Whistler Zero Waste Plan: Strategies for Garbage Reduction

Transcription

1 Whistler Zero Waste Plan: Strategies for Garbage Reduction REPORT MARCH 2013 ISSUED FOR USE EBA FILE: V

2 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the Resort Municipality of Whistler and their agents. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Resort Municipality of Whistler, or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in EBA s Services Agreement. EBA s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company Oceanic Plaza, 9th Floor, 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2 CANADA p f

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) is seeking to significantly increase efficiencies in its solid waste system to reduce waste and pursue the goal of zero waste. Two primary documents set Whistler s zero waste goals: Whistler 2020 which states that by 2020, Whistler is well on its way to achieving its zero waste goal and the Official Community Plan which affirms that RMOW moves progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound manner. This report entitled Whistler Zero Waste Plan: Strategies for Garbage Reduction assesses the existing solid waste system and provides strategies for implementing a Zero Waste Plan. Four primary components of the system are evaluated: 1. Vision and Strategic Policies, 2. Management Systems and Tools. 3. Operational Infrastructure and Services, and Zero Waste Education and Promotion. The outcome of this report will support RMOW future actions to improve the solid waste system to reduce waste and achieve long-term cost savings. Project Scope With zero waste as the underlying long-term goal, the Zero Waste Plan aims to: Deliver cost savings to Whistler; Reduce per capita garbage; Decrease GHG emissions due to long-distance transport and processing of all materials in all streams; and, Fulfill Whistler s commitments under the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) Solid Waste Management Plan. Project Methodology To carry out the scope of work for this project, EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company, (EBA) was retained. Ecoinspire Planning Services was also contracted to EBA to provide additional expertise. The project team gathered information through stakeholder engagement and conducted a review of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to assess the current system and assess performance. Strategies were developed and built into three Zero Waste Plan options that were analyzed through a triple bottom line assessment to evaluate economic, environmental and social effects. As a final step, a resource planning table and an action list were prepared to inform next steps for implementation. The management framework for the project is outlined in the following Figure A. i

4 Findings Figure A: Approach to the Whistler Garbage Reduction Plan Development Current Solid Waste System The project team reviewed the current system by assessing over 35 written documents, including waste generation metrics, and soliciting stakeholder input from14 organizations. Specific strengths and gaps to achieving waste reduction goals were identified for each solid waste system component, as outlined in Section Housing data was summarized in Section with the intent to inform the accessible placement of depots. Population fluctuations based on the resort aspect of Whistler means that the 2 million visitors annually add to the existing resident population of approximately 10,400 resulted in a population equivalent of 27,000 in Waste-related data and metrics are found in Section Current material generation for items reused, recycled, composted and disposed of as garbage; data gaps were identified, especially for products in extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs. Based on total tonnes per year, material generation was on an upward trend from 2007 leading up to and through the Olympics in 2010 but then declined in ii

5 Figure B: Annual Material Generation and Breakdown by Percentage Determining what is still in the waste stream that could be diverted was assessed through a review of recent waste composition studies, and garbage produced by sector was also determined to inform the project. Figure C: Waste Composition Studies: 2004 All Sectors and 2011 Residential Sector Results iii

6 Sources of garbage across sectors are broken out as follows: commercial and strata (62 percent); residential Nesters (12 percent); residential Function Junction (9 percent); and C&D (17 percent). Garbage deemed as commercial includes an undetermined percentage of residential from multi-family strata housing. Figure D: Garbage Generated by Sector Performance Assessment While RMOW has done well in developing its vision and strategic policies and they very clearly support aspirational goals for zero waste, there are system gaps that are preventing RMOW from reaching specific targets as well as the broader goal of zero waste. System gaps are identified in Section 4.1 and are summarized as follows: Vision and Strategic Policies Lack specific targets for reduction of garbage and overall material generation. Lack of action plans and designated staff to accomplish goals. Management Systems and Tools Policy framework does not sufficiently drive the program change needed to meet goals, bylaws are not enforced and more regulatory levers could be in place to foster diversion. Residential depots lack a pay as you throw structure, have transportation access issues, and the pricing differential is not enough to actively promote commercial organics diversion. Contracts in place are not performance-based and there is little reward for waste reduction success from a hauling perspective. The service provider gets a fee to transport garbage going to disposal while the only reward for collecting recyclables is the value of the material sold, which varies by material and over time. Operational Infrastructure and Services Having unsecured, unstaffed residential drop-off depots with no pay as you throw system presents a significant barrier to achieving zero waste goals. Contracts also lack specific incentives to drive diversion. iv

7 Promotion and Education The ongoing development of programs incorporating behaviour change strategies (e.g. community-based social marketing) are limited, as are staff resources to liaise with partners and develop and implement programs directly. There is no specific policy to ensure resources are allocated for meaningful engagement. The current education is information-based with distribution of written and online materials, which doesn t adequately target audiences nor promote targeted behaviour change. Promotion and education is currently insufficient to encourage residents and visitors to drop-off well sorted recyclables and to separate them from garbage. Target setting variables are found in Section 4.2. From 2008 through 2011, the RMOW has fallen short of meeting the annual SLRD per capita garbage targets. However Whistler s population equivalent, which varies based on the success of the resort, adds an additional variable that makes performance assessment more challenging. Table A: Garbage Amounts Annual Tonnage and Kg per Capita RMOW Actuals (annual tonnage) 16,670 17,760 15,950 12,200 - Population Equivalent 26,048 25,762 27,975 27, RMOW Goal SLRD SWMP Goals RMOW Actuals Additional Reduction Needed to Meet SLRD Goals Goals and actuals are in kilograms per capita per year unless otherwise noted 2 Compares actual to the previous year s goal. 3-3 Of the tonnage still in the garbage stream, over half of it is recoverable through existing diversion programs (e.g. organics, paper, wood waste) based on the 2004 waste composition study. The 2011 waste composition study (residential only) shows that 60 percent of the existing garbage stream consists of compostable organics, paper, and mixed containers. Strategy Development Strategies were developed to strengthen existing system components and/or to address gaps identified through the information gathering process and SWOT analysis. Based on this review, three plans for strategies were developed and are summarized in Appendix B: 1. Minimal, 2. Moderate, and 3. Advanced. While the advanced scenario represents the most action-oriented set of strategies and is intended to actively promote waste reduction to meet SLRD targets, it should be noted that the RMOW s goal of achieving zero waste will require ongoing assessment and goal setting. Some potential constraints or local features were considered in the development of strategies and are identified in Section 5.0. v

8 Triple Bottom Line Analysis In Section 6.0, a triple bottom line (TBL) evaluation was conducted for each of the three Zero Waste Plans across the four primary components of the solid waste system. This evaluation did include a detailed economic analysis, but rather high-level considerations that are quantified at the planning level. Criteria for economic, environmental and social effect potential were defined and weighted in consultation with RMOW staff as follows: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Weighting Economic Effect Potential 1 Potential to use less of the RMOW's public sector resources 2 Potential to increase private business performance and economic opportunities Best Possible Link to Policy Environmental Effect Potential 3 Potential to reduce garbage 4 Potential to reduce GHG emissions 5 Potential to use materials and products that are less environmentally harmful (upstream) Potential to responsibly manage toxic materials and products to prevent them from being 6 discharged into the environment (downstream) Corporate Plan, Community Priority W2020 DOS 2, 6, Community Priority 500 Social Effect Potential 7 Potential to ensure Whistler is clean and well maintained 8 Potential to improve convenience for diversion opportunities Potential that residents and visitors are informed and engaged through effective outreach 9 programs that achieve positive outcomes 10 Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes 11 Potential to demonstrate leadership through stewardship of our natural resources W2020 DOS 5, OCP Goal 8.6, Community Priority W2020 DOS 2, OCP Goal 7.3, Community Priority W2020 DOS 3, Community Priority 50 W2020 DOS 9, Community Priority 300 Total W2020 DOS 1, Community Priority W2020 DOS 4, 7, Community Priority W2020 DOS 7,8, Corporate Plan W2020 DOS 10, Community Priority W2020 DOS 11, Community Priority Table B: Triple Bottom Line Criteria and Weighting The resultant scores for each criterion for each option were added up and each option was ranked in order of the assessment score from 1 to 3. For each component of the solid waste system, Advanced Strategies Plan 3 ranked highest. vi

9 Figure E: Assessment Scoring Bar Chart of Options Options assessed were done so with the perspective of both the financial impact to the community as a whole (both customer and RMOW). Items not addressed were either revenue-neutral or not considered relevant to determining the cost/benefits of each Plan. The focus of this analysis was to examine the differences between Plans and the baseline existing system for assessment purposes only. The intent of these high-level estimates is to allow the RMOW to make strong decisions on how to move forward with a Zero Waste Plan based on the long term benefits to the Whistler community as a whole and in so doing, provide a direction for the future. Goals were set against a garbage generation average from (18,000 tonnes). By 2020, while meeting the 60 percent (7,000 tonnes) garbage reduction target for Plan 3 would result in an estimated revenue and cost-savings of approximately $1,100,000 when compared to the baseline system. This is the most significant financial consideration for the 3 options assessed. Most importantly, this system depends upon implementing a full pay as you throw (PAYT) system. This will ensure RMOW taxpayers are not subsidizing the waste disposal costs for commercial system users and others not from the RMOW while being strongly encouraged to recycle rather than dispose of materials as garbage. This dominant financial consideration and the fact that the Advanced Plan 3 achieved the highest triple bottom line score indicate that it is most consistent with RMOW values. For this reason, the high standard recycling strategy Plan 3 became the most favourable over the longer term and, as such, the recommended Plan for the RMOW. vii

10 Recommendations Three primary recommendations are provided as the selected Zero Waste Plan (Plan 3) is implemented. First, refine performance tracking so progress towards interim targets can be made. Second, adopt interim targets to provide specific steps along the way to the aspiration goal of zero waste. Third utilize the Resource Planning Table that outlines strategies and actions along with general resource requirements for the selected Zero Waste Plan to guide the development of a RMOW Action Plan. The RMOW has systems in place to track performance for waste generation and waste composition in the existing garbage stream. There are additional measures that can be taken or further honed to utilize best practices and tools for performance measurement, which are outlined in Section 7.0 Based on zero waste goals in the OCP and Whistler 2020, it s recommended that RMOW adopt more stringent waste reduction targets and feedback mechanisms over a longer period that what s currently required through the SLRD. The targets below are set against a baseline established using data from , and can be adjusted regularly as waste composition by sector shifts and new EPR programs are adopted. Table C: Proposed Interim Targets Garbage Reduction Goal - Percentage Garbage Generated Aggregate 3-Year Average (07-09) Baseline 40% 50% 60% 80% 18,000 10,500 9,000 7,000 3,500 To effectively develop and meet interim targets, it is important that specific materials and products in the garbage stream by sector are targeted and specific actions are taken to reduce and divert those items. After measuring success of the various programs through an updated waste composition study and other metrics as relevant, interim targets can be adjusted as needed to drive future reduction and the overall solid waste system (from policy and management tools through infrastructure and promotion) can be honed to meeting those adjusted targets. The Resource Planning Table was developed to outline selected strategies, pre-requisites, noteworthy considerations, capital and operational general resource requirements defined by order of magnitude, and proposed roles and responsibilities for staff and partners. This table can be found in Appendix D. A more in depth list of actions associated with each strategy can be found in Appendix. E. As strategies within the Zero Waste Plan are operationalized, it is recommended that key stakeholders (e.g. RMOW staff, private enterprise, non-governmental organizations [NGOs]) convene to clearly specify how action items are to be implemented. This implementation process will include identifying and securing resources, allocating budgets, finalizing how performance measure elements are to be executed, and setting out a detailed implementation schedule. As part of this process, funding options, as found in Appendix G, may be considered. viii

11 Conclusion Through this evaluation, a number of detailed strategies were incorporated into the Zero Waste Plan. The main objective of the project was to provide a detailed road map for Whistler to achieve suitable waste reduction targets based on an analysis of the gaps between existing services and systems and Whistler s zero waste aspirations. The result is a Zero Waste Plan that is cost-effective, socially-just, and environmentally sound and outlines actions in areas of operations, policy and behaviour change-oriented educational programming. ix

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY CURRENT SOLID WASTE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Summary of System Gaps...24 Progress Towards Targets...24 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Information Gathering...3 Data and Metrics Housing Data Materials Generation and Waste Composition Material Generation Waste Composition...8 Vision and Strategic Policies Strengths Gaps...12 Management Systems and Tools Strengths Gaps...15 Operational Infrastructure and Services Strengths Gaps...20 Zero Waste Promotion and Education Strengths Gaps...23 Vision and Policy...29 Management Systems and Tools...29 Operational Infrastructure and Services...29 Zero Waste Promotion and Education Programs...31 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS Category Selection...31 Development of Criteria Assessment Criteria - Descriptions Economic Effect Environmental Effect Social Effects...33 x

