INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, April 7, 2016 ... · Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda – April 7, 2016 Page 2 10. Transportation Advisory Committee minutes of

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE

Thursday, April 7, 2016 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, B.C.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of Agenda

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

2. Transit Funding/Expansion I. BC Transit Delegation II. Staff Report

(Voting – B, D, E, F, Sechelt, SIGD, Gibsons)

Annex A Pages 1 - 11

REPORTS

3. General Manager Infrastructure Services Pacific Ferries Application for Use of SCRD Docks (Voting – B, D, E, F)

Annex B pp 12 – 14

4. General Manager Infrastructure Services McNeill and Harris Lakes – VORR Application Update (Voting –All Directors)

Annex C pp 15 – 20

5. General Manager Infrastructure Services Managed Forest Council Survey (Voting –All Directors)

Annex D pp 21 – 25

6. Manager Waste Reduction and Recovery Eco-Fee Reserve Expenditures (Voting – All Directors)

Annex E pp 26 – 30

7. Manager of Legislative Services Vaucroft Improvement District Request for Boundary Extension (Voting – All Directors)

Annex F pp 31 – 45

8. Manager Transit and Fleet Public Wharves Advisory Committee Resignations (Voting – B, D, E, F)

Annex G p 46

9. Public Wharves Advisory Committee minutes of February 22, 2016 (Voting – B, D, E, F)

Annex H pp 47 – 49

Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda – April 7, 2016 Page 2

10. Transportation Advisory Committee minutes of February 29, 2016

(Voting – All Directors)

Annex I pp 50 – 52

11. Administrative Assistant Monthly Report for March (Voting – All Directors)

Annex J pp 53 – 55

COMMUNICATIONS

12. Minister Todd D. Stone, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, February 23, 2016,

Regarding Expansion of Transit Services (Voting – B, D, E, F, SIGD, Gibsons, Sechelt)

Annex K pp 56 – 57

13. Community Energy Association, March 15, 2016 Regarding Energy Leadership Workshops Following Local

Government Association AGM’s (Voting – All Directors)

Annex L pp 58 – 61

14. Minister Mary Polak, Ministry of Environment, March 30, 2016 Regarding Water Sustainability Act – New Rules Now in Effect (Voting – All Directors)

Annex M pp 62 – 65

IN CAMERA

ADJOURNMENT

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 7, 2016

AUTHOR: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services and Gordon Dykstra, Manager Transit and Fleet SUBJECT: TRANSIT EXPANSION PRIORITIES

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Transit Expansion Priorities be received; AND THAT the SCRD include the transit expansion items identified in Option 1 of this report as part of the 2017-2020 BC Transit service Transit Improvement Program (TIP) expansion Memorandum of Understanding; AND FURTHER THAT the 2017-2021 Financial Plan be amended accordingly.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD adopted the Transit Future Plan on January 23, 2014, following year-long development and public consultation. The Transit Future Plan is a strategic plan that envisions the Sunshine Coast’s transit network over a 25 year planning horizon and describes the services, infrastructure and investments that are needed to achieve that vision.

The Transit Future Plan implementation strategy included an action plan that was broken into three time frames based on priorities: Short-term (0 to 3 years); Medium term (4 to 6 years); Long-term (7 years +). The implementation priorities then feed into BC Transit’s three year expansion Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) process.

The MOU allows BC Transit to proceed with securing funding in the Provincial Budget. Once funding is approved, proposed service changes are incorporated into the Annual Operating Agreement with BC Transit defining actual service levels.

Following a review of the expansion MOU options, the Board adopted the following resolution at the July 24, 2014, regular meeting:

425/14 Recommendation No. 3 Transit Expansion Memorandum of Understanding 2015-2017

THAT the Manager, Transit and Fleet’s report titled “2015-2017 Three Year Transit Expansion Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)” be received;

AND THAT the Corporate Officer and Chair be authorized to sign the revised BC Transit 2015-2017 Three Year Service Expansion MOU using Transit Expansion Initiatives – Alternative Option 1.

Annex A

1

Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee

Transit Expansion Priorities Page 2 of 6

2016-APR-07 ISC rpt Transit Expansion Priorities

The expansion MOU based on Option 1 above was duly signed by the SCRD but never received approval from BC Transit due to a three-year expansion funding freeze announced by the Province.

Following the funding freeze announcement, the Board adopted the following resolution at the May 14, 2015, regular Board meeting:

215/15 Recommendation No. 4 Provincial Transit Expansion Funding

THAT the Manager Transit and Fleet’s report dated April 16, 2015 titled “Provincial Transit Expansion Funding” be received;

AND THAT the Chair request a meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure in order to discuss options for the SCRD to proceed with transit service and infrastructure expansions as per the Transit Future Plan;

AND FURTHER THAT the following requests be presented to the Minister at the meeting:

1. That the Minister reconsider the current 3-year (2015-2018) BC Transit operating budget and provide sufficient funds for those communities such as the SCRD looking to move forward with Transit Future Plan service initiatives;

2




2. That going forward the Minister financially commit to Transit Future Plan 3-year service expansion initiatives similar to local governments through the signing of BC Transit’s Service Expansion Memorandum of Understanding; and

3. That provincial legislation be amended to provide flexible BC Transit-local government funding arrangements.

On February 23, 2016, the SCRD received a letter from Minister Stone announcing $12.7 million in transit enhancement funding, with $11.1 million identified for expanded services in BC Transit communities.

The purpose of this report is to present the Transit Future Plan service expansion priorities, confirm the expansion funding priorities moving forward, and to obtain Committee direction on the timing and level of funding support to submit to BC Transit for consideration.

DISCUSSION

In discussions with BC Transit staff, it is understood that the increased funding translates to an additional 50,000 transit service hours over both 2017/18 and 2018/19 fiscal years. Based on current expansion requests throughout all BC Transit communities, it is further understood that these service hours are already over prescribed and that BC Transit will be running all requests through an internal evaluation process.

BC Transit staff noted that the SCRD is well positioned for expansion funding consideration, due to the fact that there is a Transit Future Plan in place and the system’s relatively high ridership and cost recovery, and that the infrastructure requirements to implement the next phases of expansion are relatively small.

BC Transit has provided the attached report (Attachment A) that further outlines the transit expansion process and background, and details two service expansion options for consideration.

Options and Analysis

As outlined in the Transit Future Plan, moving to 30 minute frequency for peak transit service at Langdale is the key strategic priority, as it allows buses to operate independently of the ferry schedule.

The difference between Options 1 and 2 is the speed at which transit service expansion reaches this frequency goal.

Using the expansion MOU previously adopted by the Board as a base, the two options presented in BC Transit’s report are as follows.

3




Expansion Option 1

Fiscal Year

Annual Hours

Vehicle Requirements

Estimated Total Costs**

Estimated Revenue*

Provincial Share of Costs**

Estimated Net Municipal Share

17/18 6,370 6 Med Duty $802,700 $98,400 $263,600 $440,700

TFP Service Priority 1– Rte. 90: 30min frequency at peak, Rte. 1 (&5) hourly service

18/19

2,100 1 Light Duty $264,000 $29,300 $100,900 $133,800

TFP Service Priority 6 – Route 4 Halfmoon Bay approx. hourly frequency Mon-Sat with increased hours of operation year round

19/20

200 None $20,600 $3,400 $8,900 $8,300

TFP Service Priority 3 - Service to Chatelech School via Route 2 (if Cowrie Street completed)

840 1 Light Duty $124,400 $3,900 $40,400 $80,100

TFP Service Priority 4 - Introduce service to Pender Harbour

Expansion Option 2

Fiscal Year

Annual Hours


Estimated Total Costs**

Estimated Revenue*


Estimated Net Municipal Share

17/18 2,000 1 Heavy Duty $260,700 $30,900 $82,700 $147,100

Part of TFP Service Priority 1 - Additional trips on Route 90

18/19 4,370

6 Med duty - 1 Heavy duty

$542,000 $67,500 $180,900 $293,600

Remainder of TFP Service Priority 1– Rte. 90: 30min frequency at peak, Rte. 1 (&5) hourly service

19/20

2,100 1 Light Duty $264,000 $29,300 $100,900 $133,800


200 None $20,600 $3,400 $8,900 $8,300


840 1 Light Duty $124,400 $3,900 $40,400 $80,100


Revenue and cost information are high level estimates based upon planning work and previous expansion MOU and will be finalized by BC Transit finance department for inclusion in the Transit Expansion MOU letters. * 60% of estimated ridership and revenue based upon first year of expansion ** Costs shown do not include Provincial contribution to Lease Fees

4




BC Transit and SCRD staff both recommend Option 1, as the key strategic priority is to increase frequency on Route 90 in order to remove the attachment to the ferry schedule, and to increase convenience for the ridership. Option 1 will enable 30 minute frequency on Route 90 during peak periods in the first year of expansion.

Financial Implications

The following table summarizes the estimated taxation impact by option and year, assuming the expansion services are implemented in September of each budget year.

If the Board approves the Transit expansion, the 2017-2021 Financial Plan will need to be amended to include the full implementation costs. If there are any amendments required over and above the above amounts, a Budget proposal will be forwarded to the annual Budget process for consideration. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

Transit expansion supports the SCRD Key Strategic Priority of Embed Environmental Leadership, and is aligned with the We Envision goal of doubling transit ridership over 2010 levels by 2020,

2017 2018 2019 2020

Estimated Taxation for Current Service Level 1,901,611 1,940,468 2,037,546 2,053,912

Estimated Additional Net Taxation

17/18 - TFP Service Priority 1 145,431 440,700 440,700 440,700

18/19 - TFP Service Priority 6 - 44,154 133,800 133,800

19/20 - TFP Service Priority 3 & 4 - - 29,172 88,400

Total Estimated Net Additional Taxation 145,431 484,854 603,672 662,900

Estimated Cost of Expansion for a $400,000 Home 7.03$ 23.43$ 29.17$ 32.03$

2017 2018 2019 2020

Estimated Taxation for Current Service Level 1,901,611 1,940,468 2,037,546 2,053,912

Estimated Additional Net Taxation

17/18 - Part of TFP Service Priority 1 48,543 147,100 147,100 147,100

18/19 - Remainder of TFP Service Priority 1 - 96,888 293,600 293,600

19/20 - TFP Service Priority 3, 4 & 6 - - 73,326 222,200

Total Estimated Net Additional Taxation 48,543 243,988 514,026 662,900

Estimated Cost of Expansion for a $400,000 Home 2.35$ 11.79$ 24.84$ 32.03$

Taxation Impact - Expansion Alternative Option 2

Taxation Impact - Expansion Alternative Option 1

5




as well as implementing key focus areas for transit as identified in the Integrated Transportation Study.

