Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AGENDA
PARKS COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 9:30 a.m.
2nd Floor Boardroom
4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia Please advise Melanie Taylor at (604) 451-6176 if you are unable to attend.
Chair, Gayle Martin, Langley City Vice Chair, Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Councillor Lisa Barrett, Bowen Island Councillor Pietro Calendino, Burnaby Councillor Bruce Drake, Belcarra Councillor Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford Councillor Mel Kositsky, Langley Township Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay
October 17, 2006
NOTICE TO THE GVRD PARKS COMMITTEE
You are requested to attend a Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee to be held on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
A G E N D A 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 November 8, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Parks Committee adopt the Agenda for the Parks Committee Regular Meeting scheduled for November 8, 2006 as circulated.
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Parks Committee adopt the Minutes of the Parks Committee Regular Meeting held October 4, 2006 as circulated.
3. DELEGATIONS
No delegates to present.
4. REPORTS
4.1 Brae Island Regional Park - Implementation of Phase 1 Development Designated Speaker: Wendy DaDalt, Parks East Area, Manager Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the revised Brae Island Regional Park Concept Plan and Development Program dated October 23, 2006 and capital expenditures of $1,600,000 from the 2006 Parks Capital Budget and $3,240,000 from the 2007 Parks Capital Budget to implement Phase 1.
4.2 Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area – Management Plan Update
Designated Speaker: Ed Andrusiak, Manager Recommendation: That the Committee receives for information, the report dated October 27, 2006 titled “Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area Management Plan Update”.
4.3 Policy Framework: Planting for Voluntary Carbon Credits and Community
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI) Agreement Designated Speaker: Wendy DaDalt, Parks East Area, Manager Recommendations to Environment Committee, for Parks Committee information That the GVRD Board:
a) Endorse a corporate policy framework for planting for voluntary carbon credits that allows GVRD to cooperate with other agency, non-government or private planting programs where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced through carbon sequestration and where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner.
b) Authorize staff to implement a Community Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI) partnering agreement with Ecosystem Restoration Associates Inc. (ERA) under which ERA would supply trees, according to the restoration plan, to areas of specified regional parks to enhance the environment, in exchange for an assignment of voluntary carbon credits in such trees to ERA.
4.4 Pacific Spirit Regional Park - Wreck Beach Operations
Designated Speaker: Mitch Sokalski, Parks West Area Manager Recommendation to GVRD/UBC Joint Committee, for Parks Committee information That the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee receive for information the report dated October 17, 2006 titled “Pacific Spirit Regional Park - Wreck Beach Operations”.
4.5 Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. Memorandum of Support
Designated Speaker: Ed Andrusiak, Manager Recommendation to Environment Committee, for Parks Committee information That the GVRD Board support the Fraser Basin Council’s Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. by signing the Memorandum of Support as an indication of the GVRD’s corporate support of the Strategy.
4.6 Manager’s Report
Designated Speaker: Ed Andrusiak, Manager Recommendation: That the Parks Committee receive the report for information a) Iona Beach Regional Park: Vancity Volunteer Event b) Pacific Spirit Regional Park: Tree Cutting Update
5. INFORMATION ITEMS
5.1 Correspondence 5.2 Clippings 5.3 Special Events
6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
Staff Recommendation: “That the regular meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee scheduled for October 4, 2006 be
closed pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1): (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district.”
8. ADJOURNMENT
2.1 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT
PARKS COMMITTEE Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Parks Committee held at 9:38 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Vice Chair, Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Councillor Lisa Barrett, Bowen Island (arrived at 9:39 a.m.) Councillor Pietro Calendino, Burnaby Councillor Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford Councillor Mel Kositsky, Langley Township Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District ABSENT: Councillor Bruce Drake, Belcarra Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay STAFF: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Ed Andrusiak, Manager, Regional Parks Department Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee: a) amend the Agenda for the Parks Committee Regular Meeting scheduled
for October 4, 2006 by: i. adding item 3.0 “Invited Delegation: Jim McCarthy, Coho Society of
the North Shore”; ii. considering item 4.2 “Request for Contribution Funding from Park
Partners” prior to item 4.1 “Parks Committee Review of 2007 Programs”; and
b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee adopt the Minutes of the Parks Committee Regular Meeting held July 5, 2006 as circulated.
CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee held on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Page 1 of 5
3. DELEGATIONS 3.0 Invited Delegation: Jim McCarthy, Coho Society of the North Shore
Jim McCarthy, President, Coho Society of the North Shore, was presented with a cheque in the amount of $4,050 for monies raised from drop-in fees from 1,510 walkers attending the 27th annual Coho Walk on September 10, 2006. The event is jointly sponsored by the GVRD and the Coho Society of the North Shore and is part of the Coho Festival celebrating the return of salmon to the North Shore rivers.
9:39 a.m.
Councillor Barrett arrived at the meeting. 3.1 Marg Anderson, Burnaby Lake Park Association
Marg Anderson, Burnaby Lake Park Association (BLPA), introduced the BLPA, which is dedicated to preservation, protection, enhancement, and restoration of the natural environment in the park. The association works closely with the GVRD on programs and events in the park, such as Weedbusters and Nest Box Program. GVRD funding is utilized to secure the services of a part-time volunteer coordinator and to secure services of an administrator and fundraising support. Presentation material was distributed at the meeting and is retained with the October 4, 2006 Parks Committee agenda package.
3.2 Ross Davies, Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society
Ross Davies, Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society (KEEPS), spoke about school programs, partnerships, community involvement, special projects, and events delivered in support to maintain the health of the Kanaka Creek Watershed. In 2006, KEEPS contributed over 2,400 volunteer hours to programs and events associated with the GVRD and Kanaka Creek Regional Park; GVRD funding contribution is used to retain a volunteer coordinator.
3.3 Helen Spiegelman, Pacific Spirit Park Society Helen Spiegelman, Pacific Spirit Park Society (PSPS), provided an overview of the park activities and groups working within the park; outlined current activities of the society; and proposed a legacy project to accommodate many park activities in the renovated Parks West Area office. Through GVRD funding, the PSPS pays for a coordinator of volunteers who supports the society through the recruitment and management of volunteers, provides support to member PSPS organizations working in the park, and develops community outreach programs.
Presentation material was distributed at the meeting and is retained with the October 4, 2006 Parks Committee agenda package.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee held on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Page 2 of 5
4. REPORTS
Agenda Order Varied Pursuant to item 1.1, the order of the agenda was varied to consider item 4.2 “Request for Contribution Funding from Parks Partners” prior to item 4.1 “Parks Committee Review of 2007 Programs”.
4.2 Requests for Contribution Funding from Park Partners Report dated September 18, 2006 from Stephen Suddes, Visitor Services and Partnerships Division Manager, Regional Parks Department, informing about achievements of regional park partner groups receiving GVRD contribution funding and requesting approval for the next round of annual contribution funding. It was MOVED and SECONDED That GVRD Board approve for 2007: a) $8,000 in contribution funding for Pacific Spirit Park Society; b) $10,000 in contribution funding for Kanaka Educational and
Environmental Partnership Society; and c) $7,000 contribution funding for Burnaby Lake Park Association.
CARRIED
Agenda Order Resumed The order of the agenda resumed with item 4.1 “Parks Committee Review of 2007 Programs” being before the committee.
4.1 Parks Committee Review of 2007 Programs Report dated September 21, 2006 from Ed Andrusiak, Manager, Regional Parks Department, considering the proposed 2007 programs and priorities under the committee’s purview, as the basis for the budget to be considered at the October 20, 2006 budget workshop.
The committee was provided an overview of the program planning and budgeting process and introduced the 2007 Parks and Greenways Plan, strategic and longer-term priorities and programs.
10:47 a.m. Chair Martin left the meeting, Vice Chair Steele assumed the Chair. 10:49 a.m. Chair Martin returned to the meeting and assumed the Chair.
Discussion ensued relative to the clarification and communication strategy justifying the $1.50 per household tax levy increase. Members also discussed necessity of sufficient long-term funds for land acquisition and requested that the Heritage Parkland Acquisition Fund be funded at $2 per capita annually no later than the 2008 budget. Presentation material was distributed at the meeting and is retained with the October 4, 2006 Parks Committee agenda package.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee held on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Page 3 of 5
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee endorse the proposed programs and priorities, as outlined in the report dated September 21, 2006, titled “2007 Programs and Strategic Priorities of the Parks Committee” as the basis for the budget to be considered at the budget workshop on October 20, 2006.
CARRIED
4.2 Requests for Contribution Funding from Park Partners This item was previously considered.
4.3 Manager’s Report Ed Andrusiak, Manager, Regional Parks Department, informed members about the following: • Tynehead Regional Park: Golf Learning Centre. Members were informed
that none of the Request for Proposal submissions received in July 2006 has met all requirements outlined in the Request for Proposal. The Board directed staff to discontinue the Tynehead Regional Park Golf Learning Centre procurement process and to complete the park management plan without any further consideration of a major revenue generating recreation project in the park; and
• Surrey Bend Regional Park. GVRD is resuming discussions with the City of Surrey to jointly plan, develop, manage and operate Surrey Bend Regional Park.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee receive for information the Manager’s verbal update of October 4, 2006, regarding the Tynehead Regional Park Golf Learning Centre and Surrey Bend Regional Park.
CARRIED 5. INFORMATION ITEMS
5.1 Correspondence 5.2 Clippings 5.3 Special Events It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee receive the following items for information: 5.1 Correspondence; 5.2 Clippings; and 5.3 Special Events.
CARRIED
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6.1 Securing Private Lands for Biodiversity Conservation: Tools and Partnerships Report dated September 18, 2006 from Bonnie Blue, Parks Long Range Planner, Regional Parks Department, informing the committee about the availability of the report titled “Securing Private Lands for Biodiversity Conservation: Tools and Partnership”.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee held on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Page 4 of 5
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Parks Committee receive for information the report dated September 18, 2006, titled “Securing Private Lands for Biodiversity Conservation: Tools and Partnerships”.
CARRIED 7. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the regular meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee scheduled for
October 4, 2006 be closed pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject
matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: “(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.”
CARRIED 8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:33 a.m.
________________________________ ________________________________ Klara Kutakova, Gayle Martin, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Parks Committee held on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 Page 5 of 5
4.1
Parks Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2006
To: Parks Committee From: Wendy DaDalt, Parks East Area Manager Patrick Graham, Parks Project Engineer Date: October 30, 2006 Subject: Brae Island Regional Park - Implementation of Revised
Phase 1 Development Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the revised Brae Island Regional Park Concept Plan and Development Program dated October 23, 2006 and capital expenditures of $1,600,000 from the 2006 Parks Capital Budget and $3,240,000 from the 2007 Parks Capital Budget to implement Phase 1. 1. PURPOSE To obtain Board approval for the October 23, 2006 Brae Island Management Plan (BRAMP) Concept Plan and Development Program and a total capital expenditure of $5,240,000 to implement revised Phase I. This total includes the initial expenditure of $400,000 previously approved by the Board. 2. CONTEXT The Brae Island Regional Park Management Plan (BRAMP) was adopted by the Board in November 2005 along with approval to initiate Phase 1 of park development. The original Concept Plan and Development Program highlighting the main infrastructure components, costs and phasing are included as Attachments 1 and 1(a). The estimated cost of Phase 1 development, (to be implemented 2006/07), was $3,700,000 and an additional $1,375,000 to implement Phases 2 and 3 in subsequent years. The Board approved an initial budget of $2,000,000 in the 2006 program and a capital expenditure of $400,000 was approved to conduct detailed planning, engineering and design. Over the past year GVRD staff and consultants have completed site planning, including adaptations to meet external regulatory requirements, scoping, preliminary design and updating cost estimates. This process resulted in the following key conclusions: • The total number of proposed RV/tent campsites (175) will not fit within the existing
commercially zoned land on the east side of the Terasen gas pipeline as shown in the original BRAMP Concept Plan. This is primarily due to changes in site layout needed to
comply with the new riparian area regulations and to preserve more existing trees and retain more of a park-like character. To achieve the desired number of sites some RV/tent campsites have been relocated west of the gas pipeline, outside the commercial zoning.