13 RECOMMENDATIONS Assessment Approach Assessment Scoring...34 Discussion General Plan 1 Minimal Plan 2 - Moderate Plan 3 - Advanced...39 Refine Performance Tracking...40 Adopt Interim Targets...42 Resource Planning Table and Next Steps...42 CLOSURE REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table A: Table B: Table C: Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Garbage Amounts Annual Tonnage and Kg per Capita...v Triple Bottom Line Criteria and Weighting... vi Proposed Interim Targets... viii References Summary Table...3 Stakeholder Interviews Completed...5 CCME Canada-Wide Action Goals for EPR...13 Stationary Operational Infrastructure...18 Zero Waste Goals Related to Whistler s Solid Waste...25 Garbage Amounts Annual Tonnage and Kg per Capita...25 Comparison to Other Resort Communities with Bears and Depot-based Collection...30 Triple Bottom Line Criteria and Weighting...34 Triple Bottom Line Criteria Scoring Values...34 Triple Bottom Line Assessment Scores...35 Proposed Interim Targets...42 Resource Planning...43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: Figure B: Figure C: Figure D: Figure E: Figure 1: Figure 2: Approach to the Whistler Garbage Reduction Plan Development... ii Annual Material Generation and Breakdown by Percentage... iii Waste Composition Studies: 2004 All Sectors and 2011 Residential Sector Results... iii Garbage Generated by Sector... iv Assessment Scoring Bar Chart of Options... vii Approach to the Whistler Garbage Reduction Plan Development...1 Annual Material Generation and Breakdown by Percentage...7 xi

14 Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Waste Composition Studies: 2004 All Sectors and 2011 Residential Sector Results...9 Garbage Generated by Sector...9 Waste Diversion Opportunities: Total Waste Disposed by All Sectors: Residential ICI & DLC, 2008 (City of Vancouver, 2009)...27 GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009)...28 Assessment Scoring Bar Chart of Options...36 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G EBA s General Conditions Plan Options Triple Bottom Line Analysis Worksheets Resource Planning Table Zero Waste Plan Strategies and Actions Extended Producer Responsibility Contact List Funding Options xii

15 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS BC CBSM CCME C&D DfE EPR GHG HHW ICI LEED MOE MRF MSW NGO OCP ODS PAYT PET PLA PPP RES RFP RCBC RMOW SLRD SWMP SWOT TBD TBL TS WA WCSS British Columbia Community-Based Social Marketing Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Construction and Demolition Design for Environment Extended Producer Responsibility Greenhouse Gas Household Hazardous Waste (light) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Ministry of Environment Materials Recovery Facility Municipal Solid Waste Non-governmental organization Official Community Plan Ozone Depleting Substances Pay As You Throw Polyethylene Terephthalate Polylactic Acid Packaging and Printed Paper Residential Request for Proposal Recycling Council Of BC Resort Municipality of Whistler Squamish Lillooet Regional District Solid Waste Management Plan Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats To Be Determined Triple Bottom Line Transfer Station Washington State Whistler Community Services Society xiii

16 1.0 INTRODUCTION EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) in partnership with Ecoinspire Planning Services was retained by the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) to develop a Gap Analysis Report that would form the basis of a Whistler Solid Waste Diversion Strategy. During this Strategy development the title of this study was redefined as the Whistler Zero Waste Plan: Strategies for Garbage Reduction (Zero Waste Plan). This title better reflects the overarching zero waste goal and the key metric for measuring that goal, which is to determine the reduction of municipal solid waste (e.g. residual solid waste). This work included examining the existing solid waste management system s four primary components: 1. vision and strategies policies, 2. management systems and tools, 3. operational infrastructure and services, and 4. zero waste education and promotion. The main objective of the study was to provide a detailed road map for Whistler to achieve suitable waste reduction targets based on an analysis of the gaps between existing services and systems and Whistler s aspirations. Simply put, the objective was to produce a zero waste-based solid waste strategy that is cost-effective, socially-just, and environmentally sound and outlines actions in areas of operations, policy and change-based communications. Two primary documents set zero waste goals: Whistler 2020 which states that by 2020, Whistler is well on its way to achieving its zero waste goals ; and the Official Community Plan, which affirms that RMOW moves progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound manner. With zero waste as the underlying long-term goal, the Zero Waste Plan aims to: Reduce per capita garbage; Decrease GHG emissions due to long-distance transport and processing of all materials in all streams; Deliver cost savings to Whistler; and Fulfill Whistler s commitments under the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) Solid Waste Management Plan. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The project began with Task 1 which consisted of a project initiation meeting to confirm scope and expectations for the study. The project team gathered information through published documents, input from more than 24 stakeholders through interviews, calls and a stakeholder session. During Task 2, the team assessed the information collected and included an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT), which was provided to RMOW staff members in a technical memo dated July26, An update meeting was held with RMOW staff members to summarize the perceived current reality, initial performance assessment and strategies, goals and cost framework options. A second technical memo was issued on July 27, 2012 outlined three plan options (with strategies therein) for further analysis. 1

17 In Task 3, the team used a triple bottom line assessment to evaluate the economic, environmental and social effects of the three plans, which resulted in the selection of the final Zero Waste Plan. As a final step, a resource planning table and an action list were prepared to inform next steps for implementation. It backs up each strategy with specific actions, pre-requisites, a comparative timeframe, noteworthy considerations, resource requirements and some initial input on roles and responsibilities. Figure 1: Approach to the Whistler Garbage Reduction Plan Development 3.0 CURRENT SOLID WASTE SYSTEM The first step of the project was to review the existing solid waste system. Information collection consisted of reviewing existing documents and conducting interviews with key stakeholders. Information collected was reviewed and assessed through a stakeholder workshop where participants provided a written review of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for each aspect of the solid waste system. A review of data and metrics related to housing allocation and material generation was also undertaken in order to understand the system and provide recommendations on best tools and methods to measure performance. Each aspect of the solid waste system was summarized and assessed by solid waste component as follows: Vision and Strategic Policies Management Systems and Tools Operational Infrastructure and Services Zero Waste Promotion and Education Programs 2

18 The project team reviewed the current system by assessing written documents, including waste generation metrics, and soliciting stakeholder input. Specific strengths and gaps to achieving waste reduction goals were identified for each solid waste system component. 3.1 Information Gathering Information collection consisted of reviewing key documents as outlined in Table 1 below. Table 1: References Summary Table Reference Summary - How Relates to Project Policy RMOW Whistler 2020 Sustainability Plan, 2007 Overarching community vision that guides all policies. Draft Official Community Plan, 2011 Outlines the community s direction for land-use planning, and while not yet adopted, does reflect significant community input. Corporate Plan , 2012 Highlights department roles related to waste, lists solid waste core strategies, and provides a budget overview. Garbage Disposal & Wildlife Attractants Bylaw, 2008 Outlines existing requirements for waste handling within Whistler. Fire Protection & Fireworks Bylaw, 2010 Notes that all burning (land clearing and wood waste, and, presumably, other waste) must be done with the permission of the fire department. Business Licensing Bylaw, 1987 Requires all businesses within Whistler to be licensed. Business Regulation Bylaw, 1989 Outlines requirements for all businesses as well as some particular to certain types of businesses or locations (but nothing related to waste management). Whistler Green Building Policy, 2009 Outlines the recommendations for sustainable building practices in Whistler. Sustainable Purchasing Policy, 2006 Outlines the recommendations for sustainable purchasing practices in Whistler. Sustainable Event Strategy and Sustainable Sport & Event Toolkit, 2008 Outlines the recommendations for sustainable event hosting practices in Whistler. Whistler Environmental Strategy, 2002 Published in 2002 (preceded Whistler 2020) and lists short and interim term waste targets (600 and 400 kg per capita per year). Human-Bear Conflict Management Plan, 2009 Shows what steps must be taken to ensure safe cohabitation with bears including a significant section on waste management practices. Carbon Neutral Operations Plan, 2009 Outlines areas to achieve a reduced carbon footprint. Regional, Provincial and Federal Squamish Comprehensive Solid Waste Strategy, 2010 Outlines disposal and diversion strategies for the District of Squamish. Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007 Provides a context for how RMOW waste must be handled as well as a framework for RMOW to use SLRD Regional District Solid Waste Recovery Bylaw, 2005 Imposes fees on the owners of landfill and transfer station sites to recover the costs of operating that local service. Current fee is $4.50 per tonne of solid waste received. 3

19 Table 1: References Summary Table Reference Summary - How Relates to Project BC Recycling Regulation, 2011 Outlines which products are required to be part of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and the requirements therein. BC Climate Action Plan, 2008 Outlines strategies and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 33 percent by Includes some waste components, particularly as it relates to disposal. Canada Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, 2009 Outlines the goals to have regulated EPR programs phased in for specific common products by 2015 and This was agreed upon by Ministers of Environment from all provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Data RMOW Solid Waste Flows, 2012 Provides information on material flow and associated costs; for internal RMOW use. Exit Survey of Users at Nesters Compactor Site, 2011 Provides qualitative information on origin of materials and user experience. Squamish Landfill Waste Generated, 2011 Provides tonnages on where waste is generated by community (including tonnes from Whistler). Waste Composition Study, 2011 Provides the most current data on residential waste composition from the two depot sites. Waste Composition Study, 2010 Provides residential waste composition data from two depot sites. Waste Composition Study, 2004 Most recent study that includes data from multiple sectors. Used a more comprehensive methodology than the recent depot-based assessments. Material and Solid Waste Strategy Current Reality Summary, 2007 Provides descriptions of success, key deliverables, and other key metrics. Material and Solid Waste Strategy Current Reality Summary, 2004 Provides key metrics, an overview of infrastructure, rates, upstream solutions and zero waste culture. Yearly Waste Generation by types of users and materials, Monitoring data provides insight on progress to date. Whistler Community Emissions Graph, 2012 Records cumulative estimates of GHG emissions at the community level from with significant reductions under landfilled waste largely due to landfill gas management. Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) Resources SLRD Survey Results, 2010 Provides residual tonnage by community for as well as high level information on waste composition and diversion. Solid Waste Management Agreement, 2008 Gives an overview of terms and conditions of contract for waste management services for depot sites, transfer station and compost facility. Strata Management Company List, 2012 Provides information on which companies manage which buildings. Civic Address Maps and residence and strata data by neighbourhood, 2009 Internal documents to use for deriving depot usage by neighbourhood for permanent and second home residents List of strategies recommended to Materials & Solid Waste task force from inception through 2010 Provides information on actions accomplished as well as actions recommended by the task force that were not completed. ishift Citizen - suggestions for decreasing waste in Whistler, 2011 Waste reduction brainstorm from citizen engagement planning session. 4

20 Consultation included eighteen representatives from 14 organizations (listed in Table 2 below) being interviewed; a total of 21 people participated in the June 28, 2012 stakeholder workshop, including representatives from three additional organizations not interviewed: Slopeside Supply provided perspective on upstream materials management, RDC Fine Homes constructs homes and represented the construction and demolition (C&D) sector, and the Delta Hotel added representation from the commercial sector. Also, queries were made with additional staff contacts with regard to BC Transit, the Food Bank and Planning. It is recommended that, because a few key sector representatives were not able to attend the stakeholder workshop, they should be included in future related discussions. These entities include: Tourism Whistler, Chamber of Commerce, grocery and food service, and rental accommodation agencies. Table 2: Stakeholder Interviews Completed Organization Role in Waste Management System RMOW Solid Waste, Sustainability/ Environment, GHG/Energy, Planning and Events Several RMOW staff members are directly and indirectly involved in waste management and aspects of waste reduction and diversion initiatives. Whistler Centre for Sustainability A sustainability organization that provides metric measurement services for the Whistler 2020 plan, including solid waste, and has facilitated the community and partner engagement aspect of Whistler AWARE Local environmental group with long-term history of participation in waste reduction discussions; initiated recycling in Whistler. Get Bear Smart Society A key driving organization in the development of local bear smart infrastructure and policies; also serves as a national and international resource. Whistler Blackcomb Large local business that is a key partner in many community discussions, long-term participant in waste discussions and leader in waste diversion for its own operations among similar businesses. Squamish Lillooet Regional District Responsible for waste planning at regional level, implementing the Solid Waste Management Plan and delivering services for the Village of Pemberton. District of Squamish Neighbouring community that has made recent progress on waste diversion and works with the RMOW on some aspects of waste management. Whistler Community Services Society A non-profit society that runs the Re-Use It Center, the Re-Build It Centre and serves as a collection site for some EPR programs. They use the revenue from these services to provide services to the community such as the food bank, drug and alcohol counseling, community kitchens, support for new residents and seniors, and numerous other programs. Regional Recycling This company runs the Nester s Bottle Depot which collects beverage containers as well as products for other EPR programs. Carney s Waste Systems Current contractor to provide services at the transfer station, composter site, and residential depots (i.e. compactor sites) as well as some educational services. They also provide private waste services to stratas and businesses within the RMOW as well as in neighbouring communities. Waste Control Services A company that provides private waste services to stratas and businesses within the RMOW as well as in neighbouring communities. Whistler Resort Management Large strata management company in Whistler. Summit Strata Management Large strata management company in Whistler. 5