CONCLUSION

The Provincial Government announced transit expansion funding opportunities for the next three fiscal years and BC Transit is now commencing the process for the next 3 year budget (2017-2020). The Board had previously supported a 3 year expansion MOU that is aligned with the Transit Future Plan.

BC Transit is requesting that the SCRD specify their three year expansion requirements and confirm funding commitment. It is recommended that the SCRD Board endorse expansion Option 1.

Reviewed by: Manager X - GD Finance X-TP GM X - BS Legislative CAO X - JL Other

6

1/7

Sunshine Coast Transit: Expansion Options 2017-20

1.0 Transit Expansion Funding Process

The TIP (Transit Improvement Program) tracks expansion requests from local government partners for the next three fiscal years. Expansion requests should be informed by priorities identified within Transit Future Plans, Service Discussion Documents or other planning work as well as major Capital initiatives necessary for the development of the transit system and progress towards ridership targets. The TIP process seeks local government partner commitment to the expansion requests, thereby allowing BC Transit to proceed with securing sufficient funding within the Provincial Budget.

The TIP is communicated to partners through an Expansion Memorandum of Understanding Letter that is issued to local partners in April of each year. It includes a description of the service expansion for each of the three fiscal years, total annual hours and vehicles required, associated cost estimates and infrastructure requirements to enable the expansion to occur. It is important to note that expansion hours could be used not only for increased service levels (increased frequency, service span or coverage), but also for addressing issues of reliability and on-time performance.

Figure 1: Annual Partner Communication – Key Processes

In 2015/16 there was no provincial funding for transit expansion and this has continued into 2016/17 for conventional service. However, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) recently announced that funding would be available for conventional transit expansion in 2017/18 and 2018/19. As a result, BC Transit is now commencing the TIP process for the next 3 year budget (2017-20) and engaging local government partners in understanding their expansion funding requests. The TIP process and how it integrates in other communications between BC Transit and local partners is identified in Figure 1.

Attachment A

7

Sunshine Coast Transit System: Expansion Options 30 March 2016

2/5

2.0 Service Expansion Background

The Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan was approved in January 2014, with considerable public involvement, key stakeholder engagement and commitment by BC Transit, Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD), The District of Sechelt, and the Town of Gibsons. This strategic plan outlines the vision for the Sunshine Coast transit system over the next 25 years, including the future transit network and describes the priorities, infrastructure and investment needed to get there. Appendix A provides a summary of the Transit Future Plan service priorities required to achieve the future transit network.

Since the plan’s approval, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) has been keen to see progress towards the plan’s implementation and has committed resources to the short term priorities. Table 1 outlines the service improvements and priorities that have been implemented to date.

Table 1: Transit Service Improvements since approval of the Transit Future Plan, January 2014

In Service Date

Service Improvement Annual Hours

Estimated Rides per Hour

Additional Vehicles

Oct 2013 Restructure riders guide to split route 1 into Route 1 and Route 90 (express)

0 10 0

Jun 2014 TFP Quick Win 2: Provide limited service to the Botanical Gardens by bringing buses into service on trips departing and returning to the operating facility

140 2 0

Sep 2014 TFP Quick Win 1: West Sechelt Coverage – restructure Rt. 2 and Rt. 4 to more comprehensively serve West Sechelt

340 18 0

Sep 2014 TFP Service Priority 1 – Part 1 - Add hours to Route 90 to increase frequency of service via North Road.

2,500 28 1 Heavy Duty

Sep 2014 TFP Service Priority 2 - Improve connections from West Sechelt to the Arena and from Halfmoon bay and West Sechelt to Gibsons and Langdale

0 0 0

Total additional hours and vehicles 2980 1

3.0 Future Service Expansion Options

In 2015, the SCRD indicated a strong desire to continue investing in the transit service. However, in the absence of provincial expansion funding, the priorities identified for 2015 onwards were put on hold. Given the recent MOTI announcement that provincial funding would be available for transit expansion in 2017/18 and 2018/19, BC Transit has provided two expansion options for the Sunshine Coast Transit system based upon previous expansion requests. These are outlined in Table 2 below.

8


3/5

Table 2: Sunshine Coast Transit Expansion Options for 3 year expansion letters 2017-20

Expansion Option 1

Fiscal Year

Annual Hours


Estimated Total Costs**(includes

SCRD non-shareable costs)

Estimated Revenue*


Est. Net Municipal share (includes SCRD non-

shareable costs)

17/18 6,370 6 Med Duty $802,700 $98,400 $263,600 $440,700

TFP Service Priority 1– Rte. 90: 30min frequency at peak, Rte. 1 (&5) hourly service

18/19

2,100 1 Light Duty $264,000 $29,300 $100,900 $133,800


19/20

200 None $20,600 $3,400 $8,900 $8,300


840 1 Light Duty $124,400 $3,900 $40,400 $80,100


Expansion Option 2

Fiscal Year

Annual Hours


Estimated Total Costs**(includes

SCRD non-shareable costs)

Estimated Revenue*


Est. Net Municipal share (includes SCRD non-

shareable costs)

17/18 2,000 1 Heavy Duty $260,700 $30,900 $82,700 $147,100

Part of TFP Service Priority 1 - Additional trips on Route 90

18/19 4,370

6 Med duty - 1 Heavy duty

$542,000 $67,500 $180,900 $293,600

Remainder of TFP Service Priority 1– Rte. 90: 30min frequency at peak, Rte. 1 (&5) hourly service

19/20

2,100 1 Light Duty $264,000 $29,300 $100,900 $133,800


200 None $20,600 $3,400 $8,900 $8,300


840 1 Light Duty $124,400 $3,900 $40,400 $80,100


Revenue and cost information are high level estimates based upon planning work and previous expansion MOU and will be finalized by BC Transit finance department for inclusion in the Transit Expansion MOU letters. * 60% of estimated ridership and revenue based upon first year of expansion ** Costs shown do not include Provincial contribution to Lease Fees

9


4/5

4.0 Recommendation

BC Transit recommends including the expansion items identified in Option 1 as part of the 2017-20 three year service Transit Improvement Program (TIP) expansion memorandum of understanding (MOU) letter for the Sunshine Coast. Should the SCRD approve moving forwards with this option, the next step would be for BC Transit finance department to update cost and revenue estimates and issue these as part of the TIP MOU letter to the SCRD by the end of April 2016.

It should be noted that the earliest in service date for any 2017/18 expansion requiring vehicles would be September 2017 due to the time required for vehicle procurement. In order for this to occur and fleet business cases to be approved, the local government partner TIP MOU must be returned by mid-May 2016 in comparison to the usual timeline of August 2016. Should the expansion be delayed until early 2018, the TIP MOU deadline of August 2016 outlined in Figure 1 would remain valid.

10


5/5

APPENDIX A: Summary of Sunshine Coast Transit Future Service Priorities

11



AUTHOR: Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services

SUBJECT: PACIFIC FERRIES APPLICATION FOR USE OF SCRD DOCKS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Pacific Ferries Application for Use of SCRD Docks be received; AND THAT the application be denied with respect to a non-permitted land use under Section 1200.1 of Bylaw 310.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD received written request from Pacific Ferries to utilize Hopkins Landing Dock for “stop and go” service to Horseshoe Bay (Attachment A) on February 18, 2016, and the completed Schedule C, Bylaw No. 518 Monthly/Annual Wharfage License Agreement form on March 1, 2016.

Bylaw No. 518 regulates the docks operated by the SCRD, with the exception of Langdale Dock which is by separate bylaw.

Bylaw No. 518 specifies the following requirement concerning commercial use of docks:

21. No person shall conduct any business on a dock unless authorized by the Board and unless that person obtains and pays for a license in accordance with SCRD practices and local land use regulation.

The current wharfage fee for business users is $250 per year.

Pacific Ferries has also submitted a request to utilize Langdale Dock for similar purposes on February 18, 2016. SCRD staff forwarded the request to BC Ferries on February 19, 2016, for review and acceptance as it would require adjustments to the SCRD’s operating agreement with BC Ferries. Staff are still awaiting a response from BC Ferries before moving the Langdale Dock application forward.

DISCUSSION

As outlined in their letter, Pacific Ferries is requesting “stop and go drop off” at Hopkins Landing Dock for 10 minutes at a time, twice daily. Their letter further states that they will be requesting their customers to be dropped off and picked up in order to minimize parking congestion in the area fronting the dock.

The intended use of the dock is aligned with Bylaw No. 518, however, Hopkins Landing Dock is zoned Water One (W1) under SCRD Zoning Bylaw No. 310.

