam Gatehouse Coquitlam 314,155 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 20% 2016 Y A0239 Coquitlam Multi-Storage Coquitlam 218,967 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 17% 2016 Y A0240 Seismic Upgrade Constr 3 PS Vancouver/Surrey 597,373 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 66% 2016 N Two pump stations complete. Project scope for the third pump station is under review. A0242 Hellings Tank Seis Upg-Det Des Delta 239,743 244,000 600,000 356,000 (h) 95% 2016 Y A0246 Clyton Reservoir Design Surrey 876,658 2,700,000 2,700,000 - 33% 2016 Y A0248 SCFP Filter Gullet Lining Cons North Vancouver 915,044 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 61% 2016 Y A0253 Cap Rd Ph 2 ADAS Piezometers North Vancouver 7,989 530,000 530,000 - 5% 2016 Y A0261 Cap 9 North Construction North Vancouver 14,981,485 29,000,000 29,000,000 - 52% 2016 N Pipe installation delays. A0264 Helings Tank Seis Upg Constr Delta 529,079 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 12% 2016 Y A0267 CWTP Enhancements Design Coquitlam 18,616 200,000 200,000 - 10% 2016 Y A0268 CWTP Enhancements Construct Coquitlam 778,116 2,300,000 2,300,000 - 34% 2016 Y A0270 Coq Intake Tower Seismic Upg Coquitlam 36,658 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 4% 2016 Y A0278 MacKay Creek Detailed Design North Vancouver - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% 2017 Y A0279 Cambie Rich Crossing Des Ph 1 Richmond 6,781 250,000 250,000 - 3% 2016 Y A0280 Haney Main Crossing Des Ph 1 Richmond 8,570 250,000 250,000 - 3% 2016 Y A0284 Westburnco Pwr Reliability PD New Westminster 4,707 350,000 350,000 - 1% 2017 Y A0285 Reservoir Iso Valve Auto Des Regional 9,649 700,000 700,000 - 1% 2018 Y 231,643,235 310,244,000 325,730,000 15,486,000 Infrastructure Upgrade Cap A0161 Capilano Power Feasibil Study North Vancouver 217,221 250,000 250,000 - 87% 2016 N Coordinating with Joint Water Use Plan. A0175 Water Optimization Auto Instru Regional 1,441,749 2,368,000 2,368,000 - 61% 2017 N Delays in instrument procurement.

UC - 140 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 1.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 2 Summaryof 4 4/8/2016 Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2015

Total On-going Projects 1,375,642,566 1,590,165,000 1,621,397,822 31,232,822

COMPLETED PROJECTS

Infrastructure Growth Cap A0198 Sasamat PS Stage II Pre design Vancouver 174,286 174,286 500,000 325,714 (j) 100% A0199 Angus Drive Main PreDgn Design Vancouver 1,970,070 1,970,070 2,000,000 29,930 100% A0202 Port Mann Mn No 2 N Pre Design Coquitlam 485,606 485,606 500,000 14,394 100% A0271 Comprehensive Water Plan Regional - - 300,000 300,000 (n) 100% 2,629,961 2,629,961 3,300,000 670,039 Infrastructure Maintenance Cap A0168 Cleveland Dam Elevator Replace North Vancouver 6,058,464 6,058,464 7,300,000 1,241,536 (a)(d) 100% A0187 16th Ave Main No. 3 Vancouver 12,975,850 12,975,850 13,900,000 924,150 (f) 100% A0192 Water Meter Upgrd 2011 Renewal Regional 357,148 357,148 350,000 (7,148) (l) 100% A0196 Re chlorination HVAC Upgrade Regional 436,019 436,019 600,000 163,981 (d) 100% A0200 Annacis 4 Scour Protect DesCon Regional 488,522 488,522 1,200,000 711,478 (o) 100% 20,316,004 20,316,004 23,350,000 3,033,996 Water Infrast Relocation Cap A8002 N Fraser Perimeter Pitt R Brdg Regional 3,115,314 3,115,314 3,261,195 145,881 (g) 100% A8003 N Fraser Perim Lougheed Pitt M Pitt Meadows 25,793 25,793 260,000 234,207 (g) 100% A8006 NFPR Coq New Westminster Regional - - 50,000 50,000 (k) 0% A8007 202 St Hwy 1 Langley BusExch Township of Langley 1,843 1,843 50,000 48,157 (i) 100% 3,142,950 3,142,950 3,621,195 478,245

UC - 141 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 1.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 3 Summaryof 4 4/8/2016 Schedule 1

Water District Capital Expenditures As of Dec 31, 2015

Notes: (a) Competitive construction market resulted in a positive variance. (b) GVWD share - 59.80%: Maple Ridge share - 40.20% (A0036 and A0152). (c) GVWD share - 39.18%: District of Maple Ridge share - 14.09%, City of Langley share 4.91%, Township of Langley share 41.82%. (A0171) (d) Full contingency not required. (e) Anticipated recoveries associated with the turbine supply (C-328), filtration plant (C-732) and tunnels completion (C-715) contracts are included in the projected final cost. (f) Construction costs lower than estimated. (g) MOT avoided highway construction impact on GVWD facilities resulting in savings on protective works. (h) Reduction in scope. (i) Assignment completed on operating account . (j) Operational modifications completed under budget. No major work was required. (k) Project was cancelled by TransLink. (l) Commissioning difficulties with meter communications. (m) Work to be done under A0274 - Scope revised (n) Project moved to operating program. (o) During design it was discovered that scour protection of two adjacent mains could be combined, resulting in cost savings.

UC - 142 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 1.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 4 Summaryof 4 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

SD Infrastructure Growth

Z0049 NLWWTP Phase 1 T2 Design Township of Langley 8,825,395 9,000,000 9,000,000 - 99% 2016 Y Z0050 NLWWTP Ph1 T2 Construction Township of Langley 38,975,180 41,529,000 55,300,000 13,771,000 (2) 98% 2016 Y Z0053 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgd Equip West Vancouver 1,280,094 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 99% 2016 Y Z0054 LGWWTP Interim CEPT Upgrd Con West Vancouver 1,319,999 1,320,000 1,320,000 - 99% 2016 Y Z0056 AIWWTP Outfall Surge Design Delta 11,889 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 9% 2017 Y Z0057 ANI Outfall Design Outfall Delta 2,375,774 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 40% 2019 Y Z0058 LIWWTP Digestor No 3 PreDesign Richmond 10,342 600,000 600,000 - 2% 2017 Y G0041 Sapperton Pump Station Design New Westminster 3,676,130 5,600,000 5,600,000 - 66% 2016 Y G0043 NSI Port Mann Twinning Surrey 9,785,178 13,032,000 20,600,000 7,568,000 (8) 48% 2018 N G0046 N Nicomekl Trk Sewer No 2 Cons City of Langley 6,881,427 6,882,000 14,000,000 7,118,000 (1)(2) 99% 2016 Y G0049 SSI K George Section Constr Surrey 29,544,407 30,000,000 30,000,000 - 99% 2016 Y G0050 Katzie Pump Upgrade - Design Maple Ridge 33,573 200,000 200,000 - (8) 17% 2017 N G0051 Katzie Genset - Assessment Maple Ridge 50,325 50,000 50,000 - (8) 99% 2017 N G0055 NSI 104 Avenue Extension Surrey 3,548,251 6,800,000 6,800,000 - 90% 2016 N Right-of-way acquired for final tie-ins. Tender for construction being prepared. G0056 Lulu Raw Sewage Pump Genset Richmond 2,017,107 2,162,000 2,900,000 738,000 (1)(2) 99% 2016 N Project complete. Claim submitted by engineer. G0059 ANI Stg 8 Outfall Predesign Delta 2,786,520 2,855,000 3,000,000 145,000 (2) 97% 2016 Y G0060 Maple Ridge FM Design Surrey 72,437 1,400,000 1,400,000 - (8) 5% 2019 N G0061 NSI Roebuck Design Surrey 807,065 4,300,000 4,300,000 - (8) 19% 2018 N G0062 Sperling PS Increase Pump Cap Burnaby 229,534 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 8% 2018 Y G0063 Katzie PS Genset Design Maple Ridge 1,400 500,000 500,000 - (8) 0% 2019 N G0064 Katzie PS Design Phase II Maple Ridge - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - (8) 0% 2019 N G0065 Bby Lk Int N Sperling Sect Con Burnaby 4,060,645 6,500,000 6,500,000 - 97% 2016 N Construction is nearing completion. Final paving restoration remain. G0066 Langley Pump Station Surrey 30,933 100,000 100,000 - 31% 2016 Y G0067 SSI Johnston Rd Section Surrey 739,900 800,000 800,000 - 92% 2016 Y G0068 SW Marine Dr Int. Twinning Vancouver 168,406 450,000 450,000 - 37% 2019 Y G0069 Marshend PS - Concept Design Burnaby 4,544 125,000 125,000 - 4% 2016 Y G0071 Hastings Sanitary Trunk Sewer Burnaby/Vancouver 226,389 300,000 300,000 - 75% 2017 Y G0072 Collingwood Sanitary Trunk Vancouver 154,222 325,000 325,000 - 47% 2017 Y G0073 Bby Lk N Int Philips Sect Burnaby 508,846 3,200,000 3,200,000 - 16% 2017 Y G0074 Langley PS Pre Design Surrey 2,272 300,000 300,000 - 70% 2016 Y G0075 Marshend PS Pre design Burnaby 74,622 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 25% 2017 Y G0076 Queensborough Pumb Stat Desg New Westminster 15,805 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 1% 2017 Y G0077 Sapperton FM Connections New Westminster 89,735 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 9% 2018 Y G0078 North Road Trunk Swr Twinning Coquitlam 136,637 664,000 664,000 - 21% 2017 Y G0079 SSI KGH OCF and Grit Chamber Surrey - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0% 2017 Y G0080 SSI Johnston Rd Pre Build Surrey 3,118,578 18,000,000 18,000,000 - 17% 2016 Y G0081 Sap PS Equip and Construction New Westminster 17,322 76,400,000 76,400,000 - 0% 2018 Y G0082 SSI Johnston Rd Detail Design Surrey 601,997 6,600,000 6,600,000 - 9% 2018 Y 122,182,881 259,794,000 289,134,000 29,340,000 SD Infrastructure Maint Cap

UC - 143 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 1 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

Total Total Expected 8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on Prog Proj ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule? To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments X0009 AIWWTP CCT ISO Gates Delta 505,138 508,000 1,000,000 492,000 (3) 99% 2016 Y X0013 LNG Control & Inst Replacement West Vancouver - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2017 Y X0014 AIWWTP CDAC Comp Replacement Delta 257,904 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 17% 2019 Y X0016 IIWWTP Constr and Inst Replmt Richmond 138,011 2,750,000 2,750,000 - 5% 2019 Y X0018 NLWWTP 25kV Sub Repl Design Langley 286,625 300,000 300,000 - 96% 2016 Y X0019 AIWWTP Clarifier Corr Ph 2 Delta 2,094,357 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 21% 2019 Y X0020 AIWWTP IPS Roof Replacement Delta 198,062 199,000 550,000 351,000 (3) 99% 2016 Y X0025 IIWWTP Cogen Ctrls Repl Design Richmond 34,463 470,000 470,000 - 7% 2017 Y X0026 Iona Solids-Construction Richmond 1,644,331 26,000,000 26,000,000 - 10% 2019 Y X0028 NLWWTP 25Kv Sub Repl Des P2 Langley 5,140 650,000 650,000 - 1% 2017 Y X0029 AIWWTP Galleries CDAC Design Delta - 395,000 395,000 - 0% 2018 Y X0032 NLWWTP CDAC Upgrade Design Langley - 650,000 650,000 - 0% 2016 Y X0033 NLWWTP CDAC Upgrade Constructn Langley - 850,000 850,000 - 0% 2017 Y X0034 AIWWTP Clarifr Corrosn P2 Cons Delta 884,905 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 9% 2019 Y X0037 IIWWTP Thickener 1 Refurb Richmond 115,918 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 10% 2016 Y N0046 Cost Alloc Billing Network Regional 4,960,119 4,962,000 5,230,000 268,000 (3) 95% 2016 N Delay in CSA certification of proposed metering instrumentation. N0296 Gleneagles PS 2 5 Rehab Design West Vancouver 111,154 1,200,000 1,200,000 - 35% 2016 N Updating flow projection N0307 Iona WWTP 2006 MCC Replacement Richmond 687,562 688,000 700,000 12,000 (4) 99% 2016 N Consultant onboard; work proceeding. N0318 FSA Sewer Repair Regional 1,520,614 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 76% 2016 Y N0321 LGWWTP Control Instrument 2008 West Vancouver 283,818 300,000 300,000 - 95% 2016 Y N0322 IIWWTP Control Instrument 2008 Richmond 484,694 500,000 500,000 - 97% 2016 Y N0325 Gleneagles PS 1 Rehab West Vancouver 241,104 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 36% 2016 N Updating flow projection N0333 LGWWTP Dig 4 Refurbishment West Vancouver 6,856,609 6,870,000 7,360,000 490,000 (2) 99% 2016 Y N0336 IIWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement Richmond 1,222,724 1,375,000 1,375,000 - 90% 2016 Y N0337 LGWWTP 2009 MCC Replacement West Vancouver 468,344 830,000 830,000 - 60% 2016 Y N0340 Lions Gate Ctrl and Instr Repl West Vancouver 160,073 200,000 200,000 - 80% 2016 Y N0341 Iona Control and Instr Replace Richmond 419,160 500,000 500,000 - 84% 2016 Y N0350 NW Interceptor Grit Chamber New Westminster 92,854 250,000 250,000 - 37% 2017 Y N0358 AIWWTP Clarifier Corrosion Rep Delta 1,545,446 1,946,000 1,946,000 - 99% 2016 N Phase 1 work substantially complete N0360 IIWWTP HVAC upgrade Richmond 1,965,546 1,976,000 2,095,000 119,000 (2) 99% 2016 Y N0361 Marshend PS Rehab Construction Burnaby 689,747 7,000,000 7,000,000 - 10% 2019 N Rehab delayed to coincide with Capacity Upgrade N0364 SSI Rehab Construction Surrey 712,514 713,000 3,000,000 2,287,000 (3) 99% 2016 Y N0365 AIWWTP MCC Replacement Delta 416,652 2,844,000 2,844,000 - 15% 2018 Y N0366 IIWWTP 12kv Feeder Replacement Richmond 811,844 897,000 897,000 - 96% 2016 N Maintenance repair is outstanding N0368 AIWWTP Gas Compressor Repl Delta 274,036 500,000 800,000 300,000 (3) 45% 2017 Y N0376 Iona Jetty North Slope Repair Richmond 4,717,664 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 94% 2016 Y N0377 Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning Richmond 1,969,192 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 99% 2016 Y N0378 LGWWTP Gas Condensate Removal West Vancouver 1,271,680 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 98% 2016 Y N0383 AIWWTP GrvtyThckner DAFRepa Delta 1,302,451 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 65% 2016 Y N0384 Iona MCC pwr dist ass rep 2010 Richmond 202,301 953,000 953,000 - 21% 2017 Y N0387 Iona Solids Handling Design Richmond 4,388,917 4,500,000 4,500,000 - 99% 2016 Y N0390 Iona Inlet Modifications Richmond 178,131 260,000 260,000 - 70% 2017 N Surge tower installed. Collecting data to determine effectiveness. N0394 NSI Scour Construction Regional 378,315 457,000 995,000 538,000 (3) 80% 2017 Y N0395 Gilbert Trunk Swr 2 Ph 1 Con Richmond 18,226,689 21,000,000 21,000,000 - 87% 2016 Y N0396 Iona MCC Pwr Dist Ass Rep Fut Richmond 310,110 1,965,000 1,965,000 - 16% 2017 Y N0397 LG WWTP Bar Screen Replacement West Vancouver 628,441 690,000 690,000 - 91% 2016 Y N0398 AIWWTP WSS Line Replacement Delta 661,005 885,000 885,000 - 90% 2016 Y N0399 Lynn Sewage PS Upgrade North Vancouver 7,519,816 7,714,000 9,000,000 1,286,000 (1)(2) 99% 2016 Y UC - 144 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 2 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

X0007 AIWWTP Ammonia Removal ConcDes Delta 275,745 300,000 300,000 - 92% 2016 Y X0008 LIWWTP Ammonia Removal ConcDes Richmond 26,797 200,000 200,000 - 60% 2016 Y X0015 LIWWTP PE Bypass Gates Design Richmond 106,627 150,000 150,000 - 99% 2016 Y X0017 AIWWTP Ammonia Removal PreDes Delta 5,723 600,000 600,000 - (4) 1% 2017 N Project delayed due to delays in previous phase. X0027 AIWWTP Cogen Prepurchase Delta 2,724 25,000,000 25,000,000 - 0% 2019 Y X0031 LIWWTP Bypass Gate Constructn Richmond 194,335 300,000 300,000 - 65% 2016 Y X0035 IIWWTP Sed Tank Eff Gates Cons Richmond 356,240 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 36% 2016 Y N0056 FSA Easement Acquisition Progr Regional 1,074,758 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 72% n/a Y N0331 Highbury Siphon Repair Const Vancouver 9,214,196 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 90% 2017 Y N0348 NLWWTP Outfall Township of Langley 126,429 1,500,000 1,500,000 - (8) 8% 2018 N Project scope under review. N0349 Highbury Overflow Facility Vancouver 19,795 110,000 110,000 - 18% 2018 N Project scope under review. N0362 ISMP for Port Moody Coquitlam Regional 242,991 250,000 250,000 - 97% 2016 Y N0373 8th & Balaclava Data Collect'n Vancouver 79,706 100,000 100,000 - 80% 2016 N Delayed due to instrumentation sourcing / certifications. N0386 AWWTP S Cogen Floor Rehab Des Delta 41,056 250,000 250,000 - 25% n/a N Project scope under review, likely to be cancelled. N0388 Highbury Air Mgt Facilities Vancouver 983,380 1,250,000 1,250,000 - 79% 2017 N Waiting for development permit. N0389 NW CSO Gates Design New Westminster 33,421 825,000 825,000 - 4% 2018 N Project scope under review. N0409 AIWWTP SCL Flow Balance Design Delta 290,225 450,000 450,000 - (4) 64% 2016 N Project was delayed but detailed design now underway. N0412 AIWWTP PST Wway Col Remed Des Delta 178,471 300,000 300,000 - 61% 2016 Y N0413 AIWWTP Cogen Backup Power Des Delta 2,682,681 9,000,000 9,000,000 - 30% 2018 Y N0419 Sewer Seismic Upgrades Regional 211,795 500,000 500,000 - 42% 2016 Y N0424 IIWWTP Sed Tank Effluent Gates Richmond 162,342 200,000 200,000 - 95% 2016 Y N0427 NW Intercept Columbia Sect Des New Westminster 370,824 702,000 702,000 - 53% 2017 Y N0428 Gleneagles Forcemain Replace West Vancouver 298,690 330,000 330,000 - 92% 2017 Y N0432 8th Ave Interceptor Air Mngmt Vancouver - 500,000 500,000 - 0% 2017 Y N0433 SSI Delta Odour Control Study Delta - 650,000 650,000 - 0% 2017 Y N0434 Ocean Park TS Rehab Design Surrey 5,527 403,000 403,000 - 1% 2018 Y N0435 Gleneagles FM Repl Constr West Vancouver 148,413 2,150,000 2,150,000 - 7% 2017 Y N0436 NW Intercept Columbia Sect Con New Westminster 124,791 4,680,000 4,680,000 - 3% 2018 N Will proceed following completion of McNeely Chamber tie-in work. 17,257,682 65,200,000 65,200,000 - SD Infrastructure Upgrade Cap

X0012 IIWWTP Redund 12KV Fdr-Design Richmond - 220,000 220,000 - 0% 2017 Y X0021 NLWWTP SBS Storage-Design Township of Langley - 250,000 250,000 - 0% n/a N Project scope under review pending results of pilot study. X0022 AIWWTP Protection Relay Design Delta 120,929 160,000 160,000 - 76% 2016 Y X0024 All WWTP PQM Network Predesign Regional - 30,000 30,000 - 20% 2016 Y X0030 AIWWTP Protect Relay Purchase Delta - 595,000 595,000 - 15% 2017 Y UC - 145 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 3 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

N8000 South Fraser Perimeter Rd Regional 317,639 330,002 333,562 3,560 97% 2016 Y N8001 Hwy 1 Widen and PM Bridge Twin Regional 5,594,863 5,700,000 5,714,815 14,815 98% 2016 Y 5,912,502 6,030,002 6,048,377 18,375 SD Infr Sec Treat Upgrade Cap

X0001 VSA IONA WWTP Upgrade Design Richmond 1,903,671 16,500,000 16,500,000 - (5) 12% 2019 Y X0002 NSA LG WWTP Upgrade Design North Vancouver 12,637,314 20,000,000 20,000,000 - (5) 63% 2020 Y 14,540,985 36,500,000 36,500,000 - SD Infr Opportunity Prgm Cap

X0010 AIWWTP IPS VFD Replacements Delta 54,207 1,050,000 1,050,000 - 5% 2018 Y X0011 AIWWTP TF VFD Replacements Delta 26,721 870,000 870,000 - 5% 2018 Y X0040 LIWWTP Biogas Clean up Richmond 60,381 10,400,000 10,400,000 - 1% 2018 Y N0347 Sapperton Pump Stn Sewer Heat New Westminster - 200,000 200,000 - 0% 2020 N Coordinating with Sapperton PS upgrade and City of New Westminster schedule for District Energy system. Latest City study indicates heat would be needed by 2020. N0379 VSA IRR Study Regional 151,145 152,000 1,000,000 848,000 (3) 99% 2016 Y N0380 VSA IIWWTP flared Biogas util Richmond 440,367 537,000 600,000 63,000 (2) 99% 2016 Y N0381 LSA IRR Study Regional - 179,000 1,000,000 821,000 (3) 10% 2016 Y N0407 Evergreen LRTP Impacts Regional 566,975 750,000 750,000 - 85% 2017 Y 1,299,797 14,138,000 15,870,000 1,732,000 SD Infr Annacis Stg 5 Exp Cap

UC - 146 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 4 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

Total On-going Projects 340,858,618 858,784,706 896,629,377 37,844,671

COMPLETED PROJECTS

SD Infrastructure Growth G0045 Bby Lk N Int Sperling Sect Des Burnaby 599,999 599,999 600,000 1 100% G0052 Sperling PS Pump Increase Burnaby 142,764 142,764 150,000 7,236 100% G0054 East Richmond PS Third Pump Richmond 223,028 223,028 225,000 1,972 100% G0070 Queensborough PS - Predesign New Westminster 99,693 99,693 100,000 307 100% 1,065,484 1,065,484 1,075,000 9,516 SD Infrastructure Maint Cap N0300 Gleneagles PS3 Construction West Vancouver 877,254 877,254 900,000 22,746 100% N0343 IIWWTP PA Tanks Infl Gate Repl Richmond 531,641 531,641 610,000 78,359 (2) 100% N0352 VSA IIWWTP IPS VFD replacement Richmond 897,786 897,786 900,000 2,214 100% N0385 Lulu MCC 80 011 and 012 replac Richmond 543,072 543,072 750,000 206,928 (1) 100% N0393 AIWWTP TF Pump Refurbishment Delta 826,788 826,788 855,000 28,212 100% N0422 Jervis SPS MCC ACP Repl Design Vancouver 114,665 114,665 115,000 335 100% 3,791,205 3,791,205 4,130,000 338,795 SD Infrastructure Risk Mgmt Cap

X0023 AIWWTP Cogen Controller Repl Delta - - 700,000 700,000 (3) 100% N0319 Jervis Planetarium Vancouver 6,765,095 6,765,095 9,000,000 2,234,905 (2) 100% N0374 Coquitlam Interceptor Rehab Coquitlam 4,962,122 4,962,122 5,800,000 837,878 (1) 100% N0423 VSA Emerg Backup Power Concept Vancouver 301,656 301,656 300,000 (1,656) 100% 12,028,874 12,028,874 15,800,000 3,771,126 SD Infrastructure Upgrade Cap N0324 AIWWTP Gas flow Meter Replace Delta 45,566 45,566 542,202 496,636 (9) 100% N0334 Jervis FM Extension to 8Al Vancouver 7,295,146 7,295,146 9,000,000 1,704,854 (2) 100% N0346 Lynn Creek SSO Treatment North Vancouver 12,359 12,359 750,000 737,641 (9) 100% N0369 LIWWTP gas flowmeter repl Richmond 57,081 57,081 236,000 178,919 (9) 100% N0370 Sperling PS Station Upgrade Burnaby 499,185 499,185 500,000 815 100% N0408 NWL WWTP Sludge Dewatering Township of Langley 176,109 176,109 2,500,000 2,323,891 (9) 100% N0415 IIWWTP Interim Facility Plan Richmond 271,399 271,399 250,000 (21,399) (6) 100% 8,356,845 8,356,845 13,778,202 5,421,357

Total Completed Projects 35,054,795 35,054,795 44,983,202 9,928,407

Notes: (1) Project will be completed under budget - savings due to competitive pricing. (2) Full contingency not required. (3) Reduction in scope. (4) Project is progressing now that new resources have become available. (5) Separate quarterly status reports for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Upgrade project are being provided to the Utilities Committee and Board. (6) The cost overrun is the direct result of expanding the original scope, to include a more detailed/thorough analysis of Maintenance/Asset Management for the plant.

UC - 147 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 5 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 Schedule 2

Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures Liquid Waste As of Dec 31, 2015 Total Projects

UC - 148 5.10 Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures to Dec 2015 - 2016 Mar 24 - 5.10 Schedule 2.xlsm / 2015 DecemberPage 6 Summaryof 6 4/8/2016 APPENDIX B

Capital Project Status Information December 31, 2015

1. GREATER VANCOUVER WATER DISTRICT (Water Services)

Major GVWD capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Drinking Water Treatment Program

• Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Project – The Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Plant treats water from both the Seymour and Capilano sources. The plant is located in the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve and is the largest water filtration plant in Canada. It began distributing treated water from the Seymour source in December 2009. All of the major construction contracts for the Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Project are complete and the raw and treated water tunnels have been in service since April 2015. Commissioning of the turbine/generator at the Capilano Energy Recovery Facility is complete and this facility was placed into service in February, 2016.

ii) Infrastructure Growth Program

 Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – A new intake, transmission tunnel and treatment facilities are proposed at the Coquitlam Lake Reservoir to increase the supply capacity from this source. The Project Definition Phase is underway. The Project Initiation Report and Request for Proposals for project definition are being prepared.

• Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station – This project comprises design and construction of a new pump station to provide water to Maple Ridge via Haney Main No. 2 and Maple Ridge Main West, and to Langley via the Barnston Island Main. Construction of the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station is in its final stages of testing and commissioning. Tie‐in connection to Haney Main No. 2 is anticipated to be completed by end of March 2016.

• Annacis Water Supply Tunnel – A 2.3 km long water supply tunnel is required under the Fraser River to meet growing demand in municipalities south of the Fraser and provide increased system resiliency. Proposals for engineering services for the Annacis Water Supply Tunnel have been received and reviewed. Preliminary design was awarded to Hatch Mott MacDonald and work began in early January 2016. Property acquisition for the shaft sites in New Westminster and Surrey continues.

• Port Mann Main No. 2 (North) – This 2.5km long 1.5m diameter steel water main will twin the existing Port Mann Main to meet growing water demand south of the Fraser River. Construction of the new main between the Cape Horn Pump Station and Reservoir near Mariner Way and the new Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel commenced in October 2015 and is approximately 12% complete.

UC - 149

• South Delta Main No. 1 Replacement – This project comprises replacement of an existing water main with a new main on 52nd Street from 12th Avenue to 28th Avenue (Phases 1 and 2), and on 53rd Street from 28th Avenue to 34B Avenue (Phase 3). Phase 1 Pre‐build construction has commenced and all works are scheduled to be completed by September 2016. Detailed design of Phase 2 is nearing completion and construction tender call is anticipated in late March 2016. Installation of the casing pipe for the Highway No. 17 crossing and the Connector Road pre‐build are complete.

iii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• E2 Shaft Replacement – The E2 Shaft, which has controlled ground water pressures in the East Abutment of Cleveland Dam since the 1950’s is nearing the end of its service life and needs to be replaced by a system of horizontal drains. Drilling of the first horizontal drain to replace the E2 drainage shaft is now complete. Due to difficult ground conditions, the first drain has taken significantly longer to complete than anticipated. Testing of the effectiveness of this drain has begun. Further production well drilling will commence late spring 2016.

iv) Infrastructure Risk Management Program

• Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel – The 1 km long, 3.5 m diameter water supply tunnel under the Fraser River between Coquitlam and Surrey is required to replace the aged and vulnerable Port Mann Main No. 1 marine crossing. Construction of the Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel is approximately 85% complete. The contractor has installed the 2.1m diameter steel watermain in the tunnel and construction of the south valve chamber is progressing well. Overall project completion, including connections to the existing system, is scheduled for late 2016.

• Mackay and Grouse Creeks Debris Flow Mitigation – Preliminary design of the Mackay Creek and Grouse Creek debris flow mitigation works is now complete. An RFP for detailed design was issued in early 2016.

• Capilano Main No. 9 – This project comprises construction of approximately 1.9 km of 2.1 m diameter steel pipe water main with associated appurtenances on Capilano Road in the District of North Vancouver. Construction of Phase 1 within Capilano River Regional Park is complete. Phase 2 water main installation along Capilano Road between the Capilano River Regional Park upper parking lot and Edgemont Boulevard commenced in August 2015 and is substantially complete. The watermain is expected to be in service by early May 2016. Construction of the crossover chamber on Edgemont Boulevard has been rescheduled to commence in November 2016, following peak summer water demand.