21 Table 2: Stakeholder Interviews Completed Organization Whistler Housing Authority 3.2 Role in Waste Management System This organization is responsible for managing the employee housing within Whistler, both for renters and owners and has insight into what systems are used for waste within many local buildings. Data and Metrics The section below provides a review of data and metrics related to housing allocation and material generation in order to understand the system and provide recommendations on best tools and methods to measure performance Housing Data As a resort municipality, there are inherent challenges in tracking material generation and service needs across housing types and stratas. Some initial inquiry was done to collect additional data that may be helpful for monitoring and making service provision decisions. Based on primary mailing addresses, which represents permanent residents versus those who receive mail elsewhere, the estimated percentage of second homes is 62 percent as compared to permanent residences, which comprise the remaining 38 percent of homes. Using RMOW housing data, there was also some clarification made to determine single family homes versus strata residences within each neighbourhood. This is significant because the residential drop-off depots are the primary disposal option for the 3,139 single family homes within the RMOW while a majority of stratas exercise the option to drop the depot-associated fee and collect waste at the strata site through contracts with private haulers. Therefore, it is important that the distribution of single family homes is factored into the assessment of depot locations to maintain convenience, minimize GHG emissions, and minimize transportation costs to the homeowner. The single family home distribution from north to south across the RMOW is broken down below. The results reflect that the residential depot next to Nesters Market is in proximity to 2/3 of the single family home population. Further, the neighbourhoods between Emerald and Nesters contain undeveloped lots, so more growth is expected in this area (e.g. Rainbow and Baxter Creek). There is also some anticipated growth expected in Cheakamus, which is between Brio and Function Junction. It should be noted that a majority of these new homes are expected to be multi-family developments managed by strata councils. These developments will likely contract hauling services directly so will not affect single family home distribution estimates noted below homes Emerald to Nesters 1076 homes Nesters to Brio 995 homes Brio to Function Junction 123 homes Neighbourhoods west of Alta Lake (Stonebridge, Rainbow Park, etc.) have to drive around the lakes and can access either depot. 6

22 3.2.2 Materials Generation and Waste Composition Material Generation The amount of material generated in the RMOW includes all items reused, recycled, composted, and disposed of as waste (i.e. garbage). Figure 2 shows the total amount of material generated in 2009, 2010, and The breakdown of materials by type in 2011 is reflected in the circle graph. Based on total tonnes per year, material generation was on an upward trend from 2007 leading up to and through the Olympics in 2010 but then declined in The 2011 data shows an estimated 13 percent drop in material generation and a continued reduction in garbage in overall tonnage as well as per capita (as shown in Section 5.2 Progress Towards Targets, Table 6). Figure 2: Annual Material Generation and Breakdown by Percentage Some data gaps were identified and could be included in future data collection. Two additional sources were included in the preliminary data above: Waste Control Services annually hauls over 280 tonnes of commercial recyclables and an estimated 10 tonnes of organics to the lower mainland and the Squamish landfill records list an additional 36 tonnes of garbage from Whistler. Other data identified for possible inclusion are as follows: EPR Programs Stewardship programs monitor the product amounts collected by regional district. For example, Barney s Mechanic collected tires, oil, antifreeze, filters and containers for various product stewardship programs, and it is part of the material generation in the RMOW. This will 7

23 become even more important now that packaging and printed paper (PPP) has added to the BC Recycling Regulation. Methodology for estimating the RMOW component from regional data will need to be developed. Paper Shredding Recall, Mobile Shredders, and Urban Impact all make regular trips through the corridor and collect paper at RMOW businesses. The challenge with adding material streams previously untracked is that it skews the baseline data and needs to be qualified appropriately. It was observed that the Whistler Centre for Sustainability lists the bottle depot tonnage separately from the yearly data to be consistent. However, as more EPR programs come online to ensure producer responsibility for end-of product life materials management and take the cost off the tax roll, tracking by product has increased in importance. It should also be noted that reuse is preferred over recycling, as part of the pollution prevention hierarchy mandate, which is included as part of the mandate of EPR programs within the BC Recycling Regulation. Biosolids were not included in material generation amounts for two reasons: to be consistent with the longer-term Whistler Centre for Sustainability performance measurement data, which does not include biosolids, and because biosolids by definition in the BC Environmental Management Act are not included as MSW Waste Composition The RMOW consistently monitors generation of multiple material and product streams, and has completed several waste composition studies to determine what is still in the waste (i.e. garbage) stream. The graphs below provide a high level overview of composition of existing waste streams (e.g. disposed items that still contain recoverable materials), annual material generation by product type and how these materials break down by percentage. Possible adjustments to data are also reviewed below. The most recent waste composition study that included all sectors was conducted in More recent studies were completed in 2010 and 2011 to assess residential depots only. Figure 1 below shows waste composition study results for 2004 (all sectors) and 2011 (combined results across the two residential depots). As shown in the circle graphs below, the greatest portion of the existing waste stream by weight consisted of organic compostables (2004 had 25 percent while the 2010 residential study had 41 percent organics). Paper also presents a significant opportunity for future diversion (i.e. being recycled instead of going in the garbage stream) with 17 and 11 percent being disposed as garbage rather than being diverted. In the all-sectors composition study, wood waste (16 percent) and other construction items were significant percentages of the waste stream. For the 2010 and 2011 residential studies, percent is considered residual (e.g. minimal recovery value), although a detailed list of categories was not provided and materials within that group may fit into future EPR programs (e.g. carpet, textiles). 8

24 Figure 3: Waste Composition Studies: 2004 All Sectors and 2011 Residential Sector Results As shown in Figure 4, sources of garbage across sectors are broken out as follows: commercial and strata (62 percent); residential Nesters (12 percent); residential Function Junction (9 percent); and C&D (17 percent). Garbage deemed as commercial includes an undetermined percentage of residential from multi-family strata housing. Figure 4: Garbage Generated by Sector 9

25 The material generation breakdown in Figure 4 is divided out by product where relevant to reflect the transition to EPR for packaging and printed paper (e.g. mixed material containers, paper and cardboard). While all organics streams below are by definition MSW, they are separated into two categories: Food scraps and non-chipped yard debris generated consistently from residential and commercial, and Wood from C&D dimensional lumber, larger ICI wood chip generation and land clearing sources (e.g. wood chips and land clearing debris) that reflects diversion and meets compost processing needs but is perhaps less typical compared to municipalities without processing infrastructure. This breakdown shows food scraps and yard debris generation more clearly since it is highlighted in waste composition studies as a target material for increased diversion. The EPR products included in the tables below are as follows, and are only from municipal sites (Transfer Station or Depots): appliances/white goods, tires, batteries, paint, beverage containers, electronics and small appliances. EPR products such as tires, paint, and used oil are also collected at point of purchase locations. The 2004 waste composition study results shown in Figure 2 can be used to determine what materials still exist in the garbage stream, as depicted in black in Figures 3 and Vision and Strategic Policies There are several key drivers for zero waste in Whistler as well as for higher levels of government. Whistler 2020 This vision document states that the RMOW will progress towards a zero waste goal as a Premier Mountain Resort that is moving towards sustainability. This overarching document, based on the Natural Step, sets the direction for policy decisions in all areas, including those involving management and reduction of materials and solid waste that will make Whistler successful. Whistler 2020 outlines the key community priorities of protecting the environment and ensuring economic viability and also includes: partnering for success, enriching community life and enhancing the resort experience. It defines zero waste as: an aspirational goal where all outputs, currently referred to as waste, are used as inputs for another process. Official Community Plan (OCP) - Draft Zero waste is defined in the document and is noted as a goal in this key RMOW planning document. An updated draft version reached third reading by Council in November 2012 and is awaiting provincial approval. It would replace the previous 1993 version. It integrates Whistler 2020 into RMOW land use planning. There are sections that address both waste diversion and GHGs. The OCP Zero Waste definition is based on the Zero Waste International Alliance definition as follows: Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health (Zero Waste International Alliance, 2004). 10

26 Corporate Plan This plan defines corporate strategies to move towards zero waste including implementing the recommendations of the composter operations analysis cost-benefit study and the solid waste diversion study; and overhauling the solid waste management contract structure and updating other service contracts. SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan This 2007 plan meets the provincial requirements for regional governments to have a plan and outlines where waste should flow as well as how it can be decreased. It uses a zero waste approach to determine key waste diversion opportunities. CCME Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR This plan, signed onto by all provincial and territorial jurisdictions across Canada, outlines specific product categories that need to be included in EPR programs by 2015, with additional categories by 2017 (CCME 2009). It outlines best practices for program as well as key principles for effective and harmonized programs. The emphasis of EPR is to transfer end of life materials management and costs to manufacturers instead of local government, and to create incentives for product design change to design for the environment (DfE) over time. The CCME informs the BC Recycling Regulation, which is outlined in Section Strengths It was noted that Whistler residents are engaged citizens and keen supporters of the environment and policies to protect the environment. Strengths within the following four documents were highlighted during information gathering sessions with stakeholders. Whistler Provides a clear vision, has some community knowledge and support, engaged partners and community, and the descriptions of success were updated in It focuses on material throughput and toxicity, not just diversion. Several citizen committees were involved in its creation and ongoing actions, including one for materials and solid waste. The descriptions of success specific to materials and solid waste include ensuring Whistler is well on its way to achieving its goal of zero waste, advocating for zero waste through education and demonstration, and working toward removing external barriers to achieving zero waste. Draft OCP The importance of integrating zero waste into policies is mentioned several times through the planning document with plans to facilitate increased waste diversion and noting opportunities for GHG reduction with increased waste diversion. Significant community input went into its development. Corporate Plan Several core strategies are outlined in the plan. In the community outreach category, it commits to continuing to increase public participation in solid waste programs and evaluating outreach programs that will further improve solid waste diversion. Under demonstrating excellence in the delivery of core muni infrastructure services, it commits to continuing to operate the compost facility and implement a heat recovery system, and to substantially reduce trucking costs. It also highlights the need to continue to explore ways to allow those using preferred modes of transportation to have a suitable level of access to solid waste facilities. 11

27 SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan The plan clearly outlines actions by whom and when as well as interim targets, was approved by the member municipalities and noted future EPR programs. It also outlines a user pay policy as a key best practice for reducing waste Gaps Whistler 2020 The momentum to support this vision has diminished somewhat post-olympics and there is concern that it is being underutilized as a guiding document within RMOW. There has been a hiatus in partner engagement and some task force members felt that there was not enough support for actions generated. While actions are listed online, they are not regularly updated and there are some inaccuracies around what s been completed. The vision document does not outline clear interim targets for waste reduction. OCP Draft The approval process is pending. It would need amending should the location of any of the waste service areas change. Once approved, it should be reviewed to determine what actions or tools may be needed from a waste perspective and an action plan developed. Corporate Plan While several core strategies are outlined, it is unclear what resources will be allocated for implementation. SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan The plan commitments have not been met due in part to some gaps in staffing at the regional level; the plan is five years old and needs to be updated. It is no longer certain that there will be a regional landfill and planning and implementation of waste diversion strategies among member municipalities could be stronger and more collaborative. Public knowledge of zero waste vision and strategies is weak relative to the strength of the related policies. The RMOW could work more effectively with the existing assets of engaged citizens, businesses and organizations; the Centre for Sustainability; the Get Bear Smart Society, and highly educated seasonal workers. At present there is no staff allocated to ensure that this engagement takes place. BC Climate Action Plan The primary focus of climate regulations pertains to transportation and energy-related emissions with waste-related emission offsets focused on disposal (BC Climate Action Plan, 2008). At present, there is less weight put on the importance of waste prevention in reducing GHGs (such as the scale of provision of goods relative to other GHG sources and the embodied energy within existing materials that is saved when they are reused or recycled). To that end, an estimated 44 percent of US GHG emissions result from the production and consumption of products and packaging (PPI 2009). Carbon offsets are not currently provided for operations less commonly handled at the municipal level, including the compost facility. GHG reduction plans do not and may not be able to factor in GHG savings from waste reduction, composting and recycling (existing systems may not credit these reductions towards a community s carbon footprint). Provincially, while there is legislation to encourage zero waste, especially with regard to the Recycling Regulation (Environment Management Act: Recycling Regulation, 2011), there is no overall vision and strategy for zero waste as there is in Nova Scotia, which reached 401 kg per capita per year in

28 and has set a goal of 300 kg/capita/year for 2015 (Nova Scotia Environment, 2010) nor new targets (the last ones were 50 percent diversion by 2000). CCME Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR As a strategic plan rather than a specific regulation, there is some concern around follow through by jurisdiction and if EPR will remain a priority for CCME. While a Canada-wide implementation of EPR programs will have more impact, it should be noted that the BC Recycling Regulation is on schedule for implementation. Table 3: CCME Canada-Wide Action Goals for EPR Packaging and printed materials Construction materials Household hazardous waste Demolition materials Electronics & electrical equipment Furniture Mercury-containing lamps Textiles and carpet Automotive products 3.4 Appliances including ozone-depleting substances (ODS) The RMOW could do more to advocate for zero waste actions and policies at the provincial and federal level. Management Systems and Tools The RMOW has several management tools available to assist in progress towards zero waste. Specific bylaws, policies and guidelines are outlined below. Garbage Disposal and Wildlife Attractants Bylaw This bylaw outlines the requirements for a wildlife-proof waste system and sets up the two part fee structure. There is a Garbage Enclosure Information Package that is designed to assist in getting bear-proof waste systems in place. Green Building Policy This policy outlines the recommendations for sustainable building practices in Whistler including providing adequate space for recycling and organics collection as well as encouraging the use of fewer, less toxic, more durable or recycled content materials and the deconstruction of the previous building. The LEED building requirements during the Olympics was cause for a significant increase in diversion of C&D materials. Sustainable Purchasing Guide This guide to buying in a more sustainable way was designed for the RMOW. Sustainable Event Guidelines This guide, along with the Sustainable Sport Event guide designed for the 2010 Olympics, can assist in planning a lower impact event, and includes considerations for waste reduction and maximizing diversion. Human-Bear Conflict Management Plan Whistler has achieved Bear Smart Community Status of which the plan is a part. The plan includes a section on waste management. Fire Protection and Fireworks Bylaw outlines that all fires need permission from the Whistler Fire Department and restricts open burning of wood and other materials. 13