Annex B

12


Pacific Ferries Application to Use Hopkins Landing Dock Page 2 of 2

2016-APR-07 ISC rpt Pacific Ferries Application to use Hopkins Landing Dock2016-APR-07 ISC rpt Pacific Ferries Application to use Hopkins Landing Dock

Section 1200.1 of Bylaw 310 states that in the W1 zone the following and no other uses are permitted:

a) one mooring facility for pleasure craft, which is auxiliary to a residential use located on the adjacent upland parcel;

b) one mooring facility for one non-pleasure craft, which is auxiliary to the principal use of the adjacent upland parcel;

c) public boat ramp for launching and removal of marine craft;

d) park;

During review of a similar request from Coastal Link Ferries in January, 2010, it was determined that the applicable land use regulations do not allow a regular commercial ferry service from Hopkins Landing Dock, leading to the following resolution that was adopted at the January 28, 2010 regular Board meeting:

036/10 Recommendation No. 2 Coastal Link

THAT staff contact Coastal Link Ferries to explain that due to zoning restrictions they would not be eligible for a permit to use the Hopkins Landing Dock for a commercial passenger ferry service;

In order to permit commercial ferry use of Hopkins Landing Dock, the dock would require rezoning to Water Two (2) under SCRD Zoning Bylaw No. 310. Planning staff will follow up with Pacific Ferries to better explain Section 1200.1 of Bylaw 310 and the rezoning process. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

N/A

CONCLUSION

In a thorough review of the file, Pacific Ferries’ request to utilize Hopkins Landing Dock for “stop and go” drop off of passengers requires a two-step approval processes of both the use of the dock under Dock Regulation Bylaw 518 and the permitted land regulations uses under Zoning Bylaw No. 310.

Staff will follow up with Pacific Ferries with respect to the permitted land uses and the rezoning process should the applicants wish to apply to rezone the lands.

Staff recommend the application, as presented in the Attachment, be denied.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – BS Legislative X-AL CAO X – JL Other X - SO

13

Pacific Ferries Inc11130-158Th Street Surrey, BC, V4N 5B4

ATTN: Sunshine Coast Regional District

RE: Stop and go drop off at Hopkins Landing

To Whom it may Concern:

My name is Linda Feuerhelm and I am the Operations Manager at Pacific Ferries. Our goal is to increase the quality of life for Sunshine Coast residents. In doing so we’ve opened a new ferry service from Horseshoe Bay to Gibsons Landing.

We would like to include trips to Hopkins Landing and possibly branch out later on. The goal is to connect the coastal communities easily and do less impact to the environment. Currently we have one vessel, which is holds 46 passengers and 2 crew, it’s 41’ long and 15’ wide. The Coastal Clipper is Transport Canada safety certified. Our company is insured for $150 million in liability as well.

We would like to expand our runs at some point to include Hopkins in the upcoming months, to allow ease of travel for many tourists and commuters who may visit the area.

I had read through the requirements of the bylaw previously and just to confirm we will be respectful of the Hopkins dock, we will not be mooring there, in fact we do not intend to be there late or for more than 10 minutes (at max). We do not leave garbage or damage the dock in anyway nor do we conduct business on it. Our impact on the residents is to be minimal, no traffic on land, we've requested any persons being dropped there to be picked up or we have arranged pick up for them to minimize congestion in the area.

We plan to use it for stop and go, but have no intentions of making it a permanent resting place for the Coastal Clipper. Our intention is not even to use it regularly at this time because of the amount of fuel it costs to drop and go.

What we would like is permission to stop twice daily for no more than 10 minutes.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may provide. Sincerely,

Linda FeuerhelmOperations and Safety ManagerPacific Ferries778-866-5107

Attachment A

14



AUTHOR: Bryan Shoji, General Manager Infrastructure Services

SUBJECT: MCNEILL AND HARRIS LAKES – VESSEL OPERATION RESTRICTION REGULATION

(VORR) APPLICATION UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled “McNeill and Harris Lakes – Vessel Operation Restriction Regulation (VORR) Application Update” be received; AND THAT the SCRD abandon the VORR application process for McNeill and Harris Lakes.

BACKGROUND

In July 2012, the SCRD received a complaint of a seaplane landing and taking off in Garden Bay Lake. This incident led to the following resolution that was adopted at the September 13, 2012, regular Board meeting:

328/12 23 THAT the SCRD pursue methods to designate the surface of lakes used as a drinking water source in the region as no landing zones.

A staff report titled “Motor Craft Restrictions on Drinking Water Lakes” was provided to the February 7, 2013 Infrastructure Services Committee. That report resulted in the following resolution from the regular Board meeting of February 14, 2013:

050/13 12 THAT the SCRD apply to add the following water bodies to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulation to prevent the use of non-electric motorized vehicles and seaplanes on the water surface: Chapman Lake, Edwards Lake, McNeil Lake, Harris Lake.

A staff report titled “Lake Restrictions – Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations” was provided to the September 4, 2014 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting, leading to the following resolution that was adopted at the September 11, 2014, regular Board meeting:

455/14 Recommendation No. 13 Lake Restrictions – Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations

THAT the General Manager Infrastructure Services’ report dated August 5, 2014 titled “Lake Restrictions – Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations” be received;

AND THAT Chapman and Edwards Lakes be excluded from the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulation process as vessels are already restricted within the Class A Provincial Park;

Annex C

15


McNeill and Harris Lakes – VORR Application Update Page 2 of 3

2016-APR-07 ISC rpt McNeill and Harris Lakes VORR Application Update

AND THAT the process to add McNeill and Harris Lakes to the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations be considered for the 2015 workplan.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulation (VORR) application status and provide options to move forward.

DISCUSSION

As part of the VORR requirements, the SCRD held an open house on July 21, 2015, at the Pender Harbour School of Music at 7 p.m. to discuss options to protect the drinking water quality from seaplane activity in both McNeill and Harris Lakes. One person attended the session and supported the application.

The VORR application was submitted to Transport Canada on December 10, 2015.

SCRD staff met with Transport Canada staff on February 23, 2016, to discuss the VORR application and were informed that seaplanes were not covered under the VORR, which was contrary to previous correspondence. This new information means that the application cannot go forward as prepared.

During the meeting, Transport Canada staff also outlined the significant requirements that need to be completed should the SCRD want to further pursue the VORR application, which is captured in a hand-delivered letter of the same date. (Attachment A). Substantial analysis and intensive public consultation will be required to move forward with a motorized vessel restriction (boats only) application. According to Transport Canada staff, this option could take as long as ten years to complete.

It is noted that SCRD has not received any complaints of either seaplane or motorized vessels on McNeill or Harris Lakes and no further noted complaints on Garden Bay Lake since 2012.

Options and Analysis

1. Abandon the VORR application process for McNeill and Harris Lakes.

2. Resubmit the VORR application with an emphasis on restricting motorized vessels on McNeill and Harris Lakes.


The VORR application will require the following to be completed prior to the application:

a. An environmental impact assessment (risk analysis). Projected cost - $16,000 based on the 2007 Triton report;

b. Source Assessment Response Plan (SARP). Projected cost – $53,000 based on the Chapman Creek SARP 2011;

c. Extensive Public Consultation with stakeholders and Sechelt First Nation;

d. Cost-benefit analysis of regulatory intervention.

16


McNeill and Harris Lakes – VORR Application Update Page 3 of 3

2016-APR-07 ISC rpt McNeill and Harris Lakes VORR Application Update

Total cost is projected to be in excess of $75,000.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

Supports the Embed Environmental Stewardship Strategy priority.

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend Option 1, abandoning the VORR application for McNeill and Harris Lakes due to the low risk and high cost associated with pursuing the motorized vessel restriction application at this time.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - BS Legislative CAO X - JL Other

17

Attachment A

18

19

20



AUTHOR: Bryan Shoji, General Manager Infrastructure Services

SUBJECT: MANAGED FOREST COUNCIL SURVEY

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Managed Forest Council Survey be received for information.

BACKGROUND

The following resolution was adopted at the regular Board meeting of March 10, 2016:

119/16 Recommendation No. 7 Managed Forest Council Survey Request

THAT the report titled “Managed Forest Council Survey Request” be received;

AND THAT staff be authorized to complete the technical survey on behalf of the SCRD;

AND THAT the SCRD Board receive the survey prior to submission;

AND FURTHER THAT at a future date, the Board could consider sending additional correspondence to the Managed Forest Council.

DISCUSSION

The completed survey for water license holders within and adjacent to private managed forest land is attached (Attachment A) for Committee’s and the public’s information. Should the Committee wish, the SCRD Board could consider sending additional correspondence to the Managed Forest Council to express concerns and, that staff recommend it be separate from this technical survey submission.


N/A

Annex D

21


Managed Forest Council Survey Page 2 of 2

2016-APR-07 ISC report Managed Forest Council Survey

CONCLUSION

Engineering staff completed the attached technical survey to be submitted to the Managed Forest Council.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – BS Legislative CAO X-JL Other

22

✔

Comments are specific to the Chapman Creek municipal water supply system.

Screened water intake at Chapman Creek weir structure, with in-linesedimentation box downstream of intake.

Attachment A

23

✔

✔

4554

4

4

✔

✔

54

Yes. CNI Ltd. contravention 2007. AJB harvesting Fall 2014.

4

24

✔

Yes. Require mandatory notification and public information process of anyplanned harvesting activity within a LWI catchment. Shift onus of proof of fromthe licenced waterworks to the PMFL owner, demonstrating that the activity onthe PMFL does not reduce water quality and require mandatory water qualitymonitoring programs to be in place.

No significant changes in water chemistry. Severity of turbidity events may beincreasing - need to carry out detailed trend analysis.

Yes. All land use activity within the community watershed is of concern, withspecific interest in mining, recreational use and land development.

25



AUTHOR: Robyn Cooper, Manager of Waste Reduction and Recovery

SUBJECT: ECO-FEE RESERVE EXPENDITURES

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Eco-Fee Reserve Expenditures be received for information.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to provide the expenditures to date for the Zero Waste Operating Reserve, commonly referred to as Eco-Fee Reserve, as per the resolution that was adopted at the Regular Board meeting on March 24, 2016:

154/16 Recommendation No. 30 Eco-Fees

The Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommend that staff report to a future Infrastructure Services Committee meeting regarding how eco fees have been expended to date and how these fees are assisting the diversion of waste.

DISCUSSION

Eco-Fee Reserve History

In 2011, during the development of the SCRD’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), it was recognized that to implement the twenty-four initiatives identified in the SWMP and to achieve the stated diversion target of 65%-69% by 2016, additional funds and staffing resources were required.