• The Township has advised that any type of camping, including rustic and group sites, requires commerical zoning. The area west of the pipeline, identified for these traditional park camping uses, is currently RU-4 and may therefore have to be rezoned to implement the plan. As Parks has several existing group and unserviced campsites in Langley and other municipalities in non-commercial zoning it was assumed these would be acceptable uses for any zone. Staff will continue to explore options with the Township.
• The best way to treat sewage for Brae Island is off-site as described in Attachment 2, which also provides better options for site configuration.
• It has become apparent that it is much more practical, economical and desirable to complete the entire decommissioning and rebuilding of the existing campground in the initial phase. As the existing infrastrucutre was further evaluated for condition and function it became clear that improvements were needed throughout the site making staging very inefficient and compromising the campground operation and revenue potential. Due to the enhanced service nature of the camping product it is important to develop a stand-alone campground in Phase 1 that will be capable of generating enough revenue to pay its direct operating costs. At least 155 RV/tent sites are needed to achieve this result and the occupancy to support the range of programs desired for this site.
• The private camground operator should have the option of providing additional ancillary facilities referenced in the BRAMP such as covered programming space, yurts, pool expansion, maintenance shelter, light grill, peddle and paddle rentals concession, etc. at the operator’s expense.
Based on these conclusions, the scope and priorites of the Phase 1 program were revised on October 23, 2006 and are referenced in Attachments 3 and 3(a). Revisions are: • Complete the campground development to the east of the gas pipeline, including
decommissioning of 210 current sites and providing 155 new or rebuilt and serviced sites. Provide water, electricity, and sewer to 110 sites and water and electricity only to 45 sites.
• Defer campground components, including 20-25 RV/tent sites, the second group camp and rustic campsites, all located west of the gas pipeline, to Phase 2.
Financial Implications: An estimated $5,240,000 is required to implement revised Phase 1 in 2006/07, $1,340,000 more than orignially forecast. The primary reasons for this are escalation in construction costs, additional net cost of wastewater disposal, fire protection infrastructure and miscellaneous facility requirements. The change in scope of the Phase 1 campground work adds an estimated $500,000 and reduces the cost of Phase 2. Attachment 2 provides further explanation of the additional costs of Phase 1. The capital for Phase 1 development and the related park operating costs for Brae are funded in 2006/2007 budgets.
The Pacific Parklands Foundation (PPF) is partnering with GVRD to raise funds for items that complement the park plan such as interpretive signage and additional planting for habitat enhacement and to advance future phases by completing trails, a small day-use shelter, rustic campsites and other visitor amentities sooner. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option 1: Approve the revised Brae Island Regional Park Concept Plan and
Development Program dated October 23, 2006 and capital expenditures of $1,600,000 from the 2006 Parks Capital Budget and $3,240,000 from the 2007 Parks Capital Budget to implement Phase 1.
This alternative has the development of the campground and day-use area proceeding on schedule, with tendering the works in December 2006 and construction occurring between January and May 2007. The campground would reopen in spring 2007 providing continuity of service and income flow. It is consistent with the product and timeline used to secure the private sector operator eliminating the need to pursue different contract and financial conditions or reissuing the RFP. Advantages: 1. There is no significant break in the provision of camping at Brae to residents who enjoy
this service, tourists who need to be accommodated, and flow of associated social and economic benefits.
2. The day-use area would be available for public enjoyment concurrent with the rennovated campground providing a full range of park services to the public in 2007.
3. The requested funds would all be expended in 2007 within a short time frame so that creeping inflation will not be a factor over the life of the construction project.
4. This approach utilizes existing zoning and Agricultural Land Commission permits faciltating the development approval process with the Township of Langley.
5. This alternative minimizes further disruption to the operating campground and day-use areas when Phase 2 is undertaken.
6. Phase 2 can be implemented all at once, or indivdual components can be easily advanced as donations or other funds become available. It would be very desirable, for example, to find means and obtain Township and ALC approval to provide a limited number of rustic campsites west of the pipeline for bike-in/walk-in use in 2007/08 to serve a broader clientele. Future elements can also be deferred to Phase 3 or indefinitely – the rest of the plan is flexible.
7. Public consultation has been completed on the BRAMP and the Revised Concept Plan and expectations that this product will be built and openend in 2007 will be met.
Disadvantages: 1. A larger initial capital outlay is required than originally forecast for Phase 1 and the
BRAMP development program utilizing more of the RPGP capital budget and impacting the availability of funds for other park projects.
2. Defering development of the eight rustic campsites means that only serviced camping options are available initially.
3. There is risk that regulatory approvals may not be received for camping development west of the gas pipeline resulting in only 155 serviced campsites and one group campsite being completed.
4. GVRD’s funds are expended over a very short period of time providing less opportunity to leverage them in fundrasing efforts.
Option 2: Approve the revised Phase 1 implementation outlined in Option 1 and
direct staff to revise future Phases to reduce the total cost of implementing the Brae Island Regional Park Management Plan.
The revised Concept Plan and Development Program -- cost estimates and phasing, outlined in Attachments 3 and 3(a), are a forecast for capital implementation and costs in 2007 dollars. While Phase 1 is based on preliminary design and engineering, later phases are order of magnitude costs. The total cost of the revised program in 2007 dollars is $6,602,750 vs. the original cost of $5,075,000 in $2005 dollars. Normally construction cost inflation over this short duration (1.5 years) would not trigger program review but at 15% it adds significantly to the cost of delivering the approved program. This option would direct staff to reduce future development and expenditures to stay closer to the original approved investment for Brae Island Regional Park, and particularly for serviced RV/tent camping. Advantages: 1. Future costs could be reduced or eliminated by removing certain elements of the plan
such as the next phase of individual RV/tent campsites, or the second group camp, freeing park funds for projects in other sites.
2. Less natural environment would be developed and more trees retained. 3. Other options could be considered for park development in the future.
Disadvantages: 1. There is significant demand for camping in the Lower Mainland and a shrinking supply
of serviced recreation sites. The phasing of campsite development at Brae results in the current 210 sites being reduced to 155 in Phase 1. Campers and the tourism sector have encouraged GVRD to try to provide as many sites as possible.
2. The fixed infrastructure costs, such as wastewater disposal, will not provide as much benefit if not utilized for additional camping services. It may even be desirable to install more sites in Phase 2 to reinstate former levels i.e. 210 RV/tent sites vs. 175. There are more economies of scale in GVRD providing more sites at Brae than introducing new camping facilities elesewhere.
3. A smaller campground reduces the potential to support ancillary services like programming, sport equipment rental (canoes/bikes), and lessons available to both overnight and day users.
4. Without revised Phase 2, the full range of camping opportunities envisioned for Brae would not be realized i.e. rustic camping, , cutting out potential users who by choice or income prefer a less serviced camping experience.
Option 3: Do not implement the adopted Brae Island Regional Park Management
Plan and provide new direction. The adopted BRAMP program focuses on the opportunity in this park to provide serviced recreational camping facilities for the region. Alternatives for the park previously rejected by the Board could however be revisited including modifying the camping program to basic services, or creating an attractive island park similar to Deas Island. The supply of bonifide private recreational RV/tent camping is rapidly shrinking due to land conversion. New Board direction i.e. not rebuilding Fort Camping, would eventually result in the decommissioning of the 210 Brae sites because of sewage system failure and other compromised infrastructure and erosion of overall operational viability. It would be very difficult to replace this experience in the GVRD in either public or private sectors given land costs, zoning, ALC requirements, and servicing needs. Regional Parks views Brae as the best existing opportunity to provide serviced camping in its system. Advantages: 1. Capital and operating expenditures will be deferred and potentially significantly reduced
if the park program is modified and/or funds can be redistributed to other park projects. 2. Less intense development would have fewer environmental impacts.
Disadvantages: 1. The existing Brae campground and services (Fort Camping) could not continue to
operate without capital infrastructure improvements in 2007. Environmental and public safety concerns would need to be addressed and operating costs would continue to escalate. Site services such as water, electrical and sewer hookouts would be phased out as local replacement/repairs become impractical. Reduced services, along with aging amenities, would erode the campground rating and occupancy until the site was no longer viable, eliminating 210 campsites from the Lower Mainland.
2. Implementation of BRAMP, a major SRI component of the Board approved Regional Parks and Greenways Plan would be foregone. Expectations associated with the RPGP and the BRAMP to the public, stakeholders and the private park operator will not be met. In additional to camping, the unique amenities and educational/recreational programs, associated with the revised Phase 1 would not be realized.
3. This alternative could result in higher capital costs to eventually implement a park program, if construction costs continue to escalate.
4. The BRAMP provides an opportunity to provide a unique recreational service and destination in the regional park system. Alternative programs for the site, while attractive, would be available in many other regional parks i.e. group picnic and campgrounds, trails and picnicking.
5. While capital costs could be signficantly reduced by other tranditoinal park development options, operating costs would be higher as they would not generate significant user fees.
6. The internal and external spin-off economic benefits associated with the built-out BRAMP program (annual gross revenue could reach $1,000,000 annually) would be lost in particular for Langley and specialized tourism business sectors, like RV rentals and products, across the region.
7. The broader social and envrionmental benefits of the municipal sewer connection would be foregone and GVRD would struggle with providing sewage treatment for alternative programs (Attachment 2).
4. CONCLUSION Staff recommend Option 1. Board approval for a total capital expenditure of $5,240,000 for implementation of the first, and main phase, of the Brae Island Regional Park program will enable the redevelopment of the existing outdated campground into an attractive, safe and sustainable facility and introduce a day-use program by early 2007. It will achieve a major component of the RPGP providing new recreation services and programming opportunities, supporting the local and regional economy and tourism sector, and continuing to provide a base from which to explore the rich cultural and natural features of the Fort Langley area. Attachments (5) 1 Original (November 2005) Concept Plan 1(a) Original (November 2005) Development Program -- Cost Estimates and Phasing 2 Updated (October 23, 2006) Cost Estimate Update for Revised Phase 1 BRAMP 3 Revised (October 23, 2006) Concept Plan 3(a) Revised (October 23, 2006) Development Program -- Cost Estimates and Phasing WD/PG/EA/dm
ATTACHMENT 1
Excerpt from October 28, 2005 Board Report Brae Island Management Plan PREFERRED CONCEPT
Exc
erpt
from
Oct
ober
28,
2005 B
oard
Rep
ort
Bra
e Is
land M
anag
emen
t Pl
anM
anag
emen
t Pl
an C
apital
Cos
ts (
2005 d
olla
rs)
and S
ched
ulin
g
Park
Are
as
Ph
ase
1
Ph
ase
1 C
ost
P
hase
2
Ph
ase
2 C
ost
P
hase
3
Ph
ase
3 C
ost
Fu
ture
Ite
ms
or
Exte
rnal Fu
nd
ing
Park
Wid
e(C
ampin
g a
nd D
ay-U
se S
ervi
ces)
•
Sig
nag
e
$40,0
00
• Sig
nag
e
$45,0
00
•Inte
rpre
tive
Exh
ibits
• Bed
ford
Tra
il an
d V
iew
poi
nts
$190,0
00
• Fr
aser
Riv
er T
rail
and
Vie
wpoi
nt
$100,0
00
• Sew
age
syst
em r
eloc
atio
n &
upgra
de
$225,0
00
Glo
ver
Wate
rfro
nt
•
Dec
om
mis
sion e
xist
ing
cam
psi
tes
(125)
and r
oad.