• Second Narrows Water Supply Tunnel – A 1 km long, 6 m diameter water supply tunnel is required under Burrard Inlet, between North Vancouver and Burnaby, to replace existing aged and seismically vulnerable crossings and provide additional long term supply capacity. Detailed design of the Second Narrows Water Supply Tunnel was awarded in July. Geotechnical drilling is now complete and analytical work has started.

UC - 150

• Clayton Reservoir – The project includes a new 22.5 ML water reservoir located at 72nd Avenue and 190th Street in Surrey that will increase the storage capacity and replace the existing Clayton Tank. Preliminary design of the new Clayton Reservoir is complete. Detailed design is now 40% complete.

• Coquitlam Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite Conversion – This project comprises conversion of the existing gaseous chlorine storage, feed, and injection systems with a new liquid sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system. Detailed design of the conversion to Bulk Sodium Hypochlorite for chlorine gas at the Coquitlam Water Treatment Plant is complete and the construction tender has been awarded.

• Marine Crossings – Phase 1 Conceptual Design ‐ In the fall of 2015 an assignment was awarded for phase 1 conceptual design for two new marine water supply crossings; Cambie‐ Richmond crossing of the Fraser River between Vancouver and Richmond and Haney‐Pitt, crossing of the Pitt River between Port Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows. This assignment was awarded to the MMM Group Ltd. and work began in early 2016.

v) Infrastructure Upgrade Program

• Lynn Valley Reservoir – This project includes a 1.0 ML water reservoir, chamber, piping and associated work, located at the northwest corner of the Seymour‐Capilano Filtration Plant site in North Vancouver. Construction of the new Lynn Valley Reservoir commenced in June 2015 and is scheduled for completion in June 2016.

UC - 151

2. GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE & DRAINAGE DISTRICT (Liquid Waste Services)

Major GVS&DD liquid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program items and exceptions are highlighted:

i) Infrastructure Growth Program

• FSA – Northwest Langley WWTP Phase l Upgrade – The project expands treatment capacity with three new clarifiers, an activated sludge tank, a pumping station, and ancillary process and electrical equipment. The concrete works for the three clarifier tanks, the activated sludge tank, the pump station, and the two process/control buildings are completed. The process‐mechanical and building‐mechanical works are also completed. The contractor is finishing up on the electrical installation. The project is transitioning from construction to the pre‐operational checking and testing stage. Substantial completion of the project is scheduled for May 2016.

• FSA – North Surrey Interceptor – Port Mann Section Twinning – Work on this project has been put on hold pending an East Fraser Sewer Servicing Study. The study is now complete and it recommends proceed with the Phase II upgrade of NWLWWTP. Staff are reactivating the project to determine if partial twinning is required.

• FSA – Burnaby Lake North Interceptor – Construction is complete on the Sperling Section. System tie‐ins are underway. Preliminary design of Phase 2 and stakeholder engagement are underway. Alignment within Burnaby Lake Park is the preferred option, but still has several challenges to gain acceptance. Preliminary design is contingent on approval and is expected to be completed sometime during 2016.

• FSA – North Surrey Interceptor, 104th Avenue Section – Pipe installation has been completed along the South Fraser Perimeter Road. The right of way required for the final tie‐ins has been acquired from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Drawings and specifications for construction of the final portion are being finalized for tender. Tender expected to be released by mid 2016.

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Outfall – This project involves identifying solutions for the transient/surge scenarios that may occur on the wastewater collection and treatment plant influent system in the event of a power outage, and assessing options to increase capacity of the outfall for growth. Draft recommendations for the transient/surge issue, and the outfall alignment were received in December 2015. A single gravity outfall along the western alignment is proposed, with the possible need for a pump station at some point in the future. The timing of the pump station is yet to be determined, subject to completion of hydraulic and dispersion modeling, which is expected in April 2016. Options for the location of the pump station are being investigated.

ii) Infrastructure Maintenance Program

• LSA – Gilbert Trunk Sewer Twinning ‐ Construction of Phase 1 of the twinning project is complete. Construction of a pre‐build section of Phase 2 is being coordinated with the

UC - 152

adjacent residential development project and is 85% complete. Decommissioning of the dyke portion of the old sewer has been delayed until April 2016, due to wet weather. A contract for design services for the remaining three phases of the project has been awarded. Preliminary design work is now complete. Overall completion of the project is scheduled for 2019.

• VSA – Iona Island WWTP Solids Handling Upgrade – This project involves improving the existing grit removal and sludge screening systems, increasing sludge thickening capacity, and improving the digester mixing systems. Construction of the screening, de‐gritting and thickening upgrades started in October 2015 and is expected to be complete in 2017. Construction is well underway with 3250 of 4800 timber compaction piles installed. Piling will continue until the end of April, and construction of the building structure has begun. The digester mixing contract started in November 2015, and is expected to be complete in 2019. All four mixing pump buildings will be completed by April of this year. Digester #4 gas proofing is complete and the digester is being put back into service. Due to operational constraints, the contractor will de‐mobilize by May, and return in October to undertake work on Digester #1 mixing system upgrades.

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Secondary Clarifier Corrosion Repair – This project involves replacing 12 existing secondary clarifier mechanisms that have been damaged by corrosion. One mechanism was replaced in 2014 and replacement of a second was completed in 2015. A tender will be released shortly for five additional units to be replaced in 2016‐2017. The remainder of the units will be replaced in 2019‐2020. Due to settlement that is affecting the operation of the mechanisms, re‐leveling and grouting of the clarifier floor, and the addition of flow balancing gates have been added to the scope.

iii) Infrastructure Risk Management Program

 FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Cogeneration System – The project replaces the existing cogeneration engines with larger units in order to utilize excess digester gas that is currently being flared, and to generate additional electricity and heat to reduce BC Hydro import. The cogeneration engines are being supplemented by diesel generators to provide a reliable stand‐by power system during BC Hydro outage events. Preliminary design has been completed and detail design is now commencing. Award of the pre‐purchased cogeneration engines and the standby diesel gensets was approved by the Board in July 2015 and the engines and gensets will be delivered to the plant in 2017. Anticipated completion in 2018.

iv) Infrastructure Upgrade Program

• FSA – New Sapperton Pump Station – The detailed design is 60% complete. Request for proposal for the supply of pumps and drives was awarded to Ebara Corporation in December. 69kV Gas Insulated Switchgear RFP was advertised in December and closes February 18. Development Permit process continues with the City of New Westminster. Public engagement sessions for the pump station and the Brunette Fraser Greenway was completed in fall 2015.

UC - 153

• FSA – Langley Connector and Carvolth Trunk Sewer Upgrading/Replacement – Construction is 85% complete and is expected to be completed by the end of 2016. Complications in the final tie‐in will delay completion until the summer.

v) Annacis Stage 5 Expansion Program

• FSA – Annacis Island WWTP Stage 5 Phase 1 – This work involves expansion of treatment process units including primary sedimentation tanks, secondary clarifiers, solid contact tanks and odour control. Detailed design commenced in early 2014 and is currently 99% complete. The $47 million ground improvement contract awarded in December 2015 is approximately 65% complete. The $5 million solids contact blower contract awarded in November 2014 is 95% complete. The contract for the controls and laboratory building awarded in March 2015 is 35% complete.

UC - 154

5.11

To: Utilities Committee

From: Mike Mayers, Superintendent, Environmental Management and LSCR, Water Services

Date: March 16, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Seymour Salmonid Society – 2015 Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the report titled “Seymour Salmonid Society – 2015 Annual Report”, dated March 16, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide the Committee with the Seymour Salmonid Society’s 2015 Annual Report.

BACKGROUND The Seymour River Hatchery commenced operations in 1977 in response to declining fish stocks in the Seymour River and Burrard Inlet. The hatchery was managed by the British Columbia Institute of Technology for 10 years. In 1987, a not‐for‐profit organization, the Seymour Salmonid Society was formed to oversee the hatchery operations, volunteer activities and related education programs.

The Society’s goals support both the GVWD Drinking Water Management Plan and Joint Water Use Plan fisheries objectives as they pertain to the Seymour Watershed. The relationship between Metro Vancouver and the Seymour Salmonid Society has been highly collaborative and effective over the decades. Along with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Metro Vancouver began contributing to the Seymour Salmonid Society’s core funding in 1996. In 2014 a contribution agreement was drafted to formalize funding provision by Metro Vancouver and at its October 10, 2014 meeting, the GVWD Board adopted the following resolution:

That the GVWD Board approve the Contribution Agreement between the Greater Vancouver Water District and the Seymour Salmonid Society for a three‐year term and annual contribution of $125,000 commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2017.

Contribution Agreement The Contribution Agreement specifies five key Seymour Salmonid Society goals, supported by Metro Vancouver. They are:

1) Provide a sustainable hatchery program in the production of fry and smolts to be released into the Seymour River system; 2) Deliver educational school programs to classes that are effectively linked to current school curriculum and to GVWD’s Drinking Water Management Plan and Joint Water Use Plan;

UC - 155

3) Monitor and collect data on adult fish returns and out migrating smolts; 4) Create stewardship links with local NGOs and school districts; and, 5) Funds are to be used to hire society staff, administer the hatchery program, purchase equipment and supplies, and leverage additional donations and support from other sources.

Annual Reporting As part of the Contribution Agreement the Seymour Salmonid Society is required to submit an annual report on its activities to Metro Vancouver. The report focuses on achievements associated with the five goals listed above. The 2015 Annual Report is provided as Attachment 1 and is summarized as follows:

Fry and Smolt Production:

The Seymour Salmonid Society is contracted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations to raise three salmonid species including coho, chum, and pink salmon and summer and winter run steelhead. For the 2015 operational period the Society exceeded its required numbers for fish production. It released 82,281 coho, 249,230 chum and 28,980 steelhead into the lower Seymour River system and is currently raising 57,960 coho, 170,900 chum, 349,900 pink salmon and 30,970 steelhead for release in 2016.

Education Program:

The Society delivered 46 programs to approximately 1000 K‐12 students by involving 26 primary and 20 intermediate classes from seven different school districts throughout the region. The education program was expanded in 2015 to include experience and observation of not only salmon habitat and life cycles but also the surrounding watershed, allowing students to better connect with the local ecosystems in their communities and become champions of water resource conservation.

Public Outreach:

The Society hosted two well attended community events in 2015 during the Spring and Fall. In addition, 2,100 people visited the hatchery directly to view and learn about its operation. The Society reports that it has doubled its community involvement and outreach numbers to 2200 hours when compared with the previous year through the work of approximately 700 volunteers. Efforts were made to reaching out through social media as well as to conduct both television and print interviews. Media outlets involved with Seymour Salmonid Society’s activities included CBC Radio, Spice Radio, City TV’s Breakfast Television, Global TV, CTV, the Vancouver Sun, North Shore News, BBC’s Nature Channel and the Discovery Channel.

Enhancement Projects:

In 2015 the Seymour Salmonid Society continued to lead the Seymour River Estuary Enhancement Project. Since the estuary environment represents a critical transition in the salmon life cycle, the Society was able to secure $400,000 in project funding for 2014‐2015. Accomplishments included:

UC - 156

a) Removing invasive plant species and replanting with native aquatics; b) Creating three islands with engineered log‐jams to simulate natural estuary habitat; and, c) Installation and anchoring of large woody debris and rocks in the intertidal zone to create valuable juvenile and adult fish cover, refuge and foraging habitat.

Additional Funding:

The Society was able to leverage the core funding that it receives from Metro Vancouver and DFO to secure an additional $79,350 in grant money. This additional funding was applied to its education program, enhancement projects and infrastructure replacements.

2015 Challenges:

On December 7, 2014 an estimated 30,000 ‐ 50,000 cubic metres of rock slid into the Seymour River Canyon, creating a significant barrier, blocking passage to all downstream migrating juveniles and to upstream migrating adult salmonids.

This naturally created barrier to fish passage forced the Society and DFO to initiate a mitigation strategy to re‐establish fish passage. The work may continue for an estimated five years and cost as much as $1.5 million. The Society will be fund raising and leading the mitigation works while also continuing its normal hatchery operations.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro Vancouver is a key funding contributor of the Seymour Salmonid Society, providing $125,000 annually through 2017, within the Watershed and Environmental Management Program budget.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Under the terms of the Contribution Agreement, the Seymour Salmonid Society is required to submit an annual report on its activities to Metro Vancouver. The Society operated successfully in 2015. Metro Vancouver staff believe that the Seymour Salmonid Society 2015 Annual Report meets the requirements of the Contribution Agreement.

17766086

Attachment: 1. Seymour Salmonid Society 2015 Annual Report

UC - 157

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY Fisheries Enhancement on the North Shore since 1987

2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Photo credit: Simon Ager

Prepared for Metro Vancouver and Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Prepared by Brian Smith, Hatchery Manager Marc Guimond, Assistant Manager Sharee Dubowits, Volunteer Coordinator

UC - 158

Mission Statement

To enhance Seymour River salmon and educate the public about the importance of the river as a resource for drinking water, wildlife, and the forest.

2 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 159

CONTENTS

Message from the President 4

Board of Directors 6 Society Staff 7

Community Outreach 8

Education Program 10 Seymour Estuary Restoration 13 Fish Production 17 Annual Funding 21 Year in Review 23

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 3

UC - 160

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

To our members and supporters:

Looking back at 2015, it’s been a very challenging, but yet successful year for the Seymour Salmonid Society.

Staying on track with our mission statement we educated over 1200 elementary school children and over 300 teachers and parents through our Gently Down the Seymour program, hosted a very successful Family Fishing Day event on Father’s Day at Rice Lake, introducing many children and their parents to the outdoors and fishing on the North Shore. Our Open House in September was very wet but well-attended by the public, with many electing to join the Society as a result of their introduction to the staff, the Board of Directors and the hatchery facility in the watershed.

The fisheries enhancement work that was undertaken in 2015 included continuing with the broodstock collection, incubation, and fry releases of the 3 salmon species, and steelhead that we have become known for by other stream-keeping groups and salmon enhancement societies.

This year the Society completed Phase 1 of the enhancement work in the estuary of the river. This Phase of the project included building islands and placing woody debris in the river. We plan on continuing this important work in the coming years to ensure that the river is as fish- friendly as possible.

The major issue for the Society this year, and certainly the most controversial was the natural rockslide that occurred in December of 2014. We have had to focus a great deal of our staff and volunteer time (at the time of writing, we have tracked upwards of 1700 hours) toward aiding fish passage both upstream and downstream of the slide.

We have worked very closely with and would like to thank all of our partners for their efforts in providing funding, volunteer time and diligence for netting, tagging and transporting fish, and for their overall support of the Society, and fish on the Seymour. In no particular order, I would like to recognize Pacific Salmon Foundation, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, Metro Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, The BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the BC Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, Tseil-Waututh First Nation, Squamish First Nation, the North Van Firefighters Charity, Bonnie Cyre and Raymond James Ltd., the BC Sportfishing Guides Association, University of British Columbia, BC Institute of Technology and the Rivers Institute,

4 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 161

and the many volunteers, without whom we could not achieve all the activities and projects that we have undertaken as stewards of the Seymour.

Although most people recognize that the rockslide is impassable for fish, we have undertaken studies with Kintama Research Services and InStream Fisheries Research, utilizing acoustic and radio tags to prove scientifically whether or not the rockslide is indeed a barrier to fish. We have also engaged Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and BGC Engineering to prepare a feasibility study complete with costing, to assess slide mitigation options. Once the results to both of these studies are available, we can undertake the next steps to ensure fish runs are sustained on the Seymour.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the members of the Board and staff for all their extra time and efforts put forward this year. It truly has been a challenging year, and I believe everyone has stepped up to the challenge and that the Society is stronger for it.

As well I would like to thank the Directors and staff that have moved on from the Society over the past year. Dave Steele, Matt Casselman, Jesse Montgomery and Ivan Zanni have all spent many years serving on the Board, and I wish to thank them all for their time, dedication, and efforts over the years. The Society also welcomes Dee and Jeremy Appleton to the board.

We have had some changes of staff as well. I would like to acknowledge the work of Kurt Frei, and Etovre Vese and wish them well in their future endeavours, and welcome Sharee Dubowits (our Volunteer Coordinator) and Brian Har (our Seasonal Employee).

On behalf of the staff, and members of the Board, I would like to thank you for your support in 2015, and welcome your involvement in 2016 as we continue with fisheries enhancement on the North Shore.

Shaun Hollingsworth President

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 5

UC - 162

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President Shaun Hollingsworth Treasurer Danielle Alleyn Secretary Eric Carlisle

Board Members Shaun Hollingsworth Danielle Alleyn Paul Harding Stephen Vincent Nick Martinovic Eric Carlisle Alexander Milojkovic Dee Dee Soychuke Jeremy Appleton

6 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 163

SOCIETY STAFF

Brian Smith: Hatchery Manager Brian graduated from the Fish and Wildlife Technology program at the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario in 1989. Brian moved to B.C. in 1990 and worked in the fish farming industry for two years before starting work with the Society. Brian has worked for the Society for over twenty years and has been the manager of the Hatchery for ten years.

Marc Guimond: Assistant Manager Marc grew up in Toronto and attended the University of Guelph, earning a degree in Biological Sciences in 1995. In 1997 he moved to Vancouver and volunteered at the Vancouver Aquarium teaching students about marine invertebrates. The following year, Marc joined the Society. He oversees all aspects of salmonid production and monitoring.

Sharee Dubowits: Volunteer Coordinator Sharee grew up on Vancouver’s North Shore and developed a passion for the outdoors at an early age. She attained a bachelor’s degree in Psychology and Anthropology from UVic in 2005, but decided on a career change later on in life that better aligned with her passions. In 2012 Sharee graduated from the Fish, Wildlife and Recreation program at BCIT and worked as a Park Ranger for Vancouver Park, Environmental Consultant for a private company and Fisheries Technician with Fisheries and Oceans Canada until moving to the Seymour Hatchery in 2015.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 7

UC - 164

COMMUNITY OUTREACH The Seymour River Hatchery has welcomed over 2,100 people through its doors via the Old Growth Trail, provision of informative tours, and events such as our Open House. The Society also partook in a number of public events and stewardship meetings. Kiosks were set up at off-site events such as Family Fishing Day, Coho Festival, Fingerling Festival and the DNV Firefighters Charity Fishing Derby and presentations were given at North Shore Stream Keepers, Blueridge Community and District of North Vancouver meetings, gaining exposure to thousands of members of the public all over the Lower Mainland. Additionally, the Society published articles in the Blueridge Community Association and North Shore Stream Keepers newsletters, as well as in Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Stream Talk.

While the rockslide in December of 2014 presented many challenged this year, it also provided the Society with an excellent avenue for community outreach through media. Interviews and television features were provided for CBC radio and television, Spice Radio, City TV’s Breakfast Television, Global TV, CTV, the Vancouver Sun, North Shore News, BBC’s Naomi’s Nightmares of Nature and Discovery Channel’s Daily Planet. These endeavors extended the Society’s reach both nationally and internationally to millions of households.

Public engagement also excelled in volunteer involvement with over 2200 hours contributed by our dedicated army of 700 passionate volunteers, 8 board of directors, 16 anglers and countless post-secondary students. Social media engagement is also up; now 532 people follow the Society activities on Facebook.

8 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 165

Visitors 350 300 250 200 Arrival

150

Visitor 100 50 0

Month

Volunteers 350

(hrs) 300

250 200 Volunteers 150 Involvement Directors 100 Broodstock 50 Students Volunteer 0

Month

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 9

UC - 166

EDUCATION PROGRAM

“It's such an amazing experience for my students. Many are first generation Canadians and they live in the inner city and many of them have never had the chance to be in a forest. Also realizing that what they are doing with the salmon is really important in so many ways...I think the whole experience is really empowering”

The 2015 season of the Gently Down the Seymour program was administered by Jen Callaghan of Aether Environmental Education for the fourth consecutive season. It brought 1000 student visitors, accompanied by 286 teachers and parents to the Seymour River Hatchery and Education Centre during the spring months. A visit to the “working hatchery” provided an understanding and awareness of salmon enhancement efforts for students, teachers and parents alike and allowed visitors to become a part of the local conservation community.

Gently Down the Seymour strongly supports the classroom studies of attending groups. All participants raised salmon in a classroom aquarium with the Salmonids in the Classroom program. GDS expanded student learning of the salmon life cycle to include experience and observation of salmon habitat and the surrounding watershed ecosystem. Students, teachers, and parents were able to connect with their local ecosystem and gain a greater understanding of how communities impact natural resources, and acted as stewards, ensuring there will be salmon in our neighbourhoods for generations to come.

The Seymour River Hatchery and Education Centre classroom was used to host the program, with the greater hatchery building, Hurry Creek and Bear Island Bridge hosting station activities. The Old Growth Trail was used for a forest walk activity on days that two classes attended. Classes and parent drivers were encouraged to ride their bicycles to the site in the summer and attend Family Fishing Day at Rice Lake in June.

10 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 167

Program Schedule

GDS Received 74 requests for participation for the 2015 season. Time and budget allowed for a total of 43 programs to be delivered to 46 classes from March 24 – June 11, 2015. This included 26 primary and 20 intermediate classes from 7 different school districts. Programs were offered five days per week with the exception of school holidays.

Number of Classes by District March April May June Total North Vancouver 1 4 3 2 10 West Vancouver 2 2 Vancouver 2 6 3 2 13 Burnaby 1 3 2 3 9 Coquitlam 1 1 Richmond 1 1 2 New Westminster 1 1 Independent 1 1 5 1 8 Total Classes* 5 18 15 8 46

* Two classes counted for “Double Class” field trip days

The field trip schedule was advertised as 9:45 AM – 2:00 PM, with the expectation that most field trips would begin by 10 AM. (2 classes this year were unable to arrive until 10:50 AM and 11 AM due to accidents on Second Narrows Bridge). Average arrival time: 10:06 AM Average departure time: 1:57 PM

The program schedule was impacted by wildlife in 2015. A cougar sighting by a local cyclist, in the proximity of Seymour River Hatchery, led to the cancellation of field trips by the Seymour Salmonid Society and Metro Vancouver. In total, 7 field trip days were cancelled. The GDS team was able to reschedule 3 of the 7 classes on alternate days. Feedback

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 11

UC - 168

Teacher feedback was collected through an online form. Teachers were emailed a link to the form at 2 PM on the day of their class field trip. Feedback forms were submitted by a total of 23 teachers.

 Overall all teachers strongly agree the GDS program met (and exceeded) expectations.  All teachers strongly agree this program supports their Salmonids in the Classroom experience.  Program design - 23/23 teachers strongly agree the GDS program has grade appropriate content and activities, and supports current school curriculum.  Field trip delivery - All teachers recorded the students were engaged and learning at field trip stations, with 23/23 strongly agreeing to the educators being informative and work well with students.  Community Reach – All teachers agree to strongly agree they will share the GDS program experience with the school and parent community.

“This is one of the best field trips I've been on in a long time. I was amazed at how well this field trip was organized and just how hands-on it was. The three presenters were really great with the kids, and each station so interesting and different. I would definitely return to this one! Thank you so much for the opportunity.”

12 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 169

SEYMOUR ESTUARY RESTORATION

The Society has undertaken a nearly $500,000 project to improve the Seymour River Estuary with help from the Government of Canada’s Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program, Metro Vancouver, Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, Living Rivers, Port Metro Vancouver, the Steelhead Society of BC, Simon Fraser University, Allied Shipbuilding, Squamish First Nations, Hatfield Environmental, Kingfishers Rod and Gun Club, Royal Bank Blue Water Project, Ventana Construction Corporation, District of North Vancouver, North Shore Wetland Partners, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation’s Burrard Inlet Restoration Pilot Program, BC Conservation Foundation, Warner Brothers Entertainment and the BCIT Rivers Institute. The estuary environment represents a critical transition in the salmon life cycle and the Seymour River estuary is just one of several that have been severely altered by industrial and residential developments. Dredging/channeling etc. has reduced the Seymour Estuary to 1% of its historic size/productivity. In March of 2015, Phase II was completed.

PHASE II ACTIVITIES

Phase II activities were initiated in 2014 and were completed in 2015. These improvements included:

 Removing non-native and invasive plant species from surrounding riparian areas  Removing creosote-soaked wooden structures to reduce toxic leaching  Expanding the size of the spit to increase lateral connectivity and sinuosity  Increasing the foreshore area to increase the surface area for intertidal plant species re-vegetation  Re-sloping sections of the foreshore for bank stabilization and to create varying elevations to align with the varying salt-tolerance of the intertidal plants

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 13

UC - 170

 Creating three islands with engineered log-jams to simulate natural estuary habitat and to create riparian zones  Installation of a nesting platform with perches to encourage inhabitation by a raptor to assist with deterring overgrazing by non-migratory Canada geese populations  Installation and anchoring large woody debris (logs and root-wads) in the intertidal zone to create valuable juvenile and adult fish cover/refuge/foraging habitat  Performing eelgrass and kelp habitat suitability – scuba surveys to determine the candidacy for sub tidal re-vegetation using transplants  Planting native species in the riparian zones to provide cover/refuge/foraging habitat for terrestrial species  Planting sea grasses in the intertidal zone to provide cover/refuge/foraging habitat for aquatic species  Establishing exclusion fencing / areas to reduce over-grazing of newly-planted vegetation by geese and other waterfowl and lower impacts from recreational users  Installation of a house post carved by a Tsleil-Waututh member  Installation of project signage within a large kiosk overlooking the restored estuary.

14 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 171

SEYMOUR RIVER ROCKSLIDE

On December 7th, 2014 an estimated 50 000 m3 of rock fell into the upstream end of the lower canyon due to a catastrophic slope failure. The debris created a backwater that extended upstream to Twin Bridge and raised the water level by 10 meters. The rise in water level destabilized the bridge and resulted in the removal of the structure. The debris also created a fish barrier, blocking passage to all downstream- migrating juvenile and upstream-migrating adult salmonids.

The barrier raised concerns regarding the future health of Seymour River salmon as the majority of productive salmon habitat is located above the rock fall. A rockslide mitigation strategy was initiated in partnership with Pacific Salmon Foundation, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Salmonid Enhancement Program, Metro Vancouver, Kintama Research Services, InStream Fisheries Research, Freshwater Fisheries Society, Squamish First Nations Band, District of North Vancouver, University of British Columbia, and the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 15

UC - 172

MITIGATION STRATEGY Multiple mitigation strategies were implemented in 2015. They included:

 Acoustic and radio tagging/monitoring of juvenile and adult salmonids to establish whether or not the slide was a barrier to fish migration  Snorkel survey to assess the number of adult fish trapped below the slide  Feasibility study of slide mitigation options by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and BGC Engineering  Smolt release below the slide area  PVC and net-trapping and transport of fish in the Lower Seymour River to the Seymour Hatchery  Hoop-netting and transport of fish in the Lower Seymour River to the Seymour Hatchery  Seine-netting and transport of fish in the Lower Seymour River to the Seymour Hatchery  Tangle-netting and transport of fish in the Lower Seymour River to the Seymour Hatchery  Application for grants to establish a floating fence in the Lower Seymour River  Application for grants to restore fish passage through the rockslide debris

LOOKING FORWARD The majority of funding for the establishment of a floating fence in the lower river has been secured. Installation is set for spring of 2016. Funding to restore fish passage through the slide using non-explosive methods has been applied for. Work will commence when funding is secured and river conditions allow.

16 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 173

FISH PRODUCTION

The Seymour Salmonid Society is contracted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to produce 3 salmonid species annually: coho, chum, and pink salmon. The Society also has an agreement with the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations to produce summer and winter run steelhead smolts.

The Society’s staff and volunteers traditionally captured coho and steelhead broodstock from the upper Seymour River close to the hatchery using a seine net. Now that the December 2014 canyon rock slide has impeded salmonid migration, coho, steelhead, and pink spawners must be captured in the lower river. Various methods were utilized this summer and fall from hoop- netting, seining, angling, to tangle netting. Adults were transported up to the hatchery for holding until ready to spawn. Pink salmon were captured primarily using hoop-nets and seining net from August to September and for the first time native pinks from the Seymour were spawned. Coho were caught using all methods from August through December but poor river conditions and high temperatures resulted in high mortalities early on. Most of our success came once the river became more hospitable with tangle netting and angling being the most fruitful methods. Adults are spawned as they ripen from early October to early January. Summer steelhead were captured through seining, tangle netting and fishing by volunteer anglers throughout the summer and into fall and will be held until late winter/ early spring when they are ready to spawn. Winter steelhead are collected strictly via angling from January to April and spawned during the period of March to late May.

Both species are reared at the hatchery for over a year before being released.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 17

UC - 174

Since the rock slide, coho smolts are released into the lower river at Swinburne Road. A portion of the coho brood produced will be released in the watershed above the Seymour reservoir, and all surplus fed fry will be released to habitat projects and various sites throughout the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve to mitigate for the absence of any natural spawning due to the slide. Both summer and winter steelhead smolts are trucked to West Vancouver for marine release near Point Atkinson.

Chum and pink (odd years only) salmon are collected and spawned in October on the South Alouette River and the Tenderfoot (Cheakamus River), respectively. Eggs from both species are transplanted and incubated at the Seymour Hatchery. Once developed into fry, chum are fed for up to a few weeks before being released into the Seymour River while pink fry are released immediately into the river upon emerging.

Every year the Society engages families with children with an event at Maplewood Farm where up to 25,000 chum fry are released into Maplewood Creek.

Images depicting tangle net operations in a canyon pool in the lower Seymour River below the rock slide. Once captured, the broodstock is transported up to the Seymour Hatchery.

*The scope of this report covers production and releases from January to December 2015.

18 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 175

The tables below illustrate brood on hand that will be released in 2016 and smolts that have already been released in 2015, respectively.