To create an additional funding source, an “Eco-Fee Reserve” with a funding model of $5 per tonne of the tipping fees from municipal solid waste (MSW) was adopted by the Board as per resolution 440/11.

To support the implementation of the SWMP, a new permanent position (Zero Waste Coordinator) was approved by the Board in 2012 (resolution 143/12) and is funded 50% from Eco-Fee Reserves (resolution 395/12). The remaining portions of the position is funded 40% from Regional Solid Waste [350] and 10% from Refuse Collection [355].

Additionally, on November 22, 2012, the Eco-Fee Reserve was adopted as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zero Waste Initiatives Operating Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 670, 2012” included as Attachment A.

Annex E

26


Eco-Fee Reserve Expenditures Page 2 of 4

2016 APR ISC Staff Report Eco Fee Reserve Expenditures

Eco-Fee Reserve Expenditures to Date

The initial contribution included the balance of 2010 landfill surplus combined with tipping fee revenue for a total amount of $100,000 (resolution 145/11).

Expenditures from the Eco-Fee Reserve commenced in 2013 with funds being directed to the staff position (from 2013 onwards) and to help fund a landfill deficit experienced that year (resolution 179/14).

In addition to the annual contribution to the staff position, the following expenditures from the Eco-Fee Reserve were realized in 2014, 2015 and budgeted for 2016:

In 2014, funds were allocated to conduct a waste composition study of municipal solid waste (MSW) originating from the single family residential collection services on the Sunshine Coast disposing at the Sechelt Landfill. Also in 2014, funds were directed towards the design costs for the Pender Harbour Transfer Station.

In 2015, a waste composition study of MSW disposed of in the roll-off bins at the Sechelt Landfill and Pender Harbour Transfer Station and the Waste Reduction Initiatives Program were funded.

For 2016, the budget includes a carry-forward from 2015 for the final payment towards the waste composition study (of the roll-off bins) and continuation of funds towards the Waste Reduction Initiatives Program.

Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the revenues and expenditures of the Eco-Fee Reserve to date.

Table 1 – Eco-Fee Reserve Fund Balance

Eco-Fee Reserve Budget

2016 Actual 2015

Actual 2014

Actual 2013

Actual 2012

Actual 2011

Opening Balance $159,040 $157,920 $168,041 $160,206 $100,000 - Contributions

Eco Fees $56,000 $59,053 $58,911 $55,923 $59,927 $32,208 Tipping Fees $67,792 Interest Earned $2,911 $3,806 $2,206 $279 Expenditures -$45,556 -$60,844 -$72,838 -$50,294 - - Reserve Fund Balance $169,484 $159,040 $157,920 $168,041 $160,206 $100,000

*Dollar values have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

27




Table 2 – Eco-Fee Reserve Expenditures

Expenditures Budget

2016 Actual 2015

Actual 2014

Actual 2013

Actual 2012

Waste Reduction Initiatives Program $5,000 $5,000

Waste Composition Study [350] $1,789 $28,211 $26,520

Pender Harbour Transfer Station Design [351] $9,000 -

Revenue Shortfall/Deficit - $30,432 - Coordinator 50% of Wages [350] $38,767 $27,633 $37,318 $19,862 -

Project Funding Commitment Totals

$45,556 $60,844 $72,838 $50,294 -

*Dollar values have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

Eco-Fee Reserve and Assisting Waste Diversion

Waste diversion is increasing the amount of materials that are recovered to be reused or recycled which reduces the demand for raw natural resources and saves landfill space for materials that have no other disposal option.

Coordinator Position The Coordinator is integral to the Solid Waste team and assisted in the development of:

SCRD-MMBC Contract Curbside Recycling Request for Proposal Recycling Depot Contracts in Gibsons, Sechelt and Pender Harbour Close Sechelt Recycling Depot and re-open at Salish Soils Green Waste Request for Proposal Illegal Dumping Collaborative Meetings Waste Composition Studies Waste Reduction Initiatives Program

Additionally, the position coordinates two of the core Solid Waste programs: the Islands Clean Up and the Backroads Trash Bash. The Islands Clean Up assists in the diversion of waste by offering island residents the opportunity to conveniently recycle items such as metal, furniture and household recyclables. Every year a rotating “special” item is collected for recycling, for example, paint, batteries or propane tanks. The Backroads Trash Bash raises community awareness of the impacts of illegal dumping and reinforces it as socially unacceptable behavior and encourages responsible disposal and recycling. Borne from success of the Backroad Trash Bash, has been the creation of an informal region-wide, inter-agency group who meet annually to collaborate on combating illegal dumping on the Sunshine Coast.

For outreach and education, staff hosts information booths about recycling and composting at community events, organizes events for Compost Awareness Week and Waste Reduction Week and creates print and social media campaigns related to waste reduction, diversion and recycling that support SCRD programs and services including the three recycling depots.

Waste Composition Studies In the SWMP, waste composition study results from the Powell River Regional District were

28




used in lieu of SCRD data. Waste composition studies inform waste reduction and diversion programming and are utilized to measure and track effectiveness over time. With the two waste composition studies that were completed in 2014 and 2015, the SCRD has a baseline for future comparison and analysis. As well, the results identified the top materials being disposed which could be targeted for increased diversion efforts.

Waste Reduction Initiatives Program The purpose of the Waste Reduction Initiatives Program (WRIP) is to fund projects that contribute to waste reduction and diversion that may otherwise not proceed or proceed with a smaller scope. Community groups and non-profit organizations, including school groups are eligible to apply. The results from the 2015 WRIP, which will include a variety of measurables, will be available by the end of 2016.

SWMP Initiatives Next Steps

In order to direct where Solid Waste staff should focus efforts in 2016 and beyond, an implementation schedule for the SWMP initiatives was developed and adopted in December 2015 (resolution 447/15). The resolution also included preparing a 2016 budget proposal for an organics management strategy.

As part of the 2016 budget process, the development of an organics management strategy funded from 2015 surplus was approved (084/16). Once developed, the organics management strategy, which will include options and financial implications, will be brought forward to the Board for consideration. The Eco-Fee Reserve may be a proposed source of funding for implementing aspects of the strategy.


Strategic Plan

Strategic Priority: Ensure Fiscal Sustainability The Eco-Fee Reserve expenditures to date align with ensuring fiscal sustainability and are within the approved use as per Bylaw 670.

Solid Waste Management Plan

The Eco-Fee Reserve was created to support the implementation of the initiatives in the SWMP.

CONCLUSION

The Eco-Fee Reserve has been expended to date as per applicable bylaws and approval from the Board since its inception. The Eco-Fee Reserve has funded waste composition studies, setting the baseline for future comparison and analysis; funded the Waste Reduction Initiatives Program, assisting community driven projects; and assisted with the implementation of the MMBC depot recycling services, illegal dumping programming, and other solid waste programs.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance X-TP GM X – BS Legislative CAO X - JL Other

29

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

BYLAW NO. 670

A BYLAW TO ESTABLISH AN OPERATING RESERVE FUNDFOR ZERO WASTE INITIATIVES

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 814 of the Local GovernmentAct, the Board of the Regional Districtmay, by bylaw, establish a reserve fund under Section 188 of the Community Charter;

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled,enacts as follows:

1. The Bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zero Waste InitiativesOperating Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 670, 2012”.

2. There shall be and is hereby established a reserve fund to be known as the Zero WasteInitiatives Operating Reserve Fund (the “Reserve Fund”).

3. Money from current revenues or, as available, from General revenue surplus, or asotherwise provided in the Local Government Act, may from time to time, be paid into theReserve Fund.

4. The monies set aside shall be deposited in a separate account, and until required to beexpended, may be invested in the manner provided by the Local Government Act.

5. Monies in the Reserve Fund shall only be used for:

a) Unanticipated expenditures for operations;b) Funding one time projects;c) Mitigation of sudden and marked increases to taxation and/or fees.

READ A FIRST TIME this 22nd day of November, 2012

READ A SECOND TIME this 22nd day of November, 2012

READ A THIRD TIME this 22nd day of November, 2012

ADOPTED this 22 day of November, 2012

CHAIR’

Attachment A

30



AUTHOR: Angie Legault, Manager of Legislative Services

SUBJECT: VAUCROFT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REQUEST FOR BOUNDARY EXTENSION

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Vaucroft Improvement District Request for Boundary Extension be received; AND THAT the Vaucroft Improvement District and the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development be advised that the SCRD has no objection to a boundary extension that includes Lots 46 and 47 only.

BACKGROUND

Improvement Districts are local authorities responsible for providing services for the benefit of residents within the community. The Vaucroft Improvement District (VID) located on North Thormanby Island has the authority to provide parks and waterworks services and is interested in pursuing a boundary extension to include three adjacent parcels - Lots 46 and 47, as well as an undeveloped parcel referred to as “Park” on the 1928 subdivision plan.

VID has stated that the purpose of the expansion is to provide stewardship and manage the land as a fragile coastal sand ecosystem. Correspondence from the Improvement District requesting SCRD comment is attached.

DISCUSSION

The proposed expansion area is adjacent to the SCRD owned Vaucroft dock and the narrow road servicing the dock. An additional “road” exists on the “Park” property which provides access to upland parcels and is used as a transfer point for barges and large loads such as rock and cement, as well as large trucks and machinery. The Vaucroft dock was not designed to accommodate substantial construction loads. Use of the dock for such purposes has already been identified as a concern; however given its location, the SCRD has limited ability to monitor and ensure proper dock use. Removal or restriction of the informal road would increase pressure on the Vaucroft dock to service heavier loads. A secondary concern relates to boat storage and/or moorage. If “boat storage” on the beach was prohibited, it is unlikely that the existing float could accommodate the overflow, again restricting public access unless alternatives were provided. Normally an Improvement District would not have the authority to regulate or oversee land use on Crown land or the foreshore; however Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development

Annex F

31

Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee – April 7, 2016

Vaucroft Improvement District Request for Boundary Extension Page 2 of 3

2016-Apr ISC report Vaucroft Improvement District

staff have advised that this authority could be included in the Supplementary Letters Patent authorizing a boundary expansion. Options and Analysis Option 1 – support a boundary expansion to part of the proposed area, namely Lots 46 and 47

The informal road and barge access site provides a valuable service to the community and removal of this access point would have a negative impact on the SCRD’s Vaucroft dock. This option is seen as a compromise that would preserve public access and protect an SCRD asset.