Rel
oca
te -
pow
er s
upply
, ca
ble
, te
lephon
e, m
ain e
ntr
y ro
ad,
and
dum
pin
g s
tation.
Fill
and g
rade
$410,0
00
• Additio
nal
buffer
pla
nting a
nd
pic
nic
tab
les
$55,0
00
• Pr
ovi
de
day
use
par
king (
50),
w
ashro
om,
table
s, f
enci
ng,
per
ched
bea
ch,
and b
uffer
pla
nting
Cam
pg
rou
nd
•
Reb
uild
110 c
ampsi
tes
(lea
ving
80 t
o be
redev
elop
ed in P
has
e 2).
Pro
vide
fill
and g
rade,
new
en
try
road
, ro
ads/
par
king,
wat
er,
sew
er,
elec
tric
al,
landsc
apin
g,
pla
ygro
und
upgra
de,
reg
istr
atio
n a
rea
renova
tions,
lig
ht
grill;
pool/
dec
k; a
nd u
tilit
ies
was
hro
oms/
show
ers/
lau
ndry
$2,5
00,0
00
• D
ecom
mis
sion
80 r
emai
nin
g
cam
p s
ites
and p
rovi
de
up t
o 65
new
sites
$650,0
00
• Can
oe a
nd B
icyc
le R
enta
l Fa
cilit
y
Glo
ver
East
D
ay-u
se a
rea
with o
pen
spac
e,
table
s, p
arki
ng (
60 c
ars)
, non
-m
otor
ized
boa
t la
unch
, gro
up
pic
nic
shel
ter
$300,0
00
Mid
Bra
e
• D
ay-u
se a
rea,
pic
nic
tab
les,
per
ched
bea
ch
$120,0
00
• 1 p
rivy
$20,0
00
• 1 d
ay-u
se s
hel
ter
• 2 G
roup c
ampin
g a
reas
with 1
new
shel
ter
and 1
exi
stin
g
shel
ter
relo
cate
d a
nd 1
privy
-
8 r
ust
ic c
ampsi
tes
-
Park
ing f
or G
roup a
nd
Rust
ic C
ampin
g (
16ca
rs)
$200,0
00
• Additio
nal
par
king (
15 c
ars)
$20,0
00
• 1 p
rivy
upgra
de
to w
ashro
om
• 4 a
dditio
nal
rust
ic ca
mpsi
tes
and 4
yurt
s
•Ser
vice
Yar
d F
enci
ng
$15,0
00
• Ser
vice
Fac
ility
$185,0
00
Ph
ase
1 S
ub
-to
tal
$3
,70
0,0
00
P
hase
2 S
ub
-to
tal
$1
,07
5,0
00
P
hase
3 S
ub
-to
tal
$3
00
,00
0
P
RO
JEC
T T
OTA
L$
5,0
75
,00
0
ATTACHMENT 1a
Attachment 2 Cost Estimate Update for Implementing Revised (October 23, 2006) Phase 1 Brae Island Regional Park Management Plan Original Expenditure for Phase 1 (Approved Nov. 2005) $3,700,000 Additional Phase 1 Costs (see explanations below) 1) Escalation in Construction Costs (15% to from Jul '05 to Jan '07) $550,000 2) Increased Cost for Wastewater Disposal Infrastructure $400,000 3) Unforeseen Costs for Fire Protection Infrastructure $120,000 4) Miscellaneous Facility Design Requirements e.g. gatehouse, shelter and washrooms $120,000 5) Support for River Training Spurs $50,000
Total Additional Costs $1,240,000 Phase 1 Scope Changes 1) Decommission all 210 sites vs. 125 sites; Rebuild 45 extra RV/tent sites of which 23
more have sewer $700,000 2) Defer second group camp and rustic sites -$200,000
Total Scope Change Costs $500,000
Total Phase 1 Budget Increase $1,540,000 Total Required Budget for Phase 1 Implementation $5,240,000
1) Estimated $550,000 due to construction cost escalation. Since the Management Plan capital cost
estimates were completed in July 2005, construction costs have escalated dramatically and continue to escalate. On average, construction costs have been increasing by about 1% per month more than was anticipated in 2005. Therefore, the cost for construction starting in January 2007 is expected to be about 15% higher than original cost estimates.
2) Estimated $400,000 net increase for wastewater disposal. The Management Plan assumed that the
existing septic system, which has a valid operating permit, could be partially retained with the field relocated west of the pipeline. However, detailed investigations have shown that this system does not adequately protect ground water and surface water quality and poses a potential public health risk. About $620,000 will be required to address this problem by building a sanitary pump station and forcemain to carry wastewater from the campground to the Township of Langley municipal system. A comprehensive evaluation has identified this option as the most cost effective and most consistent with sustainability objectives, as compared with on-site treatment and disposal options. This new system capacity can serve all three phases of BRAMP, TOL’s parkland east of Glover and Kwantlen First Nation (35 homes) and a proposed First Nation Eco-tourism Centre. TOL will takeover the external system.
The costs associated with upgrading the inadequate wastewater collection system within the campground were also higher than anticipated.
3) Estimated $120,000 for a dedicated fire protection main. Based on prior discussions with Township
of Langley staff, the Management Plan assumed that the existing water system could be retained to provide adequate supply and fire protection. The TOL fire department has subsequently required that a larger water main be installed to achieve fire flows comparable to the standard applied for single family neighbourhoods. This investment will provide a higher level of fire protection for campers, structures and the surrounding forest.
4) Estimated $120,000 in changes from concept to detail design. As detailed design was undertaken
shortfalls in the size and components of the gatehouse, group camp shelter and day-use washrooms needed to be addressed along with other minor modifications to other improvements.
5) $50,000 contribution for construction of river training spurs on McMillan Island for the Bedford
Channel. When the Channel was dredged in 2006 by Parklane Homes it was concluded that river training spurs could help extend the benefits of this work by maintaining flow velocities to reduce local sedimentation. Construction of the training spurs east of the Jacob-Haldi Bridge (immediately upstream of the park) will help maintain its recreational value over time and help protect Kwantlen First Nation Land. GVRD and TOL’s contributions were instrumental in attracting provincial funds to complete these works and building strong working relationships with the Kwantlen.
ATTACHMENT 3
Rev
ised
(O
ctob
er 2
3,
2006)
BRAM
P D
evel
opm
ent
Prog
ram
--
Cap
ital
Cos
t Est
imat
es a
nd P
has
ing
Att
achm
ent
3(a
)
Park
Are
as
Ph
ase
1
Ph
ase
1
Co
st
Ph
ase
2
Ph
ase
2 C
ost
P
hase
3
Ph
ase
3 C
ost
Fu
ture
Ite
ms,
Exte
rnal
Fu
nd
ing
or
Op
era
tor
pro
vid
ed
fu
nd
ing
Park
Wid
e(C
ampin
g a
nd D
ay-U
se
Ser
vice
s)
• Sig
nag
e
$60,0
00
• Sig
nag
e
$45,0
00
•Inte
rpre
tive
exh
ibits
• Bed
ford
Tra
il an
d v
iew
poi
nts
$220,0
00
• Fr
aser
Riv
er T
rail
and
view
poi
nt
$100,0
00
•Com
mem
orat
ive
ben
ches
• In
stal
l new
sew
age
dis
pos
al
syst
em$620,0
00
• Suppor
t fo
r Riv
er T
rain
ing S
purs
$50,0
00
Glo
ver
Wate
rfro
nt
•
Dec
omm
issi
on e
xist
ing c
ampsi
tes
and r
oad.
Rel
ocat
e -
pow
er s
upply
, ca
ble
, te
lephon
e, m
ain e
ntr
y ro
ad,
and d
um
pin
g s
tation
. Fi
ll an
d g
rade
$40,0
00
• Additio
nal
buff
er p
lanting a
nd
pic
nic
tab
les
$55,0
00
• Can
oe/k
ayak
ren
tals
• Pr
ovid
e day
use
par
king (
47),
w
ashro
om,
table
s, f
enci
ng,
per
ched
bea
ch,
and b
uff
er p
lanting
$400,0
00
Cam
pg
rou
nd
•
Dec
omm
issi
on r
emai
nin
g
cam
psi
tes
(210 in t
otal
with
wat
erfr
ont)
. R
ebuild
155
cam
psi
tes
(lea
ving 2
0 t
o be
dev
elop
ed in P
has
e 2).
Pro
vide
fill
and g
rade,
new
entr
y ro
ad,
road
s/par
king,
wat
er,
sew
er,
elec
tric
al,
landsc
apin
g,
new
re
gis
trat
ion b
ooth
, utilit
ies
and
was
hro
oms/
show
ers/
lau
ndry
$3,6
00,0
00
• Build
20 n
ew c
ampsi
tes
wes
t of
gas
pip
elin
e $280,0
00
• Pi
cnic
shel
ter
• Po
tential
additio
nal
30
cam
psi
tes
to r
esto
re lev
el t
o 210 s
ites
• Additio
nal
lan
dsc
ape
item
s an
d a
men
itie
s•
Additio
nal
poo
l/w
ater
fea
ture
• M
ulti-
use
gam
es c
ourt
• Cov
ered
pro
gra
mm
ing s
hel
ter
• Pr
ivy
upgra
des
• Li
ght
grill
• Pl
aygro
und im
pro
vem
ents
Glo
ver
East
D
ay-u
se a
rea
with o
pen
spac
e,
table
s, p
arki
ng (
60 c
ars)
, non
-m
otor
ized
boa
t la
unch
, gro
up
pic
nic
shel
ter
$300,0
00
Mid
Bra
e
• D
ay-u
se a
rea,
pic
nic
tab
les,
per
ched
bea
ch
$100,0
00
• 1 p
rivy
$20,0
00
• 1 D
ay-u
se s
hel
ter
•1 G
roup c
ampsi
te w
ith s
ervi
ces
and n
ew s
hel
ter
(rep
lace
exi
stin
g
shel
ter
east
of
pip
elin
e)
$100,0
00
• Site
clea
ring,
pre
par
atio
n a
nd
serv
icin
g•
8 r
ust
ic c
ampsi
tes
• 1 G
roup c
ampsi
te w
ith s
hel
ter
• Pa
rkin
g•
Priv
y
$200,0
00
• 8 A
dditio
nal
rust
ic
cam
psi
tes
• Y
urt
s
• Ser
vice
yar
d f
enci
ng a
nd s
ervi
ces
$50,0
00
• Ser
vice
fac
ility
$185,0
00
$5
,24
0,0
00
P
hase
2 S
ub
-to
tal
$8
85
,00
0
Ph
ase
3 S
ub
-to
tal
$3
00
,00
0
Phas
e 2 c
onst
ruct
ion c
ost
esca
lation
(15%
) to
Jan
uar
y 2007
$1
32
,75
0
Phas
e 3 c
onst
ruct
ion c
ost
esca
lation
(15%
) to
Jan
uar
y 2007
$4
5,0
00
BR
AM
P T
OTA
L(P
hase
s 1
-3)
Est
imate
d c
ost
s fo
r Ja
nu
ary
20
07
$5
,24
0,0
00
$1
,01
7,7
50
$
34
5,0
00
$
6,6
02
,75
0
Ph
ase
1 e
stim
ate
s are
base
d o
n p
red
esi
gn
an
d e
ng
ineeri
ng
; P
hase
2 a
nd
3 a
re o
rder
of
mag
nit
ud
e e
stim
ate
s at
con
cep
t le
vel.