29 Carbon Neutral Operations Plan This plan outlines how Whistler is going to achieve its carbon reduction goals. It includes measurement and potential reduction of GHG associated with waste transport. Business License Bylaw and Business Regulation Bylaw Bylaws are in place to define requirements by industry type. In addition to these RMOW tools, the SLRD has a bylaw to levy fees on all waste within the region. The Province of BC has been adding new schedules of product categories to its Recycling Regulation to fulfill its commitment to the CCME Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR. The most recent additions were several categories of electric products for programs which came into effect July 1, 2012 and the next will be Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP), from residences and public streetscapes, by May Other management systems in place include: transit policies and practices, permitting guidelines that require space allocation for disposal, staff to oversee the solid waste system and monitor contracts, the SLRD Plan Monitoring Committee, and a Bear Management Working Group. Historically, the Whistler 2020 Materials and Solid Waste Task Force has also had an important role in management and planning work Strengths Throughout the information gathering process, stakeholders noted system strengths with regard to key RMOW management tools as outlined below. Garbage Disposal and Wildlife Attractants Bylaw states that no recyclables are allowed in garbage and stipulates a surcharge on transfer station loads with over 10 percent cardboard. Transfer station garbage tipping fees are the highest in the region. This bylaw has been effective in reducing bear problems associated with waste and ensuring adequate storage structures. There are variable tipping fees to add incentives for diversion. Sustainable Purchasing Guide This guide is used for all RMOW central stores items and has been requested for adoption by other communities and vendors. Carbon Neutral Operations Plan Significant emission reductions have been made through capping the old landfill and through the selection of the Rabanco landfill for current disposal, since it has a landfill gas recovery rate and uses the collected methane for energy. Fire Protection and Fireworks Bylaw - Burning permits are now required, which further promotes organics separation and collection, and limits open burning. BC Transit has an unpublished policy that recycling/waste is allowed on transit as long as it does not smell, nor leak and could sit on a passenger s lap. RMOW has provisions for allocating space for waste within the existing development permit guidelines, has shown leadership by banning bottled water from being sold in municipal buildings, and has staff roles defined to oversee the solid waste management system. The RMOW also partners with a non-profit to ensure there is a system to divert invasive species in an appropriate manner. 14

30 Capacity has been built within the community and region: Whistler 2020 Materials and Solid Waste Task Force though no longer meeting, it had been strong on reporting continuous measurement of key materials and solid waste indicators as well as engaging partners (both in task forces and in other ways). There were no shortages of suggestions for actions from the Task Force. These groups are currently on hiatus and being restructured. SLRD Plan Monitoring Committee this provides a way to follow the progress on the plan as well as to foster dialogue between the member municipalities. After a hiatus, it has been meeting regularly since Bear Management Working Group acts as a resource on bear-related waste issues. The SLRD charges a fee per tonne of garbage to fund the actions on the SWMP and is actively working to establish a regional organics management system. They are also a member of the BC Product Stewardship Council that advocates on behalf of local government for effective EPR programs. BC is well on its way to meeting the CCME targets of including specific product categories in EPR regulation by Gaps Garbage Disposal and Wildlife Attractants Bylaw While no recyclables are allowed in the garbage as per the bylaw; this is not communicated nor enforced. Some work was done in partnership with the Get Bear Smart Society to check if the waste containers conformed, but there were some areas of the community left unchecked due to inadequate funding to complete the project. Lack of enforcement of this and other bylaws is a major gap. There is no surcharge on loads with significant amounts of organics or recyclables, and diversion is not actively promoted in the bylaw s title or included in wildlife-related mitigation strategies (e.g. garbage storage containers). The Garbage Enclosure Information Package focuses mainly on garbage and should be updated to include space and provisions for recycling, composting, reuse and garbage. Many stratas and businesses have unsecured waste bins, which is directly in violation of the bylaw. The differential between the garbage tipping fees and those for organics have not been enough to outweigh the additional expenses for service. This is in part due to the need to recover the capital expenditures needed to establish the compost facility, which was put in place primarily to handle biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant (i.e. not MSW). Inconsistent tipping fees in the Sea-toSky corridor can result in waste migration, where garbage is disposed in the least expensive place (e.g. out-of-area residential garbage goes to RMOW unstaffed depots). The bylaw notes that fees will be paid to the RMOW for garbage services unless there is a commercially serviced bin on site. However most stratas are not paying this as they have noted they have such a service. The fee is split into two components: one that all parties pay (labelled composter on the tax notice) and one that only those without garbage collection pay. There is no charge to drop off waste at a residential depot which encourages those who have not paid to use the residential depots (non-residents, small businesses). The flat composter fee charged for solid waste is associated as a solid waste tax. This is misleading to the taxpayer, since the impetus for the composter was to manage the solids from the waste water 15

31 treatment plant. While the composter accepts a small amount of food scraps, its primary usage is for the processing of biosolids. Green Building Policy This policy is only effective when land is rezoned and then, the requirement is only to meet the intent, not necessarily to meet specific aspects. While important, as Whistler is reaching its built out capacity, this will have limited impact. Business Licensing and Business Regulation Bylaws These bylaws have not been used to address waste diversion (e.g. where waste goes, tracking weights, what materials are to be prioritized for collection). Sustainable Purchasing Guide -is not necessarily used for items ordered directly by departments, and may need an update to ensure that a RMOW department is responsible for its maintenance and use. It could be expanded to include a template RFP. Having ways to promote and enforce the guide is particularly important as it pertains to the GHG implications of upstream management of materials. An estimated 44 percent of US GHG emissions result from the production and consumption of products and packaging (PPI, 2009). Sustainable Events Guidelines may be too complex for some events and not always feasible for others given international producers and the role of sponsors. Use is limited. BC Transit policy on garbage/recyclables is unpublished and not well known. It is uncertain how supportive drivers are or what their knowledge is of the BC Transit policy and of Whistler s goals. Many people think that waste is not allowed on transit and as a result, it can be stockpiled in homes and exacerbate bear human conflicts. Streetscape bins are managed by three separate departments depending on their location: Infrastructure Services, Village Maintenance and Parks, and vary in colours, signage and shapes of holes. Recycling options are limited to primarily beverage containers, and solo garbage cans are present throughout the municipality. Whistler lacks a comprehensive strategy to measure performance, including specific action plans with assigned staff, timelines, reporting, to achieve its targets and vision for solid waste. There is a need for new interim targets. RMOW needs to follow up and implement planned actions and is short on staffing. At present, there are no dedicated RMOW staff members for work with partners, communications and community-based social marketing for solid waste diversion. This includes the need for solid waste staff members to work with partners on the bear management plan to seek solutions that both limit bear interaction and maximize waste diversion. There is no dedicated RMOW staff to work on EPR programs to ensure they meet RMOW s needs and fulfill their regulated obligations as well as to understand how new programs will impact the waste streams in Whistler, prepare impacted sectors and liaise with the SLRD or the MOE directly. There are also no RMOW staff members or personnel from other organizations at residential depots to inform and educate the public and ensure correct use of the facilities. 16

32 Work could be done with specific sectors (stratas, hotels, foodservices) to assist them in diverting waste, understanding the waste systems, and managing kitchen grease recycling to ensure it is not an attractant to bears. Further support could be given to reducing wasted food and increasing food recovery prior to disposal or diversion. Preferential pricing of received organics is reported to be insufficient to provide a significant financial benefit to customers and thus providing little incentive. Lower Mainland finished compost products are too competitive for Whistler compost products to be sold in the Lower Mainland. There is also some resistance to use of biosolids compost. Commercial parking may be lacking in some areas or not used appropriately, which combined with noise bylaw restrictions, can result in waste trucks waiting or circling the block to get access to the buildings. There is minimal feedback to customers or residents on weights of garbage and diverted items. There is little pricing based on weight and there is a lag in feedback time. More work could be done involving frontline solid waste staff (of all waste service providers) to provide feedback to users. There are minimal incentives, tools or policy to increase the diversion of C&D materials, such as including refundable fees in demolition permits to promote diversion, as being considered by Metro Vancouver (RCBC, 2012). There is no formal, comprehensive corporate waste reduction program in place for RMOW facilities. Leading by example with a corporate waste reduction program has considerable value and has had proven success in municipalities such as Markham, Ontario (Markham, 2008). SLRD does not have permanent, dedicated staff to act on its plan, both operationally and for communications. They have not yet implemented broader disposal bans and won t be able to until all communities have easy access to recycling. EPR the province has not yet outlined when it will fill in the gaps in its programs for 2015 (e.g. PPP from the ICI sector, some household hazardous wastes, remaining mercury containing materials, remaining automotive products) that would allow municipalities to plan for waste diversion. There are some regulated products that have not yet met their regulatory obligations (i.e. no program yet exists though timelines have passed). There are some programs that do not have advertised collection sites within Whistler (lead acid batteries, Paint Plus items, mercury thermostats). Overall, the programs could be asked to better fulfill their duty under the Recycling Regulation in terms of moving up the pollution prevention hierarchy and improving collection system access, collection levels, and recycling levels. Also related to EPR programs, transfer station tipping fees include charges for tires and large appliances. As part of EPR programs, program collection sites cannot charge user fees as any costs are meant to be covered by the program. Further work should be done to ensure programs provide adequate service so products do not need to be collected at the transfer station or that the transfer station is adequately reimbursed and does not need to charge additional fees. 17

33 3.5 Operational Infrastructure and Services The operational infrastructure contains stationary and mobile components provided by the RMOW, residents, stratas, and commercial sector to collect and transfer recycling, organics, and garbage. Table 4: Stationary Operational Infrastructure Component Materials Collected Stationary Infrastructure Residential Drop-off Depots located north of the village next to Nesters Market and south of the village in Function Junction. Serviced by Carneys Waste Systems through the 2008 Solid Waste Management Agreement with RMOW. They are open to the public 24/7, 7 days a week and are tidied daily but not staffed. Garbage EPR - Packaging and printed paper (PPP) glass and metal containers, plastics 1-7, mixed paper, cardboard (e.g. residential packaging and printed paper [PPP] which is now in the BC Recycling Program as an EPR program, with implementation pending) EPR batteries Organics household food scraps, food-soiled paper, pet waste in compostable liners Organics yard debris twice yearly (spring and fall - Nester s site only) Re-Use-It Centre located at Function Junction residential depot and has an agreement with the RMOW for use of space. Operated by Whistler Community Service Society, a local charity Reusable items including clothing, outdoor equipment, electronics and household items Re-Build-It Centre located in the Function Junction business area and rents space independently. Also operated by Whistler Community Service Society. Reusable items including furniture and building supplies Bottle Depot located at the Nesters depot and has an operational agreement with RMOW to use the space. Operated and owned by Regional Recycling EPR beverage containers and electronics are collected for Encorp; small appliances and residential and commercial light bulbs are collected for Product Care; electronic toys as well as outdoor power equipment. Transfer Station (TS) located in the Callaghan Valley approximately 15 km south of the village. Managed by Carneys Waste Systems through the 2008 Solid Waste Management Agreement with RMOW. Garbage (shipped to Rabanco in Washington) EPR electronics (managed by Encorp), small appliances and residential light bulbs (managed by Product Care Association) EPR accepts beverage container donations which are processed by Regional Recycling Maintains an informal paint exchange program PPP commercial and residential (to Squamish for sorting and baling; plastics to Urban Impact for further sorting) Construction & Demolition (C&D) materials clean and dirty/contaminated wood, dry wall, steel EPR paint, batteries, tires, appliances, smoke alarms, some beverage containers pulled from PPP Organics as listed below plus invasive plant matter Compost Facility located in the Callahan Valley proximate to the TS. Managed by Carneys Waste Systems through the 2008 Solid Waste Management Agreement with RMOW. Food scraps and food-soiled paper Pet waste in compostable liners Yard and garden debris Clean wood Land clearing debris Wood chips (and sawdust) 18

34 Table 4: Stationary Operational Infrastructure Component Materials Collected Streetscape Containers located throughout the RMOW in commercial areas, in other public spaces (e.g. bus stops), and in Parks. Managed respectively by Village Maintenance, Infrastructure Services and Parks. Whistler Blackcomb has their own public bins near their operations. Garbage, recycling (majority of bins specify refundable containers/bottles and cans, others say recycling undefined, and Whistler Blackcomb specifies all recyclable items including plastics 1-7) Commercial and Institutional Collection Systems managed privately and contract directly with haulers (e.g. Carney s, Waste Control Services). Garbage, organics, recycling EPR Return to Retail Locations managed privately through organizations hired by industry groups to collect and process end of life materials. Partial list of examples to right. Paint Rona Tires, used oil, anti-freeze, filters, containers Barney s Mechanics Compact fluorescent bulbs Home Hardware Pharmaceuticals Shoppers Drug Mart, Nesters, Rexall, etc. Cell phones Bell store Mobile infrastructure is summarized below: Contractor to haul from residential depot sites to transfer station. Contractors to haul from commercial and stratas to transfer station or other. Compost is transferred from the facility to a curing area in Squamish. Intermodal transport to move garbage from transfer station to Washington state landfill. RMOW electric trucks collect from some streetscape containers. Residents and second home owners drive (or bus or bike) materials to residential depot sites. C&D is collected in onsite containers than are then hauled to the transfer station or lower mainland Strengths The primary system strength noted by stakeholders is the infrastructure itself. The system components strengths are outlined below: Residential Drop-off Depots diversion and disposal options are offered in two locations and a wide range of materials accepted through a source separated system, including 1-7 plastics. Mixed paper and cardboard in particular are relatively clean with little contamination, which reduces processing capacity needed. Access is easy for visitors and residents who need to early morning or later evening drop off capacity. Re-Use It-Centre has been in operation for 10 years, is well known and utilized by the community. Seeking to expand which will support further diversion; also planning to place donation bins in neighbourhoods and at the Nesters depot where there is currently no reuse recovery capacity. 19