Table 1. Inventory of brood currently on hand at the Seymour Hatchery for release in 2016 Species Stock Brood Life Amount Release Location Origin Year stage period Coho Seymour 2014 Parr 42,550 Mid-June Swinburne Rd Coho Seymour 2014 Parr 15,410 Mid-June Burrard Inlet Sea- pen Summer Seymour 2015 Parr 16,913 Mid-May West Van. marine Steelhead release Winter Seymour 2015 Parr 14,061 Mid-May West Van. marine Steelhead release Chum Alouette 2015 Egg / 168,000 March / April Swinburne Alevin Chum Seymour 2015 Egg / 2,900 March / April Swinburne Alevin Pink Tenderfoo 2015 Egg / 284,000 Feb / March Swinburne t Alevin Pink Seymour 2015 Egg / 65,900 Feb / March Swinburne Alevin

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 19

UC - 176

Table 2. Smolt and fry releases from the Seymour Hatchery in 2015

Species Stock Brood Life Date Count Location Size Fin Clip (origin of year stage eggs) Coho Seymour 2013 Smolt 4,5-Jun 44,881 Swinburne Rd 35g- Adipose 40g Coho Seymour 2013 Smolt 9,10-Jun 14,500 Burrard Inlet 21g Adipose Sea-pen Coho Seymour 2014 Fed fry 18-Jun- 22,900 Tributary and 2g none main stem above Seymour reservoir Sumr Seymour 2014 Smolt 19-May 21,078 West Van marine 63g, Adipose Steel- release 73g head Wntr Seymour 2014 Smolt 19- 7,905 West Van & 2nd 71g, Adipose Steel- May- Narrow Br 80g head 27,28- marine release May Chum Alouette 2014 Fed fry 19 to 224,227 Swinburne Rd 1g none 29-Apr Chum Alouette 2014 Fed fry 18-May 25,000 Maplewood Cr – 1g none public involvement

20 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 177

FUNDING

2015 Seymour Salmonid Society Revenues

Funding Partner Funding Amount Allocations 1) Metro Vancouver $125,000 Hatchery Operations 2) Fisheries & Oceans Canada $100,000 Hatchery Operations 3) Additional Revenues * $79,350 Education/Projects Total Revenue $304,350

Summary of 2015 Additional Revenues * (from row 3)

Source Funding

Pacific Salmon Foundation $10,000

Pacific Salmon Foundation $5,000 Pacific Salmon Foundation $4,000 Habitat Conservation Trust $10,000 Foundation North Vancouver Firefighters $3,500 Society DNV Fire Fighters $9,000 Environment Canada National $10,000 Wetland Conservation Fund B.C. Gaming Grant $22,000 Elementary School Donations $750 Nautilus Environmental $1,000 Donation Vancouver Port Authority $500 Donation North Shore Optimists $1,000 B.C. Sports Fishing Guides $600 Association Sales and Personal Donations $2,000

Total $79,350

Note: Metro Vancouver’s annual funding significantly contributes to covering the basic Seymour Salmonid Society Hatchery operational costs and enables the Seymour Salmonid Society to leverage supplementary monies for specific programs and projects.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 21

UC - 178

2015 Seymour Salmonid Society Expenditures

Expenditure Type Expenditure Total Hatchery Expenditures $239,097 Total Additional Expenditures $79,350 Total Expenditures $318,447

2015 Hatchery Expenditures

Expenditure Type Expenditure Overhead $32,407 Fish Food $5,188 Equipment $4,466 Communications $656 Vehicle Maintenance $7,375 Mileage $1,094 Wages $148,725 Training $564 Operations $3,426 Vehicle Purchase $35,196 Total Expenditures $239,097

2015 Additional Expenditures

Expenditure Type Expenditure Education Center $10,000 Environmental Education $36,350 Rockslide Mitigation $23,000 Habitat Restoration $10,000 Total Additional Expenditures $79,350

22 SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

UC - 179

YEAR IN REVIEW 2015 was a challenging year for the Seymour Salmonid Society. Rockslide mitigation was the primary focus for all members of our team – work that was conducted for the first time in the history of the Society. While the rockslide has and will continue to present challenges, it has also fostered some very positive results to date. The Society has both forged and strengthened relationships with many partners without which most of this year’s activities could not have been accomplished. Community involvement and outreach nearly doubled from the previous year. As public interest in our story grew, so did media attention and we were able to broadcast our mission internationally. With the help of our dedicated volunteers, we not only met our fish production targets, but exceeded them in some cases. With new endeavours come new financial challenges. The Seymour Salmonid Society reached out to a large number of grant providers this year to help fund new projects. Thanks to these sponsors, project partners and community donors we will be installing a new floating fence in the lower Seymour River until fish passage through the rockslide can be restored. The fence is set to go in-river in the spring of 2016 and will be operational up to six months of the year. In the long-term, we plan to create a fish passageway through the slide debris by means of non- explosives and expanding grout over a two to five-year period. We hope to secure funding and begin breaking rock by February 2016. The coming year promises to be another interesting one. With the groundwork laid and partnerships forged in 2015, the Seymour Salmonid Society looks forward to the new challenges.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 23

UC - 180

5.12

To: Utilities Committee

From: Tim Jervis, General Manager ‐ Water Services Simon So, General Manager – Liquid Waste Services

Date: April 4, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016

Subject: Managers’ Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Utilities Committee receive for information the “Managers’ Report”, dated April 4, 2016.

1. Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant Funding – Simon So

On March 22, the day of the release of the 2016/2017 federal budget, the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) project was identified in the budget documents as “ready for immediate investment by the federal government”. A total federal contribution of $212 million has been earmarked for the project through the Green Infrastructure Fund – Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation and Climate Resilient Infrastructure. This figure matches the 1/3 federal contribution sought by Metro Vancouver for the Lions Gate project as outlined in the LGSWWTP Business Case (see table below), based on the estimated $636 million in eligible costs for the project. The $212 million federal contribution will be paid out over a nine‐year period.

Source of Funds Component Estimated Project Costs (in $millions) Decommissioning LGSWWTP Conveyance Total of existing WWTP Building Canada $ 193.8 $ 18.5 $ ‐ $ 212.3 Fund Province of BC $ 193.8 $ 18.5 $ ‐ $ 212.3 Metro Vancouver $ 232.4 $ 23.0 $ 20.0 $ 275.4 Total $ 620.0 $ 60.0 $ 20.0 $ 700.0

Metro Vancouver continues to work with the Province of British Columbia to secure a matching provincial funding commitment for the Lions Gate project.

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

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

Attachment: 1. Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

UC - 181 Attachment 1

Utilities Committee 2016 Work Plan

Priorities 1st Quarter Status 2016 Committee Priorities and Work Plan Complete 2016 GVWD and GVS&DD Capital Projects Complete Water Shortage Response Plan Review – Phase 1 Amendments Complete Seymour River Rockslide Update Complete Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station Commissioning In Progress Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Complete Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Hospitals and Health Care Facilities In Progress using Pollution Prevention Plans Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Complete Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Complete 2nd Quarter Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign including Water Wagon In Progress Water Supply Forecast and Consumption Update for Summer 2016 In Progress Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures In Progress GVWD Quality Control Annual Report for 2015 In Progress GVWD & Municipal Water Demand by Sector In Progress Seismic Resiliency of GVWD & GVS&DD Systems In Progress Long Term Water Supply Strategy In Progress Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve Public Consultation Update In Progress Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharges from Post‐Secondary and Research In Progress Laboratories using Pollution Prevention Plans Intentions Paper for the Regulation for Discharge of Food Waste from Food Service In Progress Establishments 2015 Wipes Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Pitt Meadows): Pilot Results and 2016 In Progress Regional Campaign 2015 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Surrey): Pilot Results In Progress Integrated Stormwater Management Plan for Port Moody – Coquitlam Drainage Area Pending Iona Island WWTP Secondary Upgrade – Project Initiation Pending Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update In Progress Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) In Progress Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) In Progress

UC - 182 3rd Quarter Status Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam Watersheds In Progress Joint Water Use Plan Update In Progress EOCP Policy Changes and Public Health and Environmental Risk Management Plans In Progress Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending Region‐wide Baseline for Onsite Stormwater Management Consultation Findings and Pending Recommendations GVS&DD Environmental Management & Quality Control Annual Report 2015 In Progress Liquid Waste Services Environmental Management and Monitoring Initiatives Pending Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Pending Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending 4th Quarter Summer 2016 Water Supply Performance Pending 2017 Budget – Water & Liquid Waste Pending Status of Utilities Capital Expenditures Pending Water Conservation: 2016 Campaign Update Pending Coquitlam Intake No. 2 – Project Definition Update In Progress Water Shortage Response Plan Review ‐ Phase 2 Amendments In Progress Port Mann Water Supply Tunnel Commissioning In Progress Comprehensive Regional Water System Plan Update In Progress Regional Assessment of Residential Water Metering In Progress Lions Gate Secondary WWTP – Quarterly Update Pending 2016 Regional Wipes Behaviour Change Campaign: Update In Progress 2016 Grease Behaviour Change Pilot Project (City of Richmond): Update and Regional In Progress Campaign Municipal Requests for Sewerage Area Boundary Amendments (as applicable) Pending Contract Approvals – Contracts > $5M (as applicable) Pending

UC - 183 6.1

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee

From: Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning Marcin Pachcinski, Division Manager, Electoral Area & Environment Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 30, 2016 Meeting Date: February 17, 2016

Subject: Update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board send a letter to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure requesting that an additional two months be granted to review the Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and to assess the impacts of the proposed Project on Metro Vancouver infrastructure and services.

PURPOSE This report provides the Intergovernment and Finance Committee with an update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, including the recent release of the Project Definition Report and the environmental assessment review process that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project will undergo and proposes that more time be requested to properly review the report.

BACKGROUND On December 16, 2015, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure released its Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (Attachment 1), and requested that comments on the Project Definition Report be submitted by January 28, 2016. On December 16, 2015, the BC Environmental Assessment Office determined that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is subject to provincial environmental assessment review, and requires an environmental assessment certificate prior to proceeding. The Environmental Assessment Office has requested that comments on the draft Application Information Requirements be submitted by February 10, 2016.

This staff report provides the Intergovernment and Finance Committee with a short description of both the Project Definition Report and the environmental assessment review process, briefly outlines Metro Vancouver’s broad interests as they relate to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, and requests that additional time be granted to conduct a more detailed assessment of impacts of the proposed Project on Metro Vancouver services and infrastructure.

GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT Project Definition Report The Project Definition Report outlines the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s proposal to construct a 10-lane tolled bridge (eight motorized vehicle lanes plus two dedicated transit/high- occupancy vehicle lanes) to replace the existing George Massey Tunnel. The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project as described also entails improvements to Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta, including dedicated transit/high-occupancy lanes, on- and off-

UC - 184 ramps, and interchanges. A multi-use cycling and pedestrian pathway will be included in the bridge design. The existing George Massey Tunnel will be decommissioned once the new bridge opens to traffic. The estimated capital cost of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is $3.5 billion.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has sought public comments on its Project Definition Report in support of making final decisions. The deadline for comments on the Project Definition Report was January 28, 2016. Given the compressed timeline for making submissions, Metro Vancouver staff provided comments to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to meet the January 28, 2016, deadline. A copy of these comments is provided to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for information (Attachment 2). These comments have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board.

Provincial Environmental Assessment Review Under Section 10 of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment Office may determine that an environmental assessment certificate is required for a project, and that the proponent may not proceed with the project without an assessment, where “a reviewable project may have a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effect, taking into account practical means of preventing or reducing to an acceptable level any potential adverse effects of the project.”

On December 16, 2015, the Environmental Assessment Office determined that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is subject to the provincial environmental assessment review process and requires an environmental assessment certificate prior to proceeding. The determination was based on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Description and Key Areas of Study (Attachment 3).

The Project Description and Key Areas of Study includes valued components. The Environmental Assessment Office’s User Guide (June 2015) describes valued components as follows:

Valued components provide the foundation of environmental assessments in BC. Valued components are aspects of the natural and human environment that have scientific, ecological, economic, social, cultural, archaeological, historical or other importance. Examples of valued components included in environmental assessments are fish and fish habitat, water quality, species at risk, communities and infrastructure, archaeological resources, and noise. The valued components selected for a proposed project guide the focus of the environmental assessment.

UC - 185 For the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has identified the following valued components:

• River hydraulics and morphology • Amphibians • Visual quality • Sediment quality and water quality • Terrestrial wildlife • Air quality • Underwater noise • Land and Water Use • Atmospheric noise • Fish and fish habitat − Marine use • Human health • Marine mammals − Land use • Heritage resources • Vegetation − Agricultural use

The Environmental Assessment Office has established an advisory working group of federal, provincial, local government and Aboriginal Group representatives to assist the Environmental Assessment Office with the assessment process. Metro Vancouver staff are participating in the process as part of the working group (Attachment 4). In the current pre-application phase of the environmental assessment review process, the focus of input from working group members is to ensure that the application contains the necessary information to allow the Environmental Assessment Office to undertake its assessment and make recommendations to the Ministers making the decision. This effort includes, for example, determining whether all applicable valued components have been identified. Metro Vancouver staff attended the first meeting of a stakeholder Working Group on January 21, 2016, to discuss the Project Description and Key Areas of Study.

The Environmental Assessment Office has requested comments on the draft Application Information Requirements by February 10, 2016. In order to meet this deadline, Metro Vancouver staff have submitted comments to the Environmental Assessment Office, focusing on the completeness of the environmental assessment application materials, including valued components. These comments have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board.

Proposed BC Hydro Transmission Line Relocation The existing Tunnel will be decommissioned once the new bridge opens to traffic. The decommissioning of the Tunnel will require BC Hydro to relocate a 230 kilovolt transmission line which currently spans the length of the Tunnel. The transmission line connects to overhead cable on either side of the Tunnel, with single pole configuration running adjacent to Highway 99. The transmission line must be relocated from the Tunnel and on both sides of the crossing to allow for construction of the new bridge and prior to the decommissioning of the Tunnel. BC Hydro staff began consulting with Metro Vancouver staff about this issue in 2015. In fall 2015, BC Hydro undertook public consultation on conceptual designs for three alternatives:

• An overhead transmission line crossing the Fraser River supported by towers; • An underground transmission line running under the Fraser River; and • A transmission line located on the new bridge.

The BC Hydro Board is anticipated to select a preferred alternative in early 2016. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to engage with BC Hydro and will keep the Intergovernment and Finance Committee and other committees apprised of new information.

UC - 186

Metro Vancouver’s Interests Metro Vancouver’s broad interests around the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project are related to:

• Regional Planning and Growth Management – The proposed bridge will have implications for regional growth management, including related effects on the distribution and growth of traffic across the Fraser River, as well as localized effects on communities, industrial development, population and employment growth distribution, and agricultural lands. Metro Vancouver staff convened an agency/municipal/industry meeting on February 5, 2016, to discuss these issues, and to identify and prioritize further analysis to be undertaken either by Metro Vancouver in conjunction with other interested partners including the proponent, or as part of the Environmental Assessment process. Staff received updates from municipalities, health authorities, consultants and the Province as to how potential land use implications are being assessed and addressed. Possible research needs were identified, and staff will continue to work with agency representatives to advance these efforts.

• Air Quality and Climate Change – The proposed bridge will result in changes in the levels of emissions of common air pollutants, toxic air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The changes in emission levels may lead to impacts in the vicinity of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, including exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as impacts in the regional airshed such as smog and reduced visual air quality.

• Environment – The proposed bridge may have impacts on land and marine environments with ecological importance. These environments include agricultural lands that serve not only a food-production role, but also provide habitat and other ecological health values. Plans to divert Green Slough underneath the future bridge are of particular interest. Consideration of how to reduce, mitigate, and compensate for impacts will be an important part of the environmental assessment review process.

• Regional Parks – The new bridge is expected to follow the alignment of the Tunnel, bisecting Deas Island Regional Park through the existing Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure right-of-way. Ongoing discussions between Regional Park Staff and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure have focused on noise, debris and visual impacts of the proposed new bridge and the associated BC Hydro project, post construction ecological and trail connectivity through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure right-of-way, habitat impacts and restoration opportunities, and trail connectivity from the bridge to the Deas Island Regional Park and broader regional greenway network including the Experience the Fraser Canyon to Coast Trail. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has indicated they will not require access through the Deas Island Regional Park for construction but may request limited post-construction access for maintenance purposes.

• Regional Utilities – Water Services staff have identified that the River Road West Main in Delta and the Lulu Island-Delta Main crossing under the Fraser River, between Richmond and Delta, may be affected by the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. The River Road West Main may need protection from ground improvements or changes in loads imparted by

UC - 187 both Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure bridge work and by BC Hydro tower installation. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is also relocating Green Slough to return the slough back to its original pre-Tunnel alignment. Depending on the final channel alignment, the River Road West Main may require relocation. The specific impacts and costs are difficult to predict at this early stage of project definition. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is reviewing options for removing sections of the Tunnel from the Fraser River once it is decommissioned. Tunnel removal will alter the river hydraulics, which may result in scour at the Lulu Island-Delta Main crossing. This effect has been demonstrated in modelling undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s river hydraulics consultant. Any future dredging of the Fraser River channel to facilitate the movement of larger vessels, following decommissioning of the Tunnel, could have significant implications to Metro Vancouver water and sewer infrastructure within the Fraser River.

Detailed comments will be provided by staff at various points in the process. Staff will continue to provide information to and seek direction as relevant from the Intergovernment and Finance Committee, the Utilities Committee, the Climate Action Committee, the Regional Parks Committee, and the Regional Planning Committee as the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project proceeds.

PROJECT TIMELINE AND KEY PROCESS DATES The information in this section of the report provides a timeline for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, as well as key dates in the consultative and approval processes.

September 2012 The Government of BC announces its intention to seek a replacement for the George Massey Tunnel.

September 2013 The Government of BC announces a new bridge is the preferred alternative for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel.

September 2013 – The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure undertakes traffic studies, November 2015 technical and financial analysis, geotechnical investigations, and consultation to support development of its Project Definition Report.

December 15, 2015 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure submitsits Project Description and Key Areas of Study to the Environmental Assessment Office to determine if the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project requires a review under the Environmental Assessment Act.

December 16, 2015 The Environmental Assessment Office issues an order under Section 10 of the Environmental Assessment Act, determining the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project requires an environmental assessment review.

December 16, 2015 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure releases itsProject Definition Report and seeks public comments.

January 7, 2016 The Environmental Assessment Office issues an order under Section 11 of the Environmental Assessment Act, setting out the requirements for the first

UC - 188 public comment period (beginning January 15, 2016) on the Project Description and Key Areas of Study document.

January 15, 2016 The Environmental Assessment Office starts a public comment period on the Project Description and Key Areas of Study. Comments at this stage will be used to inform the development of the application information requirements.

January 21, 2016 The Environmental Assessment Office hosts the first Working Group meeting with stakeholders (including Metro Vancouver staff) to discussthe Project Description and Key Areas of Study.

January 28, 2016 Deadline for public comments on the Project Definition Report to Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

February 10, 2016 Deadline for Working Group (including Metro Vancouver) comments on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s draft Application Information Requirements submission to the Environmental Assessment Office.

February 15, 2016 Deadline for public comments on theProject Description and Key Areas of Study to the Environmental Assessment Office.

Early & mid-2016 Environmental Assessment Review Process, including Working Group meetings with stakeholders (involving Metro Vancouver staff) and a public comment period during the application review stage. Metro Vancouver will have a formal opportunity to comment during the application review stage (date to be determined).

2017 – 2022 Construction of new bridge

> 2022 Bridge opens to traffic

> 2022 George Massey Tunnel decommissioned

UC - 189

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board send a letter to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure requesting that an additional two months be granted to review the Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and to assess the impacts of the proposed Project on Metro Vancouver infrastructure and services. 2. That the Intergovernment and Finance Committee receive for information the report titled “Update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project”, dated January 30, 2016, and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, including the accompanying BC Hydro transmission line relocation and decommissioning of the existing Tunnel, may have financial implications for water utilities and the Deas Island Regional Park. If the GVRD Board supports Alternative 1, a letter will be sent to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure requesting that an additional two months be granted to undertake a more detailed review of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Definition Report and the potential impacts on Metro Vancouver infrastructure and services.

Given the lack of detail in the current Project Definition Report, the specific implications for Metro Vancouver as a result of the new bridge and BC Hydro infrastructure are unknown and difficult to estimate at this time. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to liaise with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and with Port Metro Vancouver to protect the interests of Metro Vancouver with respect to its assets and operations.

It should also be noted that significant Metro Vancouver staff time has been dedicated to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. The need for staff time is anticipated to continue at variable intensity until the completion of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, including decommissioning of the Tunnel.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides the Intergovernment and Finance Committee with an update on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and responds to the Committee’s request to report on the costs and implications of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project on Metro Vancouver infrastructure.

The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, outlined in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report released December 16, 2015, proposes to replace the George Massey Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge, replace the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, and widen Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta.

On December 16, 2015, the BC Environmental Assessment Office determined that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is subject to the provincial environmental assessment review process, and requires an environmental assessment certificate prior to proceeding. The determination was based on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Description and Key Areas of Study. The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is in the pre-application stage of the

UC - 190 provincial environmental assessment review process. Metro Vancouver staff are participating in a stakeholder Working Group organized by the Environmental Assessment Office.

Metro Vancouver’s broad interests around the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project are related to regional growth management and planning, air quality and climate change, environment, regional parks, and regional utilities. Deas Island Regional Park, the River Road West Main, and the Lulu Island-Delta Water Main have been identified as Metro Vancouver assets being potentially impacted by the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

This report contains timelines for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and known key dates in consultative and approval processes. Staff will continue to provide information to and seek direction as relevant from the Intergovernment and Finance Committee.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requested that comments on the Project Definition Report be received by January 28, 2016. Similarly, the Environmental Assessment Office requested that comments from stakeholders on the draft Application Information Requirements be received by February 10, 2016. Given these compressed schedules, and in order to meet the deadlines, Metro Vancouver staff submitted comments, and have provided them to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee for information. These comments have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board. Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board send a letter to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure requesting that an additional two months be provided for Metro Vancouver Board review and assessment.

Attachments (Orbit # 17222716): 1. Project Definition Report 2. Staff comments on Project Definition Report 3. Project Description and Key Areas of Study 4. Environmental Assessment Process 5. Staff comments on draft Application Information Requirements 6. Proposed Bridge Rendering and Metro Vancouver Assets

17186328

UC - 191 ATTACHMENT 1

Project Project Definition Report

Project Definition Report

masseytunnel.ca UC - 192 1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

This Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project presents the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s vision, rationale and plans for improving a key section of the Highway 99 corridor and replacing the Tunnel with a new bridge to serve current and future transportation needs. Final decisions will be made based on feedback received during Phase 3 consultation, along with remaining technical studies and the environmental review.

The Ministry has a mandate to develop transportation strategies that move people and goods safely and grow our provincial economy. In developing this report, the Ministry consulted widely, gaining insight from municipalities, First Nations, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the agricultural community, environmental groups, first responders, recreational groups, local businesses, local residents, marine users, cyclists, other stakeholders and the general public. The Ministry also conducted planning, engineering, geotechnical and environmental analyses; worked with engineering, environmental and other subject-matter experts; and collected data on historic, current and forecast population and economic growth, and on traffic patterns. Supporting plans, consultation and analyses are outlined in Appendix A.

The Ministry acknowledges the efforts of many stakeholders and partners, including First Nations, and municipal and TransLink staff members, who met regularly with the Project Team to discuss respective plans and provide insight into Project development. The Ministry also thanks all who have taken the time to share their views on this Project to date, and invites everyone to offer comments on this Project Definition Report. Please see below for information about how to share your feedback.

To share your feedback:

Online: masseytunnel.ca

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 1-8-555-MASSEY (1-855-562-7739)

In person or by mail at: WE ARE HERE Project Office George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Ironwood Plaza 2030 −11662 Steveston Highway Richmond, BC V7A 1N6

UC - 193 2 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Project Definition Report CONTENTS 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 3

2 RATIONALE 8

3 PROJECT SCOPE 22

4 BUSINESS CASE 27

5 ENVIRONMENT 29

6 MEASURING SUCCESS 30

7 NEXT STEPS 31

8 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 32

APPENDICES ENDNOTES S

Rendering of the potential new bridge configuration UC - 194 3 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 1 – PROJECT OVERVIEW

unchanged, then by 2045, peak-period queues will be three to five times longer than 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW they are today. There will be more than a threefold increase in travel delays and a rush "hour" lasting at least four to six hours.

The George Massey Tunnel is an important link in the regional and provincial The Alex Fraser Bridge, which opened in 1986 on Highway 91, has absorbed much of transportation system, carrying an average of 80,000 vehicles each day.1 It connects the growth in rush-hour traffic south of the Fraser River. However, traffic has increased to key gateways such as Vancouver International Airport (YVR), the Peace Arch and to the point where both the Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge face significant Pacific Canada-U.S. border crossings, BC Ferries' Tsawwassen terminal, Deltaport and peak-direction congestion and delays during rush hours. the Boundary Bay Airport. It is a vital goods movement route that fuels our local, regional, provincial and national economies, and a key access point for businesses in With economic development south and north of the Fraser River continuing, and Delta, Surrey, Richmond, and Tsawwassen First Nation. population and employment forecast to rise in the communities of Delta, Richmond, Surrey and Tsawwassen First Nation, TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver’s population and economy have forecasts that traffic volumes through the Tunnel will grow over time. This includes grown, and its population is forecast to continue to grow by more than one million significant growth in truck traffic, which is expected to double in the next thirty 2 people over the next 30 years. Without improvements to this crossing, economic years.3 With no room at the Tunnel to accommodate this additional traffic during rush growth and regional livability will be constrained by congestion and increasing travel hour, new trips will have to be made before or after the rush hour at the Tunnel and times for commuters, goods movers, commercial traffic and other traffic. the Alex Fraser Bridge, creating heavy congestion in all directions and constraining economic growth. With growing concerns about public safety and congestion in and near the Tunnel, in 2012, the government of B.C. commenced a study of options to address the Highway 99 corridor. After analysis and consultation, a new bridge to replace the Tunnel Improve Safety The Tunnel was built to the engineering standards emerged as the most appropriate and supported solution. Construction is anticipated of the 1950s and, while operationally safe, it does not meet modern highway and to begin in 2017. seismic standards. With narrow lanes and multiple merge points, crashes in and around the Tunnel happen with higher frequency than on other parts of the Highway 99 corridor.4 Need for a Replacement Crossing

Support Goods Movement The Tunnel and the Highway 99 corridor Reduce Congestion The Tunnel has been congested during weekday are an important component of Canada’s Pacific Gateway, supporting the movement morning and afternoon rush hours for decades, with combined queues from all of domestic and international trade goods. The Tunnel is a critical link on Highway 99, directions now regularly as long as five kilometres.1 When there is a crash or vehicle connecting key gateway access points. A new bridge would facilitate shorter and breakdown, these queues can be much longer. The volume of traffic at other times more predictable trip times throughout the day and help businesses to schedule of the day has also grown to the point that the Tunnel is operating close to capacity goods movement more efficiently. throughout most of the day. Traffic studies indicate that if this crossing remains Rendering of the potential new bridge configuration UC - 195 3 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 1 – PROJECT OVERVIEW

Support Transit The Proposed Solution The Tunnel cannot accommodate dedicated transit lanes. A new bridge would support additional transit by providing Two phases of public consultation for the Project were held between November 2012 and April 2013, continuous dedicated transit and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) with more than 2,000 participants. Results indicate strong public support for additional capacity at this lanes in the medium term, and space for potential rapid transit crossing, and a clear preference for a new bridge to replace the Tunnel.5 As a result of this consultation, in the longer term. and in recognition of the age and condition of the Tunnel and the importance of the Highway 99 corridor as a public and economic asset, the Ministry will: Accommodate Cyclists and Pedestrians • Replace the Tunnel with a new 10-lane bridge (eight lanes plus two dedicated transit/HOV lanes), For safety reasons, pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited from with construction to begin in 2017. using the Tunnel. Cyclists use the shuttle service, which has limited hours of operation. The new bridge will include a • Replace the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, providing multi-use pathway. better access to and across Highway 99, with improved on- and off-ramps and additional lanes.

• Improve transit and HOV infrastructure, providing a continuous dedicated transit/HOV lane between Highway 91 in Delta and Bridgeport Road in Richmond, which will also support potential future rapid transit expansion.

• Provide access and connections for cyclists and pedestrians with a multi-use pathway on the new bridge.

• Decommission the Tunnel once the new bridge opens.

The new bridge will be built at the same location as the Tunnel. Traffic through the Tunnel will be maintained while the new bridge is under construction. The Ministry is reviewing options for removing sections of the Tunnel from the Fraser River once it is decommissioned. The Province intends to fund the Project through user tolls and is also working with the federal government to determine potential funding partnerships.

Other opportunities for potential future Highway 99 improvements between the Canada-U.S. border and Bridgeport Road have also been identified. This work is not included in the current Project scope but in future could potentially be undertaken by the Ministry in partnership with municipalities and/or other agencies, in consideration of TransLink's Transportation Vision as approved by the Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation.

UC - 196 4 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

Project Goals

Based on the Ministry’s mandate and results of consultation to date, six primary goals have been identified for the Project:

1. Reduce congestion. Improve travel times and reliability for all users.

2. Improve safety. This includes improving traffic and seismic safety, as well as emergency response capabilities.

3. Support trade and commerce. Improve access to local businesses and gateway facilities, and improve travel time reliability for goods movers and service providers.

4. Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor. Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes on the new bridge to improve travel time reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements.

5. Support options for pedestrians and cyclists. Provide a multi-use pathway on the new bridge to connect cycling and pedestrian corridors in Richmond and Delta.