ATTACHMENT 3a
4.2
Parks Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2006
Environment Committee Meeting Date: November 14, 2006
To: Parks Committee Environment Committee
From: Mitch Sokalski, Parks West Area Manager Date: October 27, 2006 Subject: Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area – Management Plan Update Recommendation: That the Committee receives for information, the report dated October 27, 2006 titled “Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area Management Plan Update”. 1. PURPOSE To provide the Parks and Environment Committees with an information report on the preparation of the Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area Management Plan. 2. CONTEXT Purchase In March of 2004, 5,045 acres of Burns Bog was acquired in partnership with the Government of Canada, British Columbia and Corporation of Delta (Attachment 1). The purchase agreement states that GVRD has overall management responsibility for these lands and Delta has specific responsibilities for water regime, drainage management and fire response. GVRD and Delta jointly own 2,852 acres; the Province owns 2,193 acres. Upon purchase of the property, GVRD adopted a Short Term Action Plan to address immediate issues including; safety, security and property management. Land Covenants Two covenants were registered on title. The first is a Conservation Covenant in favour of the Government of Canada whereby land owners agree to: • Maintain in perpetuity the area as a contiguous, undeveloped natural area for the
purpose of protecting the flora and fauna that depend on the Bog; • Manage the area as a functioning raised bog ecosystem as understood by the best
science of the day; • Maintain the extent and integrity of the water mound and the peat that encloses it, and in
particular the upper porous acrotelm upon which the persistence of the bog ecosystem depends;
• Prevent any occupation or use of the Bog that will impair or interfere with the current state of the bog or the amenities (i.e. every natural, scientific, environmental, wildlife or plant life value related to the Bog).
A second covenant is a Binding of Titles Covenant whereby the Land owners agree not to sell their interest in the land without the consent of the other owners. Management Agreement In July 2004, the GVRD Board approved the Management Agreement. A Memorandum of Understanding consolidates the various legal obligations and financial contributions of partners and defines responsibilities related to covenants, resource protection, site operations and management planning. In September 2005, the GVRD Board approved the Vision and Working Objectives for development of the management plan (Attachment 2). The Vision and Working Objectives combined with the Conservation Covenant guide the development of the Burns Bog Management Plan Planning Process Mr. Bob Peart, a planning consultant, was hired to develop and facilitate the planning process and write the management plan. A Planning Team comprising a staff representative from each of the four purchasing agencies worked with the planning consultant to develop the plan. A Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) was also established to provide scientific advice about bog management. The information from the SAP assisted the Planning Team in plan development. Through the planning process, two public information meetings were held to provide the public with updates. Management Plan Overview The Conservation Covenant is the key driver for each component of the plan and is the primary consideration in the development of all proposed management actions. The plan has six key directions as follows: a) Drainage and Hydrology
In the past, extensive networks of ditches were built to facilitate peat harvesting. Water exits the Bog more quickly via ditches leaving drier soil conditions. The drier conditions at the perimeter of the Bog support tree growth. As drainage from the Bog slows with ditch blocking, water levels will rise and support growth of bog vegetation. Impacts on the adjoining properties related to flooding and redirection of irrigation water sources need to be managed. Water is vital to the long-term survival of the Bog, and restoration of its raised bog processes and protection of its ecological integrity. The SAP recommends that the Bog should be managed for restoration and protection of ecological processes not species protection. Raised water table levels and pools of surface water will assist wildfire management by increasing moisture levels and reducing the growth and spread of trees. Some invasive species may be controlled by rising water levels as bog restoration progresses. A staged ditch-blocking program with hydrological and vegetation monitoring should be undertaken.
b) Wildfire Wildfire causes negative bog impacts including: loss of bog vegetation, compromised peat growth, loss of accumulated peat and loss or displacement of wildlife. In addition, potential impacts to the surroundings include: threats to public safety, adjoining property and structures and health impacts from poor air quality. The wildfire suppression program under development by Delta’s Fire Department should proceed. Fire-fighting impacts on the Bog such as use of salt water and fire retardant products should continue to be monitored.
c) Rare, Endangered, & Threatened Species Rare, endangered, and threatened species are plants and animals that have been identified by provincial and federal authorities as species-at-risk because of their numbers, limited habitat and habitat conditions. The SAP recommends that Burns Bog should be managed to restore and protect ecological processes not species protection. Existing species-at-risk in the Bog should be identified and monitored as bog restoration proceeds.
d) Invasive Species
Invasive species are introduced plants and animals. They are not typically associated with Burns Bog. Some species are well-adapted to bog conditions while others require the drier conditions that presently exist in some parts of the Bog. Invasive vegetation and wildlife can degrade the Bog’s ecosystem by competing with bog species for limited resources. The distribution of invasive species may be limited as bog restoration progresses, in particular, species requiring drier conditions. An invasive species control and monitoring program should be undertaken.
e) Access to Bog Lands
First Nations access for traditional and ceremonial uses has been addressed for the present by allowing access to near-by Delta-owned lands for harvesting Labrador Tea. The dialogue started with First Nations in the development of the Management Plan should continue. Existing rights-of-way holders will continue to have access to maintain, repair, and replace their utilities within their rights-of-way, as legally required and addressed in the Conservation Covenant and Management Agreement. Access for carrying out approved research, data collection and monitoring directly related to ecological management and the restoration of raised bog processes should be allowed. The Conservation Covenant requires that bog management be based on an understanding of the best science of the day. The SAP developed a draft research and monitoring strategy to help guide research proposal review within a GVRD-managed research permit process. If approved, researchers would be required to collect data and submit reports in a form that allows their integration into an overall Bog information database. Currently the public can visit the Delta-owned Delta Nature Reserve east of Highway 91. The Delta Nature Reserve has an inner and outer boardwalk loop for visitors. The proposed Delta South Surrey Greenway will follow an existing utility corridor and connect with the eastern boundary of Delta Nature Reserve, as well as, Delta’s Watershed
Park. All of the lands purchased in March 2004 by Canada, British Columbia, Delta and GVRD should be managed as “Reserve”. The Province has proposed that, in future, controlled public access in some parts of the lands purchased in March 2004 be examined. In addition, bog impacts, public safety issues and facility requirements (e.g. boardwalks) would need to be considered.
f) Expanding the Bog Management Boundaries
Originally Burns Bog was larger, connecting outward to other natural areas. SAP identified the desirability of re-establishing the Bog’s ‘lagg’ area where possible and establishing green connectors/wildlife corridors to the Fraser River, Panorama Ridge and Boundary Bay. The ‘lagg’ is the perimeter discharge zone of the bog where excess acidic bog water meets the surrounding fresh water and drains away. The ‘lagg’ and the corridors are important in the long-term restoration and management of raised bog processes, but they lie beyond the existing bog management boundaries. The ‘lagg’ has hydrological, hydro-chemical and biological functions in the bog ecosystem. The commitment of GVRD, Delta, and the Province to Canada in the Conservation Covenant was the management of the 5045 acres of land acquired by the four agencies in March 2004. These lands should be the primary management focus at this time. Opportunities and implications to bring additional suitable lands within the bog management boundaries could be examined in the future including approaches to re-establishing ‘lagg’ function.
Timing of Management Actions and Funding Estimates Management Actions related to the six (6) key directions above are broken out into three timeframes. Management Actions considered most important occur in the first 5 years, those of second importance in 6 to 15 years and longer term needs are post 16 years (Attachment 3). The preliminary funding requirement estimates for data collection, land management and research associated with the six (6) key directions above are as follows: Table 1: Ongoing Data Collection & Monitoring and Land Management (Annual Costs) Data Collection and Monitoring Land Management Baseline Data Collection $40,000 Operations, planning, enforcement $280,000Hydrological Monitoring $10,000 Drainage Management $150,000Vegetation Monitoring $10,000 Scientific Advisory Panel $30,0002005 Fire Monitoring $5,000 Subtotal $460,000Water Balance Determination $42,000 Restoration of the Lagg $42,000 TOTAL $609, 000Subtotal $149,000
Table 2: Applied Research Projects (One time costs) Research Projects Forest Management $52,000Sphagnum Regeneration $42,000Fire Management $42,000Invasive Species $42,000Implications of Public Use $42,000
TOTAL $220,000 3. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives are presented at this time in this information report. 4. CONCLUSION This information report provides the Parks and Environment Committees with an update on the preparation of the management plan for Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area. A complete draft management plan will be prepared to present a more fulsome discussion of the proposed management actions needed to complete this phase of the management plan. MS/GP/mg/EA/dm Attachments (3)
ATTACHMENT 1
Parks Committee Meeting Date: September 9, 2005 GVRD Board of Directors Meeting Date: September 23, 2005
To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Parks Committee Date: August 3, 2005 Subject: Burns Bog – Vision and Working Objectives for Management Plan Recommendation: That the GVRD Board of Directors approve the Vision and the Working Objectives to guide development of the Burns Bog management plan. 1. PURPOSE To seek approval of the Vision and Working Objectives to guide the development of the Burns Bog Long-Term Management Plan. 2. CONTEXT In March 2004 an area of 5,045 acres (2,040 ha) of Burns Bog was purchased with contributions from four levels of government: Canada, British Columbia, Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Corporation of Delta. These lands are now owned by the Province (2,193 acres), the ‘Provincial Lands’; and GVRD/Delta (2,852 acres), the ‘Local Government Lands’ (Attachment). The highest priorities at the time of purchase to maintain water levels in the Bog, address urgent operating requirements, such as fire mitigation public safety and liability issues, then to develop a Long-Term Management Plan. Burns Bog Ecosystem Burns Bog is an area of international, national, provincial and local ecological significance based on its chemistry, form, flora and large size. It exhibits the typical characteristics of a raised bog ecosystem that is a peat mound above the regional water table, an internal water mound, acidic nutrient-poor water derived directly from precipitation, a two-layered peat deposit and widespread peat land communities dominated by Sphagnum and members of the Heather family.