35 The profit from running this Centre and the Re-Build-It Centre allow the Whistler Community Services Society to run numerous programs to assist various segments of Whistler s society. Re-Build-It Centre collects and provides used furniture and building materials for reuse. Additionally, a paint exchange is provided to re-use old paint before it enters the paint EPR program. The Centre s success to-date has resulted in plans to expand at some future point. Bottle Depot efficiently run, Regional Recycling is partnering with WCSS for beverage container donation bins at Function Junction, has plans underway to rent other space to reduce onsite storage containers and increase parking. Whistler Transfer Station A broad array of materials are collected at the site, and finished compost and soil mixes are available onsite. Compost Facility (located at the Transfer Station) this contained system collects a wide range of materials including all food scraps; minimal transport to processing infrastructure is beneficial for RMOW diversion, and carbon sources are collected for free or reduced rates, then chipped onsite. Additional efficiency is being added to the system such as screening overs onsite to re-enter system. Streetscape Containers containers are well located, staff members ensure diversion through postconsumer sorting of recycling streams, work has been done to make them bear-proof. Commercial and Institutional Collection Systems strata, hotels and several businesses including Whistler Blackcomb, and local schools collect food scraps as well as other recycling. Mobile Infrastructure material flow is relatively streamlined and depots are located in proximity to areas so that many residents can coordinate their outings to include a depot drop off. C&D drywall is consistently diverted as per the provincial ban on disposal. EPR - a majority of EPR programs are in place locally, either through return to retail or at depots. For some materials, such as oil, tires and pharmaceuticals, the return to retail model reaches the target user effectively and closes the loop by having end of life materials management at the location where the products were purchased. Bears significant research and development has been done on best practices for bear-proof containers by Get Bear Smart Society and Carneys, including for compost collection containers Gaps Stakeholders expressed concerns around the potential for waste costs to dispose and divert materials to continue to increase unless actions are taken to reduce overall material use. It was also noted that all service contracts need to ensure that diversion is rewarded and metrics are accurately tracked. Additional feedback on gaps to achieving diversion is listed below. Residential Drop-off Depots Unsecured depot sites lack a pay as you throw system, which is a best practice for maximizing diversion. 24/7 access encourages commercial use which is ultimately 20

36 subsidized by the taxpayer. Depot layout makes garbage easiest to dispose or while other streams especially compost are underutilized and disposed as garbage instead of diverted. Limited space prevents expansion of material streams (e.g. yard debris, new EPR programs). Plastics recycling is often so contaminated that it is sent to landfill. Site access is challenging when using preferred modes of transportation (i.e. options besides single-use occupancy vehicle). Re-Use It-Centre Space is limited and increasing floor space and processing area could allow more materials to be diverted. Current monitoring system tracks volume not weight, so diversion numbers are less accurate than they could be. Re-Build-It Centre The Centre accepts a relatively small percentage of materials due to limited space and prioritizing by cost centers. More reusable building materials are generated from RMOW than are used within the municipality, and the Re-Build-It Centre has limited capacity to handle it all. Maintenance workers who find reusable items may not have time to take the extra trip to Function Junction to drop them off. Bottle Depot Space is limited for expanding to additional streams such as Paint Plus and metal. Current storage bin set up limits parking spaces. Whistler Transfer Station Limited space exists for indoor handling of garbage and recycling, which makes it challenging to expand to accommodate more diversion options such as Paint Plus or doing any additional sorting of garbage. Distance from the village is significant particularly for small businesses and residents with small amounts of yard debris or C&D materials and has GHG emissions and costs associated. Baling is not done at the depots or the transfer station, and compactors trucks are used instead. As a result the density hauled is likely half that of bales which is cause for inefficiency and higher costs in transporting. Tire fee exists even though there are local businesses that offer the service for free as part of the EPR program. Compost Facility This infrastructure is underutilized for food scraps but is beyond capacity in peak season. Compostable cutlery does not break down properly, and PET-lined containers are processed which can leave post-screened plastics residual. Studies have shown that these micro-plastics persist in compost-treated soils and do not biodegrade (Eco-Cycle and Woods End Laboratories Inc., 2011). Contamination issues result in disposal. There is some confusion about what materials are accepted including doggie bags vs. compostable liners, PET-lined containers, and waxed cardboard. The final curing for compost occurs in Squamish thus requiring additional handling, which increases transportation-related costs and GHG emissions. Streetscape Containers Three types of containers operated by three departments is somewhat inefficient. Varied signage makes diversion more challenging for visitors especially and potentially increases post-consumer sort time. Commercial and Institutional Collection Systems Cost, space and wildlife concerns are resulting in organics collection participation rates declining by an estimated 10 percent. While a waste storage area is required for stratas, the physical space often limited recycling options, and they incur additional costs to set up diversion. Commercial hauling contracts are primary done by service instead 21

37 of tonnage, which potentially incurs more cost to the user. Significant gaps exist in the provision of recycling and compost collection options for ICI and stratas. EPR There is not enough space to accommodate current and future EPR programs at the residential depots and the transfer station. As additional EPR programs are launched, space allocation is important but it s also worthy of note that the space needs will depend on the program design (e.g. return-to-retail, depot-based collection etc.). Mobile Infrastructure Some commercial and C&D contractors collect recyclable, compostable, and reusable materials and products and bypass the system so that the credit to diversion is not realized by the RMOW. While a majority of materials are tracked, other companies hauling smaller amounts of materials would need to also provide information to the RMOW to ensure a complete data set. There is very little data from companies involved in waste collection and migration. Transportation to depots, especially for people without vehicles, makes it harder to participate in the diversion system. The perception that bus transit isn t an option for diversion and disposal at depot sites poses an additional barrier. Concern was expressed around the extra trucking and GHG emissions associated with transport of materials. C&D Construction sites frequently do not have enough space to put in multiple containers for diversion; there is also extra cost associated with diversion. Bears More could be done to ensure maintenance of bins/compactors to prevent bear issues, and securing the sites could also mitigate bear-related concerns. Facilities and private collection areas are not all secured and bear-proofed. 3.6 Zero Waste Promotion and Education The RMOW provides some zero waste promotion directly, and also partners with other organizations and levels of government to educate the community on infrastructure and services available. Partners include: the Whistler Centre for Sustainability, Carney s Waste Systems, the Whistler Community Services Society, AWARE, the SLRD, other haulers and EPR program sponsors Strengths RMOW The RMOW maintains an information website, periodically publishes newspaper articles, promotes initiatives and programs (e.g. twice yearly free yard debris drop at depots, proposed plastic bags ban), and encourages waste reduction at special events (e.g. reduce packaging and sample size for free handouts - swag). Whistler Centre for Sustainability This sustainability planning group maintains the Whistler 2020 website which provides performance measure feedback to the community on waste-related metrics. It has historically also managed the community engagement for Whistler Some momentum was created with federally funded engagement programs ishift Citizen and ishift Business, which were implemented by the Centre. 22

38 Carneys As part of their contract, Carney s provides promotion and outreach functions including a website, signage, regular advertising of services and diversion opportunities, promotion through events and schools, and ongoing service information to businesses. Whistler Community Services Society This charity group regularly advertises the reuse opportunities in the RMOW, including a Velvet Glove deconstruction program. AWARE This environmental non-profit, led by volunteers, sponsors a youth club that includes waste reduction themes. SLRD The regional district funds a Zero Waste Educator who provides classroom education programs and maintains a youth blog, and they are developing communications branding to potentially be used throughout the region. EPR programs promote their services directly to the public (e.g. Regional Recycling uses monitors to share TV-style ads with customers at the site, programs advertise directly in local papers) while haulers provide diversion-related opportunities and technical assistance to current and future clients Gaps The desire to see more coordinated promotion as well as programs with a focused behaviour change element to overcome the lack of education was a clear theme throughout the information gathering process. As noted above in infrastructure gaps, for a drop-off depot system to achieve near zero waste targets, it is essential that very strong promotion and education programs are in place and maintained. At present, there is no dedicated RMOW staff person to work on communications and communitybased social marketing for solid waste diversion. The lack of coordination capacity results in a significant number of lost opportunities to leverage partnerships to move initiatives forward. There are missed opportunities to promote diversion within existing outreach programs such as: Bear Smart, Spirit Pass Program, Welcome Week, Whistler Survival Kit, EnviroFest, and Pitch-In Day. Showcasing the positive aspects of the waste diversion system components is another lost opportunity. The current education is information-based with distribution of written and online materials, which doesn t reach target audiences nor promote targeted behaviour change especially for second home owners and day visitors. Programs lack a community-based social marketing approach for measurable behaviour change. There is lack of an overall consistency for public space signage (colour coding, images and minimal words) and overall best practices for program branding. More specifics on diversion opportunities and feedback on progress are minimal on go-to solid waste websites (i.e. Carney s, RMOW solid waste). Signage and hole shapes are inconsistent for streetscape containers. There are no zero waste stations at farmers market and other special events where food scraps are a significant portion of the waste stream. 23

39 4.0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT While RMOW vision and strategic policies very clearly support aspirational goals for zero waste, there are system gaps that are preventing RMOW from reaching specific targets as well as the broader goal of zero waste. This section summarizes primary system gaps preventing goals and provides an update on progress towards targets. 4.1 Summary of System Gaps Vision and Strategic Policies Lack specific targets for reduction of garbage and overall material generation. Lack of action plans and designated staff to accomplish goals. Management Systems and Tools Policy framework does not sufficiently drive the program change needed to meet goals, bylaws are not enforced and more regulatory levers could be in place to foster diversion. Residential depots lack a pay as you throw structure, have transportation access issues, and the pricing differential is not enough to actively promote commercial organics diversion. Contracts in place are not performance-based and there is little reward for waste reduction success from a hauling perspective. The service provider gets a fee to transport garbage going to disposal while the only reward for collecting recyclables is the value of the material sold, which varies by material and over time. Operational Infrastructure and Services Having unsecured, unstaffed residential drop-off depots with no pay as you throw system presents a significant barrier to achieving zero waste goals. Contracts also lack specific incentives to drive diversion. Promotion and Education The ongoing development of programs incorporating behaviour change strategies (e.g. community-based social marketing) are limited, as are staff resources to liaise with partners and develop and implement programs directly. There is no specific policy to ensure resources are allocated for meaningful engagement. The current education is information-based with distribution of written and online materials, which doesn t adequately target audiences nor promote targeted behaviour change. Promotion and education is currently insufficient to encourage residents and visitors to drop-off well sorted recyclables and to separate them from garbage. 4.2 Progress Towards Targets Material generation was reported to be on an upward trend from 2007 leading up to and through the Olympics, although preliminary 2011 data indicates that there may be a downward shift in that trend. A downward shift in material quantities over time can be encouraged through EPR programs, the intent of which is to improve product design and durability. Reduction of garbage continues to trend downward, as shown in Section Table 5 shows zero waste goals and targets specific to RMOW solid waste. The table compares garbage generation actuals based on updated data to SLRD waste reduction goals. 24

40 Table 5: Zero Waste Goals Related to Whistler s Solid Waste Source Goal or Target Description Performance Assessment Whistler 2020 By 2020, Whistler is well on its way to achieving its zero waste goal. Some progress is being made on reducing what goes to disposal; the waste composition studies show that up to 80 percent of what s disposed as garbage (for residential) could be diverted using existing infrastructure. Official Community Plan Draft Move progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound manner. Whistler s Environmental Strategy Medium Term Target 400 kg/capita/year (population equivalent) per year This medium term target has still not been reached with 2010 disposal tonnes per capita at 594. Squamish Lillooet Regional District Solid Waste Management Plan Per capita disposal by year: See below kg/day or 512 kg /year kg/day or 456 kg/year kg/day or 394 kg/ year Table 6: Garbage Amounts Annual Tonnage and Kg per Capita RMOW Actuals (annual tonnage) 16,670 17,760 15,950 12,200 - Population Equivalent 26,048 25,762 27,975 27,027 - RMOW Goal SLRD SWMP Goals RMOW Actuals Additional Reduction Needed to Meet SLRD Goals Goals and actuals are in kilograms per capita per year unless otherwise noted 2 Compares actual to the previous year s goal. 3 Of the tonnage still in the garbage stream, over half of it is recoverable through existing diversion programs (e.g. organics, paper, wood waste) based on the 2004 waste composition study. The 2011 waste composition study (residential only) shows that 60 percent of the existing garbage stream consists of compostable organics, paper, and mixed containers. To effectively develop and meet interim targets, it is important that specific materials and products in the garbage stream by sector are targeted and specific actions are taken to reduce and divert those items. This could occur each two or three years based on a comprehensive waste composition study. For example, based on the 2011 residential waste composition study, compostables comprised 24 and 36 percent respectively for Function Junction and Nesters residential depots. By reducing this amount by half, a certain tonnage of material can be eliminated from the garbage stream. By targeting multiple materials and designing infrastructure programs to specifically address them, realistic interim targets can be set and measured. 25