6. Enhance the environment. Enhance the environment under the new bridge and in the Project right-of-way on Deas Island.

UC - 197 5 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 1 – PROJECT OVERVIEW

Business Case

Based on an estimated capital cost of $3.5 billion, the user benefits plus long-term economic effects result in a favourable benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to6 1. Key Project benefits are:

Reduced congestion. The new bridge will meet current and forecast travel demand with no significant congestion to at least 2045; the average commuter will save about 25 to 35 minutes a day when the bridge is complete in 2022. This includes consideration of traffic that currently uses the Tunnel, forecast traffic growth at this crossing, and the potential for some travellers who avoid the Tunnel today to switch to the new bridge. Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will encourage transit and carpooling, to help manage growth in auto traffic. Travel time savings and reliability benefits are expected to be more than $70 million in the first full year of operation, increasing over time.7

Improved safety. The Project is expected to provide more than a 35 per cent decrease in the frequency of collisions.8 The new bridge will have more lanes and wider shoulders than the Tunnel. This will make it easier for traffic to continue moving in the event of an incident and will facilitate first responder access. Additional lanes will also make it safer to merge onto Highway 99 from the Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges and make it easier to avoid slower-moving trucks. The seismic safety of this river crossing will also be significantly improved.

Improved trade and commerce. Growth in international trade through Greater Vancouver has contributed significantly to the economy of B.C. and has increased traffic along major trade routes such as Highway 99, which is also a popular commuter and tourist route. Addressing traffic congestion will benefit goods movers and trade in B.C. and Canada by improving travel times, reliability and agricultural access. It will also improve access within and between municipalities. This will provide greater flexibility in scheduling service and deliveries, and support overall growth in truck traffic, which is expected to double by 2045.3

Improved transit. Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will ensure more reliable, free-flowing transit trips across the river, and a dedicated Highway 99 transit-only ramp will connect to Bridgeport Road. The new bridge will also be built to accommodate future rapid transit.

Improved cyclist/pedestrian access. Cyclists and pedestrians will be able to cross at all times of the day using the new multi-use pathway.

Enhanced environment. Potential environmental improvements include connecting portions of Deas Island Regional Park that are currently separated by the Tunnel infrastructure, lower per-trip fuel consumption, lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions, and improved local trail access.

UC - 198 6 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 1 – PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Schedule

Planning and delivery for a project of this scale includes project development, environmental review, contractor selection and construction. The environmental review is expected to be complete in 2016. Moving forward now ensures construction can begin in 2017 to ensure the bridge is completed in 2022 (see Figure 1). The Tunnel will be decommissioned after the new bridge opens to traffic.

Community & Stakeholder Engagement

Planning Environmental Review

Three Phases of Consultation Construction

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Figure 1: Project Timeline

Next Steps

The Ministry welcomes feedback on this Project Definition Report (see inside front cover for details on how to participate), and will continue to work with stakeholders and the public to plan and implement this Project.

The Project is preparing its submission to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office for an environmental review, which will include public consultation. Pre-application discussions commenced in 2014, with plans to submit an Environmental Assessment Application for review in early 2016. Environmental baseline studies have been underway since early 2014. This work will also support the development of conceptual designs for procurement and applications for future permits.

Following completion of Phase 3 consultation, the Ministry will finalize the Project scope and cost estimate and submit the Project application for environmental review.

UC - 199 7 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE 2 RATIONALE

Improving Safety

The Tunnel was built to the engineering standards of the 1950s. While The Tunnel has been operationally safe, it does not meet today’s engineering standards, though consistently voted as some deficiencies have been addressed through lighting, ventilation and one of the worst roads structural upgrades. in B.C. in BCAA’s “Worst

Roads” survey because of The Tunnel’s design constraints make it difficult for first responders to reach 9 and clear emergencies. Some cargoes are not permitted in the Tunnel, and congestion. The Tunnel neither are cyclists. The new bridge will be a lifeline structure in a significant also does not meet seismic event, and will also have a multi-use pathway for cyclists and current roadway and pedestrians. seismic design standards.

High Crash Rates An analysis of traffic collision patterns along the Highway 99 corridor shows that crashes are highest at merge points leading to the Tunnel entrances, and at the Highway 17A and Steveston Highway interchanges. According to ICBC records, the Steveston Highway interchange is by far the worst crash site in Richmond, and in Delta, the Highway 17A interchange is the third-worst crash site.10 Northbound crash rates are approximately 50 per cent higher than southbound rates, particularly with respect to rear-end collisions. This is due in part to the large volume of vehicles making multiple merges as Highway 17A connects with Highway 99, combined with congestion and the related queues during the morning rush. In addition to safety and damage concerns, these crashes affect travel times and corridor reliability.

The Project is forecast to reduce crashes by more than 35 per cent.8

Earthquake Risk Built in the 1950s, the Tunnel does not meet modern seismic standards. A new bridge would provide seismic performance in accordance with current engineering standards.

UC - 200 8 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE 2 – RATIONALE

Addressing Traffic Congestion 240,000 The Tunnel on Highway 99 and the Alex Fraser Bridge on Highway 91 are key components of a regional, provincial and national transportation network that links communities south of the Fraser 200,000 River with their neighbours to the north. As the two crossings are not far from each other, travellers COMBINED have a choice, and congestion at one crossing significantly affects traffic movements on the other. 160,000

120,000 Because of the counterflow system, the four-lane Tunnel is the only Fraser River crossing with a ALEX FRASER BRIDGE single lane of traffic in the off-peak direction during rush hour. In the past 10 years, congestion in VOLUMES 80,000 the off-peak direction (southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon) has become GEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL worse than in the peak direction. During the same period, midday traffic increased by 20 per cent in 40,000 the northbound direction and 30 per cent in the southbound direction.1

0 The counterflow system, which was first introduced in 1982 and automated in 1990, works like this: 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 • Three northbound lanes and one southbound lane in the morning rush (5:45–9:15 a.m.). YEAR • Three southbound lanes and one northbound lane in the evening rush (3:00–6:15 p.m.). Figure 2: Annual Average Daily Traffic • Two lanes in each direction at all other times.

By comparison, the Alex Fraser Bridge, which opened in 1986 on Highway 91, has six lanes, three in each direction at all times.

The Alex Fraser Bridge has absorbed much of the growth in traffic demand, as Figure 2 illustrates. Between 1994 and 2014, annual average daily traffic (AADT) on the Alex Fraser Bridge grew by an average of 1.7 per cent annually, while combined traffic across the Alex Fraser Bridge and through the Tunnel grew at an average rate of 0.8 per cent.1

While both the Alex Fraser Bridge and the Tunnel are significantly congested during the morning and afternoon rush hours,11 a comparison of the two crossings (see Figures 3 and 4) shows that the Alex Fraser Bridge has free-flowing traffic in the middle of the day, while the Tunnel is at or near capacity for much of the day. This is due to:

• The Tunnel counterflow lane system limits off-peak direction traffic to one lane, causing people to shift their travel time.

• Steady Tunnel use throughout the week at all times of the day for local business use, and significant demand in the summer months for tourism travel.

UC - 201 9 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

The Tunnel has been at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours for decades, and traffic queues have continued to grow. Midday traffic has also grown, so the Tunnel is often congested during the day.

13,000 AVERAGE HOURLY TWO WAY TRAFFICGEORGE MASSEY TUNNEL/HIGHWAY 99

11,000

9,000

Growth in midday trac 7,000 Congested zone

5,000 NUMBER OF VEHICLES

3,000

Signi cant Signi cant Some congestion congestion congestion

1,000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

1999 2011

Figure 3: Average Hourly Traffic at the Tunnel UC - 202 10 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

With traffic growing year over year since it opened in 1986, the Alex Fraser Bridge and Highway 91 no longer have room to accommodate more northbound traffic in the morning rush or southbound traffic in the evening rush because they are at capacity during these times. Queues at the bridge are getting longer and rush "hour" now lasts between two and three hours each day in each direction.

13,000 AVERAGE HOURLY TWO WAY TRAFFICALEX FRASER BRIDGE/HIGHWAY 91

11,000

9,000 Growth in trac at Congested zone all hours of the day

7,000

5,000 NUMBER OF VEHICLES 3,000 Signi cant congestion in Signi cant congestion northbound in both directions direction 1,000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

1999 2011

Figure 4: Average Hourly Traffic at the Alex Fraser Bridge UC - 203 11 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

Current Traffic Patterns NORTHBOUND WEEKDAYS Origins and Destinations After the Tunnel opened in 1959, it rapidly ORIGIN became a key commuter route to downtown DESTINATION Vancouver for residents south of the Vancouver Fraser River. Today, commuter traffic to Burnaby/ 40% New Westminster downtown Vancouver accounts for less than 1% half the total traffic through the Tunnel. Almost 60 per cent of daily vehicle trips through the Tunnel are between Richmond and communities south of the Fraser River.12 Richmond Figures 5 and 6 illustrate daily origins and 59% destinations for vehicles passing through the

North King George Blvd Tunnel on a typical weekday. A breakdown of Tilbury Delta/ Surrey these numbers is available in Appendix B. 8% 19%

U.S. Border/ White Rock/ Richmond has become an Ladner South Surrey important trip generator 17% 35% in Metro Vancouver. Deltaport

Depending on the time 2% Tsawwassen of day, traffic originating 19% in or destined for Richmond now represents

approximately 60 per cent Figure 5: Northbound Weekday Vehicle Travel Patterns (October 2014) of total daily trips through the Tunnel.

UC - 204 12 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

Travel Delays Congestion-related travel delays were SOUTHBOUND WEEKDAYS identified as the number one concern during public consultation in 2012 and 2013. Delays ORIGIN can be well over an hour in the event of DESTINATION traffic accidents or vehicle breakdowns.13

Vancouver Burnaby/ Burnaby and This unpredictability leads to travel time 34% NewNew Westminster Westminster 2% uncertainty and traveller frustration, and hurts 1% the economy.

An important additional consideration is that Highway 99 carries a significant amount of Richmond B.C.’s tourism traffic, accessing destinations 65% such as BC Ferries, YVR, Whistler, the Canada- North Delta/ King George Blvd U.S. border, and Port Metro Vancouver’s cruise TilburyTilbury North Delta Surrey/Surrey ship terminals. For northbound afternoon 7%8% 15% 21% traffic, delays are highest in July and August – the season of greatest tourist and vacation

U.S. Border/ traffic demand. For example, in recent years, White Rock/ South Surrey August peak hour delays have ranged from 36% 30 to 45 minutes.13

Deltaport Ladner/ Deltaport Tsawwassen 2%2% 34%

Figure 6: Southbound Weekday Vehicle Travel Patterns (October 2014)

UC - 205 13 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Population & Employment Projections More People, More Trips

DRAFT – November 13, 2015 Population and Employment Growth Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, population and employment in Richmond and south of the Fraser River have Municipalities and other economic generators south Population Projections – Adjacent Highway 99 Corridor Communities grown considerably. The Agricultural Land Reserve and Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy have helped to of the Fraser River also have numerous planned shape this growth. New Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy targets call for population and employment in developments that are expected to increase traffic Percentage Population Projections Richmond and south of the Fraser River to grow by more than 50 per cent between 2011 and 2041 (see Table 1).2 volume on Highway 99 in the Project area Increase 2011 2021 2031 2041 (see Appendix C). 2011-2041 Delta, Richmond, Tsawwassen 296,900 344,000 380,000 409,500 38% Population Projections Percentage As a result of this planned population growth and Increase future economic development, the following travel Surrey, White Rock 497,500 614,500 707,000 793,500 59% 2011 2021 2031 2041 2011–2041 pattern changes are expected south of the Total Population 794,400 958,500 1,087,000 1,203,000 51% Delta, Richmond, Tsawwassen 296,900 344,000 380,000 409,500 38% Fraser River: Source: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (October 30, 2015 update) • Proportionately more commercial trips to Surrey, White Rock 497,500 614,500 707,000 793,500 59% Deltaport, Richmond, Tilbury, South Surrey, YVR, Boundary Bay Airport and the Employment Projections – Adjacent Highway 99 Corridor Communities Total Population 794,400 958,500 1,087,000 1,203,000 51% Canada-U.S. border. Employment Projections Percentage • Steady growth in commuting trips from Increase 2011 2021 2031 2041 South Surrey to Richmond as the population and 2011-2041 Employment Projections Percentage employment density in Surrey and Richmond Delta, Richmond, Tsawwassen 178,750 210,200 233,400 252,500 41% Increase continue to increase. Surrey, White Rock 175,200 221,800 266,400 306,300 75% 2011 2021 2031 2041 2011–2041 • Increased use of transit. Total Population 353,950 432,000 499,800 558,800 58% Delta, Richmond, Tsawwassen 178,750 210,200 233,400 252,500 41% Source: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (October 30, 2015 update) • Modest growth in tourism-related travel, including Surrey, White Rock 175,200 221,800 266,400 306,300 75% discretionary trips to and from the Canada-U.S. border, YVR and BC Ferries' Tsawwassen terminal.

353,950 432,000 499,800 558,800 58% Total Employment • Increased employment and discretionary trips to new developments in Surrey and Delta, and on Table 1: Metro Vancouver Projections for Population and Employment Growth Tsawwassen First Nation lands.

UC - 206 14 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

Forecast Traffic Growth Local municipalities are working with TransLink to reduce growth in single-occupancy traffic within and across communities. Municipalities adjacent to the Highway 99 corridor have also planned local upgrades to their traffic network to address increased demand. TransLink’s recently approved Transportation Vision includes plans for a new Pattullo Bridge and long-term transit and other transportation improvements designed to increase transit’s share of traffic relative to passenger vehicles. These plans are not expected to significantly reduce demand for travel on Highway 99 or through the Tunnel.

Based on forecast population and employment growth, and considering the planned regional road and transit improvements noted above, TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model predicts that the volume of traffic through the four-lane Tunnel will grow by about 20 per cent to just under 100,000 vehicles per day by the year 2045.14 Also, as a result of economic growth, truck traffic is expected to double over today’s levels within the same period.3

Since the Tunnel is already over capacity at rush hour, some people will switch to transit, but not enough to offset the forecast growth in new traffic. With no room at the Tunnel to accommodate more traffic during the morning and afternoon rush hours, travel patterns would shift to before or after the rush hours, including in the middle of the day. Queues at the Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge would grow, and the current three-hour rush period would grow to between four and six hours (see Figures 7 and 8) in both the morning and afternoon. Congested conditions would occur in all directions of travel on Highway 99 and Highway 91 throughout the day, hindering traffic movement and economic growth. Tunnel users would routinely experience weekday delays in both directions in the range of 45 minutes to over an hour during the busiest times and significantly longer delays in the event of a traffic incident.

UC - 207 15 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

EXPECTED QUEUE LENGTHS WITH FOUR LANE TUNNEL NO NEW BRIDGE MORNING RUSH

Alex Fraser Westminster Highway Bridge

17 King Boulevard George

Steveston Highway South Fraser Perimeter Road George Massey Tunnel

Boundary Bay Airport 2014 17A 2045

Figure 7: Morning Rush Queues for Traffic Headed to the Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge UC - 208 16 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

EXPECTED QUEUE LENGTHS WITH FOUR LANE TUNNEL NO NEW BRIDGE AFTERNOON RUSH

Boundary Rd Marine Way

YVR

Westminster Highway Alex Fraser Bridge King Boulevard George 17 South Fraser Perimeter Road Steveston Highway George Massey Tunnel 2014 2045 17A

Figure 8: Afternoon Rush Queues for Traffic Headed to the Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge UC - 209 17 RUSH-HOUR TRAFFIC MIX MORNING AND AFTERNOON COMBINED

CARS 94% CARS 88%

TRUCKS 5% TRUCKS 11%

BUSES 1% BUSES 1%

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

Supporting Growth

With or without a new crossing to replace the Tunnel, travel demand is forecast to increase over the next 30 years as the population and the economy grow and generate more traffic.14 With no room for additional traffic at the Tunnel, travellers will experience severe congestion.

A new tolled bridge would result in lower growth in traffic over time, as compared with an untolled crossing. The new crossing would provide significant travel time savings and reliability benefits while also helping to relieve rush-hour traffic congestion at the Alex Fraser Bridge and ensuring that the new bridge continues to serve national, provincial, regional and local trips well beyond theTODA 30-year planning horizon.Y A new bridge will help keep all traffic moving.(with Figure Tunnel) 9 illustrates the mix of combined daily rush-hour traffic in the 2045future as compared with today, as well as the growth rates differentfor types of traffic, with trucks and transit growing at faster rates than cars.3 "Trucks" includes heavy trucks such as(with container new trucks servingbridge) port and industrial facilities, as well as light trucks such as cube vans serving local commercial needs.

TODAY 2045 (with Tunnel) (with new bridge)

FORECAST RUSH HOUR CARS 12,000 18,500 55% TRAFFIC GROWTH, MORNING AND AFTERNOON COMBINED TRUCKS 600 1,600 170% (2014–2045) BUSES 85 190 125%

Figure 9: Forecast Growth in Rush-Hour Traffic

UC - 210 18 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

Supporting Goods Movement Alex Fraser Tunnel Bridge Moving Goods by Road Highway 99 is part of a transportation network that supports local commerce, and Number of trucks per day 7,000 9,000 provincial and international trade. Replacing the Tunnel with a new bridge will not only benefit commuters, but also strengthen the local, regional, provincial and national Percentage of peak-hour traffic that is trucks 5% 6% economies. Percentage of midday traffic that is trucks 15% 11% With economic development south of the Fraser River continuing to grow, total daily Number of trucks in rush hour 600 1,100 truck trips through the Tunnel are predicted to double by 2045.3 Without new capacity, these trucks will face significant delays in delivery time as they compete with other Table 2: Truck Traffic vehicles for access across the river.

Some of these trips will come from Port Metro Vancouver’s Deltaport terminal. Others will be in support of growing inland container depots and other industrial growth in areas such as the Fraser Richmond lands and Tilbury Island, while still others will support retail goods and services. Port Metro Vancouver’s Deltaport terminal represents about 2 per cent of all Tunnel trips each day and about 50 to 70 trucks per hour in the northbound direction during the morning and evening rush.15 There are more than 80,000 light and heavy commercial vehicles in Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley,16 of which about 2,000 are registered to access Port Metro Vancouver.17

Trucks tend to avoid rush-hour traffic and, as such, truck travel increases during the midday (see Table 2).1

Moving Goods by Water A number of industries – including container import/export and auto import/export and breakbulk exports – use the Fraser River as a marine highway for goods movement. In 2012, port and shipping facilities and related activities for the Lower Fraser River contributed 41,500 jobs and $4 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP).18 For B.C. alone, the Fraser River ports generated some 32,000 jobs and $3 billion in GDP.18 Consistent with Port Metro Vancouver’s Land Use Plan, more intensive use of Port Metro Vancouver sites on the South Arm of the Fraser River can be anticipated to support continued growth in Canada’s trade.19

The new bridge will have vertical clearance similar to that of the Alex Fraser Bridge, to ensure that current shipping requirements continue to be addressed. Once the new bridge is operational, the Tunnel will be decommissioned. Removing portions of the Tunnel as part of decommissioning would increase the water draft at this location by less than 2 metres. This would not appreciably change the mix of vessels using the Fraser River because of other constraints in the shipping channel.

UC - 211 19 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE

Supporting Transit

Transit use in the Project catchment area is high today. For example, during the morning rush hour, approximately 60 per cent of trips to downtown Vancouver by residents of South Delta and South Surrey are made by transit. In comparison, 44 per cent of downtown trips by residents of the North Shore, which has a similar population and better transit access, are made by transit.20

Nine northbound TransLink bus routes use the Tunnel during the morning rush. While these buses comprise only 1 per cent of the rush-hour traffic, they carry about 17 per cent of all Tunnel travellers. However, transit is not practical for approximately 70 per cent of northbound weekday drivers through the Tunnel.21 This includes commercial vehicles, tourists, and commuters travelling to or from areas with limited or no transit service.

Peak-hour transit volume is expected to almost double through to 2045 (see Figure 10). The new bridge will have dedicated transit/HOV lanes and will be built to accommodate future rapid transit service, consistent with the results of public consultation in 2012 and 2013.

NUMBER TRAVEL TIMES OF BUSES (MINUTES)*

2014 CURRENT CONDITIONS 50 30

2045 WITH NO 95 45 The Tunnel carries more transit IMPROVEMENTS passengers than any other major 2045 Fraser River crossing except WITH NEW 95 25 SkyTrain's SkyBridge. BRIDGE * KING GEORGE BOULEVARD TO BRIDGEPORT ROAD Figure 10: Transit Volumes in the Morning Peak

UC - 212 20 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 2 – RATIONALE Creating Opportunities for Cyclists and Pedestrians

2,0000 Public consultation undertaken in 2012 and 2013 highlighted a WEEKENDS strong desire for the new bridge to provide access for cyclists and

WEEKDAYS pedestrians. According to TransLink’s 2011 Regional Trip Diary Survey, 1,5000 cycling mode share in Delta/Richmond (1.2 per cent) is second only to Vancouver (4.1 per cent).22 Both municipalities have an extensive

PEOPLE network of well-used cycling and pedestrian trails, such as the 1,0000 Millennium Trail and the Dyke Trails.

In the absence of a safe route for cyclists, the Ministry operates a 5000 year-round free shuttle service through the Tunnel. In 2014 the shuttle transported an average of 910 people per month (an average of 30 23 0 people per day – this number varies by season; see Figure 11). The shuttle service does not operate on weekends during the winter MAY JU LY JU NE AP RIL MARCH

AUGU ST months. The number of bikes on the shuttle is highest in the summer. JANUARY OCT OBER FEBRUARY DECE MBER NOV EMBER SEPTE MBER When the new bridge opens, the shuttle service will no longer be MONTH required.

Figure 11: Number of People Transported by Shuttle in 2014 The new bridge will include a multi-use pathway connecting to walking/cycling routes on either side of the Fraser River, improving the potential for cycling and walking as an option for the many people who travel back and forth between Delta and Richmond. With no shoulders and narrow lanes, the Tunnel The new bridge will also encourage cycle tourism and recreation, cannot safely accommodate cyclists or pedestrians. providing improved access to and from BC Ferries' Tsawwassen The new bridge will include a multi-use pathway terminal, to and from cycling trails on both sides of the Fraser River, that will connect to walking/cycling routes on and within Deas Island Regional Park. either side of the Fraser River.

UC - 213 21 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 3 – PROJECT SCOPE

3 PROJECT SCOPE

In developing the Project scope, the Ministry reviewed the Highway 99 corridor between the Oak Street Bridge and the Canada-U.S. border, considering current and forecast traffic volumes, existing roadway and structural conditions, and potential improvements by others over the next 30 years. This included technical requirements and input from municipalities, First Nations, TransLink, Metro Vancouver, marine users, the farming community, cycling groups, adjacent resident and business groups and the public. The analysis confirmed the need for a new bridge and related Highway 99 improvements from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta.

OAK STREET Dedicated Transit/HOV Lanes BRIDGE Corridor Review Area BRIDGEPORT2 ROAD Project Area 1 CAMBIE ROAD HIGHWAY 99 WESTMINSTERHIGHWAY

HIGHWAY 91 3

1 Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta.

2 Construct a transit-only ramp at Bridgeport Road. 3 Replace the Westminster Highway interchange to efficiently accommodate all connections.

Dedicated Transit/HOV Lanes Project Area

HIGHWAY Multi-Use Pathway WESTMINSTER HIGHWAY 99 4

NO. 5 ROAD ROAD WILLIAMS HIGHWAY STEVESTON

4 Replace the Steveston Highway interchange to improve traffic flow into and out of Richmond, as well as along Steveston Highway. New, integrated transit stops will be constructed within the interchange, with safe and convenient walkways to access them.

UC - 214 22 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report SIDAWAY ROAD Dedicated Transit/HOV Lanes Project Area FRASER RIVER Multi-Use Pathway

DEAS ISLAND

5 8 NEW BRIDGE 10 HIGHWAY 99 MULTI-USE PATHWAY RIVER ROAD HIGHWAY 17A RIVERSIDE WAY 6 7 9 NO. 5 ROAD

DEAS SLOUGH RICE MILL ROAD

5 Build a new bridge that will have four lanes in each direction, plus a dedicated transit/HOV lane in each direction. The new bridge will be built to accommodate potential future rapid transit and will provide navigational clearances similar to those at the Alex Fraser Bridge.

6 Construct a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians on the west side of the bridge, connecting to Steveston Highway and River Road South.

7 Decommission the Tunnel.

8 Replace the Deas Slough Bridge with the Delta approach to the new bridge. The Delta approach will be significantly higher than the Deas Slough Bridge, allowing a wider range of boats to pass underneath.

9 The new bridge will include a southbound ramp exit connecting to River Road South. This will allow the Corporation of Delta to extend River Road South eastward under the Delta approach ramp, improving connectivity between Ladner and North Delta.

10 Replace the Highway 17A interchange to efficiently accommodate all connections. New, integrated transit stops will be constructed within the interchange, with safe and convenient walkways to access them.

UC - 215 23 HIGHWAY 17 HIGHWAY George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report Dedicated Transit/HOV Lanes HIGHWAY 99 BURNS DRIVE Corridor Review Area

VANCOUVER LANDFILL 72ND STREET Project Area

11 88TH STREET

64TH STREET BURNS DRIVE LADNER TRUNK ROAD/HIGHWAY 10

80TH STREET HIGHWAY 99 LADNER TRUNK ROAD HORNBY DRIVE TO CANADA-U.S. BORDER 96TH STREET

11 Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta.

UC - 216 24 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

Options Analysis

The Province held two rounds of public consultation in November 2012 and April 2013, with more than 2,000 participants to gather input and explore options for Tunnel replacement.

Phase 1 consultation sought feedback to gain a better understanding of current travel needs and community considerations for developing replacement options. Phase 1 consultation centred on community and provincial interests; crossing design elements; benefits and opportunities of a new crossing; and the connection to local, regional, provincial and national growth and transportation plans.

Phase 2 consultation sought feedback on five potential replacement scenarios that were developed in consideration of Phase 1 feedback. Results clearly indicated public preference for a new bridge to replace the Tunnel within the existing corridor.

The four-lane Tunnel serves an average of 80,000 vehicles each day.1 During rush hour, the counterflow system provides three lanes of travel in the peak direction and one lane in the non-peak direction. Traffic demand in both directions during rush hour greatly exceeds the capacity of the available lanes, resulting in long queues on Highway 99, major delays at the Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, and congestion on municipal roads in Richmond and Delta.

Given the congestion and safety issues today and the outlook for future population and employment growth, two short-listed options were considered for the new bridge:

• A 10-lane bridge, with one transit/HOV lane and four lanes for general traffic in each direction.

• An eight-lane bridge, with one transit/HOV lane and three lanes for general traffic in each direction.

UC - 217 25 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 3 – PROJECT SCOPE

Option 1: A 10-lane bridge with one dedicated transit/HOV lane in Comparing Lane Configurations each direction and four lanes for trucks and cars in each direction (a total of The benefits and costs of the two options were compared by considering their ability five lanes in each direction) would: to achieve the Project goals (see Table 3). Congestion relief and safety were considered quantitatively, and other key criteria were considered qualitatively. • Significantly reduce traffic collisions dueo t improvements in merging and reduced weaving. Considering the substantial benefits of a 10-lane bridge relative to those of an eight-lane bridge, a 10-lane bridge provides better overall value for British Columbians. • Eliminate congestion from opening day and accommodate future traffic growth, with no significant congestion to at least 2045.

• Eliminate the need for a counterflow operation. 10 Lanes 8 Lanes • Provide a separate lane for trucks and other slower-moving traffic as they navigate the grade of the new bridge (similar to the Alex Fraser Relieve congestion Bridge), without compromising travel times for faster-moving traffic. ✓✓✓ ✓ • Potential to convert the transit/HOV lanes to rail rapid transit at some future point while retaining four lanes of capacity in each direction. Improve safety ✓✓✓ ✓✓ • Have a more favourable benefit-cost ratio, despite having a higher cost than an eight-lane crossing. Support trade and commerce ✓✓✓ ✓

Option 2: An eight-lane bridge with one dedicated transit/HOV lane Support increased transit ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ and three lanes for trucks and cars in each direction (a total of four lanes in each direction) would: Support pedestrians and cyclists ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ • Reduce collisions, due to improvements in merging.

• Result in congestion on opening day and constrain future economic Enhance the environment ✓✓ ✓✓ growth.

• Not provide a separate lane for trucks and other slower-moving traffic Table 3: Ten vs. Eight Lanes as they navigate the grade of the new bridge.

UC - 218 26 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 4 – BUSINESS CASE

4 BUSINESS CASE

The business case for the Project has been developed based on the Province’s Capital Asset Management Framework (CAMF) guidelines. The following pages summarize the key benefits – specifically, the quantitative congestion-reduction and safety benefits – and the additional qualitative user, economic and community benefits.6

User Benefits

10 Lanes 8 Lanes Quantified user benefits include: Non-quantified user benefits include:

Relieve congestion ✓✓✓ ✓ • Congestion-reduction benefits for traffic on Highway 99, specifically: • Dedicated transit/HOV lanes in both directions, supporting provincial and regional strategies to encourage transit and carpooling to help manage ūū Travel time savings – the average commuter will save about traffic growth. Improve safety ✓✓✓ ✓✓ 25 to 35 minutes per day when the bridge is complete in 2022. • Improved transit scheduling because of increased travel time reliability. ūū Improved reliability of travel times. Support trade and commerce • Increased capacity for additional bus service and potential future rapid ✓✓✓ ✓ ūū Safe and efficient merging for the largeolume v of vehicles entering transit. and exiting at the Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges Support increased transit ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ at either end of the new bridge. • New pedestrian and cycling opportunities in and between Richmond and Delta. ūū Reduced vehicle operating costs. • Accommodation of slower-moving traffic, such as trucks, climbing the new Support pedestrians and cyclists ūū Travel time and reliability benefits are forecast to be more than $70 ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ bridge's grade (similar to the grade of the Alex Fraser Bridge). million in the first full year of operation, increasing over time. • Commercial vehicle operators able to schedule their operations more • Traffic safety benefits, with a ecastfor decrease in the frequency of Enhance the environment ✓✓ ✓✓ efficiently, without needing to avoid congested times of the day. crashes of more than 35 per cent. Table 3: Ten vs. Eight Lanes • Improved air quality relative to the Tunnel. • Seismic safety improvements to meet present-day seismic standards.