Option 2 - support boundary expansion subject to maintaining existing informal road and barge access on the “Park” property

This option does not prevent the VID from seeking regulatory authority that would negatively impact Vaucroft dock and access to the island.

Option 3 – support boundary expansion

This option does not recognize the negative impact on an important community asset (Vaucroft dock) or on inland property owners.

Option 4 – object to boundary expansion

Staff are not aware of a reason to completely reject the proposed expansion provided that SCRD and community interests are protected.


The proposed boundary extension would not have a financial impact in relation to property taxation; however if ownership of Lots 46 and 47 was transferred to the Improvement District, the properties would be exempt. Currently, these properties pay the same rates as those paid by all other Area B Island properties.

The cost and feasibility of upgrading the Vaucroft dock to accommodate the heavier loads has not been investigated.

Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has indicated that the access point in the “Park” is required for road maintenance purposes (e.g. equipment, gravel) and that there is currently no alternative access point for barge loads. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

VID’s stated intent to provide stewardship of a coastal sand ecosystem is consistent with the SCRD’s value of ‘Environmental Leadership’. This value should be considered in conjunction with community need as Island residents would have their current level of access significantly reduced unless the informal road were to be replaced by some other direct access to land beyond. Removal of the informal road would also increase pressure on the Vaucroft dock to service heavier loads.

32

Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee – April 7, 2016

Vaucroft Improvement District Request for Boundary Extension Page 3 of 3

2016-Apr ISC report Vaucroft Improvement District

CONCLUSION

The informal road and barge access site provides a valuable service to the community and removal of this access point would have a negative impact on the SCRD’s Vaucroft dock. Staff recommend supporting a partial boundary extension (Lots 46 and 47 only) in order to preserve public access and protect an SCRD asset.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance X-TP GM X-SO Legislative X-AL CAO X-JL Other X-GD

33

MAR - ‘i 2016

s.C.R.D.FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CC: JANETTE LOVEYS

The purpose of this letter is to ask SCRD for its support of a potential application nyVaucroft Improvement District for a boundary extension on North ThormanbyIsland.

Three years ago, Vaucroft Improvement District (VID) formed a Select Committee toexamine the feasibility of extending its boundaries to include Lots 46 & 47, PlanLMP35430, DL1O17, Group 1, NWLD and the adjacent Park, owned by the Provinceof BC.

Advisory Services in Victoria has agreed in principle that extending theImprovement District’s boundary around the private parcels and Park meets thegeographical conditions for boundary extension and is consistent with VID’s LettersPatent. Written confirmation from SCRD that it has no objection is also required. It isimportant to note that the Province permanently owns the Park. VID’s interest is forstewardship purposes so that the Park and private Lots can be managed as one unit— a fragile coastal sand ecosystem under threat (SCCPJ.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, when Lots 46 & 47 came on the open market a group of 15 propertyowners purchased the two lots for conservation purposes to keep the land in itsnatural foreshore state. The stated intention was not to hold the land privately inthe long term but instead to find a way to protect it for generations to come asconservation land, along with the adjacent Park that belongs to the Province.

In looking at various options, our Committee has concluded that the ImprovementDistrict effectively a level of provincial government but more local than theRegional District, is the most promising management structure for the stewardshipof the foreshore land.

In 2014, we polled the Lot 46 & 47 owners and a majority (13/15)* not onlysupported petitioning VID for a boundary extension but also indicated that theywould be willing to donate the private lots to VID, with a conservation covenant inplace.

*majoriw, not 100%, is required for boundary extension.

SOUTH COAST CONSERVATION PROGRAM

While working on our own plans for conservation, it came to our attention that SCCP(www.sccp.ca) was already identifying this section of foreshore land as one of themost important examples of endangered coastal sand ecosystems on BC’s southcoast. We have been working collaboratively with Tamsin Baker over several years

2,2016

MAR ü 7 wü

• ‘ FOFFICsn

Attachment A

34

(J:.I MARCH 2,2016

-

I’

now to remove Scotch broom from the Park and private lots. Boat storage at thehigh water mark is an ever-increasing problem and is contra-indicated on sandecosystems. As things stand now, we have no proper channel on the Island toaddress this issue with Islanders who store their boats there.

North Thormanby has not escaped intense development pressure over the last 15years. In contravention to Islands Trust zoning By-laws for Parks, a road has beencarved through the Park and is used year-round for the delivery of buildingmaterials, heavy machinery, propane and septic trucks. Because the precedent is setand the area is unmanaged, some Islanders also drive back and forth to the beachvia the Park instead of using the original road. The enclosed aerial photo (2004)does not reflect the full extent of the Park road adjacent to the boundary of Lot 47and running parallel to the traditional Highways road,

CONCLUSION

We are happy to provide SCRD with any further history or information that youmight require in order to decide whether you would back the ImprovementDistrict’s boundary extension as outlined above.

If at all possible, we would like to hear back from you before Vaucroft ImprovementDistrict’s Annual General Meeting on April 26, 2016.

SUSAN BARTON ROPCHAN [email protected]

1-604-218-6661 or 1-604-922-2207

KARL GUSTAVSON

1-604-926-1649

Co-Chairs ofBoundary Extension Select Committee

Vaucroft Improvement District

35

S..4

•

iitj

I

36

37

: 4‘I

—..f:t.—

-•;1

I—

‘S

38

St Co,South Coast Conservation Program

L www.sccp.ca

D Facilitating projects and activities to protect and restore species and

•

ecological communities at risk on B.C.’s South Coast

°rogra’’

This document provides guidance on stewardship for coastal sand ecosystems and does not replace or

ensure compliance with any and all regulatory or legislative requirements. Land-use management decisions

should be made in accordance with all applicable local, provincial and federal regulations in concert with the

expert advice of a qualified, properly skilled professional.

Habitat restoration projects can be complex. This guide is not a substitute for the expertise of experienced

professionals and practitioners. For assistance, consult professional organizations like the College of Applied

Biology. https://www.cab-bc.org/.

Additional funding to support the work of the SCCP’s Coastal Sand Ecosystem Project was made possible

through the National Conservation Plan/Federal Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk.

I mhz prr>ccl waz brd:rtwn wit’ me I ychad ,.oofl

of Ii, Go,,iwtwiit oI Cwjia.L.C rwr+t tI ih.tz w: rNipi tnnclc,

clu uouvtni,w,Ie,n Ut Ca,iud,.

NAIIUNAL ,‘ PLAH

NATIONAl

i_I l’Icanada

www.5ccfl.ca [email protected]

39

Table of Contents

Introduction

Thonnanby Island Coastal Sand Ecosystem Locations

Significant Coastal Sand Ecosystem Ecological Features of Vaucroft 2

Guidelines for Managing the Coastal Sand Ecosystems of Vaucroft 4

Minimize human impacts 4

I-low to control Scotch broom 5

References 5

Figure 1: Map of Vaucrofi community showing main location of the coastal sand ecosystems 2Figure 2; Large-headed sedge 3Figure 3: Dune wildrye - beach pea ecological community 4Figure 4: Scotch broom 5

11

wwwsccmca. infoscpca

40

Introduction

Scattered along the South Coast of BC are unique sand ecosystems made up of a combination of sand

and plants —with the plants in patches on beaches, spits and dunes. Tides, storm surges and ocean

spray help to build and maintain these ecosystems. These areas support several provincially red-listed

(endangered) ecological communities. As well, the plant communities that result support a range of

rare and interesting animal life. The cabins of the community of Vaucroft on North Thormanby Island

are located on or adjacent to such an ecosystem.

Coastal sand ecosystems are important as they contribute to BC’s biodiversity, provide recreational

benefits for outdoor enthusiasts and buffer inland areas from flooding or storm damage. On BC’s

South Coast, coastal sand ecosystems are found in a few areas. Savary and the Thormanby Islands

have the best examples on the Sunshine Coast. In the Lower Mainland, the main locations are lona

Beach (Richmond) and Boundary Bay (Delta).

It is estimated that since the 1930s, about 57% of coastal sand ecosystems have been lost on the South

Coast. This has been due in part to development and vegetation changes. Main threats to coastal sand

ecosystems are invasive plants and changes to sediment transport. Scotch broom (Cystisus scoparius)

is a main cause of vegetation change. English ivy (Hedero helix) is another non-native invasive plant

that can quickly cover large areas.

Thormanby Island Coastal Sand Ecosystem Locations

The Thormanby Islands are located on the Sunshine Coast, just west of Halfmoon Bay. They consist of

two separate islands that are now recently connected due to sand depositions from the nearby bluffs.

These bluffs, some active and some stabilized with forest, are found mostly along the perimeter of

north sections of the island with some in the south section.

There are two coastal sand ecosystem sites on the Thormanby Islands. On the south island, there is Gill

Beach in Buccaneer Bay that has a large sand plain and a salt marsh. Buccaneer Bay also stretches

from Gill Beach north to Buccaneer Bay Provincial Park, managed by BC Parks. Coastal sand

ecosystems are found all along this stretch of Buccaneer Bay.

On the northeastern side of North Thormanby Island is Vaucroft Beach. This area is on a crescent-

shaped sand deposit with a main access dock in the middle. To the south of the dock is the current

access point for unloading barges with vehicles. The coastal sand ecosystem area of interest is

primarily to the south of the dock (See Figure 1).

www. scctLva .