ATTACHMENT 2
The Bog’s hydrology is shaped by the water mound, fluctuating water levels in the bog acrotelm (top 50cm layer) and an extensive network of ditches. A raised (domed) bog depends entirely upon rainwater; its interaction with the surrounding environment is outward. About 40% of the original bog area (10,000 acres) has been converted to agricultural and urban development, and significant portions of the remaining bog have been disturbed by activities like peat mining. However, Burns Bog retains important ecological processes and continues to support distinct vegetation communities and their associated wildlife. The Bog includes several nationally and provincially listed species-at-risk, as well as a variety of other wildlife. Originally covered in open heath and Sphagnum vegetation with scattered scrub pine, today seven forest, nine shrubby and herbaceous, and six sparsely vegetated ecosystems occur. At present, only 29% of the Bog’s original acrotelm (top 50cm layer) and its dynamic water storage zone remain intact. The Bog has become isolated from other natural areas and surrounded by agricultural and urban development uses, some of which influence the vegetation and wildlife of the Bog. The undisturbed peat-forming plant communities of the southern third and the northwest sector of the Bog are vital to its survival. The Bog’s current water balance suggests a surplus of about 200mm of precipitation over evaporation & transpiration (from vegetation) for an average year. Monthly water balance analysis for an entire year shows that there is a moisture deficit from April to September. The result of the moisture deficit, drainage, and adjoining land uses has been the advance of forest vegetation, mainly Lodgepole pine, at the perimeter of the Bog. The ecological viability of the Bog is directly dependent on the extent and integrity of the water mound and the peat that encloses it. The upper porous acrotelm (top 50cm layer) is vital to the persistence of the water mound and the peat forming communities dominated by Sphagnum mosses. Past land uses, peat mining in particular, adjacent to and within the Bog have disturbed the Bog’s hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife. Conservation Covenant and Management Agreement The GVRD, Delta, and the Province are committed to managing the Bog as described in the Conservation Covenant with Canada. The Management Agreement, which contains the Conservation Covenant, was approved by the GVRD Board in July 2004, and signed by the four contributing agencies. The Conservation Covenant identifies four guiding principles: To the greatest extent possible, a) Maintain, in perpetuity, a large contiguous undeveloped natural area for the purpose of
protecting the flora and fauna that depend on the Bog; b) Manage the Bog as a functional raised bog ecosystem as understood by the best science of the
time;
c) Maintain the extent and integrity of the water mound and the peat that encloses it, and in particular the upper porous acrotelm (top 50cm layer), upon which the persistence of the bog ecosystem depends; and
d) Prevent any occupation or use of the Bog that will impair or interfere with the current state of the Bog or the natural, scientific, environmental, wildlife or plant life values related to the Bog.
GVRD, Delta, and the Province intend to manage all of the Bog as an ecological conservancy area. GVRD is responsible for overall management, including operations, maintenance and capital improvements as required. Delta has agreed to undertake management responsibility for the drainage system in and around the acquired land, as well as fire management. Public access to Burns Bog lands has been curtailed by agreement of the four contributing agencies. Public access in the future will be considered in the Long-Term Management Plan. Activities which will impair or interfere with the Bog will not be permitted. Delta Nature Reserve (east of Highway 91), is part of the bog; limited public access is permitted. GVRD leads the management planning process. The planning process is to determine the best approach for protection and improvement of Bog and protection of its natural values and attributes. GVRD is working with a Planning Team made up of representatives of the four contributing agencies. A Scientific Advisory Panel has been appointed to provide expert advice on bog hydrology, ecology, management issues and guidance on technical matters to the Planning Team. The Planning Team will be seeking input from the public, First Nations, neighbours, and organizations with rights-of-access (ie. utilities). Short-Term Action Plan and Draft Management Framework A draft Short-Term Action Plan and a Draft Management Framework were prepared as interim steps in the development of the Long-Term Management Plan. The draft Short-Term Action Plan addresses planning process, interim actions to mitigate Bog drainage, and field operations at the Bog. The Draft Management Framework addresses Conservation Covenant principles, Vision, Mission, and ecological, social, and fiscal Objectives. Ecological objectives will guide decision-making when considering the other two objectives based on the intent of the Conservation Covenant and Management Agreement. The draft Short-Term Action Plan and Draft Management Framework were presented to the public at an information meeting on June 18th, 2005 in North Delta. Thirteen people attended. Participants were supportive of the interim actions taken by GVRD and Delta in managing the lands. Comments received included:
• Concern about All-Terrain Vehicle activities • Accelerate ditch blocking to raise water levels; • Concern about the impact of the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road (Gateway) on
the Bog; • Protection of historic features like the extraction machinery and railway track; and • Need for on-going public involvement once the management plan is adopted.
Comments on the Draft Management Framework provided public insights into issues that need to be addressed in the Long-Term Management Plan, including: various perspectives on public access to the Bog, multiple approaches to education, First Nations access to Provincial lands for ceremonial & traditional uses, approaches to fire management, and the management of the various ecosystems within the Bog. The other contributing agencies represented on the Planning Team have reviewed the draft Short-Term Action Plan and Draft Management Framework and will be seeking approval by their agencies. Vision and Working Objectives The Board is asked to consider the Vision and Working Objectives in the Draft Management Framework, to guide the development of the Long-Term Management Plan for Burns Bog. Vision – 100 year timeframe Burns Bog is an internationally recognized restored bog naturally evolving over time into a self-sustaining raised bog ecosystem that is appreciated regionally for its public & education programs, and scientific research. Working Objectives To the greatest extent possible, in compliance with the Conservation Covenant, Management Agreement, and fiscal affordability, the following objectives will guide decision-making: Ecological Management Objectives a) Protect and restore raised bog processes, recognizing the limitations that regional urbanization
and anticipated climate change may impose; b) Implement monitoring systems that track the bog’s hydrology and water regime in addition to
other biological processes; c) Support scientific research on raised bog ecology and restoration, to further the understanding
and recognition of bogs; d) Minimize or eliminate, if possible, introduced and invasive plant & animal species; e) Control wildfires as much as possible; f) Support efforts to establish ecological corridors outward from the Bog to natural areas (eg.
Fraser River, Boundary Bay, and Panorama Ridge); g) Recognize the rights and need to maintain, repair and/or replace existing utilities in the Bog; and h) Protect and manage for threatened or endangered species, as appropriate.
Social Management Objectives a) Provide opportunities for public education and sustainable recreation as community amenities; b) Control encroachment and unauthorized access & use; c) Apply best environmental management practices in the design, construction, and operation of
potential future facilities; d) Encourage on-going community involvement in the long-term management of Burns Bog,
including community stewardship and education services;
e) Implement a collaborative outreach stewardship program with adjacent landowners and neighbours; and
f) Respect First Nations rights that may exist to access Provincial Lands for ceremonial and traditional uses of wildlife and plants.
Fiscal Management Objectives a) Encourage private and non-government organization, and public philanthropy through the Pacific
Parkland Foundation, to assist in achieving the long-term management and education objectives of Burns Bog;
b) Explore initiatives to offset restoration and operating costs; and c) Manage and operate the Bog within a fiscally affordable framework, through partnered
collaboration of resources and expertise. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option 1: Approve the Vision and the Working Objectives The Vision and Working Objectives conform to the four agency management agreement and planning process, and build on the conservation covenant and recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Panel. Delta staff will be taking the draft Short-Term Action Plan and the Draft Management Framework to their Council in September 2005, seeking approval. Canada and the Provincial staff will be seeking approval of these documents by internal staff review once GVRD and Delta have approved them. The public supports the draft Short-Term Action Plan and the Draft Management Framework with specific feedback and ideas to be considered in the next steps of the planning process. Option 2: Direct staff to make modifications to the Vision and/or the Working
Objectives before approving them Proposed changes would be incorporated by the Planning Team and forwarded to the Park Committee and Board in October 2005. The Vision and the Working Objectives are interim products in the planning process. 4. CONCLUSION The Vision and Working Objectives provide policy direction to guide development of the Long-Term Management Plan for Burns Bog. They have been reviewed by the contributing agencies and presented to the public in draft. Board approval will enable the Planning Team to proceed with the next steps in preparing the management plan. Attachment
2006/1
0/2
7
Att
achm
ent
3
1
BU
RN
S B
OG
EC
OLO
GIC
AL
CO
NSE
RVA
NC
Y A
REA
M
AN
AG
EMEN
T PL
AN
SU
MM
AR
Y &
TIM
ING
OF
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
AC
TIO
NS
Man
agem
entA
ctio
ns
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 0
to 5
Ye
ars
6 to
15
Man
agem
e nt A
ctio
ns
Year
s 16
& o
nwar
ds
•
App
ly fo
r RA
MS
AR
&/o
r W
orld
Her
itage
Site
de
sign
atio
n
• R
evie
w B
og M
anag
emen
t Fr
amew
ork
• R
evie
w B
og M
anag
emen
t Fr
amew
ork
1.0
Dra
inag
e &
Hyd
rolo
gy
Del
ta le
ad, w
ith G
VR
D s
uppo
rt;
fund
ing
cont
ribut
ion
by G
VR
D
base
d on
app
rove
d pl
ans
Del
ta le
ad, w
ith G
VR
D s
uppo
rt;
fund
ing
cont
ribut
ion
by G
VR
D
base
d on
app
rove
d pl
ans
Del
ta le
ad, w
ith G
VR
D s
uppo
rt;
fund
ing
cont
ribut
ion
by G
VR
D
base
d on
app
rove
d pl
ans
•
Dev
elop
a s
tage
d di
tch-
bloc
king
impl
emen
tatio
n &
m
onito
ring
plan
•
Und
erta
ke e
ngin
eerin
g de
sign
•
Impl
emen
t ditc
h-bl
ocki
ng
plan
in s
tage
s •
Ref
ine
ditc
h-bl
ocki
ng a
s re
quire
d, m
aint
ain
& re
new
•
Ref
ine
ditc
h-bl
ocki
ng a
s re
quire
d, m
aint
ain
& re
new
• M
onito
r hyd
rolo
gica
l re
spon
se; w
ater
che
mis
try,
as re
quire
d •
Mon
itor v
eget
atio
n re
spon
se a
s re
quire
d •
Mon
itor p
reci
pita
tion
& B
og
outfl
ow
• M
onito
r hyd
rolo
gica
l re
spon
se; w
ater
che
mis
try,
as re
quire
d •
Mon
itor v
eget
atio
n re
spon
se a
s re
quire
d •
Mon
itor p
reci
pita
tion
& B
og
outfl
ow
• M
onito
r hyd
rolo
gica
l re
spon
se; w
ater
che
mis
try,
as re
quire
d •
Mon
itor v
eget
atio
n re
spon
se a
s re
quire
d •
Mon
itor p
reci
pita
tion
& B
og
outfl
ow
ATTACHMENT 3
2006/1
0/2
7
Att
achm
ent
3
2
Man
agem
entA
ctio
ns
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 0
to 5
Ye
ars
6 to
15
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 16
& o
nwar
ds
2.0
Wild
fire
Del
ta le
ad, w
ith G
VR
D s
taff
&
Pro
vinc
ial F
ire S
ervi
ce s
uppo
rt D
elta
lead
, with
GV
RD
sta
ff &
P
rovi
ncia
l Fire
Ser
vice
sup
port
Del
ta le
ad, w
ith G
VR
D s
taff
&
Pro
vinc
ial F
ire S
ervi
ce s
uppo
rt
• M
anag
e &
con
trol w
ildfir
e •
Man
age
& c
ontro
l wild
fire
• M
anag
e &
con
trol w
ildfir
e
• C
ompl
ete
Wild
fire
Sup
pres
sion
Pla
n
•
Impl
emen
t Wild
fire
Sup
pres
sion
Pla
n (W
SP
) •
Rev
iew
& re
fine
WS
P, a
s re
quire
d •
Rev
iew
& re
fine
WS
P, a
s re
quire
d
• M
onito
r veg
etat
ion
re-
grow
th &
wat
er c
hem
istry
, as
requ
ired
in b
urn
area
s
• M
onito
r veg
etat
ion
re-
grow
th &
wat
er c
hem
istry
, as
requ
ired
in b
urn
area
s
• M
onito
r veg
etat
ion
re-
grow
th &
wat
er c
hem
istry
, as
requ
ired
in b
urn
area
s
3.