UC - 219 27 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 4 – BUSINESS CASE

Economic Development, Project Costs

Social and Community Benefits The Project cost is estimated at approximately $3.5 billion.

Emergency Response: The Project will improve emergency response times and capabilities, particularly during congested times, and Benefit-Cost Analysis especially for across-the-river responses. The benefit-cost analysis compares quantified congestion-relief, safety and long-term Project-Related Employment: The planning and economic benefits with Project costs, using the standard annual discount rate of construction program is forecast to generate more than 9,000 direct jobs, 6 per cent. Considering quantified user and economic benefits, the Project has a plus more than 8,000 indirect jobs for businesses that support and supply positive benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. construction activities. Sensitivity analysis was also undertaken to consider the effects of alternate discount Long-Term Economic Growth: The Project will also rates and traffic growth, as discussed below. provide a stimulus to long-term economic growth, in terms of annual GDP and permanent jobs created. By 2045, the incremental effects of the Alternate Discount Rates: The benefit-cost ratio is positive for a range of Project – including direct, indirect and induced effects – are projected to alternate discount rates. Considering user and economic benefits, an annual discount increase GDP by about $325 million annually. rate of 7.5 per cent decreases the benefit-cost ratio to 1.5 to 1, while a 4.5 per cent

discount rate increases the ratio to 2.8 to 1. The Project will result in enhancements to Deas Recreational: Island Regional Park by allowing people to use the land that is currently Alternate Traffic Growth Assumptions: Benefit-cost results are occupied by Highway 99 and the Tunnel portal. also positive for a range of alternate assumptions regarding future traffic levels. For example, if these growth rates are reduced or increased by 20 per cent, the ratio of user Agriculture: The Project will improve reliability for the agricultural and economic benefits ranges from 1.7 to 1 up to 2.5 to 1, respectively. community in getting goods to market, and will improve local community connectivity on both sides of the crossing. Project Funding Environmental: The Project will provide environmental restoration opportunities, especially along river shorelines and at Deas The Province intends to fund the Project through user tolls, and is working with the Slough within the current right-of-way. federal government to determine potential funding partnerships.

UC - 220 28 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

5 ENVIRONMENT

As required by the Environmental Assessment Act, the Project will Opportunities to Enhance undergo a provincial environmental assessment coordinated by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). This will include the Environment

assessment of potential environmental, economic, heritage, The project provides an opportunity to address health and social effects that may occur during construction and past development effects and to avoid new effects operations, with opportunities for comments from the public, by considering the environment as part of project permitting agencies, other levels of government and other planning. Key features that have been incorporated interested stakeholders. into the project design include:

The Highway 99 corridor includes areas of agricultural land and • Transit enhancements to increase ridership the foreshore of the Fraser River, which provides habitat for fish, wildlife and migratory birds. The corridor is also an important link • Multi-use pathway to encourage cycling/walking between the communities of White Rock, Delta, Surrey, • Less idling; reduced greenhouse gas emissions Richmond, Vancouver and Tsawwassen First Nation. As such, it supports recreation and conservation activities and influences • Restoring Green Slough to historic alignment socio-economic conditions such as air quality, noise, visual • Bio-filtration marshes for stormwater impact and community connectivity. management

The Ministry is committed to environmental best practices, and • Environmental enhancements in Deas Slough work is ongoing to collect baseline data for the environmental • Improvements to Millennium Trail assessment. Studies informing the Project include First Nations’ interests, as well as studies on vegetation, birds and other wildlife, river hydraulics, hydrogeology, fish and fish habitat, Additionally, noise walls will be installed at key marine mammals, water quality and sedimentation, locations along the highway. Some surplus land that atmospheric and underwater noise, air quality, agriculture, is created by developing more efficient interchanges contaminated sites, social and economic considerations, can be returned to agricultural use. archaeology, and visual effects.

UC - 221 29 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 6 – MEASURING SUCCESS 6 MEASURING SUCCESS

Baselines and performance measures are fundamental to the accountability and monitoring of the Project, and in assessing whether goals are being achieved. The Ministry has developed a framework for evaluation that includes specific performance measures for each Project goal (see Table 4). This will guide decision-making and ensure that reporting is done in a measurable and understandable way.

Goals Objectives/Targets Performance Measures

• Analysis of travel times and • Eliminate queues at the crossing on opening day and achieve reduced travel times, Reduce congestion. Improve travel times and reliability for all users. variances by time of day, week compared with today, for 20 years after opening. and season.

• Reduce crashes by more than 35 per cent over current levels. • Analysis of ICBC incident records. Improve safety. This includes improving traffic and seismic safety, as well as emergency response capabilities. • Build infrastructure to current seismic standards. • Post-construction verification.

Support trade and commerce. Improve access to local businesses and • Travel time studies. gateway facilities, and improve travel time reliability for goods movers and • Increase efficiency of goods movement. • Survey of local and regional service providers. businesses.

• Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes. • Post-construction verification. Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor. Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes on the new bridge to improve travel time • Allow for potential future rapid transit on the new bridge. • Post-construction verification. reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements. • Improve transit travel times and reliability. • Travel time studies.

Provide options for pedestrians and cyclists. Provide a multi-use • Increase cyclist and pedestrian traffic on the crossing. • Traffic counts. pathway on the new bridge to connect cycling and pedestrian corridors in Richmond and Delta. • Improve Millennium Trail underneath the new bridge. • User surveys.

• Restore the area under the new bridge on Deas Island that is bisected by Highway 99. • Post-construction verification.

• Reconstruct marsh habitat in the area occupied by the abutments of the Deas Slough Bridge. • Post-construction verification. Enhance the environment. Enhance the environment under the new bridge and in the Project right-of-way on Deas Island. • Inspection and reporting during • Meet commitments and obligations prescribed in the environmental assessment approvals. construction. • Post-construction verification.

Table 4: Performance Targets and Measures UC - 222 30 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

7 NEXT STEPS

Technical Work

Technical studies continue, including updating traffic modelling and forecasting on a regular basis as new regional and municipal development information becomes available. Results will be used to support the environmental assessment and Project construction.

Environmental Review

The Ministry is preparing its submission to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office for an environmental review. There will be opportunities for public comment in early 2016.

Procurement

Following completion of Phase 3 consultation, the Ministry will finalize the Project scope and cost estimate, and develop the contract requirements for construction and ongoing operations in accordance with the performance measurement framework as described in Section 6. A competitive procurement process will commence in 2016.

Construction and Tunnel Decommissioning

The Ministry is doing technical work to prepare for construction, which will begin in 2017. Traffic through the Tunnel will be maintained during bridge construction. The Tunnel will be decommissioned after the bridge is complete in 2022.

Ongoing Dialogue and Consultation

Consultation and engagement with local government, TransLink, Metro Vancouver, Port Metro Vancouver, First Nations and others has been underway since fall 2012 and will continue throughout the Project’s development and implementation.

UC - 223 31 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 8 – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 8 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Commercial traffic It’s important to note that 60 per cent of vehicles using the How will the new Tunnel are travelling to or from Richmond. We expect this Why not is important to the economic health of bridge affect the pattern to continue in the future, and our traffic forecasts restrict truck indicate that there won’t be additional cars crossing the Oak the region and local Oak Street Bridge? traffic in the businesses. It has been Street Bridge because of the new bridge. Tunnel? suggested that banning While Oak Street is likely to remain congested due to signal lights at Oak and 70th Street in Vancouver we’re trucks from entering not expecting any more traffic to drive over the Oak Street Bridge each day. the Tunnel during rush hour would relieve traffic congestion. However, since trucks represent less In fact, since the Canada Line was built, we’re seeing no traffic growth on the Oak Street Bridge. than 5 per cent of rush-hour traffic, congestion- reduction benefits would be limited. It would also What we may see, and what we saw on the Port Mann Bridge, is that because people know that they’re no shift truck traffic to the Alex Fraser Bridge, which longer going to be stuck in traffic at the George Massey crossing – saving up to 30 minutes a day – they is also congested during rush hour, resulting in may change their preferred travel time. This could make queue lengths at Oak Street a little longer during longer travel distances for trucks and additional the busiest part of rush hours. delays for Alex Fraser Bridge traffic.

Another suggestion is to restrict truck traffic Are you building a new The project is intended to improve safety and through the Tunnel to nighttime only. Deltaport bridge so bigger ships can congestion on Highway 99 – congestion that has recently extended its hours of operation to navigate the Fraser River? affects people who commute every day, as well as allow night access to better manage the flow local businesses, tourists and goods movers. of traffic at the terminal. Restricting non-port truck traffic through the Tunnel to nighttime only The new bridge will be the same height above the water as the Alex Fraser Bridge. would require current daytime commercial vehicle Removing the Tunnel would increase the water draft by less than two metres. This would assist marine traffic to use other river crossings during the day, traffic in dealing with tide-related loading/schedule restrictions, but will not significantly change the or to work only at night. This would affect local size of vessels using the Fraser River because of other navigational constraints. municipalities, including creating nighttime noise on local streets and affecting employee hours of It is worth noting that the tunnel is not the shallowest point within the main shipping channel; the work to accommodate nighttime truck deliveries. Steveston Cut at the mouth of the river is shallower. In addition, Metro Vancouver has a large water pipeline across the river just downstream of the tunnel. UC - 224 32 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report 8 – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Adding more buses would not result in better Keeping the Tunnel would require significant Why not just reliability or travel time; only improving the capacity Why not keep rehabilitation and ongoing operating costs, and of the crossing can do this. During the morning the Tunnel would still not meet current seismic add more rush, transit use is already high at this crossing, with the Tunnel standards. Neither the existing Steveston buses? a bus travelling through the Tunnel every three to for transit or Highway and Highway 17A interchanges nor four minutes. Although they benefit from a queue- local traffic the local road networks in Richmond and Delta jumper lane, buses must still merge with the general traffic through the have room to accommodate the local traffic Tunnel since there is not enough space in the Tunnel to support dedicated use? lanes and the additional entry and exit points transit/HOV lanes. When there is a traffic incident that causes congestion that would be required. and delays for travellers, it also affects the reliability of transit schedules. The new bridge will accommodate all forecast traffic, with no The Project includes a dedicated transit/HOV lane in each direction between significant congestion to at least 2045, and will provide new Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta, which will reduce opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians. The new bridge will also travel times for buses and provide the capacity needed to add buses. improve travel times and schedule reliability for transit users and will be constructed to accommodate potential future rapid transit.

The new bridge is expected to provide an Will a tolled new attractive alternative to the congested Alex During consultation in 2013, many people bridge divert Fraser Bridge, particularly during peak periods. Why not expressed concerns about the safety of tunnels Outside of peak periods, some people may build a new for all users, but specifically for pedestrians traffic to other divert to the Alex Fraser Bridge to avoid paying and cyclists. More than half of consultation routes? the toll. This could result in a reduction in total tunnel? respondents disagreed with a tunnel option. volumes on the new bridge on evenings and weekends. That’s the experience from other tolled crossings, and it’s what Additionally, technical analysis confirmed that a new bridge will happened on the Port Mann Bridge as well. improve safety and security for traffic, pedestrians and cyclists; fewer effects on agricultural land; and fewer disturbances on the On the new Port Mann crossing overall traffic volumes initially dropped with Fraser River. the introduction of tolls, but rush-hour traffic volumes increased by more than 15 per cent. Building a new bridge creates opportunities for environmental and community improvements to the Fraser River, and at Deas Island It took two years for traffic to stabilize and for drivers to return to Port Mann, Regional Park and Deas Slough. and now traffic volumes are growing steadily.

UC - 225 33 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING PLANS, CONSULTATION AND ANALYSES APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING PLANS, CONSULTATION AND ANALYSES

For decades, the need for added capacity at the Tunnel crossing has been clear. As early as 1989, the Freedom to Move plan developed by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Task Force recommended that the Tunnel be expanded by 2001. This was reinforced in Transport 2021 (1993), the long-range transportation plan in support of developing the Livable Region Strategic Plan (1999). In 2006, the Gateway Program Definition Report identified additional capacity at the Tunnel as a potential longer-term priority to meet transportation goals, while identifying potential concerns regarding increased traffic on the Oak Street Bridge. Since then, the Canada Line has been implemented and Richmond has become a major population and employment centre, which has changed traffic patterns significantly. Today, approximately 60 per cent of the daily traffic through the Tunnel is headed to or from Richmond.

Supporting Plans

The Ministry has considered national, provincial and regional plans and legislation that influence the Project, as shown in Tables A1 and A2.

National Plans Provincial Plans Regional Plans

Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative24 (2006) Pacific Gateway Transportation Strategy25 (2012–2020) Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy (2011)

Building Canada plan26 (2007) BC Jobs Plan27 (2011) TransLink's Regional Transportation Strategy (2013)

B.C. on the Move: A 10-Year Transportation Plan, Economic Action Plan28 (2014) Corporation of Delta’s Official Community Plan (2012) Government of British Columbia 29, 2015

Port Metro Vancouver’s Land Use Plan Update 19 (2014) Port 205030 (2010) City of Richmond’s Official Community Plan (2012) B.C. on the Move: A 10-Year Transportation Plan (2015)

City of Surrey’s Official Community Plan (2013) The Project has been developed in consideration of national, provincial, City of White Rock’s Official Community Plan (2008) regional and local economic, transportation and land use plans. Specific studies to expand or replace the Tunnel date back to 1989. Tsawwassen First Nation’s Land Use Plan (2009)

UC - 226 Table A1: Plans that Influence the Project A1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING PLANS, CONSULTATION AND ANALYSES

National Legislation Provincial Legislation

Canada Marine Act (S.C. 1998, c. 10) Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, C. 36

Navigation Protection Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-22) British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (2002)

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52)

Table A2: Legislation that Influences the Project

UC - 227 A2 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING PLANS, CONSULTATION AND ANALYSES

Consultation Ongoing Consultation (2014/2015) • Adjacent property owners • Delta Farmers' Institute Also informing Project development is consultation with First Nations, • BC Hydro • Marine users municipalities, stakeholders and the public. Results of consultation and • City of Richmond • Metro Vancouver engagement to date are summarized below. • City of Surrey • First Nations • City of Vancouver • Port Metro Vancouver Public Consultation (2012–2013) • City of White Rock • Richmond Farmers' Institute Initial consultation for the Project was held in two phases between • Corporation of Delta • TransLink November 2012 and April 2013. There were more than 2,000 • First Nations • Vancouver International Airport (YVR) participants in the online engagement and at open houses in Delta, • Cycling groups • More than 3,000 individuals who Richmond and Surrey. The Consultation Summary Reports for both visited the Project Office phases are available at masseytunnel.ca. Key findings from these consultations are: Key Findings (2014/2015) • Strong support for additional capacity. • Continued support for Project development and for short-term improvements while Project development continues. • Clear preference for a new bridge to replace the Tunnel and to construct the improvements along the existing Highway 99 • Desire for additional infrastructure improvements along the Highway 99 corridor. corridor, citing various reasons including safety and attractiveness • Requests for River Road to be connected under the new bridge. for pedestrians and cyclists, and environmental effects. • Questions about potential changes in river hydrology and implications for the river salinity • Desire for transit, cycling and pedestrian improvements, including and related effects on irrigation once the Tunnel is decommissioned. protecting the Highway 99 corridor for future rapid transit. • Requests that cycling infrastructure be built to accommodate all ages and abilities.

• Questions about potential changes in the locations of population • Questions about potential noise and visual effects for residential areas near the new bridge. and employment growth. • Desire for increased transit service on the Highway 99 corridor.

• Questions about potential view and noise effects. • Questions about cost and financing, including tolling.

• Questions about the design and aesthetic features of the new bridge. • Questions about Project cost and funding, with some preferring a tolled bridge and others preferring no tolls. • Questions about potential property acquisition.

UC - 228 A3 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING PLANS, CONSULTATION AND ANALYSES

Technical Analyses

To understand the effects of the Project on the provincial and regional transportation network, surrounding environment and local communities, the Ministry is conducting related studies and collecting extensive traffic-related data. The Ministry is also undertaking studies and consulting experts to determine the most appropriate specifications for bridge design and highway upgrades. A summary of work underway is included in Table A3 below.

Environment Community Engineering Transportation

Air quality Agriculture Geotechnical analysis Traffic management

Water quality Heritage sites Navigational clearance Gateway Program Sub-Area Traffic Model (GSAM)31

Aquatic species and habitat Human health Bridge deck design TransLink's Regional Transportation Model (RTM)31

Terrestrial wildlife and vegetation Noise effects Bridge foundation design Traffic count programs

Hydrology Land use Lighting ICBC data analysis

Hydrogeology Land ownership Highway lane design Transit access

Contaminated sites Community considerations and benefits Highway structures design Cyclist/pedestrian access

Archaeological Economic considerations and benefits Seismic studies Table A3: Project Work Underway

Aboriginal traditional and current use Visual aspects Utility relocation (by First Nations)

Drainage

Corridor-wide analysis of current and future conditions has been underway since 2012 to support Project development.

UC - 229 A4 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX B: TUNNEL TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS APPENDIX B: TUNNEL TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS

There are notable differences in origin and destination patterns by time of day and day of week. Tables B1 and B232 provide insight. Notable differences are indicated in a bold, underlined font.

Weekday NORTHBOUND Trips (%) Sub-Area Weekends (%) Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Total Origins Ladner 16 17 17 17 17 18 Tilbury 5 11 15 5 8 4 Nordel 11 9 6 7 9 6 Deltaport 1 3 3 2 2 1 Tsawwassen, including ferries 15 21 24 20 19 23 Rural Delta 2 3 4 4 3 2 North Delta 15 9 7 12 10 11 South Surrey 27 19 14 19 23 22 White Rock 8 8 10 14 9 13 Destinations Vancouver 43 38 41 35 40 43 YVR 6 5 4 10 6 5 Richmond, West of Highway 99 19 17 15 17 18 17 Richmond, East of Highway 99 14 11 7 6 11 7 Richmond Fraser 2 3 2 3 2 2 Steveston 15 25 30 28 22 25 Burnaby/New Westminster 1 1 1 1 1 1 Note: Differences between this table and Figure 5 on page 12 are due to rounding. Table B1: Origins and Destinations of Northbound Trips Weekdays through the Tunnel

UC - 230 B1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX B: TUNNEL TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS

Weekday SOUTHBOUND Trips (%) Sub-Area Weekends (%) Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Total Origins Vancouver 35 33 35 35 34 36 YVR 4 6 7 11 7 6 Richmond, West of Highway 99 10 17 23 20 19 18 Richmond, East of Highway 99 9 12 12 6 11 9 Richmond Fraser 3 3 1 1 2 1 Steveston 38 28 21 26 26 28 Burnaby/New Westminster 1 1 1 1 1 2 Destinations Ladner 12 15 16 17 15 16 Tilbury 17 9 3 3 7 3 Nordel 7 10 8 6 8 5 Deltaport 7 3 1 1 2 2 Tsawwassen, including ferries 20 21 17 19 19 23 Rural Delta 5 4 2 4 3 3 North Delta 10 9 16 14 13 12 South Surrey 10 17 27 26 22 22 White Rock 12 12 10 10 11 14

Note: Differences between this table and Figure 6 on page 13 are due to rounding. Table B2: Origins and Destinations of Southbound Trips Weekdays through the Tunnel

UC - 231 B2 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX C: PLANNED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THE FRASER APPENDIX C: PLANNED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRISOUTHMARY OF THE LA FRASERND US E

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RECREATION & CONSERVATION

daoR yradnuoB daoR 17 17 VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL thginK teertS Marine Way AIRPORT (YVR) CN INTERMODAL YARD 96 A 91 FRASER yawhg Westminster Highway 91 Alex Fraser SURREY Bridge 17 DOCKS FRASER RIVER PORT LANDS 91 King George Boulevard SUNBURY INDUSTRIAL TILBURY PARK Deas Island Regional Park INDUSTRIAL PARK

daoR retemireP daoR George 91 Cloverdale

Massey South Fraser 10 10 Tunnel 10

Ladner Westham Island 17

17A

BOUNDARY BAY AIRPORT S

DELTAPORT 176

Roberts Bank PEACE ARCH TSAWWASSEN FERRY TERMINAL BORDER CROSSING

Point Roberts Figure C UC - 232 C1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Project Definition Report APPENDIX C: PLANNED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THE FRASER

Highway 99 connects areas of urban development that are separated by large tracts of • Tsawwassen First Nation approved a lease for the development of Tsawwassen farmland, much of which is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (see Figure C). Numerous Mills, a 1.2-million-square-foot commercial and retail facility, which is now under existing and planned developments are expected to increase traffic volume on construction. A further 600,000 square feet will be developed as outdoor retail space Highway 99 in the Project area: and mixed use.39 Tsawwassen Mills is expected to generate 3,000 full- and part-time retail jobs. Tsawwassen First Nation’s development plans include a target residential • Corporation of Delta is home to two of the top four business parks in base of more than 4,000 people.40 Greater Vancouver: Annacis Island Industrial Park and Tilbury Industrial Park. Over 10,000 people are employed on Annacis Island by more than 430 companies. • Port Metro Vancouver enables close to 20 per cent of Canada’s trade and adds Tilbury is a high-growth industrial park with more than 300 businesses employing $9.7 billion to the nation’s GDP. It generates 57,000 jobs in Metro Vancouver and 38,000 41 8,000 people. Deltaport, Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay Airport are also located jobs in the rest of B.C., creating 3,300 jobs and $180 million in wages per year in 42 in Delta.33 Delta alone. Container traffic through Canada’s Pacific Gateway is expected to more than double over the next 10 to 15 years,43 leading to an increase in goods movement • City of Richmond’s economy supports more than 135,000 jobs in various along the Highway 99 corridor, the Tunnel, Highway 17 and the Alex Fraser Bridge. sectors, including services, retail, tourism, technology industries, light manufacturing, airport services, aviation, agriculture, fishing and government. • Boundary Bay Airport is home to more than 400 airplanes and five flight training schools. It is one of the top 10 busiest airports in Canada, with close to 200,000 Richmond is emerging as a leading centre of high-tech industries.34 It will takeoffs and landings annually. The Airport plans to become a bigger economic driver continue to have one of the highest job/worker ratios in Metro Vancouver to for Delta by attracting more commercial tenants, expanding its runway and attracting 2041, with the commercial and industrial sectors continuing to be the dominant commercial flights.44 The Boundary Bay Industrial Park, adjacent to Boundary Bay employers. The majority (80 per cent) of the employment growth (number Airport, is being billed as Metro Vancouver's largest industrial development.45 of employees) between 2009 and 2041 will be in the city centre, Sea Island (Vancouver International Airport) and North Richmond.35 Of note are the • Vancouver International Airport (YVR) has 23,600 employees46 and creates growing areas of economic development in business parks near Steveston 2.3 per cent of total employment in Greater Vancouver. It contributes $6.8 billion to and on the Fraser Richmond industrial lands. B.C.’s economy. YVR is expanding to meet forecasts for a doubling of passenger, aircraft and cargo demands between 2007 and 2027, increasing to an estimated 33.4 million • City of Surrey has eight business parks and approximately 46 per cent of passengers, 484,000 aircraft arrivals and 500,000 tonnes of cargo annually.47 Metro Vancouver’s total vacant industrial land.36 South Surrey, with a mix of industrial and commercial uses, is expected to generate $300 to $350 million in • Goods Movement Highway 99 is part of a transportation network that supports new business property assessments and 6,000 jobs along the east side of trade and commerce in Metro Vancouver and throughout B.C., Canada and North Highway 99 corridor between 32nd Avenue and 8th Avenue.37 America. As a result of population and employment growth and increasing economic development south and north of the Fraser, goods movement along this corridor is • City of White Rock is expected to grow because of its proximity to the expected to increase as goods are moved between local businesses and Canada-U.S. border and neighbouring residential markets. It has a well-known Pacific Gateway access points. waterfront area and a recently updated tourism strategy.38

UC - 233 C2 18 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report ENDNOTES ENDNOTES

1 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Traffic Data Program.

2 Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver, 2011.

3 Forecast by TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model and based in part on changes in land use, per Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, and on projected growth in truck volume at special generators.

4 Analysis of ICBC and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure records of collision frequencies by type of collision and by severity, 2014.

5 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Phase 2 – Exploring the Options – Consultation Summary Report, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, 2013.

6 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Business Case, October 2015.

7 Based on vehicle demand growth forecasts derived from TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model, and applying the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s standard values of travel time, plus an allowance for the value of travel time reliability.

8 Forecast crash reduction, based on analysis of ICBC and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure records of collision frequencies by type of collision and by severity, 2014.

9 BCAA unveils 2014 Top 10 “Worst Roads” list, British Columbia Automobile Association news release dated June 12, 2014, http://www.bcaa.com/learning-centre/bcaa-newsroom/news-releases/06-12-2014-bcaa-2014-worst-roads.

10 Lower Mainland – Crashes at Intersections 2009 to 2013, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Retrieved May 15, 2014 from ICBC website: http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Pages/Lower-Mainland-Crash-Map.aspx.

11 TransLink 2011 Regional Screenline Survey, TransLink, 1999 and 2011. Vehicle volumes are expressed as passenger car units, which better reflects the volume of transit buses and trucks on this corridor.

12 Origin-Destination Survey, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, fall 2013 and 2014; Regional Screenline Survey, TransLink, 2011.

13 Advanced Traveller Information System data, used to estimate travel time and speed over an extended period of time throughout the corridor.

14 Traffic modelling based on population and employment forecasts from Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, 2011. Note: Population and employment forecasts in this strategy document are for the year 2041.

UC - 234 i George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report ENDNOTES

15 Origin-Destination Survey Report, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, fall 2013; field observations, fall 2013.

16 ICBC data, July 2014.

17 2013 Sustainability Report, (page 33), Port Metro Vancouver, 2014.

18 The Economic Importance of the Lower Fraser River, prepared by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce with the assistance of D.E. Park & Associates Ltd., July 2014.

19 Port Metro Vancouver’s Land Use Plan Update, Port Metro Vancouver, 2014.

20 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey, TransLink, 2011.

21 Estimate based on 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey data, looking at what proportion of northbound weekday trips have destinations that are within 1 kilometre of Canada Line stations, and assuming various levels of potential transit use.

22 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey, Briefing Paper #2: An Overview of Cycling in Metro Vancouver, TransLink, 2012.

23 Highway operations records, 2014.

24 Canada's Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative, Transport Canada, 2006. Retrieved June 17, 2014 from the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative website: http://www.asiapacificgateway.gc.ca/media/documents/en/APGCI_Launch_Booklet.pdf

25 Building Markets, Growing Jobs: The Pacific Gateway Transportation Strategy 2012–2020, Moving Goods and People, Pacific Gateway Alliance, 2012.

26 Building Canada plan, Infrastructure Canada, October 26, 2011. Retrieved June 17, 2014 from Infrastructure Canada’s website: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/bcp-pcc-eng.html.

27 BC Jobs Plan, Province of British Columbia, 2011. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from the B.C. provincial government website: http://www.bcjobsplan.ca.

28 Economic Action Plan, Government of Canada, 2014. Retrieved June 16, 2014 from the Government of Canada’s website: http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/creating-new-building-canada-plan.

29 B.C. on the Move: A 10-Year Transportation Plan, Government of British Columbia, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from the B.C. provincial government website: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/about-the-bc-government/transportation/bconthemove.pdf

30 2050: A Port Metro Vancouver Initiative, Port Metro Vancouver, 2011. Retrieved June 15, 2015 from Port Metro Vancouver’s website: http://issuu.com/portmetrovancouver/docs/port2050?e=3721702/2953893

UC - 235 ii George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report ENDNOTES

31 Note: GSAM and TransLink’s RTM are regional transportation demand models. Vehicle and transit trip patterns estimated by these models are a function of forecast land use and reflect the current understanding of how demographic, economic, and development trends and plans will affect the distribution of people and jobs in the future. RTM uses the latest land use forecasts developed by Metro Vancouver, (based on 2011 Census data and the Regional Growth Strategy), and GSAM uses earlier draft forecasts.

32 Origin-Destination Survey, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, fall 2013.

33 About: Our Communities, Business and Infrastructure, Delta Chamber of Commerce, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from Delta Chamber of Commerce’s website: http://www.deltachamber.ca/our-communities1.html

34 About Richmond: City Profile, City of Richmond, May 15, 2013. Retrieved June 17, 2014 from the City of Richmond’s website: http://www.richmond.ca/discover/about/profile.htm?PageMode=HTML.

35 2041 OCP Update – Employment Lands Strategy, City of Richmond, 2011.

36 Industrial Lands & Business Parks, City of Surrey. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from the City of Surrey’s website: http://www.surrey.ca/business-economic-development/3509.aspx.

37 2011 Highway 99 Corridor, City of Surrey’s Business and Economic Development Department, 2011.

38 City of White Rock, Economic Development Strategies Plan: Final Report, prepared by Vann Struth Consulting Group in association with Eric Vance & Associates Planning & Management Consultants, City of White Rock, May 2009.

39 Commercial Lands, Tsawwassen First Nation Economic Development Corporation, 2014. Retrieved June 17, 2014 from TFN Economic Development Corporation’s website: http://www.tfnedc.com/development/commercial-lands/.