41

Figure 1: Map of Vaucroft community showing main location of the coastal sand ecosystems

Significant Coastal Sand Ecosystem Ecological Features of Vaucroft

There are two red-listed (endangered) ecological communities found in the community of Vaucroft.Ecological communities are ranked by the Province’s Conservation Data Centre. The two rareecological communities are:

• Large-headed sedge• Dune wildrye — Beach pea

The large-headed sedge plant community (Figure 2) is one of the sparser coastal sand ecosystems. InCanada it only occurs within BC’s shorelines. Large-headed sedge (Carex macrocephala) is thedominant plant in this plant community, but other associate species are the dune wildrye (Leymusmollis ssp. moWs), beach pea (Lothryrusjaponicas) and red fescue (Festuca rubra ssp. rubra). Identifiedthreats to the large-headed sedge ecological community are barriers to sand movement, traiTs, footand wheeled vehicle traffic and invasive species.

2

Source: SCCI’ Files

wwwsccn.ca . infoøsccn,

42

The dune wildrye-beach pea ecological community (Figure 3) is often found at the high tide line and

right above it. Active sand movement is common, but when further inland, dune wildrye can provide a

barrier to sand movement. Dune wildrye is the dominant plant. Other plant species include beach

pea, large-hedge sedge, silver burweed (Ambrosia chamissonis) and American searocket (Cakile

edentula). Identified threats for this ecological community are barriers to sand and water movement,

foot and wheeled vehicle traffic and storage of recreational items (such as boats).

Mosses and lichens are also found in coastal sand ecosystems. The Vaucroft area has several moss

species, including the provincially blue-listed (threatened) moss, Homalothecium orenarium.

Federally or provincially-listed species at risk have not yet been recorded. However, since the coastal

sand habitat is similar to other locations along the South Coast and Vancouver Island where various

Species at Risk have been recorded, it is possible that rare species do exist. These may include plants

such as the federally-listed endangered contorted-pod evening-primrose (Camissonia contorta), or rare

invertebrates like the Island Tiger Moth (Grammia complicata) or Edwards’ Beach Moth (Anarta

edwardsii).

Some species of birds use coastal sand areas for feeding and nesting. One species that may be found

on the beaches of the Thormanby Islands is the federally-listed threatened Common Nighthawk

(Chordeiles minor) whose population numbers have been declining.

3

Photo credit: Kyrn Weistead

Figure 2: Large-headed sedge

www,sccflca

43

Guidelines for Managing the Coastal Sand Ecosystems of Vaucroft

Coastal sand ecosystems thrive on natural disturbances, but too much impact from humans isdamaging. The purpose of these guidelines is to outline some practices that will reduce human impactand allow these natural areas to prosper, while still respecting the area as a popular vacation site.

Minimize human impactsStay on existing trails and avoid creating new ones. It is preferable to have a few main pathsthen many small paths. One low-impact way to delineate trails and discourage new ones is toplace driftwood on each side of the path. Boardwalks can impede the natural movement of thesand. If a boardwalk is placed, a raised boardwalk with the minimal width possible ispreferable.

• Pick up after pets. Waste from dogs introduces unwanted nutrients to the sand therebychanging soil composition.

• Keep wheeled vehicles off the beach as much as possible, as these vehicles compact the beach,can introduce invasive species on their tires, and can damage rare plants.

• Avoid playing on, digging into or sliding down steep sand cliffs. This is a hazardous activity asthis can cause large chunks of sand to break loose and possibly cause bodily harm, as well ascause accelerated erosion of the cliffs.

• Remove furniture, boats and structures from the beach during the offseason months to allowfor natural beach processes to occur during the winter storms and high tides.

• Control invasive plants. The most damaging species is Scotch broom (See Figure 4). This plantcan spread rapidly and densely, crowding out native plants and changing soil composition.Scotch broom forms dense thickets and is highly flammable — a definite fire hazard. Its pollencan cause allergic reactions in some people.

• Respect the rare plants in the coastal sand communities. Although large-headed sedge isprickly, please do not pull them as they are an important, rare plant in the environment.

4

Figure 3: Dune wildrye - beach pea ecological community

www.sccr,ca • infp(Wsccp.ca

44

w•i

How to control Scotch broom• Cut “Broom in Bloom” at ground level as low as one can go. If the plant is too big to cut at the

base, cut off all the green branches and/or the yellow flowers before they go to seed.

• Avoid disturbing the soil. This may cause the seeds in the soil to germinate.

• Do not cut when the seedpods form. Moving broom with seedpods can spread the seeds to

uninfested areas.• Stop its advancement. Start by going after new infestations.

• Seeds can last in the soil up to 50 years. Persistence is key. Once an area has been cleared,

return each year to pull up the new seedlings before they create new seedpods.

For more information about coastal sand ecosystems on the South Coast of BC or invasive plant

removal, contact the South Coast Conservation Program. www.sccQ.ca

References

Page, N., P. Lilley, lJ. Walker and KG. Vennesland. 2011. Status report on coastal sand ecosystems in

British Columbia. Report prepared for the Coastal Sand Ecosystems Recovery Team. vii + 83 pp.

Schaefer, C. and N. Page. 2014. Conservation assessment of coastal sand ecosystems in the South Coast

of BC. Unpublished report prepared for BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource

Operations. 70 pp + appendices.

5

Figure 4: Scotch broom

www. Sum Ca •

45


TO: Infrastructure Service Committee – April 7, 2016 Meeting

AUTHOR: Gordon Dykstra, Manager of Transit & Fleet

SUBJECT: RESIGNATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PWAC)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Resignations from the Public Wharves Advisory Committee (PWAC) be received;

AND THAT the PWAC resignations of Nancy Donaldson and Roger Sayer be accepted;

AND FURTHER THAT Ms. Donaldson and Mr. Sayer be thanked for their participation and contribution to PWAC.

BACKGROUND

As per Board resolution 069/16, the Public Wharves Advisory Committee is schedule to be phased out by September 2016.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Donaldson sat on PWAC as a public representative from Keats Island. On February 24, 2016 staff received a letter dated February 22, 2016 advising of Ms. Donaldson’s resignation from PWAC. Ms. Donaldson contributed time and effort to PWAC during her membership on the Committee, including serving as Chair of the Committee during its two most recent terms. Mr. Sayer sat on PWAC as a public representative from Roberts Creek. On February 22, 2016 staff received an email advising of Mr. Sayer’s resignation from PWAC. Mr. Sayer is a Professional Mechanical Engineer with significant marine experience who contributed both knowledge and experience to the Committee. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

The SCRD Strategic Priorities for 2015 to 2019 include the Facilitation of Community Engagement as well the Enhancement of Board Structure and Policies. The Board has directed that staff prepare and implement a public participation plan, which is forthcoming.

CONCLUSION

Staff received the resignation of Ms. Donaldson on February 24, 2016 and of Mr. Sayer on February 22, 2016 and recommend accepting the resignations and sending letters thanking them for their years of service on the Public Wharves Advisory Committee.

Reviewed by: Manager X - GD Finance GM X - BS Legislative CAO X - JL Other

Annex G

46

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 22, 2016

DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITEE MEETING HELD AT CHASTER HOUSE, 1549 OCEAN BEACH ESPLANADE, GIBSONS, BC.

PRESENT Chair Nancy Donaldson

Members Tony Flynn Roger Sayer Russ Spencer Colin Bates Joe Wright ALSO PRESENT Director, West Howe Sound/Area F Ian Winn (in part) General Manager, Infrastructure Services Bryan Shoji Manager of Transit and Fleet Gordon Dykstra Recording Secretary Susan Fernandez REGRETS Member Bruce Wallis

CALL TO ORDER 10: 35 a.m. AGENDA The Agenda was adopted as amended:

Move Item 4 forward when Director Winn arrives. MINUTES The Public Wharves Advisory Committee reviewed the meeting minutes of November 30, 2015, and had the following comments:

Add Committee member “Russ Spencer” as “Absent” on page 1; Correct the spelling of Director “Garry” Nohr on page 1.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS Update Regarding Action Items

SCRD has received Provincial approval for the Camp Artaban Lease Agreement, has notified the camp, and the document will be move forward for signatures.

The Ports Establishment Bylaw was amended and adopted to allow the new rate structure for Ports funding to be finalized, which will come into effect in 2017.

Submitted email requests for dock maintenance have been dealt with. All scheduled dock repairs have been completed with the exception of West Bay, which

is awaiting some final materials. The 2015 Engineering inspections of three docks were completed (Gambier Harbour,

Keats Landing and Vaucroft). Director Winn joined the meeting at 10:42 a.m.

Annex H

47

Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes February 22, 2016 Page 2

COMMUNICATIONS Information and Clarification on phasing out this Committee Director Winn provided an overview and rationale for the Board decision to review all Regional District Advisory Committees and the resulting changes. Points raised by members included:

Thormanby: Many residents using Vaucroft dock live in Vancouver; committee members use the docks more than many summer residents.

Keats: summer residents are not often engaged in attending meetings, and view their representation as being through the committee. There is good communication of members with summer residents via an excellent newsletter and two notice boards.

Gambier: summer residents are vocal regarding issues with committee members, who are also aware of issues. Feedback is less likely without a formal structure.

Risk that islanders would not contact the SCRD to report issues requiring immediate attention; disbanding the committee may be regressive.

Members report back to their communities with updates on maintenance, funding and where tax dollars are being used. Small communities relying heavily on the docks will not be adequately represented without personal attention, and service will be reduced.

It would improve the committee itself to have a representative from each of the islands, recruited through advertising by the SCRD.

Director Winn acknowledged the work of the Committee and encouraged members to communicate with him any ideas for the SCRD to improve community engagement. Mr. Sayer verbally submitted his resignation, and offered his experience as a marine engineer if assistance is needed in the future. Director Winn left the meeting at 11:23 a.m. Recommendation No. 1 Public Wharves Advisory Committee THAT the SCRD not disband the Public Wharves Advisory Committee; AND THAT a concerted effort be made to obtain Public Wharves Advisory Committee representatives for all the SCRD docks, including someone from the Gibsons area. Chair Donaldson commented that the Committee should not plan a further meeting without Board confirmation, and that the SCRD could get back to members individually if they want further input. Mr. Shoji confirmed the minutes of this meeting would go to the Infrastructure Services Committee, and that should the group continue meeting as PWAC, minutes and recommendations would continue to be recognized until formal disbandment.