0 R
are,
End
ange
red,
&
Thre
aten
ed S
peci
es
GV
RD
lead
, with
Del
ta s
uppo
rt G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
GV
RD
lead
, with
Del
ta s
uppo
rt
•
Iden
tify
exis
ting
spec
ies-
at-
risk
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e B
og;
•
Mon
itor s
peci
es im
pact
s as
bo
g re
stor
atio
n pr
ocee
ds;
• M
onito
r spe
cies
impa
cts
as
bog
rest
orat
ion
proc
eeds
; •
Mon
itor s
peci
es im
pact
s as
bo
g re
stor
atio
n pr
ocee
ds;
4.0
Inva
sive
Spe
cies
G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
GV
RD
lead
, with
Del
ta s
uppo
rt G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
•
Iden
tify
type
s of
info
rmat
ion
requ
ired,
eg.
spe
cies
, ex
tent
, con
trol o
ptio
ns
•
Sta
rt da
ta c
olle
ctio
n •
Con
tinue
dat
a co
llect
ion
•
Dev
elop
an
inva
sive
sp
ecie
s co
ntro
l &
mon
itorin
g pl
an
• S
tart
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
• C
ontin
ue im
plem
enta
tion
of
2006/1
0/2
7
Att
achm
ent
3
3
inva
sive
spe
cies
con
trol &
m
onito
ring
plan
th
e in
vasi
ve s
peci
es c
ontro
l &
mon
itorin
g pl
an
• M
onito
r veg
etat
ion
resp
onse
; ref
ine
cont
rol
stra
tegi
es
• M
onito
r veg
etat
ion
resp
onse
; ref
ine
cont
rol
stra
tegi
es
Man
agem
entA
ctio
ns
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 0
to 5
Ye
ars
6 to
15
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 16
& o
nwar
ds
5.0
Acc
ess
to B
og L
ands
G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
GV
RD
lead
, with
Del
ta s
uppo
rt G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
•
Firs
t Nat
ions
acc
ess
to
near
-by
Del
ta-o
wne
d la
nds
• Fi
rst N
atio
ns a
cces
s to
ne
ar-b
y D
elta
-ow
ned
land
s •
Firs
t Nat
ions
acc
ess
to
near
-by
Del
ta-o
wne
d la
nds
•
Exi
stin
g rig
hts-
of-w
ay
hold
er a
cces
s as
per
C
onse
rvat
ion
Cov
enan
t &
Man
agem
ent A
gree
men
t
• E
xist
ing
right
s-of
-way
ho
lder
acc
ess
as p
er
Con
serv
atio
n C
oven
ant &
M
anag
emen
t Agr
eem
ent
• E
xist
ing
right
s-of
-way
ho
lder
acc
ess
as p
er
Con
serv
atio
n C
oven
ant &
M
anag
emen
t Agr
eem
ent
•
GV
RD
app
rove
d re
sear
ch-
rela
ted
acce
ss a
s pe
r M
anag
emen
t Agr
eem
ent
• G
VR
D a
ppro
ved
rese
arch
-re
late
d ac
cess
as
per
Man
agem
ent A
gree
men
t
• G
VR
D a
ppro
ved
rese
arch
-re
late
d ac
cess
as
per
Man
agem
ent A
gree
men
t
• P
ublic
acc
ess
to D
elta
N
atur
e R
eser
ve &
Del
ta S
. S
urre
y G
reen
way
;
• P
ublic
acc
ess
to D
elta
N
atur
e R
eser
ve &
Del
ta S
. S
urre
y G
reen
way
;
• P
ublic
acc
ess
to D
elta
N
atur
e R
eser
ve &
Del
ta S
. S
urre
y G
reen
way
;
• E
nfor
ce ‘n
o pu
blic
acc
ess’
to
rem
aini
ng la
nds;
•
Enf
orce
‘no
publ
ic a
cces
s’
to re
mai
ning
land
s;
• R
espo
nd to
Pro
vinc
ial
requ
est t
o e x
plor
e co
ntro
lled
publ
ic a
cces
s to
so
me
of th
e re
mai
ning
la
nds
• E
valu
ate
resu
lts o
f co
ntro
lled
publ
ic a
cces
s an
d ed
ucat
ion
inve
stig
atio
ns a
nd d
evel
op
plan
s ac
cord
ingl
y
•
Exp
lore
add
ition
al
educ
atio
nal a
nd fa
cilit
y op
tions
alo
ng D
elta
S.
Sur
rey
Gre
enw
ay a
nd D
NR
• Id
entif
y fa
cilit
y re
quire
men
ts a
nd
educ
atio
nal o
ppor
tuni
ties
2006/1
0/2
7
Att
achm
ent
3
4
Man
agem
entA
ctio
ns
Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns
Year
s 0
to 5
Ye
ars
6 to
15
Man
agem
e nt A
ctio
ns
Year
s 16
& o
nwar
ds
6.0
Exp
andi
ng th
e B
og
Man
agem
ent B
ound
arie
s G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
GV
RD
lead
, with
Del
ta s
uppo
rt G
VR
D le
ad, w
ith D
elta
sup
port
•
Pro
tect
sui
tabl
e la
nds
beyo
nd th
e B
og b
ound
ary,
w
here
pos
sibl
e (e
g. S
FPR
al
ignm
ent)
•
Brin
g av
aila
ble
/ sui
tabl
e ad
join
ing
land
s w
ithin
the
Bog
man
agem
ent
boun
darie
s
• B
ring
avai
labl
e / s
uita
ble
adjo
inin
g la
nds
with
in th
e B
og m
anag
emen
t bo
unda
ries
• S
tart
to a
dvan
ce th
e pr
elim
inar
y ‘la
gg’
inv e
stig
atio
ns
• C
ontin
ue to
adv
ance
the
‘lagg
’ inv
estig
atio
ns
•
Dev
elop
a L
agg
Acq
uisi
tion
& M
anag
emen
t Stra
tegy
for
the
Bog
• Im
plem
ent a
cqui
sitio
n,
rest
orat
ion,
mon
itorin
g, a
nd
mai
nten
ance
, as
feas
ible
; N
otes
: •
Var
ious
pla
ns n
eed
furth
er d
evel
opm
ent t
o es
tabl
ish
orde
r-of
-mag
nitu
de c
ost e
stim
ates
; •
The
timin
g of
ear
liest
and
late
r Man
agem
ent A
ctio
ns is
dep
ende
nt o
n re
sour
ces
(fund
ing)
ava
ilabl
e fro
m a
genc
ies,
gra
nts,
pr
ogra
ms,
fund
rais
ing.
4.3
Parks Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2006
Environment Committee Meeting Date: November 14, 2006 To: Parks Committee
Environment Committee From: Wendy DaDalt, Parks East Area Manager
Janice Jarvis, Parks Resource Management Specialist Date: October 28, 2006 Subject: Policy Framework: Planting for Voluntary Carbon Credits and Community
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI) Agreement Recommendations to Environment Committee, for Parks Committee information: That the GVRD Board:
a) Endorse a corporate policy framework for planting for voluntary carbon credits that allows GVRD to cooperate with other agency, non-government or private planting programs where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced through carbon sequestration and where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner.
b) Authorize staff to implement a Community Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI)
partnering agreement with Ecosystem Restoration Associates Inc. (ERA) under which ERA would supply trees, according to the restoration plan, to areas of specified regional parks to enhance the environment, in exchange for an assignment of voluntary carbon credits in such trees to ERA.
1. PURPOSE To obtain GVRD Board endorsement of a corporate policy framework that allows GVRD to cooperate with other agency, non-government or private planting programs where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner and approval to implement a CERI partnering agreement with ERA to undertake planting programs in four regional parks in exchange for an assignment of voluntary carbon credits. 2. CONTEXT Parks has been working with non-profit organizations such as the Tree Canada Foundation (TCF) for many years to plant trees and shrubs to enhance habitat and landscapes and derive environmental benefits, such as carbon sequestration. TCF has a carbon credit certification process as part of its sponsorship program whereby it estimates the amount of carbon potentially sequestered by the trees planted. Companies can enter their carbon credits on a Voluntary Challenge Registry and receive a carbon certificate signed by a Registered Professional Forester legitimizing the planting of the trees, their location and the estimate of the tonnes of carbon potentially sequestered.
ERA, a private environmental business, is seeking to partner with GVRD Parks to plant trees to improve air quality. In the same way as the TCF, the Community Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI) is a project designed to mitigate climate change at the community level. Management of non-native invasive species is also part of ERA’s program. ERA has corporate and individual subscribers to its EcoNeutral program that have made a voluntary commitment toward sustainability by taking measures to reduce their greenhouse gas footprints from their operations. Any residual operating footprints can then be offset through carbon sequestration secured through planting trees. Subscribers to the EcoNeutral program are voluntarily funding tree planting and restoration efforts within communities. ERA has applied scientific rigor to the issue of carbon sequestration and have chosen species to plant in order to maximize sequestration. ERA follows up planting with site maintenance and monitoring and strives to ensure the long-term viability of each tree. ERA is working cooperatively with non-profit organizations such as the Tree Canada Foundation. Each organization is offering GVRD a slightly different program and they are complementary. Where the TCF can offer both shrubs and trees, ERA concentrates primarily on coniferous trees that maximize carbon sequestration benefits. Both organizations are eager to work with volunteers and the community in order to accomplish our shared goals. Background - Voluntary Carbon Credits Voluntary carbon credits have no relationship to commercial carbon trading to offset emissions that occurs in other parts of the world. Canada does not have a GHG trading system at present, and emission caps and crediting will not likely be a reality for many years. A GVRD senior economist classified voluntary credits as “feel good tonnes”. His assessment is that “the eligibility of this kind of offset in a Canadian GHG emission trading system, if one eventually exists, is iffy. If standard protocols used in both now-withered Canadian voluntary systems and in Kyoto-based international trading apply, there will need to be: a project description document; a certification process; a registration process and monitoring agreements in place to ensure the land is kept in forest for the length of the term”. Therefore, it’s unlikely that GVRD partnered projects would ever meet strict legal requirements for commodity trading in the future and present a very low risk that GVRD is forfeiting a potential valuable future commodity. However, a policy framework for assigning voluntary carbon credits is required to provide context for evaluating proposals. Policy Framework: Planting for Voluntary Carbon Credits This policy framework should apply to any party wishing to enter into a planting program where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner. It would indicate that GVRD is willing to partner with organizations, both private and non-profit, in order to enhance habitat and garner the many environmental benefits of planting trees and shrubs on its lands in exchange for the assignments of carbon credits. Programs that allow voluntary carbon crediting through tree planting are a way for businesses to implement sustainability initiatives. These programs are viable, important and an excellent way for the private sector, government, non-government and communities to work together to improve the environment. Any proposed project where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits for planting to a partner would have to meet the following criteria:
• No one partner would have exclusive rights to this opportunity on any GVRD lands; • GVRD maintains ownership of the trees and only assigns the carbon credit; • GVRD maintains control over planting plans in order to ensure that work is
consistent with management objectives and enhancement plans; • Volunteer and community participation is encouraged and incorporated wherever
possible; and • Any invasive plant species removed will be disposed of in a manner that does not
facilitate the propagation of invasive plant species. The ERA Proposal ERA ecosystem specialists are working with Parks to complete a preliminary assessment of lands in four regional parks to prepare (on a pro bono basis) a carbon sequestration report and restoration plan that indicates habitat enhancement opportunities compatible with park management plans. Potential pilot sites investigated for CERI are Brae Island, Campbell Valley, Aldergrove Lake and Matsqui Trail Regional Parks. The restoration plan will ensure that GVRD objectives are integrated into the proposed works. Following GVRD acceptance of the sequestration report and restoration plan, GVRD would need to enter into a partnering agreement with ERA that recognizes the carbon credit for the trees and guides the work. Carbon credits relate to the carbon sequestered by trees planted during the first one hundred years of their lifetime. The benefits of such sequestered carbon can then be applied to mitigate, neutralize or offset the greenhouse gas emissions of companies, organizations, individuals and others who are voluntarily participating in the EcoNeutral program. A template for the CERI agreement has been modified by GVRD to suit its particular legal and policy requirements. Similar agreements have been executed by the District of Maple Ridge and BC Parks for implementing this initiative in their jurisdictions. The agreement will ensure that ERA’s activities are clearly restricted by description of the Lands which includes identifying the specific locations within regional parks where tree planting activity can occur in accordance with the agreed upon restoration plan. The plan will incorporate park management and habitat restoration objectives set out by GVRD. ERA will be responsible for site preparation, stock purchase, planting, maintenance and removal of agreed upon vegetation (invasive species) until an independent assessor has certified that the trees are considered well growing (approximately 25% higher than the surrounding vegetation). Parks incurs only nominal staffing costs to facilitate preparation of restoration plans and on-site implementation including organizing volunteer involvement. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option 1: Endorse a corporate policy framework for planting for voluntary carbon
credits that allows GVRD to cooperate with other agency, non-government or private planting programs where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced through carbon sequestration and where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner. Authorize staff to implement a Community Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (CERI) partnering agreement with Ecosystem Restoration Associates Inc. (ERA) under which ERA would supply trees, according to the restoration plan, to areas of specified regional parks to enhance the
environment, in exchange for an assignment of voluntary carbon credits in such trees to ERA.