40 Adrian MacNair, "Tsawwassen First Nation Leads Local Development, Developing Delta: Building the Future of Our Community” in: Developing Delta: Building the Future of Our Community, South Delta Leader, 2014, p.22. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from Corporation of Delta’s website: http://www.delta.ca/docs/default-source/human-resources-and-corporate-planning/south-delta-leader---developing-delta-insert.pdf?sfvrsn=0

41 2013 Sustainability Report, (page 2), Port Metro Vancouver, 2014.

42 2012 Port Metro Vancouver Economic Impact Study: Final Report, prepared by InterVISTAS Consulting Inc., Port Metro Vancouver, May 31, 2013.

43 Container Capacity Improvement Program, Port Metro Vancouver, 2015. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from Port Metro Vancouver’s website: http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/container-capacity-improvement-program/

UC - 236 iii George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report ENDNOTES

44 Robert Mangelsdorf, "New Heights for Boundary Bay Airport” in: Developing Delta: Building the Future of Our Community, South Delta Leader, 2014, p.14. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from Corporation of Delta’s website: http://www.delta.ca/docs/default-source/human-resources-and-corporate-planning/south-delta-leader---developing-delta-insert.pdf?sfvrsn=0

45 Business park taking shape in East Ladner, by Sandor Gyarmati, November 22, 2013, Delta Optimist. Retrieved July 24, 2014 from Delta Optimist’s website: http://www.delta- optimist.com/news/business-park-taking-shape-in-east-ladner-1.706110.

46 2013 Annual and Sustainability Report (page 4), Vancouver Airport, 2013.

47 YVR: Your Airport 2027 – 20-Year Master Plan (page 4), Vancouver Airport Authority, 2007.

UC - 237 iv George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

UC - 238 v George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project–Project Definition Report

IL- "IICIIIIS C ..-,.::. Ml dl!ii'iL.c. B. • on tiHr Mow UC - 239 vi 17222716 ATTACHMENT 2 ~ 4 metrovancouver ., SERVICESAND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel. 604 432-6210 Fax 604 451·6614

File: CR-07-02-TRH

JAN2 8 1916

Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project 550-925 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC VGC 3l2 VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Freer:

Re: Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Project Definition Report

In response to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's invitation to the public to offer comments on the recently released Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, please find attached comments from the Greater Vancouver Regional District ('Metro Vancouver').

We note that the timeline for providing comments has been very short, particularly given the release of the Project Definition Report on December 16, 2015. In order to meet your public consultation deadline of January 28, 2016, Metro Vancouver staff have prepared comments for submission. These comments present the views of staff and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board. The Metro Vancouver Board will provide its comments at a later date, after the Board has had the opportunity to review and consider the Project Definition Report issued by the Ministry.

The issue of optimizing transportation infrastructure to meet the growth management goals of the Metro Vancouver region, and to achieve the long-term vision of a livable region where residents enjoy a high quality of life, is of great importance to the regional district. It is for this reason that Metro Vancouver has participated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Consultation opportunities provided by the Ministry, as reflected in staff comments provided on December 19, 2012, and April 3, 2013, and by comments transmitted by the Metro Vancouver Board on November 19, 2013. As described in the attached staff comments, Metro Vancouver has broad interests related to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project which include: regional growth management; air quality and climate change; environment; regional parks; and regional utilities.

17194308 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby,BC, Canada VSH 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regional Distnct • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation UC - 240 Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director, George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement ProJect: ProJect Definition Report Page 2 of 2

Metro Vancouver staff look forward to working with the Ministry and the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project team to ensure that Metro Vancouver's interests and goals are addressed when final decisions are made by the Ministry related to Project scope, conceptual design, and detailed design.

Yours truly,

Carol Mason Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer

End: Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and Project Definition Report

17194308

UC - 241 Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Project Definition Report

The Greater Vancouver Regional District (‘Metro Vancouver’) has broad interests related to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project which include: regional growth management; air quality and climate change; environment; regional utilities and infrastructure; and regional parks.

The following comments on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project represent a preliminary review by Metro Vancouver staff. The Metro Vancouver Board will provide additional comments to the Ministry after the Board has had the opportunity to review and consider the Project Definition Report.

Metro Vancouver staff would like to work with the Ministry to ensure a mutual understanding of each party’s needs, and request an open dialogue be maintained throughout the Project. In keeping with past practice for Ministry projects affecting Metro Vancouver infrastructure, Metro Vancouver staff request that an Accommodation Agreement for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project be executed by both parties.

Metro Vancouver staff also request confirmation that the Ministry will reimburse Metro Vancouver for costs incurred as a result of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and relocation of the BC Hydro high-voltage transmission line. Although the full impact of the project is still unknown, Metro Vancouver staff will cooperate with the Ministry throughout the design development phase to estimate these costs.

The following comments reflect detailed staff input on behalf of specific Metro Vancouver interests and services.

1) CHANGES TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PATTERNS The Project Definition Report presents graphical information about historical traffic volumes through the tunnel and Alex Fraser Bridge, current trip origins and destinations for weekday trips through the tunnel, and forecasted baseline queue lengths on select Fraser River crossings. However, the report does not contain sufficient information on the transportation patterns associated with a new tolled bridge. Without this information, local governments and TransLink can only react on an ad hoc basis once new travel patterns materialize after project completion. To assist with local transportation planning efforts, Metro Vancouver staff recommend that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure explore the following questions:

 How much traffic volume (and thus traffic congestion) on the Highway 99 corridor will be diverted to or from the Alex Fraser Bridge corridor on a) opening day and b) after travel behaviour has stabilized?  With planned residential and region-serving retail developments in Tsawwassen First Nation and Delta, the catchment for attracting trips through the Highway 99 corridor will expand. How will future trip origins and destinations change from current conditions on weekdays? What are current and future trip origins and destinations on weekends?

UC - 242  How will queue lengths change on the Fraser River crossings after project completion? Will the new bridge provide appreciable queuing reductions on the approaches leading to and from the Alex Fraser Bridge, Oak Street Bridge, Knight Street Bridge, Queensborough Bridge?  How will transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions change as a result of new travel patterns and demands?  How will a new bridge affect goods movement within and through the region? Will it support improved connections between the movement of goods and industrial lands?

Also, while the document library on the www.masseytunnel.ca website contains several traffic data collection studies, it does not contain the travel demand forecasting technical analysis used to support the traffic forecasting section of the Traffic Data Overview (November 2015 draft). Please make this information available on the website.

2) SYSTEM-WIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT The Project Definition Report does not mention any refinements to the provincial tolling policy that will permit effective region-wide demand management for the road network – a key principle in Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, and the Mayor’s Vision for Regional Transportation Investments. It is appropriate to test the effects of a system-wide pricing program on traffic volumes, trip origins and destinations, and queue lengths. For example, the toll-free Alex Fraser Bridge may experience additional volumes and congestion in the peak periods, and new growth in the midday period, which is currently operating at free flow.

Given the financial struggles of the Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge, it would be financially prudent to better understand how different pricing/tolling policy changes could affect the fiscal sustainability of a new 10-lane bridge. Metro Vancouver staff request additional information on different tolling options.

3) POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The Project Definition Report references Metro 2040 and its projections for population and employment growth. To clarify, the population and employment numbers in Metro 2040 are projections for guidance in planning; they are not targets. This is an important distinction as the projections are a forecast of anticipated growth, rather than a stipulation of targeted growth. Metro Vancouver updates these projections from time-to-time based on new Census information, demographic and migration trends, and municipal policy and planning information.

From the regional growth management and land use planning perspectives, there is considerable uncertainty about what effect a new 10-lane bridge will have on the rate and location of urban development, including pressures on agricultural lands and industrial development on both sides of the Fraser River, such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road corridor. For this reason, Metro Vancouver is convening a session of municipal and industry practitioners in early February 2016 to examine these issues and, if appropriate, to identify and prioritize additional analysis that needs to be undertaken. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff will be invited to this session.

4) AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS As the region’s delegated air quality authority, Metro Vancouver strives for healthy, clean, and clear air for current and future generations as outlined in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

UC - 243 Management Plan. Metro Vancouver has also set region-wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Page 29 of the Project Definition Report states that “less idling; reduced greenhouse gas emissions” will be incorporated in to the project design, but page 15 states that the traffic across the bridge will increase by 20% to 100,000 vehicles per day and truck traffic will double by 2045. Please clarify how air emissions will change per vehicle and overall for the entire fleet (regional total), and compare these emissions to regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

In addition to the standard dispersion modelling exercise expected for major projects like the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Metro Vancouver staff recommend the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure consider air quality impacts in the design of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure to minimize exposure to traffic-related air pollutants. Air quality should be modelled for various receptors (e.g., nearby residents, motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians) and project stages, with existing and future proposed emission sources included.

5) CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION The Project Definition Report does not mention whether climate change impacts will be considered in bridge design and restoration projects. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should consider a range of climate change scenarios for sea level rise, flooding, and other anticipated climate adaptation issues, and consider adaptive measures that can be taken to mitigate associated risks.

6) HEALTH ANALYSIS The use of Health Impact Assessments is increasing in popularity as a way to fully account for the health outcomes (both positive and negative) associated with development and transportation projects. Recognizing this trend, Metro Vancouver has worked with local Health Authorities and other levels of government to develop a Guidebook for Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Transportation and Land Use Activities. The insertion of Health Impact Assessments into the Environmental Assessment process for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project will help the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and all stakeholders to better understand the potential health benefits and consequences for nearby communities.

Page 28 of the Project Definition Report describes some of the results of a benefit-cost analysis which “compares quantified congestion-relief, safety and long-term economic benefits with Project costs”. A Health Impact Assessment approach could assist with the insertion of additional health-related costs and benefits into this analysis.

7) AGRICULTURAL LANDS The Project Definition Report broadly describes that new dedicated transit/high-occupancy toll lanes will be constructed along the Highway 99 corridor between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta. New or upgraded ramps and interchanges will also be constructed. No information is presented on the amount of agricultural land that will be acquired to facilitate construction as well as to house the footprint of the new structures. Metro 2040 includes a request to the Province to avoid fragmentation of agricultural areas when developing and operating transportation infrastructure. Where unavoidable, impacts should be mitigated and enhancements made. Metro Vancouver staff request additional information on the anticipated impacts of the Project on agricultural land and possible mitigation or enhancement options.

UC - 244 8) DEAS ISLAND REGIONAL PARK Goal # 6 in the Project Definition Report is to “Enhance the environment under the new bridge, and in the project ROW on Deas Island Regional Park” and the Economic Development, Social and Community Benefits section includes the following statement, “The Project will result in enhancements to Deas Island Regional Park by allowing people to use the land that is currently occupied by Highway 99 and the Tunnel portal.” Through preliminary discussions, Metro Vancouver staff understand the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure plans to install a tunnel recognition site at the location of the existing tunnel portal, and a rain garden under the future bridge. Metro Vancouver staff would like to work with the Ministry on the planning and design of this area to ensure strong ecological and trail connections to the park. To assist in this regard, we request the following additional information:

 Deas Island Trails and the Regional Trail Network The Project Definition Report includes a reference to a proposed Multi Use Trail on the west side of the bridge. Trail connectivity from the bridge to the Deas Island Regional Park and the broader regional greenway network is desirable. Please consider options for good connections to municipal trails and regional greenways on both ends of the bridge.

Metro Vancouver Regional Parks is interested in enhanced trail and ecological connections between the east and west portions of the park. Currently the Island Tip Trail extends across the right of way connecting the east and west sides of the park. There is no official agreement in place between Metro Vancouver and the Ministry for this trail. Metro Vancouver requests an easement for the Island Tip Trail and that it remain open for public and maintenance access during construction.

 Habitat Creation/Restoration Please confirm if there will be any habitat creation work proposed for Deas Island Regional Park as mitigation for environmental impacts of the bridge.

 Deas Island Regional Park Visitor Experience Metro Vancouver is concerned with impacts to the park visitor experience. Bridge construction and operation will generate noise and debris that are not in keeping with the nature-focused park experience currently offered in the Regional Park.

. Please consider opportunities to manage debris and noise associated with bridge operation. . The construction of the large bridge deck and possible aerial transmission line will impact the park views. Mitigation of this impact is challenging given the scale of the proposed bridge. Incorporating the BC Hydro transmission line into the bridge structure as opposed to building standalone towers would be a desirable. Please consider the park user experience and viewshed ‘under’ the bridge in its design.

9) EXPERIENCE THE FRASER CONCEPT PLAN The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should consider opportunities to advance the Metro Vancouver Board approved, City of Richmond and Delta endorsed, and provincially funded Experience the Fraser Concept Plan. The proposed bridge multi-use pathway on the west side of the

UC - 245 bridge provides a north-south Canyon-to-Coast Trail connection over the Fraser River. Please consider opportunities to enhance the trail user experience on the bridge by including viewing areas and interpretive displays.

10) CONSTRUCTION AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE ACCESS  Deas Island Regional Park Construction access through Deas Island Regional Park is not desirable from a park visitor perspective, and existing park infrastructure is inadequate to support this type of use. No formal request for access during construction has been proposed by the Ministry. Please confirm whether the Ministry, BC Hydro and/or contractors will be requesting access through the Regional Park for construction and infrastructure improvements.

Although no formal request has been made to Metro Vancouver Regional Parks staff, access through the Regional Park will likely be required for long-term maintenance of the Ministry’s bridge and BC Hydro’s transmission line. Pursuant to Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Bylaw No. 1177, 2012, all commercial access through or on Metro Vancouver Regional Parks must undergo a permitting process. Please provide information on future maintenance access requirements.

 Lulu Island-Delta Main. Metro Vancouver requires ongoing access to the west side of Deas Island for maintenance of the Lulu Island-Delta Main. Specifically, our Water District has an air valve on the western tip of the island, which requires regular inspection and maintenance. Please confirm that access will be maintained throughout the construction period as well as after the new bridge is in service.

11) POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON REGIONAL UTILITIES The construction of the new bridge is anticipated to have impacts on the following Metro Vancouver Water Services infrastructure; however, clearer scope definition is required in order to fully ascertain the extent of these impacts.

 River Road West Main The construction of the new bridge is anticipated to have proximal impacts on Metro Vancouver’s River Road West Main. The main runs parallel to Highway 99 for approximately 150 meters and perpendicular to Highway 99 for approximately 70 meters, including crossing the highway through an existing utility culvert. While Metro Vancouver understands that the Ministry plans to design the bridge and off-ramps to avoid relocation of the River Road West Main, revised loading conditions, vibration from ground improvements, temporary works for traffic detours, and construction staging and laydown areas may impact the main. Please confirm that this work will not have a detrimental impact on this regional water main.

The Ministry has also not provided Metro Vancouver with detailed information on the southbound off-ramp to River Road from the future bridge. Depending on the location of the River Road off-ramp, it may be located directly above Metro Vancouver’s River Road West Main. Metro Vancouver staff are concerned that relocation of the River Road West Main may be required for the construction of this off-ramp. If relocation is not required, monitoring and

UC - 246 protection of the River Road West Main will likely be required. Please provide additional information on this aspect of work to allow for an assessment of impacts to this main.

It is understood that the Ministry will also be relocating the north end of Green Slough. Based on our review of the project scope, we understand this work will be completed in two phases as follows:

. partially filling the Slough in 2016 to allow for construction of both BC Hydro’s and the Ministry’s projects while maintaining water flow, and . completely diverting the Slough to its original pre-tunnel alignment after the bridge construction is complete in 2022.

At this time, it is unclear if the relocation of Green Slough will affect Metro Vancouver’s River Road West Main, which crosses under Green Slough. Please confirm that this work will not have a detrimental impact on this main.

Relocation of BC Hydro’s high-voltage transmission line at the George Massey Tunnel, being undertaken to accommodate tunnel decommissioning, is also a concern to Metro Vancouver Water Services. While BC Hydro has not yet selected its Fraser River crossing design, much of the work on either side of the Fraser River crossing will be common to all three options currently under consideration. BC Hydro is proposing to undertake ground improvements in the Regional Park in order to accommodate mono-pole construction in close proximity to Metro Vancouver’s River Road West Main. While relocation of our main is likely not required, Metro Vancouver has concerns with the potential impacts of this work. Please provide more information on the related ground improvements associated with this work.

Metro Vancouver staff also have concerns that there may be a risk of induced current from the relocated BC Hydro transmission line. Please provide an analysis of possible induced current and mitigation measures to protect Metro Vancouver’s infrastructure and its workers.

 Lulu Island-Delta Main The Lulu Island-Delta Main crosses the Fraser River approximately 600m downstream of the existing tunnel. Metro Vancouver staff understand that decommissioning the existing tunnel may impact the Lulu Island-Delta Main at its Fraser River crossing. Although the Ministry has provided a draft river hydraulics report to Metro Vancouver, the full extent of impact is still being investigated. From a meeting with the Ministry and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Metro Vancouver staff understand that there is a chance that the existing scour protection over the main may be negatively impacted from the change in river hydraulics caused by the tunnel removal. Metro Vancouver has provided Northwest Hydraulic Consultants with historical bathymetric survey data to improve the analysis of the effects on river hydraulics caused by the tunnel removal. Please confirm the scope and timing of tunnel decommissioning and that the necessary measures will be taken by the Ministry to properly protect this critical regional water main.

We would note that both of these water mains are critical to the GVWD system supplying drinking water, in bulk, to residents, businesses and industry south of the Fraser River as well as back-feeding

UC - 247 the City of Richmond during an emergency. It is imperative that both mains be adequately monitored and protected throughout all phases of the proposed construction work and that interruptions in service be avoided, especially during the peak summer water demand period.

UC - 248 ATTACHMENT 3

PROJECTPROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION AND KEY AREASJANUARY OF 2015 STUDY

DECEMBER 2015

UC - 249 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, serving an average of 80,000 vehicles each day and connecting to key gateways that fuel our national, provincial and regional economies. Since the Tunnel opened in 1959, Metro Vancouver’s population has grown considerably and is forecast to keep growing by more than one million people over the next 30 years. The B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) is proposing the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (Project) to meet forecast population and employment growth and ensure Highway 99 continues to serve regional, provincial, and national transportation needs.

The Project involves replacing the Tunnel with a new bridge spanning the Fraser River South Arm and Deas Island, decommissioning the Tunnel, and improving Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in the City of Richmond to Highway 91 in the Corporation of Delta. The general alignment of the Project will follow the existing Highway 99 corridor, including across the Fraser River.

The Project is designed to reduce congestion and improve travel times and reliability for commuters, transit, commercial vehicles, and tourists; improve safety; provide new travel options for cyclists and pedestrians; and provide capacity for improved transit.

The Ministry proposes to submit the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Project in 2016 to support a thorough and timely review, so that construction can begin in 2017 and the new bridge will be ready for use in 2022, after which tunnel decommissioning will commence.

As part of Project planning, the Ministry consulted widely, gaining insight from municipalities, Aboriginal Groups, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the agricultural community, first responders, recreational groups, local businesses, local residents, cyclists, marine users, other stakeholders, and the general public over a period of more than two years. Based on this consultation, the Ministry identified and considered a diverse range of environmental and social values to guide Project design and support the environmental assessment.

UC - 250 Key values proposed for study as part of the environmental assessment include:

• Environmental values, such as fisheries, wildlife and wildlife habitat • Human health including influences on health, such as air quality and noise • Social and community factors including those related to land and water use • Economic conditions including employment and economic development benefits associated with the Project; and • Heritage resources such as archaeological values

Studies of these values will assist in identifying potential Project-related effects as well as opportunities to avoid or mitigate such effects and will be reported in the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.

UC - 251 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vii Part 1: Project Description ...... 1 1.0 General Information and Contacts ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Project Overview ...... 2 1.3 Project Location ...... 2 1.4 Proponent Information ...... 5 2.0 Project Rationale, Goals, and Benefits ...... 6 2.1 Project Rationale...... 6 2.1.1 Safety ...... 6 2.1.2 Traffic Congestion ...... 7 2.2 Project Goals ...... 7 2.3 Project Benefits ...... 8 2.4 History of the Tunnel ...... 9 3.0 Project Components and Activities...... 11 3.1 Project Components ...... 11 3.2 Construction Facilities ...... 16 3.3 Proposed Construction Activities ...... 16 3.3.1 Site Preparation ...... 16 3.3.2 Utility Relocation ...... 17 3.3.3 Preloading and Other Ground Improvements ...... 17 3.3.4 Highway Improvements and Installation of New Structures ...... 17 3.3.4.1 Highway Improvements ...... 17 3.3.4.2 Highway Structures ...... 17 3.3.4.3 New Bridge and Approaches ...... 18 3.3.5 Decommissioning of Existing Structures ...... 18 3.3.5.1 Tunnel ...... 18 3.3.5.2 Other Structures ...... 19 3.3.6 Waste Disposal ...... 19

UC - 252 3.3.7 Traffic Management ...... 19 3.3.8 Workforce Accommodation and Logistics ...... 20 3.4 Project Operation and Maintenance ...... 20 3.5 Project Decommissioning ...... 20 3.6 Project Schedule ...... 20 3.7 Project Costs ...... 21 4.0 Consultation Activities ...... 22 4.1 Stakeholder and Community Consultation ...... 22 4.2 Regulatory Engagement ...... 23 4.3 Aboriginal Group Engagement ...... 24 Part 2: Key Areas of Study ...... 26 5.0 Environmental Assessment and Key Areas of Study ...... 27 5.1 River Hydraulics and Morphology ...... 28 5.1.1 Background ...... 28 5.1.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 28 5.1.3 Studies ...... 29 5.2 Sediment and Water Quality ...... 29 5.2.1 Background ...... 29 5.2.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 29 5.2.3 Studies ...... 30 5.3 Underwater Noise ...... 30 5.3.1 Background ...... 30 5.3.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 30 5.3.3 Studies ...... 30 5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 31 5.4.1 Background ...... 31 5.4.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 31 5.4.3 Studies ...... 32 5.5 Amphibians ...... 32 5.5.1 Background ...... 32 5.5.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 32

UC - 253 5.5.3 Studies ...... 32 5.6 Marine Mammals ...... 32 5.6.1 Background ...... 32 5.6.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 33 5.6.3 Studies ...... 33 5.7 Vegetation...... 33 5.7.1 Background ...... 33 5.7.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 33 5.7.3 Studies ...... 33 5.8 Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 34 5.8.1 Background ...... 34 5.8.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 34 5.8.3 Studies ...... 34 5.9 Air Quality ...... 35 5.9.1 Background ...... 35 5.9.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 35 5.9.3 Studies ...... 35 5.10 Atmospheric Noise ...... 35 5.10.1 Background ...... 35 5.10.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 36 5.10.3 Studies ...... 36 5.11 Land and Water Use ...... 36 5.11.1 Background ...... 36 5.11.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 37 5.11.3 Studies ...... 37 5.12 Visual Quality ...... 38 5.12.1 Background ...... 38 5.12.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 38 5.12.3 Studies ...... 38 5.13 Heritage Resources ...... 38 5.13.1 Background ...... 38

UC - 254 5.13.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 39 5.13.3 Studies ...... 39 5.14 Human Health ...... 39 5.14.1 Background ...... 39 5.14.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects ...... 39 5.14.3 Studies ...... 39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location ...... 3 Figure 1-2 Rendering of the Potential New Bridge Configuration Over the Fraser River South Arm ...... 4 Figure 2-1 Historic photos of the George Massey Tunnel construction. City of Richmond Archives, Photograph #1984 31; 1984 613 ...... 10 Figure 3-1 Project Components – Bridgeport Road to Westminster Highway ...... 12 Figure 3-2 Project Components – Westminster Highway to Steveston Highway ...... 13 Figure 3-3 Project Components – Steveston Highway to Highway 17A ...... 14 Figure 3-4 Project Components – Highway 17A to Highway 91 ...... 15 Figure 3-5 Tunnel Segment Cross-Section ...... 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Project Schedule ...... 21

UC - 255 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Term Acronym / Abbreviation Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Application B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Ministry British Columbia B.C. British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act B.C. EAA Canadian National Railway CN Canadian Transportation Agency CTA Draft Application Information Requirements dAIR Environmental Assessment EA Environmental Assessment Certificate EAC Environmental Assessment Office EAO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DFO George Massey Tunnel Tunnel George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Project Gross Domestic Product GDP High-Occupancy Vehicle HOV Port Metro Vancouver PMV Right-of-way ROW Valued Component VC Vancouver International Airport YVR

UC - 256 PART 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UC - 257 1.0 General Information and Contacts

The B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) is proposing the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (Project) to address congestion, meet forecast population and employment growth, and ensure Highway 99 continues to serve regional, provincial, and national transportation needs.

1.1 Purpose of the Project Description

It is anticipated that the Project will be subject to a formal environmental assessment (EA) and review pursuant to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act (B.C. EAA), S.B.C. 2002, c. 43. In support of the requirements of the B.C. EAA process, the Ministry will prepare an application (Application) for an Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC).

The Ministry is submitting this Project Description and Key Areas of Study document (Project Description) to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) to initiate the Pre-Application Stage of the B.C. EAA process. The Project Description provides Project-related information that will allow the EAO to determine whether the Project triggers a review under the B.C. EAA.

The Ministry prepared this Project Description according to guidance provided in the EAO’s Guidelines for Preparing a Project Description for an Environmental Assessment in British Columbia (EAO 2013 1). The Project Description includes:

• General Project information and an overview of the rationale for its development • Outline of key Project components, and construction and operational activities • Anticipated Project schedule and estimated capital cost of the Project • Description of past and proposed engagement with Aboriginal Groups, stakeholders, government agencies, and the general public • Overview of the environmental and socio-economic setting of the Project • Outline of the Project’s potential effects and regulatory requirements • A preliminary list of proposed studies that will be used to support the assessment of potential effects of the Project

1 British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). 2013. Guidelines for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects. Available at: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/EAO_Valued_Components_Guideline_2013_09_09.pdf. Accessed September 2014

UC - 258 1.2 Project Overview

The Project will replace the George Massey Tunnel (Tunnel) with a new 10-lane (8 lanes plus two dedicated transit high occupancy vehicle lanes) bridge spanning the Fraser River South Arm, decommission the Tunnel, and improve Highway 99 from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to Highway 91 in Delta. Proposed improvements include replacing the Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges, widening Highway 99 to accommodate dedicated transit/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and providing a multi-use pathway on the bridge for cyclists and pedestrians to connect with the existing cycling and pedestrian networks on either side. A detailed description of the Project components and activities is provided in Section 3.0 Project Components and Activities.

1.3 Project Location

The Project will have the same general alignment as the existing Highway 99 corridor and crossing of the Fraser River South Arm, linking the City of Richmond (Richmond) and the Corporation of Delta (Delta) in southwestern B.C. (latitude of 49° 07' 18.36" N and longitude of 123° 04’32 32" W). The interchange replacements and proposed Highway 99 improvements are wholly located in Richmond and Delta.

Figure 1-1 presents an overview of the geographic extent of the Project as proposed. A rendering of the potential new bridge configuration over the South Arm of the Fraser River is shown in Figure 1-2.

UC - 259

Figure 1-1 Project Location

UC - 260

Figure 1-2 Rendering of the Potential New Bridge Configuration Over the Fraser River South Arm

UC - 261 1.4 Proponent Information

The Project proponent is the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure working on behalf of the Province of British Columbia. If approved, the EAC and operational permits for the Project will be held by the Ministry.

Name of Proponent: B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Primary Contact: Geoff Freer Title: Executive Project Director Address: 2030 - 11662 Steveston Highway Richmond, BC V7A 1N6 Telephone: 604-660-8282 Email: [email protected] Project Website: masseytunnel.ca

UC - 262 2.0 Project Rationale, Goals, and Benefits

The Tunnel is an important link in the regional and provincial transportation system, carrying an average of 80,000 vehicles each day. It connects to key gateways, including Vancouver International Airport (YVR), the Peace Arch and Pacific Canada–United States (U.S.) border crossings, BC Ferries’ Tsawwassen terminal, Deltaport, and Boundary Bay Airport. It is a vital goods movement route that fuels our national, provincial and regional economies, and a key access point for businesses in Richmond, Delta, Tsawwassen First Nation, Surrey, and White Rock.

Metro Vancouver’s population, employment and economy have grown considerably since the Tunnel opened in 1959 and population is forecast to continue to grow by more than one million people over the next 30 years. Without improvements to this crossing, economic growth and regional liveability will be constrained by congestion and increased travel times for commuters, goods movers, commercial, and other traffic.

With growing concerns about safety and traffic congestion in and near the Tunnel, in 2012 the government of B.C. commenced a study of options to address the Highway 99 corridor. After analysis and consultation, a new bridge to replace the Tunnel emerged as the most appropriate and supported solution. Construction is expected to begin in 2017.

2.1 Project Rationale

Addressing safety and traffic congestion issues associated with the existing Tunnel are the primary reasons for the Ministry’s decision to proceed with the proposed Project.

2.1.1 Safety

The Tunnel was built to the engineering standards of the 1950s. While operationally safe, it does not meet current highway and seismic standards, though some deficiencies have been addressed through lighting, ventilation and structural upgrades. With narrow lanes and multiple merge points, crashes in and around the Tunnel happen with higher frequency than along other parts of the Highway 99 corridor. The Tunnel’s design constraints (no shoulders and limited access between northbound and southbound lanes) also make it difficult for first responders to access and clear emergencies.

UC - 263 An analysis of traffic collision patterns along the Highway 99 corridor shows that vehicle collisions are highest at merge points leading to the Tunnel entrances, and at the Highway 17A and Steveston Highway interchanges. According to Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) records, the Steveston Highway interchange is the worst crash site in Richmond, and in Delta, the Highway 17A interchange is the third-worst crash site2. This is in part due to the large volume of vehicles making multiple merges as Highway 17A connects with Highway 99, combined with heavy congestion and related queues in the morning rush period. In addition to safety and property damage concerns, these crashes affect travel times and corridor reliability.

2.1.2 Traffic Congestion

The Tunnel has been congested during the weekday morning and afternoon rush hours for decades, with combined queues from all directions now regularly as long as five kilometres3. When there is a crash or vehicle breakdown, these queues can be much longer.

TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model indicates that, with continuing economic development north and south of the Fraser River, and population and employment forecast to increase in the communities of Richmond, Delta, Tsawwassen First Nation, Surrey and White Rock, traffic volumes through the Tunnel will grow over time4. This includes significant growth in truck traffic, which is expected to more than double by 2045. Since there is no additional capacity available at the Tunnel to accommodate this additional traffic, peak periods will extend beyond current rush hour at the Tunnel and the Alex Fraser Bridge, resulting in heavy congestion in all traffic flow directions.

2.2 Project Goals

Based on the Ministry’s mandate and results of consultation to date, six key goals have been identified for the Project: 1. Reduce congestion: Improve travel times and reliability for all users. 2. Improve safety: This includes improving traffic and seismic safety, as well as emergency-response capabilities. 3. Support trade and commerce: Improve access to local businesses and gateway facilities, and improve travel time reliability for goods movers and service providers.

2 Lower Mainland – Crashes at Intersections 2009 to 2013, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Retrieved May 15, 2014 3 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Traffic Data Program 4 Forecast by TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model and based in part on changes in land use as per Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy, and on projected growth in truck volume at special generators

UC - 264 4. Support increased transit on the Highway 99 corridor: Provide dedicated transit/HOV lanes on the new bridge and Highway 99 to improve travel time reliability and add capacity for long-term transit improvements. 5. Support options for pedestrians and cyclists: Provide a multi-use pathway on the new bridge to connect cycling and pedestrian corridors in Richmond and Delta. 6. Enhance the environment: Enhance the environment under the new bridge and in the Project right-of-way on Deas Island.

2.3 Project Benefits

The following benefits are expected to result from the Project:

• Reduced congestion: The new bridge will meet current and forecast travel demand with no significant congestion to at least 2045; the average commuter will save about 25 to 35 minutes a day when the bridge is complete in 2022. This includes traffic that currently uses the Tunnel, forecast traffic growth at this crossing, and the potential for some travellers who avoid the Tunnel today to switch to the new bridge. Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will encourage transit and carpooling to help manage growth in auto traffic. Travel time savings and reliability benefits are expected to be more than $70 million in the first full year of operation, increasing over time5. • Improved safety: The Project is expected to provide more than a 35 per cent decrease in the frequency of collisions6. The new bridge will have more lanes and wider shoulders than the Tunnel. This will make it easier for traffic to continue moving in the event of an incident, and will facilitate first responder access. Additional lanes will make it safer to merge onto Highway 99 from the Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges and to avoid slower-moving trucks. The seismic safety of this river crossing will also be significantly improved. • Improved trade and commerce: Growth in international trade through Metro Vancouver has contributed significantly to the economy of B.C. and has increased traffic along major trade routes such as Highway 99, which is also a popular commuter and tourist route. Addressing traffic congestion will benefit goods movers and trade in B.C. and Canada by improving travel times, reliability and agricultural access. It will also improve access within and between municipalities. This will provide greater flexibility in

5 Based on vehicle demand growth forecasts derived from TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model, and applying the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s standard values of travel time, plus an allowance for the value of travel time reliability. 6 Forecast crash reduction, based on an analysis of ICBC and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure records of collision frequencies by type of collision and severity, 2014.

UC - 265 scheduling service and deliveries, and support overall growth in truck traffic, which is expected to double by 20457. • Improved transit: Dedicated transit/HOV lanes will ensure more reliable, free flowing transit trips across the river and a dedicated Highway 99 transit-only ramp will connect to Bridgeport Road. The new bridge will also be built to accommodate future rapid transit. • Improved cyclist/pedestrian access: Cyclists and pedestrians will be able to use the bridge at all times using a new multi-use pathway. • Enhanced environment: Potential Project-related environmental improvements include reconnecting portions of Deas Island that are currently separated by Tunnel infrastructure, lower per-trip fuel consumption, lower idling-related greenhouse gas emissions, and improved local trail access.

2.4 History of the Tunnel

The Deas Island Tunnel was built in 1957-59 to cross the Fraser River South Arm. Tolls were collected at this crossing until 1964. In 1967 it was renamed the George Massey Tunnel. The current alignment of Highway 99 between 8th Avenue in South Surrey and the Fraser River North Arm opened in 1962 and was called the Deas (Island) Throughway. Between 1964 and 1973, the freeway alignment of Highway 99 was designated Highway 499.

The approximately 630 m long George Massey Tunnel was the first project in North America to use immersed-tube technology. Six concrete segments, each measuring 105 m in length and weighing 18,500 tons, were constructed in a dry dock on the Fraser River shore, then sealed and floated to the site, where they were sunk into place, secured together, and readied for use (Figure 2-1).

In 1982, counterflow measures were introduced using a reversible-lane system, which continues to operate today, to help maintain traffic flow in both directions during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Seismic upgrades, including installation of an advance-warning system, were made in 2006.

7 Forecast by TransLink’s Regional Transportation Model and based in part on changes in land use as per Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy, and on projected growth in truck volume at special generators

UC - 266

Figure 2-1 Historic photos of the George Massey Tunnel construction. City of Richmond Archives, Photograph #1984 31; 1984 613

UC - 267 3.0 Project Components and Activities

This section provides a summary of the Project schedule and an overview of the permanent physical components of the Project. It also describes the various life-cycle phases of the Project, including activities that will occur during its construction, operation, and decommissioning phases.

3.1 Project Components

The Project is supported by technical studies conducted on existing infrastructure within the Highway 99 corridor, as well as through engagement with Aboriginal Groups, municipalities, TransLink, Metro Vancouver, the farming community, marine users including Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), Vancouver International Airport, Boundary Bay Airport, and the public. The Ministry has also undertaken some preliminary discussions with adjacent property owners.

Locations of the new bridge, the interchanges that will be replaced, and the core highway improvement works are shown in Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2, and Figure 3-3. Permanent Project components and related activities are listed below each figure.

UC - 268

Figure 3-1 Project Components – Bridgeport Road to Westminster Highway

1. Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91 in Delta. 2. Construct a transit-only ramp at Bridgeport Road. 3. Replace the Westminster Highway interchange to efficiently accommodate all connections.

UC - 269

Figure 3-2 Project Components – Westminster Highway to Steveston Highway

4. Replace the Steveston Highway interchange to improve traffic flow into and out of Richmond, as well as along Steveston Highway. New, integrated transit stops will be constructed within the interchange, with safe and convenient walkways to access them.

UC - 270

Figure 3-3 Project Components – Steveston Highway to Highway 17A

5. Build a new bridge that will have four lanes in each direction, plus a dedicated transit/HOV lane in each direction. The new bridge will be built to accommodate potential future rapid transit and will provide navigational clearances similar to those at the Alex Fraser Bridge. 6. Construct a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians on the bridge, connecting to Steveston Highway and River Road South. 7. Decommission the Tunnel. 8. Replace the Deas Slough Bridge with the Delta approach to the new bridge. The Delta approach will be significantly higher than the Deas Slough Bridge, allowing a wider range of boats to pass underneath. 9. The new bridge will include a southbound ramp exit connecting to River Road South. It will allow the Corporation of Delta to extend River Road South eastward under the Delta approach ramp, improving connectivity between Ladner and North Delta.

10. Replace the Highway 17A interchange to efficiently accommodate all connections. New, integrated transit stops will be constructed within the interchange, with safe and convenient walkways to access them.

UC - 271

Figure 3-4 Project Components – Highway 17A to Highway 91

11. Construct dedicated transit/HOV lanes between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and the Highway 91 in Delta.

UC - 272 3.2 Construction Facilities

The Ministry will retain its Project Office in Richmond throughout the duration of construction. Additional Project support facilities will be confirmed once a construction contract is awarded. Such facilities are expected to include:

• Temporary laydown, storage, staging, fabrication, and construction equipment routing areas • Temporary barge access structures along the Fraser River South Arm • Construction of temporary site offices

3.3 Proposed Construction Activities

Project construction activities are anticipated to involve:

• Site preparation • Relocation of existing utilities within the Project alignment • Ground improvements • Highway improvements and construction of new structures, including interchanges and the new bridge. • Traffic management during construction • Decommissioning of existing structures, including the Tunnel and Deas Slough Bridge • Waste disposal

3.3.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation activities are anticipated to include:

• Additional site investigations such as a geotechnical drilling programs. • Installation of temporary roads and bridges, traffic control measures and detours to access construction areas, separate construction areas from traffic, and maintain existing traffic patterns and property access. • Construction of temporary barging facilities to allow materials to be brought to the site via the river. • Vegetation clearing and grubbing, mainly within the Highway 99 ROW. • Installation of laydown areas for equipment and materials and temporary facilities for fabrication of bridge elements. • Installation of temporary lighting for construction safety.

UC - 273 3.3.2 Utility Relocation

Existing utilities along the Highway 99 corridor include power transmission, communications, water, natural gas, and sewer services which may need to be temporarily or permanently relocated or protected during construction. The Ministry will work with utility providers to avoid or minimize any potential for service disruptions during such relocation.

3.3.3 Preloading and Other Ground Improvements

Embankment and highway construction may involve preloading to allow adequate time for ground stabilization and minimize future settlement. It is also anticipated that ground improvements such as soil stabilization, soil compaction, or soil reinforcement may be required to enhance the seismic performance of proposed structures.

3.3.4 Highway Improvements and Installation of New Structures

3.3.4.1 Highway Improvements

Highway improvements will include building subgrade and relocating ditches, soil excavation and placement, embankment construction, gravel placement and compaction, paving, installation of roadside barrier, painting and installing road signs and lighting.

Embankment construction will require a combination of clean mineral fill and light-weight fill materials, and will typically be preceded by preloading.

3.3.4.2 Highway Structures

Proposed new highway structures include overpasses, underpasses, drainage channel crossings, retaining walls, sign structures, and foundations for signs and poles within the improved sections of the highway.

Conventional construction methods and sequencing will be used to construct all highway structures. Pile foundations are anticipated in areas with soft or highly compressible soils. Where soils are firmer and less compressible, shallow (spread-footing) foundations may be practical. For structures in areas prone to liquefaction, ground improvements may be required. The Ministry anticipates using steel or concrete girders and reinforced concrete deck slabs for all highway structures.

UC - 274 3.3.4.3 New Bridge and Approaches

The new bridge is anticipated to be a cable-stayed bridge. The south approach structure (Delta) will replace the existing Deas Slough Bridge. Air and marine clearance requirements for the bridge and approaches will be addressed through design specifications in accordance with regulatory agency requirements.

Foundations of the new bridge and approaches will likely consist of augured cast-in-place concrete piles or driven steel piles filled with reinforced concrete. The Ministry anticipates that foundation construction will be undertaken from land or in the case of the Deas Slough span, barge piling equipment.

The bridge pylons (towers) will likely be constructed using cast-in-place concrete. Land-based equipment, including tower cranes, will be used to construct the towers.

The deck will accommodate 10 lanes of traffic and a multi-use pathway, and will likely be made of steel with concrete elements. Pre-assembled deck segments will be hoisted from barges in the river and/or from land-based equipment for connection to the cables and previously installed deck elements. Approach spans will consist of concrete deck slabs on steel or concrete girders.

Bridge construction will include extensive traffic management and construction staging to ensure public and worker safety and keep traffic moving efficiently on Highway 99 with minimal disruption.

3.3.5 Decommissioning of Existing Structures

3.3.5.1 Tunnel

The Tunnel crossing is made up of six concrete sections, two ventilation buildings, and north and south retaining wall-supported approaches. The Tunnel rests in a trench dug into the riverbed and is covered by a protective layer of rock and stone, as shown in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-5 Tunnel Segment Cross-Section

UC - 275 The Tunnel will be decommissioned after the new bridge becomes operational. Information about the proposed method for decommissioning the Tunnel will be included in the Application; the Ministry is exploring several options for decommissioning the Tunnel, based on the following considerations:

• Maintaining long-term stability and hydrology of the Fraser River, including flow regimes and local ecological conditions • Maintaining navigation • Best management practices • Regulatory requirements

For the purposes of the Project Description and determination of values to be assessed as part of the EA, it is assumed that the in-stream sections of the Tunnel will be removed as part of the decommissioning.

3.3.5.2 Other Structures

The Project will include decommissioning the Deas Slough Bridge (including existing piers within the slough), the Westminster Highway underpass, Steveston Highway underpass, and the Highway 17A underpass. These structures will be removed and recycled or disposed of, as appropriate.

3.3.6 Waste Disposal

The Project will be managed in a manner that minimizes construction-generated waste, including demolition waste from the decommissioning of roadways and structures, as well as excavated material that cannot be reused. Where waste disposal is necessary, such activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.

3.3.7 Traffic Management

A Traffic Management Plan that includes appropriate communication strategies, and is informed by engagement with adjacent communities, will be developed prior to the start of Project construction. This plan will incorporate performance objectives set by the Ministry, including maintaining traffic flow and access to existing developments, minimizing disruptions and delays, and public notifications.

UC - 276 3.3.8 Workforce Accommodation and Logistics

The Project is located in a densely populated urban area with an available workforce and a wide range of existing accommodations. For similar projects, special workforce accommodations or logistics were not required and are not anticipated for this project.

3.4 Project Operation and Maintenance

Services associated with ongoing operation and maintenance activities will be provided in accordance with defined performance measures as outlined in the Ministry’s highway maintenance agreement(s) and in a manner consistent with the Ministry’s Environmental Best Practices for Highway Maintenance Activities (B.C. MOTI 2010).

All activities will be carried out in accordance with established environmental best practices, as described in environmental management and environmental protection plans that will be listed in the Application.

3.5 Project Decommissioning

As discussed in Section 3.3.5, the Tunnel and Deas Slough Bridge will be decommissioned as part of the construction phase of the Project.

The new bridge and upgraded segments of the highway are intended as permanent components of the regional and provincial transportation system, with a 100-year service life for the new bridge. Decommissioning of any new Project components is not anticipated for the foreseeable future. The Ministry’s contractor will undertake regular maintenance and rehabilitation, such as pavement reconditioning, required to ensure the design life of the Project. Some upgrades or rehabilitation of Project components may be required during the design life and will be undertaken in accordance with the prevailing environmental requirements at that time.

3.6 Project Schedule

The Ministry proposes to submit the Application for an EAC for the Project in 2016 to support a thorough and timely environmental review and enable construction to start in 2017. Pending Project-specific agreements and required approvals, the new bridge is scheduled to open in 2022, after which Tunnel decommissioning will commence. Major elements of the Project schedule are shown in Table 3-1.

UC - 277 Table 3-1 Project Schedule

Stage Proposed Schedule Project Planning 2013 to 2015 Environmental Assessment – Pre-Submission Activities 2013 to 2015 Environmental Assessment – Application Review 2016 Procurement 2016 to 2017 Detailed Design and Construction 2017 to 2022 Operation and Maintenance Ongoing from 2022 Tunnel Decommissioning After bridge opening in 2022

3.7 Project Costs

The capital cost of the Project is estimated at approximately $3.5 billion. As Project development progresses, the estimated capital costs will be refined to reflect any scope changes as applicable.

UC - 278 4.0 Consultation Activities

In developing the Project, the Ministry consulted widely over a period of more than two years, gaining insight from Aboriginal Groups, government departments and agencies, including local municipalities, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and other stakeholders, including the agricultural community, first responders, recreational groups, local businesses, local residents, cyclists, marine users, and the general public.

4.1 Stakeholder and Community Consultation

Public consultation for the Project was held in two phases between November 2012 and April 2013. More than 2,000 participants provided input on the need for transportation improvements for all users (Phase 1), and on five options for the replacement crossing (Phase 2). The Ministry provided a variety of ways for people to participate, including online through the GovTogetherBC platform. The Ministry has also held several small group meetings and eight open houses in Delta, Richmond, and Surrey. The Consultation Summary Reports for both phases are available at the Project’s website (masseytunnel.ca). Key findings were as follows:

• Strong support for additional capacity. • A clear preference for a new bridge to replace the Tunnel and to construct the improvements along the existing Highway 99 corridor, citing various reasons including safety and attractiveness for pedestrians and cyclists, and environmental effects. • Desire for transit, cycling, and pedestrian improvements, including protecting the Highway 99 corridor for future rapid transit. • Questions about potential changes in the locations of population and employment growth. • Questions about potential view and noise effects. • Questions about Project cost and funding, including potential for tolling.

When planning for the Tunnel replacement was announced in November 2012, the Ministry established a Project website (masseytunnel.ca), information line (1.855.562.7739), and email address ([email protected]) to keep people informed, and to respond to questions about the Project. In January 2014 a Project Office was established in Richmond. The Project Office has received more than 3000 visitors to date.

UC - 279 The ever-growing database of people who have signed up for Project updates exceeds more than 1,600. Since 2012, the Project team has responded to hundreds of inquiries and requests for information.

Introductory meetings were held with local governments and agencies, including Delta, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, TransLink, and Metro Vancouver in fall 2012. Since then, regular meetings with Delta, Richmond, Tsawwassen First Nation, Surrey, Metro Vancouver, and TransLink are ongoing.

The Ministry has also met with interested stakeholders, including community groups, business associations, local residents living near the proposed Project, cycling groups, Richmond Farmers Institute, Delta Farmers’ Institute, commercial and recreational marine users, PMV, YVR, Boundary Bay Airport, and BC Trucking Association. To date, the Project team has held more than 300 meetings with more than 40 stakeholder groups, including dozens of businesses. In addition, the Project team meets with or presents to local residents, interested stakeholders, business organizations, and has made more than 40 presentations to date.

Ongoing community engagement, including additional public consultation, is planned for the Pre-Application and Application review phases of the EA, in conjunction with the EAO-managed process and required public comment period. The Ministry will engage the community to seek input on the Project during the next phase of consultation in early 2016.

As required by the EAO under the EA review process, a tracking table that identifies interests and issues raised by the public, local governments and stakeholders, and a summary of how these issues have been, or will be, addressed by the Ministry will be included in the Application.

4.2 Regulatory Engagement

Engagement with Provincial and Federal regulatory agencies was initiated by the Ministry in 2013, and is ongoing. The purpose of the engagement to date has been to assess replacement options for the Tunnel and to receive feedback on the Project. Discussions have focused on gaining an understanding of Project components and activities that relate to the regulatory environment. To date, the following regulatory agencies have been engaged:

• B.C. Environmental Assessment Office • B.C. Ministry of Environment • B.C. Ministry of Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations • Port Metro Vancouver • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

UC - 280 • Environment Canada • Fisheries and Oceans Canada • Transport Canada

A summary of advice provided and requirements identified by these agencies, and a description of how they have been or will be incorporated into Project planning, design and implementation, will be included in the Application.

4.3 Aboriginal Group Engagement

The Ministry understands that Aboriginal Groups have strong interests within the Project alignment, and will continue to consult with the Aboriginal Groups listed below, identified by the EAO as having Aboriginal Interests that may be affected by the Project.

• Cowichan Tribes • Halalt First Nation • Kwantlen First Nation • Katzie First Nation • Lake Cowichan First Nation • Lyackson First Nation • Musqueam Indian Band • Penelakut Tribe

o Hwlitsum • Semiahmoo First Nation • Squamish Nation • Stz’uminus First Nation • Tsleil-Waututh Nation • Tsawwassen First Nation

The Ministry has met with all Aboriginal Groups listed above. At initial meetings with Aboriginal Groups, the Ministry provided introductory information regarding the Project scope and schedule, and sought input with respect to Aboriginal Groups’ current use of the Project alignment for traditional purposes, as well as any concerns related to the exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The Ministry also sought to determine community-specific preferences with

UC - 281 respect to participation in Project consultation and the EA review, and arranged for the sharing of Aboriginal Groups Project-related studies (e.g. Traditional Use or Project Impact Study).

In an effort to provide advance opportunities to review key Project-related documents, the Ministry provided Aboriginal Groups with a draft copy of the Project Description. Initial feedback received on the draft has been incorporated into this document. The Ministry also undertook a series of follow up meetings with Aboriginal Groups and shared Project-related materials, such as the draft Application Information Requirements (dAIR) document and draft Heritage Resources Overview Assessment, for review and comment.

During the EA review, the Ministry and EAO will consult with the Aboriginal Groups identified above as per the consultation requirements outlined in the order issued by EAO under Section 11 of the B.C. EAA. Through consultation, the Ministry will seek to identify measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects and/or to otherwise address or accommodate the concerns of Aboriginal Groups, as appropriate. The Ministry will also undertake studies to assess potential effects on Aboriginal Groups resulting from Project-related changes to the physical environment, cultural heritage, or to any known structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Consultation will include gathering information regarding potential Project-related effects that may result in environmental change.

The Ministry has been working with Aboriginal Groups to develop a consultation plan to acquire additional information regarding potential Project-related effects on Aboriginal interests and established Aboriginal treaty rights. The consultation plan will be subject to EAO’s approval. As required by the EAO, a tracking table that identifies issues and concerns raised by Aboriginal Groups, and a discussion on how the Ministry has addressed or will address the issues, will be included in the Application.

The scope and extent of consultation with the Aboriginal Groups identified above will vary depending on the scope of Aboriginal Interests and the degree to which the Project may potentially affect their respective Aboriginal Interests. In the case of Tsawwassen First Nation, consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements specified under the Tsawwassen Final Agreement as well as those outlined in the Section 11 Order. The Ministry will receive regulatory input and guidance from the EAO with respect to groups to be consulted, the level of consultation required, and the proposed GMT Aboriginal consultation plan.

UC - 282 PART 2: KEY AREAS OF STUDY

UC - 283 5.0 Environmental Assessment and Key Areas of Study

Based on issues identified by the public, Aboriginal Groups, regulators, and local and regional governments during consultation to date, and the Ministry’s experience on comparable projects in the Lower Mainland, the following key areas of study have been identified to support the assessment of potential environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health effects of the Project:

• River hydraulics and morphology • Sediment quality and water quality • Underwater noise • Fish and fish habitat • Marine mammals • Vegetation • Amphibians • Terrestrial wildlife • Land and Water Use

▫ Marine use ▫ Land use ▫ Agricultural use • Visual quality • Air quality • Atmospheric noise • Human health • Heritage resources

An overview of studies being undertaken, including background and anticipated Project-related effects that are considered, is provided in this section. Further detail on studies, including how they are used to describe existing conditions and predict potential Project-related effects on specific valued components of the natural and human environment in the Application, will be provided in the dAIR submitted to the EAO as part of the pre-Application process.

UC - 284 The EA process will include further opportunities for consultation and input by regulatory agencies, Aboriginal Groups, governments, other stakeholders, and the public. The list of key areas of study presented here may be refined based on the results of feedback on this Project Description and guidance from the EAO.

5.1 River Hydraulics and Morphology

5.1.1 Background

The Highway 99 corridor within the Project alignment crosses the Fraser River South Arm, which supports a number of ecological, social, and commercial values. These values, including fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, marine use, and agricultural use, are influenced by water levels, flow conditions, turbidity, salinity, sediment deposition patterns and other factors related to hydraulics and morphology of the river.

The Fraser River South Arm is a single, meandering, sand-bed channel. Dunes, characteristic features of a sand-bed channel, occur on the riverbed within a 1.2 km stretch centered over the Tunnel and typically vary in height from 0.5 m to 2.0 m, although individual dunes can be considerably larger. Fraser River flows are dominated by snowmelt, with discharge typically rising in April, peaking between May and July during freshet, and receding during autumn and winter.

Salinity in the lower Fraser River is influenced by the presence of a salt wedge8, the location of which moves in response to daily tidal variations, and seasonally in response to variations in freshwater river discharge. During winter low flows, the salt wedge can travel as much as 30 km upstream from the mouth of Fraser River. During freshet high flows, the maximum extent of saltwater intrusion is less than 15 km. The location of this salt wedge in relation to irrigation intakes in the river influences salinity of water available for agricultural use in the adjacent communities of Delta and Richmond.

5.1.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Project-related changes in river hydraulics are expected to be limited to those associated with decommissioning the Tunnel. Activities associated with Tunnel decommissioning may temporarily affect water levels, river velocity, sediment transport and turbidity, as well as erosion

8 Freshwater from the river floats on top of seawater in a layer that gradually thins toward the sea. The denser seawater moves upstream along the bottom of the river estuary, forming a wedge-shaped layer that is thinner as it moves upstream. A difference in velocity occurs between the two layers, which acts against the mixing tendency of tide- and wind-induced turbulence.

UC - 285 and deposition patterns, and result in changes to flow patterns and scour. These potential changes are expected to be limited to the location of the Tunnel. The absence of the Tunnel is expected to result in minimal change in sediment deposition and erosion patterns in the area, and on the tidally induced movement of saltwater in the Fraser River.

5.1.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying river hydraulics and morphology in the Fraser River and Deas Slough to inform the assessment of potential Project-related effects on environmental, social, and economic values, including agricultural values such as influence of salt wedge, supported by these water bodies. River velocity, water levels, and flow patterns and their influence on sedimentation and erosion in the Fraser River form the focus of these studies.

Results of the river hydraulics and morphology studies will be used to support the assessment of potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, agricultural use, and marine use.

5.2 Sediment and Water Quality

5.2.1 Background

In addition to the Fraser River South Arm, Deas Slough, and Green Slough, the Project alignment crosses roadside drainage and irrigation ditches, most of which support ecological values in addition to agriculture and stormwater management purposes. The quality of water and sediment in these water courses determine their ability to support these values.

Water quality in the lower Fraser River is influenced by mixing of silt-laden freshwater and tidal saltwater with water quality characteristics changing due to tidal and seasonal factors.

5.2.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Potential Project-related changes in surface water and sediment quality are expected to be limited and associated with Tunnel decommissioning activities, and may include temporary redistribution of riverbed sediments.

The impervious surface area created by the new bridge and associated approaches will generate additional stormwater runoff, which may affect water quality in receiving streams. Stormwater management infrastructure or catchment areas (such as biofiltration areas) will be incorporated in the Project design, and will minimize the potential for stormwater to directly enter watercourses.

UC - 286 5.2.3 Studies

The quality of water and sediment in the Fraser River, and Deas Slough in and around the Project alignment, form the focus of Project-related studies on sediment and water quality. The results of these studies will be used to support the assessment of environmental values such as fish and fish habitat, and marine mammals.

5.3 Underwater Noise

5.3.1 Background

The underwater noise environment in the Fraser River’s main channel is dominated by noise generated from shipping traffic, such as tugs and ships transiting the river, as well as machinery noise. Ambient noise levels in Deas Slough are substantially lower than in the main channel, because vessel traffic in the slough consists primarily of smaller, slow-moving recreational vessels transiting to and from the marinas.

5.3.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Project-related changes in underwater noise with the potential to result in disturbance to fish and marine mammals are expected to be limited to those associated with underwater Project construction activities such as pile driving, and ground improvements, Tunnel decommissioning, and operation of vessels supporting construction works.

Construction activities with the potential to exceed established thresholds, such as pile driving, will be predominantly land based, limiting the potential for substantial changes in existing underwater noise conditions.

Project-related activities associated with the operational phase of the Project are not anticipated to generate underwater noise.

5.3.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying underwater noise in the Fraser River South Arm and Deas Slough to assess potential Project-related effects on fish and fish habitat, and marine mammals. Underwater noise studies are focusing on measuring baseline levels to provide a quantitative description of the underwater ambient noise. Underwater acoustic modelling is also being undertaken to predict underwater sound levels expected to be generated by noise-producing Project activities. The results of these studies will be used to support the assessment of environmental values such as fish and fish habitat, and marine mammals.

UC - 287 5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

5.4.1 Background

The Fraser River, Deas Slough and Green Slough support fish communities that include all five species of Pacific salmon, trout, char, sturgeon and eulachon. The quality of aquatic habitats that overlap the Project alignment varies widely. In general, high fish and aquatic values are present where Highway 99 intersects Deas Slough and the Fraser River South Arm. However, the majority of the Project alignment is characterized by lower fish and aquatic habitat values associated with man-made ditches.

Man-made ditches in and around the Project alignment are typically located upland of flood- control infrastructure, limiting access to the Fraser River, and therefore have lower fish and aquatic habitat values.

5.4.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Potential Project-related effects on fish in the Fraser River and Deas and Green Sloughs include exposure to underwater noise and elevated suspended sediment levels during in-water construction activities. Changes in fish habitat quality may occur as a result of changes in ambient water quality and underwater noise levels, and through fish habitat alteration. There may also be a small loss of fish habitat within Deas Slough in areas that overlap the Project footprint; however, removal of the Deas Slough Bridge is expected to offset this loss and result in a benefit to fish and fish habitat.

Vegetation clearing along upland watercourses during construction will result in a temporary loss of habitat. It is expected that, post construction re-vegetation of riparian areas will address the temporary effects of vegetation clearing and ensure that long term habitat benefits are achieved.

With Project-related construction and operation activities occurring primarily within the Highway 99 ROW, implementation of standard practices, such as adherence to least-risk timing windows, and procedures to minimize underwater noise and suspended sediment concentrations, Project-related effects to fish and fish habitat can be avoided or effectively mitigated.

UC - 288 5.4.3 Studies

Studies are being undertaken to determine fish habitat values, and fish species’ use of watercourses, and assess the quality and quantity of fish habitat within the Project alignment. To facilitate the assessment of potential effects on fish and fish habitat, the Ministry selected five representative fish groups that have different habitat needs and use the river at different times of the year: five species of Pacific salmon, two species of sturgeon, eulachon, two species of trout, and two species of char.

5.5 Amphibians

5.5.1 Background

Riparian habitat associated with watercourses along the Project alignment and wetland habitats in and around the Project alignment have the potential to support amphibians, including the red-legged frog, which is considered an at-risk species.