48

Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes February 22, 2016 Page 3

UNFINISHED BUSINESS A verbal report from Mr. Spencer explained that Coopers Green is no longer available for commercial use, which will result in challenges for Thormanby property owners. Mr. Shoji will relay these concerns to the Parks Services Manager. Mr. Flynn noted there was broken Plexiglas at Keats dock that may be a safety issue, and also that the lead caps have been compromised, which may be a long-term issue. NEXT MEETING To be announced ADJOURNMENT 11:55 a.m.

49

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

February 29, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM OF THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC

PRESENT: Director, Electoral Area E, Chair Lorne Lewis (Voting Members) Director, Electoral Area A Frank Mauro Director, Electoral Area B Garry Nohr Alt. Director, Electoral Area D Michelle Morton Director, Electoral Area F Ian Winn Director, Town of Gibsons Silas White Alt. Director, District of Sechelt Doug Wright Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Don Legault Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Colin Midgeley Trustee, School District No. 46 Pammila Ruth BC Ferries Maureen Donnagh Transportation Choices (TraC) Joe Vector Insurance Corporation of BC Harvey Kooner ALSO PRESENT: Manager, Transit and Fleet Gordon Dykstra (Non-Voting) Parks Planning Coordinator Sam Adams Capilano Highways Tyler Lambert Route 13 Ferry Advisory Committee Joyce Clegg S. Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee Barry Cavens S. Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee Diana Mumford RCMP S/Sgt Vishal Mathura Trustee, Islands Trust/Gambier Local Trust Area Kate-Louise Stamford Councillor, District of Sechelt Mike Shanks Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Jon Hird Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Greg Carter Recorder Diane Corbett Media 1 CALL TO ORDER 10:15 a.m.

AGENDA The amended agenda was adopted as presented.

MINUTES

Recommendation No. 1 Minutes

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the meeting minutes of January 11, 2016 be received.

Annex I

50

Transportation Advisory Committee – February 29, 2016 Page 2 of 3

REPORTS

COMMUNICATIONS

Recommendation No. 2 Reports and Communications

The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the following reports and communications be received:

Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Reports, December of 2015 and January of 2016

Jakob Knaus, Southern Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee, regarding BC Ferries December 2015 Traffic Statistics

Barry Cavens, Southern Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee, regarding BC Ferries Langdale Terminal Berth Maintenance (verbal report)

Hannah Josephson, Terminal Manager, Langdale Terminal, regarding Langdale Terminal Overflow Lot for BC Bike Race on Sunday, July 10, 2016

Janette Loveys, Working Group of the Coastal Regional District Chairs Ferry Group “Draft” Terms of Reference for Input March 2016 (verbal report)

Mr. Cavens announced the Langdale terminal will shut down Berth one, probably starting next January until March. BC Ferries is working on a plan to minimize the impact on service.

Ms. Donnagh explained that this will be a mid-life upgrade and that a few different options are being examined for service. An announcement will be sent as soon as a plan is confirmed.

Director Nohr expanded on the Draft Terms of Reference for the Working Group of the Coastal Regional District Chairs Ferry Group. They will be working with Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Stone; the first meeting will occur in the coming month. The First Nations Summit has joined the Group. The initial focus is anticipated to be the economics for ferry-dependent communities in light of changes by BC Ferries and the provincial government.

ROUNDTABLE

Items and discussion in the roundtable discussion included:

Mr. Kooner will be collaborating with the schools on the ICBC Road Safety school campaign.

Whether paint or rumble strips could be added to improve crossing visibility at the new School Road intersection, as drivers still are not paying attention.

New BC Ferries schedule would be starting in April for the shoulder season, with modified Sundays on at that time (three sailings in the morning).

The new passenger ferry, Pacific Ferries, will start two-way routes on March 1. This initiative is supported by the Town of Gibsons, which has informed Pacific Ferries of possible parking locations for commuters.

51

Transportation Advisory Committee – February 29, 2016 Page 3 of 3

Construction on the Selma Park bus pull out is planned to start by the end of March or early April.

Director Winn will be meeting with Mr. Legault this coming Friday to look at storm water and drainage issues in Area F.

Thormanby Islands will no longer be able to use Cooper’s Green boat launch for industrial movement of goods as of June 1. Director Nohr will be interacting with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as to options.

A consultant contract has been awarded for the Fixed Link Study, and there will be consultations ahead.

A larger public meeting is planned prior to Bike to Work Week, to include a public update on coast-wide active transportation and bike paths. Contact Staff Sam Adams with any questions.

It was noted that the markings indicating “school zone” were not replaced at the top of School Road.

NEXT MEETING May 2, 2016

ADJOURNMENT 10:41 a.m.

52



AUTHOR: Tracey Hincks, Administrative Assistant, Infrastructure Services

SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2016

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Monthly Report for March 2016 be received.

BACKGROUND

This report is prepared monthly as information for the Infrastructure Services Committee.

UTILITIES DIVISION

CHAPMAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT

In February the Chapman Creek Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 321,918m3, 10.21% increase over the five year average. (Extra day in February accounts for 3.77% increase).

SOUTH PENDER WATER TREATMENT PLAN In February the South Pender Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 26,134 m3, a 3.1% increase from last year.

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

700,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flo

w m

3

Chapman Water Treatment Plant Monthly Flow

2012 2015 2016 5-yr average

Annex J

53


Monthly Report for March 2016 Page 2 of 3

I Monthly Report for April

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

2 water meters were installed in the Regional water system in February. 16 water meter setters were installed in various areas of the Regional water

system in February.

CAPITAL WORKS

Skookumchuck Road water main replacement: 95% complete (awaiting paving) Feeney/Trant Road water main replacement: 20% complete (awaiting Squamish

First Nation’s approval) South Pender Chlorine Shed PRV replacement: 100% complete McNeill Lake dam slidegate replacement: 50% complete (awaiting lower water

levels) North Pender Chlorination upgrade: 90% complete Soames Point Reservoir: 20% complete

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AJB Private Managed Forest Land o AJB has completed rough roadwork into the cutblock and have decked

logs along this roadway. More culverts have been installed with sediment controls on the lower road.

o AJB has moved operations to cutblock DR4 located in DL 3373 off the Sechelt Dakota Forest Service Road and are actively logging in this area.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000


Flo

w m

3

South Pender Harbour Water Treatment Plant Monthly Flow

2014 2015 2016

54


Monthly Report for March 2016 Page 3 of 3

I Monthly Report for April

TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES DIVISION

TRANSIT Outreach for Transit Rider Appreciation occurred on March 30th, in the AM and PM peak, including lunch hour visits to Chatelech and Elphinstone Schools. Numerous riders received thanks, treats, Trip Planner instructions and participated in prize draws. Slight schedule changes are being made to HandyDART service beginning May 19th with additional service planned for Friday and Monday, in response to demand. FLEET In February, work included vehicles from the Fire Departments of Gibsons, Sechelt and Pender Harbour for inspection, preventive maintenance and repairs. PORTS West Bay dock repairs were completed in March. Structural repairs were completed on the Gambier float as a result of storm damage to maintain serviceable use of the dock until float replacement later this year.

SOLID WASTE DIVISION

Note: Monthly tonnage includes all material received at Sechelt Landfill and Pender Harbour Transfer Station combined.

0

500

1000

1500

2000


Ton

nag

e

Monthly Landfill Tonnage

2013 2014 2015 2016

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - BS Legislative CAO X- JL Other

55

SORDRRITISI I RECEIVED

Colnlm;\ FEB 252016

CHAIR

February 23, 2016

Garry Nohr, Chair Reference: 253807Sunshine Coast Regional District1975 Field RoadSechelt BC VON 3A1

info(scrd.ca

Dear Chair Nohr:

Re: Expansion of Transit Services

lam writing to update you on the actions that this government has taken in Budget 2016 toenhance transit services across British Columbia by $12.7 million over the next three years. Theseinvestments ensure that B.C. continues to lead the nation in its level of funding support for transitservices and contribute to our goals of increased mobility within and between communities, aswell as contributing to the province’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Over 50 million trips weremade on BC Transit buses last year, and we expect that number to continue to rise as we worktogether to improve and expand services across the province.

Last October, we made amendments to the British Cahimbia Transit Act that ensured that the basefunding provided in Budget 2015 could be used most efficiently. allowing BC Transit and itspartner communities to capitalize on low ftiel prices and reinvest these savings in transit servicesin their communities.

In December, it was my pleasure to announce the live point action plan to improve safety andmobility along Highway 16. As part of this action plan, we will be investing $1.6 million over thenext two years to improve inter-community services along this key northern corridor. We areworking closely with First Nations and local government leaders along Highway 16 to implementthese vital services and hope to have buses on the road as soon as possible.

As well, over the next three years, the Province will be investing an additional $11.1 million to notonly maintain transit and HandyDART services in BC Transit communities, but to increase them.Communities that have made requests to BC Transit in the past for expanded services should behearing from their local transit planners in the near future to discuss their past requests.

‘2

i’ ailing A ddrcss:Ministry o(Transportation ( )fticc nttIicNlinirer li;irlia,iicii[ buildingsand Infrastructure \7tcii na BC V%V I X4

Annex K

56

-7-

Increasing funding is only one side of the equation, however. The Ministry of Finance will soonbe releasing their Crown Agency Review of BC Transit. As I have mentioned in previous letters.my expectation is that this review will contribute to a dialogue amongst the partners in eachcommunity through the identification of revenue opportunities as well as efficiencies, ensuringeach transit community reflects best practices. This review will position the Province,local governments and contracted service providers to play their part in managing costs andoptimizing revenues as local service priorities are considered.

I look forward to working with BC Transit and all its partner communities as we continue toinvest, innovate, and work together to deliver the world-class transit services thatBritish Columbians have come to expect &om us.