41 After measuring success of the various programs through an updated waste composition study and other metrics as relevant, interim targets can be adjusted as needed to drive future reduction and the overall solid waste system (from policy and management tools through infrastructure and promotion) can be honed to meeting those adjusted targets. Throughout this step-by-step process that sets short and longer term vigorous goals for garbage reduction, the aspirational goal of zero waste stays in place. This process is in place in Nova Scotia, where the province has set a zero waste goal, has reached 401 kg per capita per year by 2010, and has set a goal of 300 kg per capita per year for 2015 (Nova Scotia Environment, 2010). When setting interim targets, it is ideal to do it based on reducing the aggregate tonnage of garbage produced in the community. There are several factors should be considered for the RMOW: Whistler Accommodation Capacity a majority of the municipality has been built out, and according to the Growth Management Backgrounder for the Official Community Plan, the current bed units are estimated at 53,038, which translates to 15,380 dwelling units (RMOW, 2010). Another 8,196 bed units (2,008 dwelling units) brings the total potential bed units to 61,234 (RMOW, 2010). This represents approximately 13 percent growth and needs to be factored into target development. That said, even with a moderate amount of future development, improved systems and programming can be expected to significantly reduce garbage at these new facilities. Systems need to be designed to produce less material and less waste overall, regardless of occupancy rate during a given year. Population Equivalent the occupancy rate of dwelling units affects the annual RMOW population count and is expected to increase over time. While this also factors into the development of interim targets, it should be noted that the average population equivalent from 1999 through 2011 is 26,100 with a peak of 27,975 during the Olympics and 27,075 in 2011 (Whistler Centre for Sustainability, 2012). EPR Programs as part of the development of Greenest City Zero Waste Goal, Vancouver staff members extrapolated from Metro Vancouver waste composition results to show the significant percentage existing and future EPR programs in the current garbage stream, as shown in Figure 5 (City of Vancouver, 2009). The continued evolution and growth of EPR programs is one of key factors that will enable a drop-off system to achieve the almost zero waste targets by

42 Figure 5: Waste Diversion Opportunities: Total Waste Disposed by All Sectors: Residential ICI & DLC, 2008 (City of Vancouver, 2009) Greenhouse Gas Metrics in addition to GHG savings from transportation, research shows that GHG savings can result per tonne when recycling and composting rather than disposing of waste in garbage. A 2011 study done in the Metro Vancouver region determined that the average carbon dioxide equivalent (eco2) for combined MSW recycling and composting saved 1,837 kg per tonne (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). Figure 6 shows the range of GHG savings by recyclable material, which ranges from 9,827 kg eco2 per tonne for aluminum cans diverted for feedstock as new cans to a low of 14 eco2 per tonne of glass for use as construction aggregate. While aluminum has more recovery-related cost savings, from a material use perspective, glass actually has a much lower carbon footprint. In contrast, landfilling has minimal GHG reduction value. For a landfill with a 75 percent methane recovery rate and an energy recovery system, GHG savings per tonne is approximately 270 kg eco 2 (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009). While carbon offsets are not available through the BC Climate Action Charter for this aspect of waste management at present, the metrics clearly indicate that recycling and composting actively contribute to GHG savings as compared to disposal. 27

43 Figure 6: GHG Savings per Tonne by Recyclable Material (Sound Resources Management Group Ltd., 2009) 5.0 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Strategies were developed to strengthen existing system components and/or to address gaps identified through the information gathering process and SWOT analysis. Based on this review, three plans for strategies were developed: 1. Minimal, 2. Moderate, and 3. Advanced. While the advanced scenario represents the most action-oriented set of strategies and is intended to actively promote waste reduction to meet SLRD targets, it should be noted that the RMOW s goal of achieving zero waste will require ongoing assessment and goal setting. After five years, to continue on a zero waste goal trajectory, an updated strategy will be needed based on the following assumptions: Federal and Provincial Policy Implementation - EPR will be further developed, based on the CCME Canada-Wide Plan for EPR and ongoing expansion of the BC Recycling Regulation; RMOW Actions Local garbage reduction efforts and a decrease in overall material use will result in a shift in garbage composition and new products and materials will need to be targeted; and SLRD Actions - Regional policies and programs are also expected to reduce garbage and overall material generation. In addition, the Solid Waste Management Plan will likely be updated. 28

44 In addition to defining the current system as part of the process, some potential constraints or local features were considered in the development of strategies and are outlined below: 5.1 Vision and Policy Whistler has a more varied population than many communities with regard to second homeowners, seasonal workers, vacationers, and day visitors. These sub-groups have different needs and perspectives than permanent residents, and tend to be less informed about and invested in the community vision. A focus on short term savings over long-term gains and meeting broader community goals combined with staff change over time may limit the ability to achieve the zero waste vision. 5.2 Management Systems and Tools Whistler has a high population for black bears and the neighbourhoods are easily accessible to bears. Whistler s bears are a tourism draw and incidents with bears impact Whistler s reputation. Adequate space may not exist in some buildings for additional discard streams so creativity may be needed to make diversion possible, such as increased frequency of pickups. Some parties felt the requirements for the garbage disposal sheds were too onerous and expensive, which resulted in some apprehension about any new requirements. EPR is evolving and there is no guarantee that municipalities will be involved or that they will be compensated for what they choose to offer. The program for a significant new category of materials, packaging and printed paper (PPP) is under development for the residential sector, including single family and multi-family dwellings as well as public streetscapes. Key details are still unknown, such as: who will handle the material, where it will go, what the level of compensation will be, and how collection is to occur for each sub-sector. 5.3 Operational Infrastructure and Services The future of solid waste is to separate, organize and design according to product categories rather than materials and thus, systems should consider this important trend and build in capacity to adapt to new EPR programs coming online. Snow clearing, wildlife concerns, the high percentage of second home residents, and extra cost make the option of mobile neighbourhood-based drop offs less viable, even though it could offer increased access for those using preferred modes of transportation. These concerns also apply to the lack of viability for residential curbside collection. Mobile neighbourhood-based drop offs also do not fit within the best practice of pay as you throw which, requires staff supervision of all sites. Some stakeholders referred to other resort communities, in particular Banff, Jasper and Canmore, which all rely on drop off locations for their recycling and garbage (and organics if available) (Town of Banff, 2012; Town of Canmore, 2012; Municipality of Jasper, 2012). There are several variables that make this a less viable option for RMOW, as noted below. The table below provides some context for comparing communities. 29

45 It should be noted that Banff and Canmore have a higher population density than RMOW (1,554.1 and population per area density as compared to 40.9). All three of the other communities have a higher percentage of dwellings occupied (65-90 percent as compared to 42 percent in RMOW). The other communities appear to be built around a centre, rather than along a highway as with Whistler, which also makes neighbourhood bin locations more viable in the other communities. Additionally, communities struggle to provide organics and recycling options that are as convenient as garbage. As an example, Canmore transitioned from curbside garbage pickup in response to ongoing bear problems, and now relies on servicing over 200 bear-proof garbage bins throughout the community and providing two permanent recycling depots plus a mobile bin that rotates through seven locations each week. Table 7: Comparison to Other Resort Communities with Bears and Depot-based Collection Town Population (permanent residents from census) Banff Area Density Dwellings used Dwellings built Occupancy (%) (km ) (per km ) (2006 Canada census) (2006 Canada census) , , % Jasper , % Canmore 12, , % Whistler 9, , % 2 2 Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 and 2011 Pemberton transfer station charges nominal fees per bag to drop off waste while the Whistler depots are free. The Pemberton transfer station is also only open for limited hours, five days per week. Contracts for services at transfer station, composter and residential depot sites are up for renewal and have the potential to be restructured to add efficiency for increased cost savings and improved diversion. Careful phasing in is critical for all changes and needs a combination of education, promotion, pilot projects, and warnings to allow for wider acceptance of changes. People prefer to change their habits gradually. A transition to a user-pay system would require a plan to mitigate potential issues arising from changes, such as short-term illegal dumping. A Cost Benefit study of the Whistler Composter operation is nearing completion. Results may require a review of the biosolids contract with Squamish and revisiting the most cost-effective option for processing food scraps. A region-wide study of organics supply and requirements in underway by the SLRD and the results could influence RMOW decisions. Compactor and bin sensors exist that can alert the service provider when to service the bin and reduce unnecessary pickups. 30

46 5.4 Zero Waste Promotion and Education Programs Community-based social marketing is a proven approach for current and future promotion initiatives, including best practices review, assessment of barriers and benefits, targeting specific behaviours and using specific tools (e.g. prompts, commitments, and social diffusion), piloting programs and use metrics-based performance measures, then moving ahead with broad scale implementation. Return on investment could be significant by allocating RMOW staff resources for behaviour change programming and to leverage partnerships to maximize outreach efforts. Utilization of the pollution prevention hierarchy rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle can support waste prevention as well as waste diversion initiatives and has associated cost savings from less overall throughput of material. Using this approach, an organics hierarchy can also be promoted, which includes food waste prevention, food recovery, onsite composting as appropriate (particularly for yard and garden debris), then composting food scraps at a large scale facility. Partnership opportunities exist with the SLRD waste planning and education staff to streamline messaging, branding and programming where viable, as well as with Metro Vancouver, where the organization is developing and freely sharing waste reduction standards and collateral. (Metro Vancouver, 2009; Metro Vancouver, 2012). Other resort communities are working on similar initiatives and may have best practices to share. 6.0 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS For this report, a triple bottom line (TBL) evaluation was conducted for each of the three Zero Waste Plans. To provide further analysis, each of these plans was broken the four primary components of the solid waste system: Vision and Strategic Policies; Management Systems and Tools; Operational Infrastructure and Services; and Zero Waste Promotion and Education. This evaluation does not include a detailed economic analysis, but rather high-level considerations that are quantified at the planning level. This information allows the RMOW to identify and focus on the key values needed to assess each Plan and optional strategies to allow the determination of a selected group of strategies that will form the basis of the RMOW Zero Waste Plan. The following sections discuss the methodology that was used and the criteria used for the comparison. The results of the assessment are summarized in this section and presented in detail in Appendix C. 6.1 Category Selection Specific criteria were grouped into three different areas typical of a TBL process as follows: Economic Effect Potential Environmental Effect Potential Social Effect Potential 31

47 6.2 Development of Criteria The criteria on which to assess the options were based primarily on key values and priorities most important to the community of Whistler. These criteria were developed following the review of municipal literature, interviews and meetings with the RMOW. Following this initial information gathering, a draft set of criteria were forwarded to RMOW staff for review. Included in that request was also the weight, or multiplier, that should be applied to each criterion to ensure the right amount of emphasis is placed where the host municipalities thought it best applied. The project team built consensus with RMOW staff members to finalize criteria, and then the particular weightings were calculated Assessment Criteria - Descriptions The following sections provide a list of criteria and descriptions to be used to assess the three Zero Waste Plans. Most of these criteria are from the Whistler 2020 Descriptions of Success (DOS) and the RMOW Corporate Plan to ensure the consulting team is carrying out the assessment with the same set of values most important to the RMOW: Economic Effect Potential to use less of the RMOW's public sector resources - Whistler will become more efficient in delivering its services based on the growing shift of responsibility for manufactured discards to industry. Potential to increase business performance and economic opportunities. Increased business performance and economic opportunities are being realized as a result of smart materials management. Pertains to both material recovery businesses as well as other commercial sector businesses who are seeking waste prevention and reduction measures Environmental Effect Potential to Reduce Waste Whistler will strive to be close to meeting its Zero Waste Goal by 2020 and move progressively toward zero solid waste in a cost-effective, efficient and environmentally sound manner. The food system is managed to eliminate waste. Develop, expand and promote programs and infrastructure that increases local recycling diversion rates, especially for food scraps. Potential to reduce current GHG emissions Substantially reduce GHG emissions associated with solid waste management as it relates to landfill methane emissions, transportation and the upstream impact of material management (i.e. manufacturing and transport of products and packaging). Factor in GHG savings achieved by recycling and composting as compared to disposal. Potential to use materials and products that are less environmentally harmful (upstream) Using materials and products that are less environmentally harmful, preferring recycled, compostable, repairable, reusable, natural and sustainably harvested materials, and plentiful metals. Potential to Reduce Toxics discharged into the environment Substances and chemicals that are potentially harmful to human, animal, and environmental health are being eliminated, replaced, or managed in a way that they do not disperse in nature. 32

48 Social Effects Potential to ensure Whistler is clean and well maintained Defined as facilities meeting the high aesthetic standards of the RMOW while minimizing litter and odour related to solid waste. Potential to improve convenient diversion opportunities to Whistler residents and visitors The community is closing the loop by providing appropriate and convenient opportunities for reducing, reusing, composting, repairing and recycling materials. Potential that residents and visitors are informed through innovative outreach programs and are engaged in achieving positive outcomes Whistler is committed to providing education and accessible infrastructure capable of continually decreasing its residual wastes while local businesses, residents and visitors are knowledgeable about material flows, and through their actions, demonstrate and communicate a strong ethic of responsibility and stewardship toward resources and materials. Additionally, the RMOW wants to expand community outreach and engagement to support municipal decision-making. Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes Partnerships are developed such that collective procurement choices favour companies and suppliers that are consistent with our identified materials and solid waste values. Partnering for success. Potential to demonstrate leadership towards stewardship of our natural resources Whistler advocates for zero waste through education and demonstration, and works toward removing external barriers to achieving zero waste and demonstrates leadership towards the careful stewardship of natural assets and protection of the ecological function. 6.3 Assessment In this section, a triple bottom line (TBL) evaluation was conducted on the three primary scenarios that are comprised of strategies to apply across the waste management system. The purpose of the assessment was to score three different Plans that captured advanced, moderate, and minimal strategies to meet the RMOW s goal for 2020 (i.e. 60 percent garbage reduction). This assessment allowed RMOW staff to option to select the strategies within each of these Plans that best meet their needs as part of a Zero Waste Plan. Following selection of the preferred strategies, the project team completed a resource planning table to be used in the development of a detailed action plan, which is beyond the scope of this study. The following sections summarize the general methodology and results of the TBL Analysis for Plans 1, 2, and 3 whereas the detailed assessment calculations are provided in Appendix C Approach The TBL assessment involved a comparison of the options on the basis of the criteria identified for each of the 2 areas in Table 8 below. A variable weighting was given to each assessment criterion based on its relative importance for RMOW. All individual weights within a grouping are summed to obtain a total best score for that grouping (e.g. Economic is 700) and a total overall best score at the column bottom (1500). 33