Advantages: • Endorsing the policy framework allows GVRD to continue to work with organizations
such as the Tree Canada Foundation and pursue other partners such as ERA. The ability to work with both the private and non-government sectors for planting projects provides GVRD a more robust partnered planting program.
• Acting now on the ERA opportunity advances GVRD’s objectives to naturalize areas within parks and improve local ecosystems and air quality providing greater overall benefits than foregoing this opportunity for a very uncertain potential of monetary value.
o Benefits include providing habitat for species at risk, increased biodiversity and landscape enhancement.
o Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to reduce the effect of global climate change.
• Given the amount of disturbed land in the four parks selected, there are a number of suitable locations to plant trees in addition to those in the ERA restoration plan.
• There will be opportunities to involve Park Association members and other volunteers in planting projects, if desired.
• Removal of invasive species is an ongoing issue for parks that requires a significant amount of resources to deal effectively with control. This work will not only provide additional trees for parks, but remove invasive species where appropriate – all done at nominal cost to the GVRD.
• If this pilot program on four sites is deemed successful additional planting programs on GVRD lands could be considered.
• This project fits within the SRI framework by providing ecological and economic benefits as well as educational and volunteer opportunities.
Disadvantages:
• This project will take staff time to coordinate and facilitate. • Parks will have to monitor operations to ensure the long-term preservation of the
trees and notify ERA should loss occur and arrange for ERA to provide replacement if necessary and must commit to retain a certain volume of the trees, constraining future development options (the restoration plan anticipates future park needs).
• GVRD assigns the carbon credit for the trees planted under the agreement to another party.
• The space utilized for these trees will not be available in the future for GVRD should it wish to plant trees for carbon credits (voluntary or otherwise), however, it is not anticipated that parkland would provide much of this capacity given its policy restrictions and the nature of the planting opportunities e.g. understory plantings.
Option 2: Direct staff to modify the policy framework to exclude private sector
companies and decline the CERI agreement. Advantages:
• Less staff resources will be required since private sector partnering agreements require legal review and can carry long-term obligations.
• GVRD can continue to work with non-profit and community organizations who want to plant trees in exchange for assignment of voluntary carbon credits.
Disadvantages:
• ERA will seek other partners and GVRD will lose the opportunity to benefit from the CERI proposal to get a large number of desired trees producing immediate ecosystem and park benefits.
• Staff access to ecosystem restoration expertise at nominal cost will be foregone. • GVRD will lose opportunities to work innovatively and positively with private
businesses in the community to address global issues on a local level. Option 3: Do not endorse a corporate policy framework for planting for voluntary
carbon credits that allows GVRD to cooperate with other agency, non-government or private planting programs where greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced through carbon sequestration and where GVRD assigns voluntary carbon credits to a partner.
Advantages:• Staff time can be preserved for other work and future land-use decisions will not be
encumbered by the long-term preservation of specific trees. • GVRD could utilize carbon credits for all trees planted on its land.
Disadvantages:
• Long-standing partnerships with organizations such as the Tree Canada Foundation may be jeopardized if voluntary carbon crediting is not allowed.
• Regarding the ERA proposal, GVRD will lose an opportunity to gain, at nominal cost, substantial habitat improvement benefits that will contribute to increased biodiversity, ecological health and public enjoyment.
• GVRD would lose opportunities to work innovatively and positively with private businesses and other organizations in the community to address global issues on a local level.
• GVRD would limit its access to ecosystem specialists and science-based programs and associated staff and volunteer education opportunities.
• GVRD would bear the full cost of tree purchase, planting, invasive species removal, monitoring and maintenance on many projects, except as offset by volunteers
• Volunteer opportunities would be reduced due to less availability of plants and programs.
4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Option 1. Regardless of the current uncertainty around future trading of carbon credits the voluntary carbon crediting system is a valuable tool to implement sustainability initiatives. Many socially responsible companies and individuals want to reduce or eliminate their GHG footprint regardless of monetary benefits. Approving a framework policy that allows GVRD to assign voluntary carbon credits for tree planting provides GVRD with diverse partnership options and programs. ERA has presented GVRD with an opportunity to enhance habitat, increase biodiversity and control invasive species improving the natural environment within selected areas of four regional parks at nominal cost. The long-term preservation of trees planted under agreement will sequester carbon and help reduce the overall amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. EcoNeutral program subscribers and participants are facilitating habitat restoration efforts within communities and are supporting a local climate change initiative that will affect the quality of life for future generations. Everybody wins. Attachment 1. Brochure on CERI and EcoNeutral Program WD/JJ/EA/dm 44442287
Atta
chm
ent N
o. 1
4.4
Parks Committee Meeting Date November 8, 2006
GVRD/UBC Joint Committee Meeting Date: November 15, 2006
To: GVRD/UBC Joint Committee From: Mitch Sokalski Parks West Area Manager Date: October 17, 2006 Subject: Pacific Spirit Regional Park - Wreck Beach Operations Recommendation to GVRD/UBC Joint Committee, for Parks Committee information: That the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee receive for information the report dated October 17, 2006 titled “Pacific Spirit Regional Park - Wreck Beach Operations”. 1. PURPOSE As requested, to provide Parks Committee (GVRD/UBC Joint Committee) with an information report on Wreck Beach Operations. 2. CONTEXT At their October 2006 meeting the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee passed the following resolution: “Staff was requested to report back to the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee regarding health and safety issues at Wreck Beach (i.e. hygiene and sanitation, garbage collection, fire protection, accessibility, policing and security), specifically, what is in place and does the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan need to be updated as a result of changing demographics.” Hygiene/Sanitation The majority of the park is within Electoral Area A and a small section is within Vancouver city boundaries. Under the Health Act Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) are responsible for public health. Park staff work with VCH on a regular basis to address any health issues that may arise. Health issues have included: swim beach closures due to poor water quality (usually near the outflow of Trail 7 creek), food vending service regulations and washroom facility installation. Pit toilet facilities with sealed holding tanks are provided at high-use beach trail entrances and near the base of Trail 6. Toilet maintenance occurs daily and several times daily during busier seasons. The holding tanks are pumped out several times each year. A sewer pump truck is barged into the beach to pump out the pit toilet tanks near the base of Trail 6; this is done 3 times per year. The toilets at the top of Trails, 6, 7
and at Acadia Beach are accessible by land and are pumped out 4 times per year. Pit toilets with sealed tanks are used by many park agencies and are used at numerous GVRD Park sites. Potable water and permanent washrooms to service the Trail 6 area of the beach has been identified in GVRD Parks and Greenways Plan development schedule. The existing toilet facilities at the base of trail six are becoming inadequate. Water supply at this location will also assist the needs of food vending services and water for public consumption. Garbage Collection Litter pickup and garbage removal is daily; frequency of litter pickup increases during the busy season. Garbage cans are located at the top of each trail leading to the beach and additional garbage cans are located at the base of Trails 3 and 4. Beach users are encouraged by the Wreck Beach Preservation Society (WBPS) and Parks to remove their litter from the beach to the top of the trails and place the litter in garbage cans. In addition to the daily removal of garbage, WBPS promotes and conducts annual cleanups of the beach, and GVRD is involved with providing hand tools and disposal containers for these events. From time to time, other debris is washed up on the shoreline; removal is conducted by GVRD. Fire Protection The park’s fire plan includes a complete list of available equipment, including mapping that identifies the location of fire hydrants and higher risk areas, and incorporates both Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services, GVRD Fire protection services and Provincial Ministry of Forests. Park staff are trained in wildfire suppression and re-certified annually or as required. During fire season, forest conditions are monitored and fire hazard notification signs are updated daily. High and extreme hazard conditions trigger additional fire protection measures, such as increased patrol, educational signage, BBQ and smoking bans. Fires are not permitted on the beach; however this is an ongoing enforcement issue similar to other beaches in the region. If beach fires are spotted by staff they are extinguished immediately. Accessibility Park maps identify access to the beach. The maps are posted on the GVRD website, in park kiosks, UBC kiosks and in park brochures. There are five primary access points to the beach. These access points predate GVRD ownership and were recommended by a UBC/Vancouver Parks Board planning process. The dedicated trails protect the forest, the sensitive cliffs and provide safe foot travel to the beach. Access to the beach area is possible by: land - foot travel, water – boat or hovercraft, air - helicopter. In the case of an emergency, i.e. medical evacuation, the Coast Guard hovercraft is summoned by Emergency Health Services, Fire Dept or Police and can easily respond to any area of the beach. Annually, a multi-agency meeting is held to confirm emergency response protocols for the Point Grey area. At the meeting, agencies confirm protocols for the foreshore area of the park.