Sincerely,

Todd G. StoneMinister

Copy to: Kevin Mahoney, Chair, Board of DirectorsBC Transit

Manuel Achadinha. President and CEOBC Transit

Grant MainDeputy Minister

Lindsay Kislock. Assistant Deputy MinisterPartnerships Department

57

Susan Hunt

Subject: FW: Energy Leadership Workshops after LG Assoc. AGMs

From: Community Energy Association [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: March-15-16 11:26 AMTo: Susan Hunt <[email protected]>Subject: Energy Leadership Workshops after LG Assoc. AGM’s

L[ke 1licct

Click to view this email in a browser

I RECEIVED I

/ MAR75zg (

Community EnergyAssociation

Energy Leadership Workshops for Elected OfficialsFollowing Local Government Association AGM’s

To: Mayor and CouncilElectoral Area Directors

ObjectiveCommunities are engaged in saving energy, emissions, and money in their own

operations helping their residents and businesses to do the same but there is no

specific manual for local government elected officials. The BC Mayors Climate

Leadership Council (BC MCLC) wants to hdp get answers:

1. how are neighboring communities saving energy, emissions, and money iii their

operations?

2. What about commumt -wide?

3• \\T are your neighboring governrnenis doing to recirculate money in the local

ecoomv rather than send it away?

Annex L

58

4. What has mir local government committed to?

BC MCLC is hosting a series of workshops adjacent to various Local Government

Association ACM’S. ‘Chose attending this haff day workshop facilitated by

the Community Energy Association (CEA) xviii walk away with increased

knowiedge of what your peers are doing, identification of opportunities for our

community, an appreciation of the challenges and discuss ways to overcome, and a

network of peers in your region. Those with experience vil1 share it with colleagues.

Invitees

Locally elected officials — Mayors, Councillors, Regiona’ Directors and Staff

Agenda (2.5 hours except NCGLA)

Welcome and introduction to BCMCLC ( mm)

Group introductions and outcome setting (20 nun)Energy Oppoitunth Primer (25 mm)

Strategies for moving forward on climate change (30 mm)

Roundtable sharing current actions / successes and future puìns (25 mm except

NCGLk)

Break ( mm)

Diving deep on topics of interest (to be defined by group) (30 mm)Next steps and commitments (5 nun)

Close and Networking oppoitumb’ ( mm)

Schedule and Registration

Select the appropriate coHierence to register

Conference Location Date Time

AVICC Nanairno Auril 10. I pm-2:2o pm

SILGA Kelowna Apr11 22 1 pm-S:SO pm

AKBLG Kimberlev April29 I prn-%:So pm

NCGT\ Dawson Creek May 6 2 P-4 pm

Additional In fonna tion

2

59

For more information contact David Dubois at dduboiscornmunitvenergy.bc.cu or

250.457.7:31(3.

Cost

Free, thanks to support from BC Hydro and the Real Estate Foundation of BC.

aBCHydroPower smart

About Community Energy Association

real estatefoundation

S TISi. LOuMDiA

Community Energy Association manages the governments-and-energy list. Community Energy Association is an enterprising non-profitsociety with charitable status whose mission is to be the trusted independent advisor to local governments on climate and energy.CEAs 18 members include MM BC Hydro. FortisBC, local governments, transit providers, professional associations and others.. Eini

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with “Unsubscdbe” in (he subject line or simply click on (he lollowing link:Unsubscribe

Click here to forward this email to a friend

Community Energy Association2260 West Mall3324vancouver, British Columbia v6T 1Z4CA

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

outinoreagllcyebsft.

Iw’wwcommunitvenecm’,bc.c’

3

60

61

Ministry of Environment Office of the Minister

Mailing Address: Parliament Buildings Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250 387-1187 Facsimile: 250 387-1356

Reference: 296832 March 30, 2016 Dear Mayors, Councillors and Regional District Chairs and Directors: On February 29, 2016, the Province brought the Water Sustainability Act into force along with the first phase of regulations. The Act updates and replaces the old Water Act and will better protect stream health, regulate groundwater, address water use during times of scarcity and expand opportunities to participate in decision-making processes. The Act and regulations help protect water flows for ecosystems and fish and include new and improved requirements for groundwater use and licensing, well construction and maintenance, dam safety, and compliance. Much of this work was informed by public comment and the Province’s policy intentions papers that were released last summer. Key changes include new licensing requirements for non-domestic groundwater use such as irrigation, industrial purposes, and community water supply. For existing groundwater users, the regulations provide a three-year transition period in which to apply for a licence; application fees will be waived during the first year of the transition period. Surface water and non-domestic groundwater users will also be subject to the new water fees and rentals announced last year. Individual household wells do not require a licence, nor are they subject to water fees or rentals. More information about the Water Sustainability Act and the implications of the new regulations can be found on the Province’s water webpages at http://gov.bc.ca/water. For specific direction and guidance on how to apply for a groundwater licence, please visit FrontCounter BC at http://www.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca. Provincial government staff will also be presenting highlights of the changes at a series of teleconferences specifically for local government during April 2016. Ministry staff will provide further details under separate cover. I appreciate the broad support for the Water Sustainability Act from local governments across the province, and the many British Columbians who contributed to the discussions around the Water Sustainability Act and this first phase of regulations. Work on the next phase of regulations and policies will be initiated later this year and includes measuring and reporting, livestock watering, water objectives, planning and governance. The Province looks forward to continuing to work with you during implementation of the Act and the development of future policies.

…2

Annex M

62

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/laws-rules

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/2015/07/30/blog-post-16-proposed-water-policies-what-do-you-think/

https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/fee-changes-to-ensure-long-term-protection-of-bc-water

http://gov.bc.ca/water

http://www.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca/

- 2 - Visit http://gov.bc.ca/water for more information. If you have questions about the changes, please contact Ian Graeme, Manager, Watershed Sustainability, at 250 356-6663 or [email protected]. Sincerely,

Mary Polak Minister Attachment cc: Honourable Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Chair Al Richmond, President, Union of B.C. Municipalities Gary MacIsaac, Executive Director, Union of B.C. Municipalities

63

http://gov.bc.ca/water

mailto:[email protected]

Water Sustainability

Act NEW RULES NOW IN EFFECT

February 29, 2016

Government also has new tools for managing water during shortages, including temporarily restricting surface water and groundwater use to protect essential household needs and critical environmental flows.

An updated and expanded Groundwater Protection Regulation (GWPR) applies to all well owners regardless of how the water is used. The new GWPR includes more requirements to ensure that water wells are properly constructed, maintained, and at the end of their service, deactivated and decommissioned to protect the quality and safety of our groundwater.

An updated Dam Safety Regulation introduces new requirements for dam owners related to emergency planning, contact information and placement of signage.

What happens next?With the regulations related to essential water management activities, e.g., authorizing water use, now in effect, work on other regulations to fully implement the Water Sustainability Act will be initiated. Priority regulations to be started in the coming years include livestock watering, measuring and reporting, and water objectives, among others.

For more information:For more on applying for licences and approvals contact FrontCounterBC at 1-877-855-3222 or visit www.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca

For more on the provincial water program visit: www.gov.bc.ca/water

For more on the development of the legislation and implementation visit: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact

Questions on these changes? Email: [email protected]

3717_WSA Overview_Brochure.indd 1-2 2016-02-29 2:36 PM64

Water Sustainability Act now in forceThe Water Sustainability Act (WSA) and the first phase of regulations were brought into force on February 29, 2016. The WSA will benefit all British Columbians — our communities and families, our environment and our economy.

Important Changes for Water UsersThe WSA updates and replaces the previous Water Act, bringing in a number of important changes for existing and new surface water and groundwater users.

Key changes that are now in effect under the WSA and new regulations include:

» New water rights and licensing requirements for non-domestic groundwater users (e.g., industrial, agricultural)

» Stronger protection for aquatic ecosystems » New fees and rentals for water use » Expanded protection of groundwater including

new requirements for well construction and maintenance

» Increased dam safety and awareness, and compliance and enforcement

Much of the Water Act has been brought into the WSA and existing surface water rights granted under the Water Act will continue. In some circumstances, the WSA may change how these rights may be exercised, such as during times of drought or water scarcity.

Licensing Groundwater UseManaging groundwater and surface water together will better protect the security and safety of this resource. As of February 29, 2016, all non-domestic groundwater users including existing users are required to apply for a water licence, and pay an application fee and annual water rentals. There is a three-year transition period for existing groundwater users to submit this application.

Domestic well owners — i.e., homeowners with a well that provides water for household use, lawn and garden watering, and water for domestic animals — are exempt from licensing and paying provincial water fees and rentals. Domestic well owners are strongly encouraged to register their well by contacting FrontCounterBC to make their use known so it can be protected.

Visit www.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca for information on how to apply for a groundwater licence or to register your domestic well.

New water fees and rentals New fees and rentals, announced in February 2015, are intended to recover the costs of implementing the new WSA, and provide more tools to sustainably manage B.C.’s water resources, including regulating groundwater use for the first time. All rates are the same for surface water and groundwater use. Fees and rentals are generally not applied to provincial or federal governments, or First Nations use on reserves or treaty lands.

Annual water rentals for existing non-domestic groundwater users accrue starting February 29, 2016, regardless of when an application for a licence is submitted within the three-year transition period. Applications for existing non-domestic groundwater use filed within 12 months from when the WSA came into force (on or before March 1, 2017) are exempt from the application fee.

If you already have a water licence for surface water, the change in your water bill will depend on the water use purpose(s) specified in your water licence. Use the Water Rent Estimator (www.gov.bc.ca/waterrentestimator) to estimate your application fees and water rentals for a water licence or use approval.

Other changes under the WSAA new requirement to consider environmental flow needs in decisions, and expanded prohibitions on dumping debris into streams and aquifers provides stronger protection for aquatic ecosystems.

3717_WSA Overview_Brochure.indd 3-4 2016-02-29 2:36 PM65