49 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Weighting Economic Effect Potential 1 Potential to use less of the RMOW's public sector resources 2 Potential to increase private business performance and economic opportunities Best Possible Link to Policy Environmental Effect Potential 3 Potential to reduce garbage 4 Potential to reduce GHG emissions 5 Potential to use materials and products that are less environmentally harmful (upstream) Potential to responsibly manage toxic materials and products to prevent them from being 6 discharged into the environment (downstream) Social Effect Potential 7 Potential to ensure Whistler is clean and well maintained 8 Potential to improve convenience for diversion opportunities Potential that residents and visitors are informed and engaged through effective outreach 9 programs that achieve positive outcomes 10 Potential to develop or enhance partnerships to achieve positive outcomes 11 Potential to demonstrate leadership through stewardship of our natural resources Total Corporate Plan, Community Priority W2020 DOS 2, 6, Community Priority W2020 DOS 5, OCP Goal 8.6, Community Priority W2020 DOS 2, OCP Goal 7.3, Community Priority W2020 DOS 3, Community Priority 50 W2020 DOS 9, Community Priority W2020 DOS 1, Community Priority W2020 DOS 4, 7, Community Priority W2020 DOS 7,8, Corporate Plan W2020 DOS 10, Community Priority W2020 DOS 11, Community Priority Table 8: Triple Bottom Line Criteria and Weighting Each criterion was assessed according to their primary influences as specified in the criteria description. Table 9 below provides the subjective comparison to the existing system and attaches a numerical value. For example, if an option was very good as compared to the existing system, the maximum weight for that criterion would be multiplied by 80 percent. The assessment worksheets for each option can be viewed in Appendix C. Scoring % - Relative to Existing System e excellent 100% vg very good 80% g good 60% a adequate 40% g poor 20% n very poor 0% Table 9: Triple Bottom Line Criteria Scoring Values Assessment Scoring The resultant scores for each criterion for each option were added up and each option was ranked in order of the assessment score from 1 to 3, as listed below in Table 10. For each component of the solid waste system, Plan 3 ranked highest. 34

50 en tia l Ov er a T ota l ll Ra nk ing t Pot Socia l E ffe c En vir onm enta l E ffe Pot e ct n tial Econ o mic E Pot e ffect n tial Option Description Plan 3 - Vision Advanced Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Plan 2 - Vision Plan 1 - Vision Moderate Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Minimum Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Plan 3 - Management Advanced Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Plan 2 - Management Plan 1 - Management Moderate Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Minimal Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Plan 3 - Operations Advanced Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Plan 2 - Operations Plan 1 - Operations Moderate Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Minimum Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Plan 3 - Education Advanced Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Plan 2 - Education Plan 1 - Education Moderate Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Minimum Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Best Possible Score Table 10: Triple Bottom Line Assessment Scores Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the option scores within the context of economic, environmental, and social effects. 35

51 Figure 7: Assessment Scoring Bar Chart of Options 6.4 Discussion General Options assessed were done so with the perspective of both the financial impact to the community as a whole (both customer and RMOW). Items not addressed were either revenue-neutral or not considered relevant to determining the cost/benefit of each Plan. The focus of this analysis was to examine the differences between Plans and the baseline existing system for assessment purposes only. The intent of these high-level estimates is to allow the RMOW to make strong decisions on how to move forward with a Zero Waste Plan based on the long term benefits to the Whistler community as a whole and in so doing, provide a direction for the future. Striving for the select end-point based on this analysis will logically lead to many strategies. Related budgeting processes will adjust the fixed and variable costs to adopt the most financially viable system for Whistler residents and businesses based on life cycle accounting. It is clear through this process that the most cost-efficient system of the future is one that focuses on maximizing collection of post-consumer materials rather than wasting them and paying for the associated high costs of distant shipping to Rabanco in Washington. This report sets the stage for the detailed year to year budgeting process needed to implement such a Plan, but in no way replaces that process. 36

52 The following paragraphs summarize and sections highlight the results of assessing 3 model Plans that contain a host of strategies to meet the RMOW goals in highlighted in previously mentioned policy documents. Each tonne of waste disposed costs about $90 to be shipped and disposed in Washington, USA and, additionally, $4.50 per tonne disposed is transferred to the SLRD for their Solid Waste Management Programme. Conversely, for every tonne or waste recycled or reduced will mean an annual savings of approximately $95, which translates into the most significant advantage of Advanced Plan 3 over the others. Goals were set against a garbage generation average from (18,000 tonnes). By 2020, as the initial garbage reduction target of 40 percent (10,500 tonnes) in Minimal Plan 1 is achieved, it would result in a savings recovery of approximately $720,000 per year. A 50 percent (9,000 tonnes) target for Moderate Plan 2 will result in an estimated recovery of $850,000 while the 60 percent (7,000 tonnes) garbage reduction target for Plan 3 would result in an estimated revenue and cost-savings of $1,050,000 when compared to the baseline system. This cost recovery can support budgetary priorities, such as staffing, to further RMOW waste reduction efforts. This is the most significant financial consideration for the 3 options assessed with one fundamental assumption the net result of the resources diverted for recycling is at no cost to the RMOW assuming the RMOW provides the land at no cost to the Contractor understanding that the value of the land will be a consideration of the Contract in an open competition. To be conservative, we have not included Contractor profit or Contractor payment to the RMOW in these calculations. It should be noted that reduction figures of 40%, 50% and 60% were used to differentiate between Plans and to reflect the sensitivity involved as diversion increases. These figures should only be considered guideposts as actual rates will depend on many factors outside the scope of this report (e.g. implementation methodology and programme diligence) As recycling continues to transition to EPR programs funded by manufacturers, there should be a decrease in municipal costs. One example of a cost that could be eliminated immediately is the $765 paid annually for battery recycling at depots. This service should be provided by the battery recycling program. The upcoming residential packaging and printed paper (PPP) program should eliminate the need for the RMOW to pay the costs of collecting these materials at the depots (which is currently an annual cost of $111, 650 plus costs for unscheduled pickups, assuming it is 100% from residential sources). There may also be potential for some services to be paid for by the program, such as staffing recycling depots or handling of the PPP at the transfer station. As EPR programs increase in number and effectiveness, it will also result in decreases in the amount of total waste sent to landfill and associated costs (which is part of the 40, 50 and 60% reductions in waste). The other critical aspect in the financial considerations is the importance of instituting a pay as you throw (PAYT) system which will ensure RMOW taxpayers are not subsidizing the waste disposal costs for commercial system users and others not from the RMOW. Assuming a reasonable minimum rate of $2 per standard bag of garbage to deter disposal, the RMOW could immediately see an income of $90,000 per annum which will cover most site supervision costs to recover these fees assuming there will still be some usage by other surrounding area residents. Both Plans 2 and 3 employ a PAYT system. This kind of a system would also prevent strata properties from avoiding waste disposal fees, resulting in a high level 37

53 estimate of $117,000 per annum in additional revenue based on figures provided by the waste haulers and the RMOW. These 3 dominant financial considerations are the primary reason the high standard recycling strategies in Plans 2 and 3 become the most favourable over the longer term. The following sections discuss each select group of strategies as developed in this report for the purposes of comparison. It should be understood that individual strategies can be selected and carefully interchanged between options to suit the RMOW s needs without reducing their effectiveness Plan 1 Minimal For Plan 1 vision and policy, no new staff resources are needed and less advocacy results in less use of RMOW public sector resources short term, but risks less garbage reduction and higher disposal costs in the future. It was assumed that Plan 1 could reach a 40 percent garbage reduction target at best, which is a reduction of less than 2,000 tonnes compared to 2011 actuals. For management and tools, bylaw and guideline adjustments sets the framework for change, but minimal monitoring significantly reduces outcomes. A 0.1 FTE is needed for management tool development and no resources are allocated for bylaw enforcement, which would react to reported violations only. Note that staffing estimates for all plans do not specify new versus re-allocated resources. For zero waste promotion and education, a baseline of promotion information is made available to the community, but minimal resources are leveraged to ensure behaviour change programming is effectively implemented and measured. A 0.25 FTE from RMOW is used to support promotion basics and support opportunities, and evaluate hauler outreach performance. The hauler contract would include compensation as per the contract to do some promotion. Operational infrastructure and services does not include the installation of a resource recovery centre and thus, no major capital investment except for expansion of depot improvements. Garbage compactors will remain at depots to be used only be residential customers by better securing the site and limiting vehicles overnight. No new staff resources are needed specific to operational infrastructure and services. Out-ofarea garbage migration to unstaffed depots will result in no reduction of fees for additional transport of waste and the associated per tonne SLRD fee Plan 2 - Moderate For Plan 2 vision and policy, the Plan 1 comments apply and.1 FTE is needed to strongly advocate for policy development. It was assumed that Plan 2 could reach a 50% garbage reduction target at best. For management and tools, bylaw and guideline adjustments sets the framework for change, but reduced bylaw enforcement limits results. A 0.1 FTE is needed for management tool development and a 0.5 FTE is designated for enforcement with fines offsetting half the costs. For zero waste promotion and education, a baseline of zero waste promotion and awareness efforts are pursued by RMOW, and some effort is made to leverage partner resources and pursue program initiatives. A 0.5 FTE position within Infrastructure Services is designated to provide educational services and leverage some promotion opportunities. 38

54 Operational infrastructure and service includes: 1 RMOW-operated depot, 1 full service resource recovery centre, 1 depot to collect organics from Whistler Village businesses, some recycling elements removed from the transfer station, a pay as you throw system, and RMOW operated recycling systems. With Plan 2, meeting the 50 percent garbage reduction goal in 2020 will mean an estimated additional 9,000 tonnes will be diverted per year from the current disposal resulting in a savings of close to $850,000. With a fully engaged "Pay As You Throw" system, it is estimated that 600 tonnes per year from the area outside of Whistler would either be fairly charged or diverted completely also saving the $95 per tonne (or close to $60,000 per annum). Additionally, Whistler could expect in the order of $90,000 in revenue, beyond the current tax, based on the amount of garbage received at each depot from those companies and residents who do not pay towards the system such as surrounding area residents and local businesses. A PAYT system will potentially reduce overall operations costs which can be passed to the taxpayer given the decrease of waste migration to RMOW sites. The switch to PAYT will also require an assessment of the current tax level to ensure fairness. Lease revenues from businesses and Product Stewards were conservatively not included in this calculation. This option relies on RMOW to manage recycling operations with additional facility supervisory resources (4 new $16/hr) at a cost $244,000 per annum. One depot would either be moved or expanded into a full-service resource recovery centre most likely to replace the current Nesters depots as it is located closest to the largest residential population. Each depot could include garbage collection, with a compactor at the larger of the two depots. A significant capital investment is required up front of a rough estimate of $600,000 to develop a full scale resource recovery centre which includes: a scale, compactor, product steward stations, businesses that recycle, scale, and privately run material recovery facility (MRF). Staff supervision fees could possibly be included in lease fees to private site users reducing staff costs, but for purposes of comparison this was not assumed Plan 3 - Advanced For Plan 3 vision and policy, a 0.25 FTE equivalent is recommended since a policy framework is essential for successful adoption of other plan elements. As a result, there is overlap with other system elements as they are assessed. It is expected that the return on investment for advocating for strong policies and product stewardship involvement will offset RMOW staff needs over time. It was assumed that Plan 3 could reach a 60% garbage reduction target at best in the allocated timeframe based on the considerable improvement in the solid waste system, management and operation. Management systems and tools used effectively can build in garbage reduction efficiencies (e.g. tipping fee differentials) and corresponding monitoring systems (disposal bans with bylaw enforcement). As such, a 0.25 FTE is needed for management tool development and a full FTE for bylaw enforcement, with fines offsetting half the cost of the position. For zero waste promotion and education, a full FTE within Infrastructure Services will be most effective option for leveraging partner resources, seeking outside funds, engaging product stewards to ensure educational efforts are made locally, and engaging specific sectors and materials therein with targeted, effective behaviour change programs and technical assistance. The result will produce a strong public education and promotional program, rooted in a community-based social marketing approach, which maximizes the usage of available infrastructure and services. Note that for all staffing, estimates do not specify new versus re-allocated resources. 39