Policing and Security Consistent with other park agencies GVRD has established a close working relationship with each policing authority that services a regional park. With the adoption of the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan a Wreck Beach Liaison Committee (WBLC) was recommended and established. WBLC comprises representatives of RCMP, Vancouver Fire, BC Ambulance, Coast Guard, Fisheries Canada, Vancouver Coastal Health, UBC Security and Patrol, UEL Ratepayers, Wreck Beach Preservation Society, 2 additional beach users and park staff. The group meets yearly or more as required and evaluates beach operation. Collectively WBLC considers management actions to address beach issues which can include policing matters. In addition, the RCMP attends Wreck Beach Preservation Society meetings to collaborate on addressing policing issues. GVRD bylaws outline rules and regulations to protect park resources and guide safe public use. The Management Plan identifies approved outdoor recreation activities for the park. RCMP provides policing services to the park and beach and from time to time Vancouver City Police become involved in policing issues due to the parks land base connecting directly with City of Vancouver. This past summer GVRD and RCMP were able to increase their presence at the beach. GVRD provides bylaw enforcement and general security while RCMP handles any violations related to the criminal code. The approach for policing Wreck Beach is similar to GVRD’s work with Port Moody where close coordination and communication between agencies has increased compliance with park rules. The park is officially closed at night, and during the summer evenings RCMP and GVRD staff conduct a beach patrol following to announce beach closing time and where necessary escort park users off the beach. Demographics While population is aging GVRD does not see a need to review the park management plan at this time. While sections of the plan including dog and cliff management have received additional planning attention there has not been a region wide demand, nor does park data indicate a need to review and update the park’s management plan. 3. ALTERNATIVES No alternatives are presented at this time in this information report. 4. CONCLUSION This report is intended to provide information on Wreck Beach operating and management activities as requested by the GVRD/UBC Joint Committee at their October 17, 2006 meeting. MS/mg/EA/dm
4.5
Parks Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2006
Environment Committee Meeting Date: November 14, 2006
To: Parks Committee Environment Committee
From: Lesley Douglas, Parks Resource Management Specialist
Theresa Duynstee, Project Coordinator, Policy and Planning Department Date: October 19, 2006 Subject: Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. Memorandum of Support Recommendation to Environment Committee, for Parks Committee information: That the GVRD Board support the Fraser Basin Council’s Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. by signing the Memorandum of Support as an indication of the GVRD’s corporate support of the Strategy. 1. PURPOSE To confirm the GVRD corporate support for working collaboratively to improve invasive plant management in the region. The GVRD has been invited to become a signatory to the Memorandum of Support for the Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. 2. CONTEXT Invasive plants are defined as any invasive alien plant species that has the potential to pose undesirable or detrimental impacts on humans, animals or ecosystems. The Fraser Basin Council released an Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. on March 3, 2004, to target the rapid spread of invasive, non native plants that threaten fragile ecosystems, reduce biodiversity and cost our economy millions of dollars each year. The Strategy was developed by a diverse group of contributors including all levels of government, resource based industries, utilities, landowners and non-government groups. Memorandum of Support Signatories to the Memorandum of Support endorse the intent of the Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. and thereby agree to uphold and espouse its goal. The Strategy’s goal is “to build cooperation and coordination to protect British Columbia’s environment and minimize negative social and economic impact caused by the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive alien plants.” Essentially the signatories are expected to participate in the Invasive Plant Council of B.C., help build leadership and a cooperative, province-wide invasive plant management program, and encourage others to works towards successful implementation of the strategy over time. There is no obligation to make a financial contribution. To date over 200 hundred
organizations and individuals have signed the Memorandum of Support, including 11 regional districts and four municipalities within the Greater Vancouver region. The GVRD Board support for the Memorandum commits the GVRD Corporation to upholding the intent of the Invasive Plant Strategy. There is no financial obligation, yet some minor additional staff time may be required to promote the importance of managing for invasive species. Invasive Plant Management at the GVRD Invasive plants are a major threat to biodiversity in our region, a serious concern only second to loss of habitat. Left unaddressed, invasive species have invaded our unique natural areas in parks, wildlife reserves, wetlands and forests. Once established, many are difficult to control and expensive to remove. The GVRD already upholds the intent of the strategy and participates in invasive species management in several ways. GVRD staff has participated in the ongoing Invasive Plant Council meetings since January 2005. GVRD Parks staff is helping lead the recently formed Greater Vancouver Invasive Plant Committee. Invasive Plant Management programs can only be effective through collaborative efforts amongst all community members as invasive plants do not recognize jurisdictional borders or property lines. Over the past few years GVRD Parks has attempted a number of strategies to facilitate a science based approach with collaboration and education across the region. The most recent is the development of a much needed brochure on invasive species tailored for the Lower Mainland with an invitation for municipalities to participate in the print run. Ongoing programs such as “Weedbusters” at Burnaby Lake Regional Park and the Pacific Spirit Park Society Invasive Species Working Group are examples of staff led invasive plant removal efforts in collaboration with local park associations and volunteers. In addition an operational field program for the control and reduction of invasive blackberries has been undertaken on a pilot basis at Tynehead Regional Park. Budget and staff allocation to these programs are currently very small in scale, however, as we build upon our success using an adaptive management approach, the programs are expected to grow. On June 16, 2006, several GVRD staff involved in land management, representing the Operations & Maintenance, Policy and Planning and the Parks Departments discussed the implications of the GVRD signing the Memorandum of Support. No concerns emerged; however, there was much interest and enthusiasm on the subject with many questions regarding the management of the most problematic species. Staff also notes that the GVRD is already required to manage some invasive plant species under the BC Weed Control Act. It was concluded that we need to increase awareness of invasive species within the Corporation and share information about successful management techniques with operational staff working in the watersheds, at large facilities and on construction projects. The intent of the Invasive Plant Strategy is aligned with the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Greater Vancouver Region. Also the stated principles of protecting the environment and minimizing social/economic impacts are consistent with the Sustainable Region Initiative. As with other environmental initiatives, the aim is to prevent serious problems from emerging in the future by implementing targeted and cost effective actions today. This aspect of invasive plant management is known as “Early Detection and Rapid Response”. Communication amongst corporate staff on this subject will be critical for the successful
eradication of new plant “invaders”. The key is to coordinate activities and share information about best management practices. Upon signing the Memorandum of Support, GVRD staff will continue to work cooperatively within the GVRD and with other municipalities and groups on invasive species management. To improve understanding an information session will be held to educate GVRD staff about invasive species of concern in the region and facilitate discussions on appropriate management techniques. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option 1 Sign the Memorandum of Support for the GVRD Corporation. Signing of the Memorandum would be an endorsement of the Invasive Plant Strategy’s goal which is “to build cooperation and coordination to protect British Columbia’s environment and minimize negative social and economic impacts caused by the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive alien plants”. The Memorandum of Support clearly states that “nothing in this Memorandum of Support obligates signatories to contribute financially to the Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia or any aspect of the strategy’s implementation. Upon signing, the GVRD representatives can officially participate in the Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia. Option 2: Seek further information on the repercussions of participating in the
Invasive Plant Council of B.C. from staff prior to making a decision on the Memorandum of Support.
Building upon the first meeting on June 16th, 2006, a review of corporate actions and concerns regarding invasive species management could be initiated. To date there has been little concern from staff in the three Departments solicited regarding the signing of the Memorandum of Support. Option 3: Continue to participate in the activities that support the Invasive Plant
Council of B.C., but not sign the Memorandum of Support at this time. This decision would continue to exclude our official participation in any of the Invasive Plant Council Subcommittees. With GVRD Parks as an active member in the newly formed Greater Vancouver Invasive Plant Council, this alternative would put the signing of the Memorandum of Support into question by its membership. 4. CONCLUSION Becoming a signatory for the Invasive Plant Strategy for B.C. Memorandum of Support is consistent with current GVRD initiatives and will help facilitate information sharing about invasive species management within the GVRD Corporation and with colleagues throughout the region. Attachment 1. Invasive Plant Strategy for British Columbia Memorandum of Support (4440789) 004437768
Invasive Plant Strategy for British ColumbiaMemorandum of Support
The Invasive Plant Strategy for British Columbia is a collaborative outcome produced by a wide range ofrepresentatives from:
• All orders of government, including federal, provincial, local and First Nations;• Land- and water-based user groups;• Resource-based businesses and industries;• Utilities; and• Non-government organizations.
The strategy’s goal is to build cooperation and coordination to protect British Columbia’s environment andminimize negative social and economic impacts caused by the introduction, establishment and spread of invasivealien plants.
Signatories to this Memorandum of Support endorse the strategy’s intent and thereby agree to uphold and espouse itsgoal. Signatories agree to participate in the Invasive Plant Council of British Columbia and help build leadership and acooperative, province-wide invasive plant management program. Signatories are likewise expected to encourage otherpotential parties and individuals to work towards successful implementation of the strategy over time.
Nothing in this Memorandum of Support obligates signatories to contribute financially to the Invasive Plant Council ofBritish Columbia or any aspect of the strategy’s implementation.
____________________________________ ________________________________Name Title
________________________________________________________________________Organization
____________________________________ ________________________________Signature Date
INVASIVE PLANT STRATEGY FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORT
ATTACHMENT
4.6
Parks Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2006 TO: Parks Committee FROM: Ed Andrusiak, Manager DATE: October 26, 2006 SUBJECT: Manager’s Report Recommendation: That the Parks Committee receives for information the report dated October 26, 2006 titled “Manager’s Report”. Iona Beach Regional Park: VanCity Volunteer Event (oral) Pacific Spirit Regional Park: Tree Cutting Update (oral)
Recently Completed Events Event name and date Description Location Volunteers VanCity Stewardship Event 10/11/2006
VanCity Savings Corporate Social Responsibility Group organized a staff day in the park as a work-party engaged in a stewardship project (invasive species removal); in association with Riverworks
Iona Beach
200
Country Celebration 9/16/2006 – 9/17/2006
One drizzly day out of the two impacted the overall attendance for this annual festival but turnout was still good at 6500 people. This year's event saw the addition of several new activities including the 4H Llama club's achievement day, the BC Dairy in the Classroom display, the Solar Power Roadshow, miniature horse demonstrations, a musical instrument making workshop, and much more. The main stage was programmed with artists from the local community making for a highly entertaining and engaging two day festival.
Campbell Valley Regional Park
70
Coho Walk 9/10/2006
About 1600 people from all walks of life came out on a beautiful sunny day to enjoy this interpretive walk through Capilano River, ending at the Coho Festival in Ambleside Park. Over 45 volunteers and GVRD staff contributed their support and made for a very successful event.
Capilano River
45
Confirmed Upcoming Events Event name and date Description LocatioSuper Saturday 2006 11/4/2006
GVRD Regional Parks' annual day of learning and exchange for volunteers, partners and staff will be held at BCIT (Willingdon) campus. Program includes workshops, presentations and keynote address; this year there will be a number of workshops designed for youth, and those developing youth programs.
BCIT
Pacific Parklands Foundation Board of Directors Recognition Date TBC
Planning is now underway for a recognition event whereby GVRD can offer thanks to the volunteer Board of Directors for the PPF. Options will be presented to Parks Committee Chair for consideration.
TBC
Parks Staff Seminar 2006 12/5/2006
Annual staff seminar combining review of year's achievements with staff development, team-building activities and keynote speakers.
ScandinBurnab
Mountain Mardi Gras 2/24/2007
A multidisciplinary, multicultural carnival performance and event within the mountain environment of the North Shore. Music, masquerading, games, dancing and storytelling will be used to showcase the progressive social, recreational and ecological ideals that hallmark the North Shore. Presented in partnership with the Public Dreams Society and the North Vancouver Community Arts Council. Planned to be an annual event that will build up to the 2010 Olympics.
Capilan
Nightquest 3/24/2007
Annual night-time exploration of Pacific Spirit Park, in partnership with the Park Society and Girl Guides.
Pacific
Ideas Fair 3/31/2007
Annual volunteer recognition event to be held in East Area.
East Ar
Wilderness at your Doorstep 5/20/2007
Annual season-opening event will be combined with recognition ceremony for BC Mills House partners and District of North Vancouver.
Lynn H
Voices of the Fraser 6/14/2007 - 6/16/2007
Second annual walk-through theatre program focusing on the cultural heritage of Deas Island and Delta. Expanded to three-day event due to positive response from school groups.
Deas Is
Fraser Fest 7/21/2007
GVRD contribution to the Hyack Festival Society's FraserFest. Possible involvement may include a boat tour of the Fraser, an interpretive display, or a historical theatre presentation focusing on the Fraser River.
New Wlocation
3Special Events Summary
5. Attendance 2006,500
1,600
n
avian Centre, y o River
Spirit
ea, location TBC
eadwaters
land
estminster, TBC