5.5.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Vegetation clearing along the Deas and Green Sloughs and upland watercourses during construction may result in a potential loss of amphibian habitat; however, it is expected that post construction re-vegetation of riparian area will address the temporary effects of vegetation clearing and ensure that long term benefits are achieved.

5.5.3 Studies

A study is being undertaken to identify wetlands in and around the Project alignment with potential at-risk amphibian habitat, and to determine at-risk amphibian presence, if any, in those wetlands. The study focuses on habitat of northern red-legged frog, which is provincially Blue-listed and designated as of Special Concern under the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

5.6 Marine Mammals

5.6.1 Background

The Fraser River South Arm, in the vicinity of the Project, is used by some marine mammal species, particularly harbour seal, year-round. The presence of marine mammals such as whales and dolphins in the Fraser River near the Project alignment is considered rare.

UC - 289 5.6.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Underwater noise generated by pile driving, vibrodensification, and Tunnel decommissioning activities may affect marine mammals.

5.6.3 Studies

A desktop review is being undertaken of existing information on marine mammals that are likely to be present in and around the Project alignment (specifically, harbour seals and sea lions).

5.7 Vegetation

5.7.1 Background

As currently proposed, works will occur almost entirely within the existing Highway 99 ROW, which consists mainly of grassy areas adjacent to the highway. Land uses adjacent to the corridor are predominantly agriculture or urban development. Areas close to the Fraser River and along drainage ditches that run alongside or across Highway 99 may support rare or at-risk riparian species.

5.7.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Wherever possible, vegetation removal will be limited to the Highway 99 ROW. Where permanent loss of vegetation will result from increased road surface, opportunities for re- vegetation in other areas of the corridor will be explored to minimize effects on wildlife habitat.

5.7.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying the type, amount, and distribution of vegetation along the Project alignment to better understand its wildlife habitat value and to determine the presence of at-risk plant species and ecological communities.

Available databases and results of previous studies are being reviewed to develop a list of at- risk plant species and ecological communities that are likely to be present along the Project alignment. Field surveys are being undertaken to determine the presence or absence of these species and communities.

UC - 290 5.8 Terrestrial Wildlife

5.8.1 Background

Terrestrial wildlife along Highway 99 consists primarily of common species of raptors, riverine birds, and small mammals. Some suitable barn owl and Pacific water shrew habitat has been identified along vegetated sections of Highway 99; however, barn owl nesting and Pacific water shrew occurrence has not been confirmed. Barn and cliff swallow nesting activity has been documented under the Deas Slough Bridge.

Grassy areas adjacent to the highway provide habitat for small mammals, such as voles, and foraging habitat for raptors and other birds that prey on small mammals. Large mammals, specifically black-tailed deer live in areas adjacent to the highway (Burns Bog); however, monitoring of the existing collision impacts of Highway 99 by the Ministry indicates limited impacts along the portion of the highway that is proposed to be upgraded as part of the Project.

5.8.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Habitat of terrestrial wildlife may be lost during vegetation clearing and grubbing, while habitat may be altered due to noise levels, temporary presence and movement of crews, and machinery and equipment that may disturb wildlife. Wildlife mortality (small mammals) may occur during vegetation clearing and grubbing, soil stripping, and excavation, as well as during Deas Slough Bridge demolition. Decommissioning of the south portal of the Tunnel will make some additional area available to re-establish wildlife connectivity on Deas Island.

5.8.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying terrestrial wildlife along the Project alignment to document the presence of marsh birds, raptors and herons, establish the presence of breeding birds in areas proposed for clearing or construction, map the presence of swallow nests in structures proposed to be removed or altered by the Project, identify the collision risk for bird species due to construction of the new bridge and associated infrastructure, and determine how suitable the habitat along Highway 99 is for small mammals, and foraging raptors.

UC - 291 5.9 Air Quality

5.9.1 Background

Although air quality along the Project alignment is generally good, traffic congestion at the Tunnel has generated increased emissions and reduced air quality around the crossing. Vehicle idling and slower movements during periods of traffic congestion produces greater per-vehicle emissions of air contaminants such as fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide (NOX), and sulfur

dioxide (SO2) when compared to uncongested conditions.

5.9.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

The Project is expected to result in an improvement in air quality, especially in the vicinity of the Tunnel, as a result of improved traffic flow, since vehicles driving at highway speeds consume less fuel and generate lower emissions. In addition, the new bridge is elevated above ground level, allowing airflow over the top and beneath the bridge, which contributes to improved dispersion of pollutants.

5.9.3 Studies

Metro Vancouver operates a large network of air quality stations in the Lower Mainland, each of which monitors a specific set of pollutants focused on criteria air contaminants. The National Air Pollution Surveillance network in turn collects data on non-criteria air contaminants. The Ministry has analyzed data from these sources to develop a baseline of existing conditions for the pollutants in the area surrounding the Project.

5.10 Atmospheric Noise

5.10.1 Background

The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the Project is strongly influenced by traffic on Highway 99 and connecting roadways such as Westminster Highway, Steveston Highway, River Road, and Highways 91, 17A and 17. Changes in the noise environments in this area in recent decades are associated with growth in local and regional traffic volumes.

UC - 292 5.10.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project alignment may experience an increase in noise over time as vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and the proportion of heavy trucks increase.

5.10.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying the baseline noise environments at locations representative of all noise- sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, institutional, recreational) where Project-related changes in atmospheric noise are likely to occur.

5.11 Land and Water Use

5.11.1 Background

Most of the Project alignment is on provincial Crown land either within the Highway 99 ROW or the land under water in the Fraser River. Port Metro Vancouver manages navigation within the river channel. Highway 99 accesses and crosses lands owned by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, BC Rail, and Canadian National Railway. Support structures for the new bridge on Deas Island will be located within the Highway 99 ROW, outside of Metro Vancouver’s Deas Island Regional Park.

Land use is predominantly agricultural in areas adjacent to the Highway 99 corridor in Richmond and Delta, in the western portion of Surrey, and on the east side of Highway 99 near the Canada–U.S. border. Most agricultural land adjacent to Highway 99 is within the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve.

Several areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the official community plans of Richmond and Delta are located near the Project. The Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area (Delta) and the Richmond Nature Park are located in the vicinity of the Highway 99 corridor. The South Arm Marshes Wildlife Management Area is located in the Fraser River South Arm, downstream of the Tunnel. The Richmond Nature Park and Deas Island Regional Park are designated recreational areas.

Industrial uses are primarily located along the northern bank of the Fraser River South Arm in Richmond. Residential uses in the vicinity of the Project in Delta include the marinas in Deas Slough west and east of the Tunnel, and a residential area on River Road South, east of Highway 99. Mixed-use commercial and residential areas are located along the northern portion of Highway 99 in Richmond, near the Steveston Highway interchange.

UC - 293 Tsawwassen First Nation is located approximately six kilometres south of the Project alignment, along the shores of Roberts Bank, between the BC Ferries Tsawwassen Terminal and the Roberts Bank terminals complex.

The Fraser River South Arm is heavily used for navigation and supports upstream industrial and port activities. This portion of the Fraser River is used by Aboriginal and commercial fishers and supports a wide range of recreational activities.

5.11.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Construction equipment such as tugs and barges required to facilitate bridge construction and Tunnel decommissioning could have a temporary effect on navigation and other marine uses. Once operational, the Project is not expected to affect navigation or marine use.

Potential effects of the Project on agricultural use include modifications in irrigation and drainage systems, effects on farm utilities services as well as benefits such as improved reliability for the agricultural community in getting goods to market.

Wherever possible, the Project will be constructed within the Ministry’s ROW to minimize the amount of agricultural land required. While minor portions of parcels adjacent to the interchanges may be required, it is anticipated that the Project will be completed with no-net - loss of agricultural land. Work is currently underway to identify opportunities for agricultural mitigation measures such as parcel exchanges. Expected benefits include improved cross- highway access between agricultural lands and congestion reduction measures to support improved travel times for farm vehicles.

5.11.3 Studies

To gain a better understanding of land and water use existing conditions, the Ministry is studying marine use, land use, and agricultural use as follows:

• Marine use: To fully assess the use of the Fraser River South Arm for marine activity, the Ministry is studying navigation; commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fish harvesting; and recreational marine activities. These studies will determine marine traffic frequency and volume (including types and number of vessels transiting the river), and existing navigation conditions in the Fraser River South Arm. • Land use: The Ministry is reviewing land use designations, current and proposed land uses in and around the Project alignment, as set out in Official Community Plans and other relevant municipal, regional and PMV planning documents.

UC - 294 • Agricultural use: To understand use of land and water for agricultural purposes, the Ministry is studying irrigation and drainage systems, Agricultural Land Reserve land by capability class, and farm infrastructure and operations within Richmond and Delta.

5.12 Visual Quality

5.12.1 Background

The Project is located within an urban transportation corridor that traverses the Fraser River. Views of the river are available upstream and downstream of the Tunnel. Adjacent to Highway 99, the north and south shores of the Fraser River are characterized by extensive industrial development. The south portal of the Tunnel is located within Deas Island Regional Park. On the south shore of Deas Slough, there are recreational, residential, and commercial developments, including the River House Marina, the Riverwoods neighbourhood, and Captain’s Cove Marina, all of which overlook the Fraser River at the Tunnel crossing.

5.12.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

The Project is expected to result in changes to the views near the new bridge, including for residential, commercial, and recreational areas. The effects of this change in views on some receptors are expected to be minimized with the use of vegetation buffers.

5.12.3 Studies

To better understand the visual effects of the Project, the Ministry is studying existing visual conditions from sensitive locations such as residences and recreational areas in the vicinity of the new bridge.

5.13 Heritage Resources

5.13.1 Background

Under the B.C. Heritage Conservation Act, heritage resources are defined by the historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, or educational worth or usefulness of a site or object. Sites 9 that contain physical evidence of past human activities are known to exist in the vicinity of the Project alignment.

9 Under the B.C. Heritage Conservation Act, a heritage site is, whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water that has heritage value to B.C., a community or an aboriginal people.

UC - 295 While the existing transportation corridor has been substantially altered by development, there are recorded heritage sites within and adjacent to the Project alignment and the potential that additional heritage resources could be identified as a result of the Project.

5.13.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

Considering the nature of the Project, any adverse effect on heritage resources would be limited to the construction phase. Based on information gathered to date, the potential for Project-related construction activities to interfere with heritage resources is expected to be low.

5.13.3 Studies

The Ministry is confirming the presence of known heritage resources and sites that have potential to contain intact or disturbed archaeological deposits within and directly adjacent to the Project alignment. Heritage sites within the Project alignment that are identified as having archaeological potential will be evaluated further through field investigations.

5.14 Human Health

5.14.1 Background

Human health considerations for the Project are primarily associated with changes in air quality and atmospheric noise levels. The current conditions within the Project alignment, with respect to air quality and noise, are consistent with the current use of this area as an active transportation corridor. Congestion-related idling associated with current traffic conditions, has led to elevated concentrations of air contaminants as compared with areas further away from the highway. Noise conditions along the Project alignment are heavily influenced by the high volumes of vehicle traffic along the highway and feeder routes.

5.14.2 Preliminary Overview of Potential Effects

The Project is generally anticipated to result in improvements in human health with respect to air quality and noise conditions, as well as in consideration of broader determinants of human health (e.g., improved mobility, improved safety, increases in employment and economic development etc.).

5.14.3 Studies

The Ministry is studying ambient air quality and existing noise conditions as they relate to human health conditions in and around the Project alignment as well as key health indicators, available from regional and community health studies, to understand existing human health conditions in local and regional populations.

UC - 296 In addition to human health considerations that are influenced by potential changes in the physical environment (e.g., air quality and noise), social and economic studies underway will assist the Ministry in considering how broader determinants of human health (e.g., changes in social and economic conditions) may be influenced by the Project.

UC - 297 17211558 ATTACHMENT 4

Minister(s) may Environmental Assessment Process consider any other matters that they consider relevant to Project the public interest in Description making their decision

Determination Certificate that Project is Issued with set Reviewable Monitoring, conditions-- compliance, (Section 10 Project and Order) Authorized to Develop Requirements Proceed to enforcement Compliance Permitting Management begins here

Scope and Approved Process for Application Application Project Review Application Prepared Evaluated Application Assessment ED Referral Information Decision by Determined and for Review Report To Ministers (Section 11 Requirements Ministers Submitted Completeness Order) Not Approved

Public Public Certificate Comment Comment Further Refused – Assessment Period Period Project Cannot Required Proceed

Decision Pre-Application Stage (30 days) Application Review Stage (no timeline) (180 days) (45 days) Working Group Review

UC - 298 17224440 FIRST NATION CONSULTATION ATTACHMENT 5

Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the Draft Application Information Requirements for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

Metro Vancouver’s broad interests with respect to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project are related to regional growth management; air quality and climate change; environment; regional utilities and infrastructure; and Regional Parks.

The following comments reflect detailed staff input on behalf of specific Metro Vancouver interests and services. For reference, the relevant section of the draft Application Information Requirements document is provided, along with the general topic to which the comments refer.

Section Comments Topic

Section 1.0 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report Transportation presents graphical information about historical traffic volumes through the tunnel (Changes To and Alex Fraser Bridge, current trip origins and destinations for weekday trips Regional through the tunnel, and forecasted baseline queue lengths on select Fraser River Transportation crossings. However, the report does not contain sufficient information on the Patterns) transportation patterns associated with a new tolled bridge. Without this information, local governments and TransLink can only react on an ad hoc basis once new travel patterns materialize after project completion.

To assist with local transportation planning efforts, Metro Vancouver staff recommend that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure explore the following questions:

1. How much traffic volume (and thus traffic congestion) on the Highway 99 corridor will be diverted to or from the Alex Fraser Bridge corridor on a) opening day and b) after travel behaviour has stabilized? 2. With planned residential and region-serving retail developments in Tsawwassen First Nation and Delta, the catchment for attracting trips through the Highway 99 corridor will expand. How will future trip origins and destinations change from current conditions on weekdays? What are current and future trip origins and destinations on weekends? 3. How will queue lengths change on the Fraser River crossings after project completion? Will the new bridge provide appreciable queuing reductions on the approaches leading to and from the Alex Fraser Bridge, Oak Street Bridge, Knight Street Bridge, Queensborough Bridge? 4. How will transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions change as a result of new travel patterns and demands? 5. How will a new bridge affect goods movement within and through the region? Will it support improved connections between the movement of goods and industrial lands?

UC - 299

Section 1.0 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report does Transportation not mention any refinements to the provincial tolling policy that will permit effective (System-Wide region-wide demand management for the road network – a key principle in Metro Transportation 2040, the regional growth strategy, and the Mayor’s Vision for Regional Demand Transportation Investments. Management) It is appropriate to test the effects of a system-wide pricing program on traffic volumes, trip origins and destinations, and queue lengths. For example, the toll-free Alex Fraser Bridge may experience additional volumes and congestion in the peak periods, and new growth in the midday period, which is currently operating at free flow.

Section 3.10 The impact of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Projects should be included in Cumulative the cumulative effects assessment as one of the Reasonably Foreseeable Effects Developments and Activities.

Sections 3.1 The Application Information Requirements should consider additional valued Valued components for recreation, infrastructure, and visual air quality: Components

(Recreation, Recreation Infrastructure, Deas Island Regional Park and its recreational values are directly and significantly Visual Air impacted by the proposed project. The assessment area for a recreation values Quality) component should include the entire Park and should consider including recreational impacts on trail networks in Delta and Richmond, subject to support from those municipalities.

Infrastructure The construction of the new bridge and decommissioning of the existing tunnel are anticipated to have impacts on Metro Vancouver Water Services infrastructure (River Road West Main and Lulu Island-Delta Main). Given the potential impacts on this infrastructure (described in detail in the comments referencing Section 4.1), the Ministry should consider adding a valued component for infrastructure.

Visual Air Quality The science on visual air quality is evolving and a metric may not be available currently to make a quantitative assessment; however, the proponent should make a qualitative assessment of the impact of the project on visual air quality.

UC - 300 Section 4.1 The construction of the new bridge is anticipated to have impacts on the following River Hydraulics Metro Vancouver Water Services infrastructure; however, clearer scope definition is and River required in order to fully ascertain the extent of these impacts. Morphology (Potential River Road West Main Impacts on The construction of the new bridge is anticipated to have proximal impacts on Metro Regional Vancouver’s River Road West Main. The main runs parallel to Highway 99 for Utilities) approximately 150 meters and perpendicular to Highway 99 for approximately 70 meters, including crossing the highway through an existing utility culvert. While Metro Vancouver understands that the Ministry plans to design the bridge and off- ramps to avoid relocation of the River Road West Main, revised loading conditions, vibration from ground improvements, temporary works for traffic detours, and construction staging and laydown areas may impact the main. Please confirm that this work will not have a detrimental impact on this regional water main.

It is understood that the Ministry will also be relocating the north end of Green Slough. Based on our review of the project scope, we understand this work will be completed in two phases as follows:

• partially filling the Slough in 2016 to allow for construction of both BC Hydro’s and the Ministry’s projects while maintaining water flow, and • completely diverting the Slough to its original pre-tunnel alignment after the bridge construction is complete in 2022.

UC - 301 information on the related ground improvements associated with this work.

Lulu Island-Delta Main The Lulu Island-Delta Main crosses the Fraser River approximately 600m downstream of the existing tunnel. Metro Vancouver staff understand that decommissioning the existing tunnel may impact the Lulu Island-Delta Main at its Fraser River crossing. Although the Ministry has provided a draft river hydraulics report to Metro Vancouver, the full extent of impact is still being investigated. From a meeting with the Ministry and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Metro Vancouver staff understand that there is a chance that the existing scour protection over the main may be negatively impacted from the change in river hydraulics caused by the tunnel removal. Metro Vancouver has provided Northwest Hydraulic Consultants with historical bathymetric survey data to improve the analysis of the effects on river hydraulics caused by the tunnel removal. Please confirm the scope and timing of tunnel decommissioning and that the necessary measures will be taken by the Ministry to properly protect this critical regional water main.

We would note that both of these water mains are critical to the GVWD system supplying drinking water, in bulk, to residents, businesses and industry south of the Fraser River as well as back-feeding the City of Richmond during an emergency. It is imperative that both mains be adequately monitored and protected throughout all phases of the proposed construction work and that interruptions in service be avoided, especially during the peak summer water demand period.

Construction And Long-Term Maintenance Access Lulu Island-Delta Main. Metro Vancouver requires ongoing access to the west side of Deas Island for maintenance of the Lulu Island-Delta Main. Specifically, our Water District has an air valve on the western tip of the island, which requires regular inspection and maintenance. Please confirm that access will be maintained throughout the construction period as well as after the new bridge is in service.

Section 4.9 The BC Modelling Guideline outlines recommended steps for completing modelling Air Quality projects. This includes creating a conceptual plan as well as a detailed model plan. (Modelling and Including Metro Vancouver in the model planning discussions at an earlier stage in Methodology) the process may have helped identify and address some of the issues we have noted in the report.

As part of the plan, inputs and settings used should be provided. Additional documentation should be submitted with the final report to allow verification of the model settings, frequency of exceedances, the locations of the maximum concentrations (incremental and cumulative), etc.

UC - 302

Section 4.9 The management of ground level ozone is a key priority in Metro Vancouver’s air Air Quality quality management plans. Metro Vancouver’s 2011 Integrated Air Quality and (Ozone) Greenhouse Gas Management Plan and Metro Vancouver Board adopted a “Regional Ground Level Ozone Strategy” in April 2014, which presents the state of scientific understanding about ground-level ozone formation in the region, and establishes broad policy directions to control emissions that contribute to ozone formation.

It is imperative to assess thoroughly the potential for the Project to impact ground level ozone levels in Lower Fraser Valley, using the best available photochemical air quality modelling methods. It is also imperative that the key stakeholders (including Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley Regional District, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and Environment Canada) be consulted and engaged in the development of the photochemical air quality-modelling plan (i.e., the methodology, model set-up, meteorology, emissions scenarios, and model evaluation), to ensure that all appropriate regionally specific knowledge is incorporated into the model.

Section 4.9 The draft Application Information Requirements must include a climate change Air Quality valued component to quantify how the project changes the amount of greenhouse (Green House gas emissions emitted from vehicular traffic. Managing and reducing regional Gas Emissions) greenhouse gas emissions is a key element of Metro Vancouver’s mandate. Alternatively, greenhouse gas emissions should be included explicitly in the Air Quality Valued Component.

Section 4.9 and The Air Quality valued component local assessment area ends at the mid-span of the Appendix Fig. 9 Oak Street Bridge. The Project Definition Report states that queue lengths along Oak Air Quality Street could be longer during rush hours. Vehicular idling can contribute (Assessment concentrated air contaminants to adjoining neighbourhoods and sensitive receptors. Area) The local assessment area, therefore, should be expanded to at least 70th Avenue and Oak Street in the City of Vancouver. The assessment should consider appropriate mitigation measures.

Sections 4.9 Section 4.9 indicates that air quality will be studied in the context of effects of the and 8.1 Project on the Human Health valued component. Through disposition of the Air Quality and pollutants, the Air Quality valued component also has the potential to impact all of Human Health the Environmental Effects valued components. As such, the air quality assessment should assess the deposition of pollutants within the Air Quality studies areas and identify any potential impacts on Environmental Effects valued components. Analysis of deposition will also be required to enable full assessment of the Human Health valued component, particularly via the chronic risk quotient for multi‐media exposures indicator.

Sections 4.9 Section 4.9 indicates that the air quality study will focus on criteria air contaminants, and 8.1 road dust, and toxic air contaminants, but does not provide a detail list of the

UC - 303 Air Quality and pollutants to be included. It is imperative that all relevant combustion related Human Health pollutants be included in the assessment, but equally important, all relevant (Pollutants) pollutants contained in road dust and construction dust must be included. Particularly near a major transportation corridor, existing soils are likely to contain significant historic metals (i.e. lead) and toxic organic (i.e. PAH) contamination. Further, alluvial deposits in construction area spanning the Fraser River may also contain elevated levels of metals and toxic organics. As such, for the purposes of assessing the Human Health valued component, road dust and construction dust must not simply be treated as “total particulate:, PM10, and PM2.5; the metallic and organic toxic composition of these dusts must be taken into account.

Section 5.0 A complete Economic Effects Assessment section should assess the long-term Economic Effects impacts of the significantly enhanced road transportation access on industrial, agricultural, and residential land uses, economic activity, and workforce distribution, as well as associated trips generation, for all the wider areas impacted, not just those immediately beside the bridge and highway construction areas.

Section 6.2 In comparison to the Agricultural Use Valued Component, the proposed Land Use Land Use Valued Component assessment areas are deficient. The proposed local assessment (Assessment area is a 500 metre buffer on either side of the project alignment. The proposed Area) regional assessment is Richmond and Delta. The assessment areas are inconsistent with the geographic scope of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. The expansion of highway capacity between Bridgeport Road in Richmond and Highway 91/Highway 99 interchange in Delta will change accessibility in the region, in particular to industrial lands and agricultural lands on both sides of the Fraser River. The potential effects on the distribution of growth in residents and jobs, and the rate of growth at the sub-regional scale are crucial inputs to long-term municipal and regional growth management.

Section 6.2 Goal # 6 in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Deas Island Report is to “Enhance the environment under the new bridge, and in the project ROW Regional Park on Deas Island Regional Park” and the Economic Development, Social and Community Benefits section includes the following statement, “The Project will result in enhancements to Deas Island Regional Park by allowing people to use the land that is currently occupied by Highway 99 and the Tunnel portal.” Through preliminary discussions, Metro Vancouver staff understand the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure plans to install a tunnel recognition site at the location of the existing tunnel portal, and a rain garden under the future bridge. Metro Vancouver staff would like to work with the Ministry on the planning and design of this area to ensure strong ecological and trail connections to the park.

Section 6.2 Deas Island Trails and the Regional Trail Network Deas Island The Project Definition Report includes a reference to a proposed Multi Use Trail on

UC - 304 Regional Park the west side of the bridge. Trail connectivity from the bridge to the Deas Island (Trails and Regional Park and the broader regional greenway network is desirable. Please Habitat) consider options for good connections to municipal trails and regional greenways on both ends of the bridge.

Habitat Creation/Restoration Please confirm if there will be any habitat creation work proposed for Deas Island Regional Park as mitigation for environmental impacts of the bridge.

Sections 6.2, Deas Island Regional Park Visitor Experience 6.4, and 4.10 Metro Vancouver is concerned with impacts to the park visitor experience. Bridge Deas Island construction and operation will generate noise and debris that are not in keeping Regional Park with the nature-focused park experience currently offered in the Regional Park. (Land Use, Visual Quality, • Please consider opportunities to manage debris and noise associated with and Noise) bridge operation. • The construction of the large bridge deck and possible aerial transmission line will impact the park views. Mitigation of this impact is challenging given the scale of the proposed bridge. Incorporating the BC Hydro transmission line into the bridge structure as opposed to building standalone towers would be a desirable. Please consider the park user experience and viewshed ‘under’ the bridge in its design.

Construction And Long-Term Maintenance Access Construction access through Deas Island Regional Park is not desirable from a park visitor perspective, and existing park infrastructure is inadequate to support this type of use. No formal request for access during construction has been proposed by the Ministry.

Section 6.3 The Agricultural Use Valued Component local assessment area, comprising Agriculture Richmond, Delta, and Surrey, and regional assessment area, comprising the Metro

UC - 305 (Assessment Vancouver region, are reasonable geographic scopes given the importance of Area) agriculture lands to the region’s economy and food security. The regional assessment area is consistent with Metro Vancouver’s Regional Food Systems Strategy.

Section 8.1 The use of Health Impact Assessments is increasing in popularity as a way to fully Human Health account for the health outcomes (both positive and negative) associated with (Health Impact development and transportation projects. Recognizing this trend, Metro Vancouver Assessments) has worked with local Health Authorities and other levels of government to develop a Guidebook for Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Transportation and Land Use Activities. The insertion of Health Impact Assessments into the Environmental Assessment process for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project will help the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and all stakeholders to better understand the potential health benefits and consequences for nearby communities.

Page 28 of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report describes some of the results of a benefit-cost analysis which “compares quantified congestion-relief, safety and long-term economic benefits with Project costs”. A Health Impact Assessment approach could assist with the insertion of additional health-related costs and benefits into this analysis.

UC - 306 ATTACHMENT 6

UC - 307 6.2

Minister of lntraslructure Mfnistre de t'lnfrastructure and CommuniUes et des Coltectivites

Oftawa. Canada KlP 086

AR 93 20181'CJ FEB 2 9 2016 Actfoo· . f.ti ''f'····~:;,:·t::.... ··· ...... ~ ...... ··H ...... • ..r:: ::rf:::1i)V.r:·k ·...... H ...... Jj. . ~. \m~5...... '-"\ ~ .....: ...... -.H rr~ ...... rc::. ·...... 'l:!.... . His Worship Greg Moore Info Copy: ··'¥-\ ...)...... ~ .. ..:? .,..;~ ...... ~ ...... Chair, Board of Directors File No.: ...... ~~.. ~ ...... - ...... - ... -. Doc. No.: ...... - .... H ...... - .... Metro Vancouver CAD TlackerNo.: ...... ~ .... ~.- ...... - .. .. 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, British Columbia V5H 4GB

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter dated December 18, 2015, and your kind words on my appointment as Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to be part of such a great team and to serve Canadians. I would also like to thank you for inviting me to meet with you to provide an update on a number of key Metro Vancouver plans and projects.

As indicated in my mandate letter made public on November 13, 2015, the Prime Minister has laid out a number of priorities related to the development of a 10-year plan to deliver significant new infrastructure funding to provinces, territories and municipalities.

Our government has committed to doubling federal investment in public infrastructure over the next 10 years- including $60 billion in new funding. Our plan will focus on new investments for public transit, social, and green infrastructure - investments that will help build sustainable, inclusive and livable communities across the country.

The Prime Minister has asked that this plan ensure both immediate increased investments in infrastructure and long-term, predictable funding that supports provincial, territorial and municipal priorities. The plan will also improve access to existing infrastructure programs, increase data collection capacity and promote better asset management of infrastructure in Canada.

We will work together with our partners to deliver on our government's commitments to significantly improve and double federal infrastructure investments. Our strong partnerships will bring together all levels of government to deliver something that wiH be transformational for communities and all Canadians.

.. .2

CanadUC - 308 a -2-

In the next few months, I will be engaging with provinces, territories, municipalities and partners to develop a 10-year infrastructure plan.

As Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, I have much work to do during these first months in office. However, I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss infrastructure projects in Metro Vancouver. A member of my staff will be in touch with officials from your office in the near future to arrange the details.

I appreciate your having taken the time to write to me on these important issues, and I look forward to meeting you in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

Amarjeet Sohi, P .C., M.P

UC - 309 6.3

THE CORPORATION OF DELTA Office of Tlte Mayor, Lois E. Jackso11

March 22, 2016 . Acllon: - "ct

Dear Chair Moore,

Re: Fermentation Operations Bylaw No. 294, 2015

On behalf of Delta Council, I am writing to express concern regarding the recently adopted Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Fermentation Operations Bylaw No. 294.

We understand the purpose of this bylaw is to regulate discharge of wastewater from fermentation operations (e.g., brew pubs, cottage breweries, u-brews, etc.) that discharge up to 300m3 of wastewater within 30 days. Various requirements of this bylaw such as solids removal, installation of sampling point and water quality monitoring will add significant cost to the operation of small facilities. Retrofitting existing facilities will be a challenge for small operators keeping in mind the space and time constraints. In addition, the operators are required to pay significant annual administration fees.

The foregoing requirements will have an adverse impact on small business owners. We would ask that Metro Vancouver undertake further consultation with all stakeholders to address these concerns prior to implementation.

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

4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, DeltaUC - ,310 British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 T 604 946·3210 I F 604 946·6055 I E mavorndelta.ca