55 Operational infrastructure and service includes: 1-2 privately operated depots, 1 full service resource recovery centre that services both commercial and residential sectors for recycling, 1 depot to collect organics from Whistler Village businesses, mini-depots near bus stations, a pay as you throw system, and all recycling removed from the transfer station to free up space, and privately run recycling systems wherever possible. With Plan 3, meeting the 60 percent reduction goal in 2020 based on the average for garbage generated can be achieved and will mean an estimated additional 11,000 tonnes will be diverted per year from the current disposal resulting in a savings of $1,050,000. With a fully engaged "Pay As You Throw" system, it is estimated that 600 tonnes per year from the area outside of Whistler would either be fairly charged or diverted completely also saving the $95 per tonne (or close to $60,000 per annum). Additionally, Whistler could expect in the order of $90,000 in revenue, beyond the current tax, based on the amount of garbage received at each depot. A PAYT system will potentially reduce overall operations costs which can be passed to the taxpayer given the decrease of waste migration to RMOW sites. The switch to PAYT will also require an assessment of the current tax level to ensure fairness. Lease revenues from businesses and Product Stewards were conservatively not included in this calculation, but certainly will result in additional revenue. This option relies on privatizing recycling operations and the reduced need for additional facility supervisory resources (just 2 new positions at $16/hr) at a cost $122,000 per annum. By having a private recycling company manage the sites in accordance to guidelines and standards provided by the RMOW, the efficiency of recyclables management by private enterprise on behalf of the RMOW will provide a strong incentive to increase garbage reduction. Private recycling companies have the ability to supervise the sites with the same personnel improving overall efficiency with labour resources. Depots could include some level of garbage collection as required by the RMOW or even as a customer service, but large compactors would not need to be in place. A significant capital investment is required up front of a rough estimate of $600,000 to develop a full scale resource recovery centre, which includes product steward stations, businesses that recycle, scale, and privately run MRF. Staff supervision fees could possibly be included in lease fees to private site users reducing staff costs, but for purposes of comparison this was not assumed. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided as the selected Zero Waste Plan (Plan 3) is implemented. First, refine performance tracking so progress towards interim targets can be made. Second, adopt interim targets to provide specific steps along the way to the aspiration goal of zero waste. Third utilize the Resource Planning Table that outlines strategies and actions along with general resource requirements for the selected Zero Waste Plan. 7.1 Refine Performance Tracking The RMOW has systems in place to track performance for waste generation and waste composition in the existing garbage stream. There are additional measures that can be taken or further honed to utilize best practices and tools for performance measurement, which are outlined below. Recommendations are based on review of data as captured in Section

56 Data Collection Conduct waste composition studies for the existing garbage stream through the transfer station on a regular basis. Perform the studies in a way that provides disaggregated data, especially to break out commercial streams from residential streams. To reflect the shift to EPR and improve tracking, use product categories as being developed by the Ministry of Environment in conjunction with regional districts. Use scale tracking to confirm material in the RMOW, especially as it pertains to bulking materials for the composter (being done). Expand regulatory tools and relationships to acquire additional material generation data by product and sector from haulers and businesses as relevant, to best gauge diversion progress over time. Data Compilation Continue to compile and track biosolids data separately from MSW streams. Separate materials by product where viable to reflect EPR program collection, then potentially use this later for understanding the costs and benefits associated with EPR programs from the RMOW perspective. For some products it will also be useful to understand if the source is residential or ICI. Track non-epr items separately (e.g. garbage, organics, metal and other construction debris, reusables). Break out organics streams to be able to more closely monitor diversion progress for residential and commercial food scraps collection and also differentiates consumables from land clearing materials that have less upstream impact as it relates to GHG emissions. Keep categories consistent between source and compiled data (recycling history) to ensure accuracy and avoid confusion. Document descriptions by each material category in a separate worksheet within the data compiled to add clarity in reporting. Note any changes in material name or shifts to using product categories so across year comparisons are possible. Include goal tracking in compiled data (e.g. per capita garbage reduction and material generation). Working more closely with the Whistler Centre for Sustainability to ensure that data is being used and interpreted consistently. Target Tracking Use garbage per capita and overall materials used as the two primary tracking methods. Assess results yearly and adjust targets to achieve highest and best results over time. This review can include by sector assessment to target specific materials for reduction and diversion. Avoid use of a diversion rate to assess progress. Results vary considerably depending on what materials are included, and a false-positive result can occur even when material generation is continuing to climb (e.g. wood chips). Material generation reflects a more accurate depiction of resource use over time and is also used as part of Whistler 2020 performance measure tracking. 41

57 Provincial waste tracking includes per capita garbage production as a primary metric (BC Ministry of Environment, 2012), and more municipalities, such as the City of Vancouver, are relying on it as a more accurate measurement of progress towards zero waste. 7.2 Adopt Interim Targets Based on zero waste goals in the OCP and through Whistler 2020, it s recommended that RMOW adopt more stringent waste reduction targets and feedback mechanisms over a longer period that what s currently required through the SLRD. The targets below are set against a baseline established using data from , and can be adjusted regularly as waste composition by sector shifts and new EPR programs are adopted. For a complete list of EPR programs to date, see Appendix F. As specific programs are implemented, interim targets can be developed to target recyclable and compostable materials in the existing waste stream by sector, as reviewed in Section 5.2 Progress Towards Targets. GHG savings can also be quantified based on the lower carbon footprint for processing recyclables and compostables rather than disposing of them as garbage. Updated population equivalents are needed to map out per capita targets to align with future SLRD goals. Table 11: Proposed Interim Targets Garbage Reduction Goal - Percentage Garbage Generated Aggregate Year Average (07-09) Baseline 40% 50% 60% 80% 18,000 10,500 9,000 7,000 3,500 Resource Planning Table and Next Steps The Resource Planning Table was developed to outline selected strategies, pre-requisites, noteworthy considerations, capital and operational general resource requirements defined by order of magnitude, and proposed roles and responsibilities for staff and partners. This table can be found in Appendix D, plus strategies and action highlights are posted below. A more in depth list of actions associated with each strategy can be found in Appendix. E. As strategies within the Zero Waste Plan are operationalized, it is recommended that key stakeholders (e.g. RMOW staff, private enterprise, NGOs) convene to clearly specify how action items are to be implemented. This implementation process will include identifying and securing resources, allocating budgets, finalizing how performance measure elements are to be executed, and setting out a detailed implementation schedule. As part of this action plan process, funding options, as found in Appendix G, may be considered. 42

58 Table 12: Resource Planning Action Highlights (see Appendix E. for detailed actions) Strategies A. VISION AND STRATEGIC POLICIES Waste Reduction Targets Adopt clear interim targets to move towards zero waste Whistler 2020 Develop systems to embed document knowledge and actions into RMOW corporate culture Incorporate Zero Waste International Alliance definition of zero waste RMOW Official Community Plan Revise to incorporate outcomes of Zero Waste Plan involving locating infrastructure within the community RMOW Corporate Plan Revise to incorporate outcomes of Zero Waste Plan SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan Engage actively in next review and ensure any new facilities are included especially to maintain control over recycling by Contract in Whistler Senior Government Materials and Solid Waste Policy Actively collaborate and advocate as pertains to EPR programs, carbon offset opportunities and other waste-related policy issues B. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TOOLS Garbage Disposal and Wildlife Attractants Bylaw Adjust bylaw to build incentive for waste reduction using actions such as increasing the tipping fee differential between garbage and organics to promote diversion; actively enforce improved bylaw Set rates for PAYT system to encourage diversion and reduce disposal especially by non-rmow customers. Other Bylaws and Guiding Policies Adjust and enforce other bylaws including but not limited to fire, business, commercial parking, BC Transit, building permits, sustainable purchasing, special events and human-bear conflict management Performance Measurement Track data collection and compilation using best management practices, conduct waste composition studies across all sectors to measure progress and adjust programs as needed Ensure recycling contract and other contract produce monthly and annual reports on weighed MSW Corporate Leadership RMOW to lead by example on corporate waste reduction initiatives and performance tracking Promote RMOW as leader in sustainability to resort communities elsewhere as per Whistler 2020 Streetscape Bin System Develop consistent look and messaging, expand as relevant to new EPR program, add mobile compost and/or paper to existing streetscape, develop mobile stations for farmers market Committees Participate in waste-related committees and convene a RMOW Technical Advisory Committee with internal and external stakeholders Staff Resources Re-purpose or hire RMOW to staff as noted in Resource Requirement columns to implement Zero Waste Plan EPR Programs Pro-actively monitor and promote new and existing EPR programs Build on one-stop shop model for eco-depot through facilitated effort to get Product Stewards to work synergistically with RMOW staff members RMOW Waste Service Contracts Revise contracts to ensure incentives are in place for waste reduction Include provision for garbage collection at satellite depots and how 43

59 Table 12: Resource Planning Action Highlights (see Appendix E. for detailed actions) Strategies proceeds pass to RMOW Financial Considerations C. Adapt revenue streams to finance new system based on adjustment of fixed and variable costs; adjust to promote waste reduction efforts OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Improve Existing Depot and TS Infrastructure Install PAYT system New Infrastructure Install Zero Waste Centre and space for Rebuild It and ReUseIt facilities. Privatize satellite depots (FJ and Nesters) Install dirty and standard MRF as part of Recycling Contract with Private Enterprise. Compost System Decisions on where food scraps are processed need to be aligned with the pending RMOW Compost Benefit Study. Mini-Depots Install mini-compost depot to service commercial businesses in Village at 4340 Blackcomb Way. D. ZERO WASTE PROMOTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS Educational Programming Provide outreach for maximum system usage, promotion of zero waste 1 General practices, and seeking funding to implement specific initiatives such as technical assistance for businesses; collaborate with partners wherever viable Education Programming Promote waste prevention through initiatives such as developing a repair 2 Prevention Focus database, reduction of wasted food and seeking food recovery opportunities Education Programming Promote behaviour change initiatives relating to compost, from commercial 3 Compost Focus use of compostable products to backyard composting for yard debris Special Events Coordinate with special events staff to further promote waste prevention 4 and diversion at events Zero Waste Stations Augment streetscape and add monitored stations for events as appropriate 5 (e.g. farmers markets) 44

60 8.0 CLOSURE We trust this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. EBA s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report. Sincerely, EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Prepared by: Tamara Shulman, Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Environment Practice Direct Line: x300 tshulman@eba.ca Sue Maxwell, M.A. Ecoinspire Planning Services Tel: susanmaxwell@shaw.ca Reviewed by: Mark Rowlands, P.Eng. Team Leader Waste Management Environmental Practice Direct Line: x355 mrowlands@eba.ca 45

61 REFERENCES BC Climate Action Plan, Climate Action Plan. Retrieved July 23, 2012: BC Ministry of Environment, Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Calculator. Retrieved December 14, 2012: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), "Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility. Approved in principle by CCME on October 29, Retrieved July 25, 2012: City of Markham (2008). Zero Waste Markham Facilities. Retrieved July 23, 2012: City of Vancouver. (2009). Vancouver 2020 A Bright Green Future: An Action Plan for Becoming the World s Greenest City by Retrieved July 23, 2012: Eco-Cycle and Woods End Laboratories Inc., Micro-Plastics in Compost. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Environmental Management Act: Recycling Regulation, B.C. Reg 449/2004, including amendments up to B.C. Reg. 132/2011. Retrieved July 25, 2012: Metro Vancouver, Initiatives to Promote Public Space Recycling. recyclingcwre.pdf Metro Vancouver, Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve Waste Stream Diversion Facility. Retrieved August 1, 2012: Municipality of Jasper, Waste Management website. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Nova Scotia Environment (2010). Our Path Forward: Building on the Success of Nova Scotia s Solid Waste Resource Management Strategy. Retrieved August 2, 2012 at Product Policy Institute (PPI), Products, Packaging and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved July 31, 2012: ember_2009.pdf Recycling Council of BC (RCBC), Bylaws to Boost Recycling in Construction and Demolition. Retrieved August 1, 2012: 46

62 Resort Municipality of Whistler RMOW, Growth Management Backgrounder: Official Community Plan. Retrieved September 7, 2012: Sound Resources Management Group Inc. (2009). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Management: Strategies with a Zero Waste Objective: Study of the Solid Waste Management System in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved September 24, 2012, from Belkorp Inc.: Statistics Canada, Population and dwelling information. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Town of Banff, Residential recycling website. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Town of Canmore, Recycling and Waste Services website. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Whistler Centre for Sustainability, Whistler 2020 Actions for Materials and Solid Waste. Retrieved July 31, 2012: Whistler Centre for Sustainability, Whistler 2020 Population and Demographics. Retrieved September 7, 2012: Zero Waste International Alliance, Zero Waste Definition. Retrieved July 23, 2012: 47

63 APPENDIX A EBA S GENERAL CONDITIONS

64 GENERAL CONDITIONS GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT This report incorporates and is subject to these General Conditions. 1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, nor should it be relied upon for types of development other than those to which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed development would necessitate a supplementary investigation and assessment. This report and the assessments and recommendations contained in it are intended for the sole use of EBA s client. EBA does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other than EBA s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA. Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user. This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon request. 3.0 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to such bodies or persons as required may be done by EBA in its reasonably exercised discretion. 4.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS During the performance of the work and the preparation of the report, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the report. 2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents and deliverables (collectively termed EBA s instruments of professional service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project. Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA s instruments of professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. The Client warrants that EBA s instruments of professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by EBA. Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client s current or future software and hardware systems. General Conditions - Geo-environmental Report.doc

65 APPENDIX B PLAN OPTIONS

66 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Vision and Strategic Policies Waste Reduction Targets Whistler 2020 RMOW Official Community Plan RMOW Corporate Plan SLRD Solid Waste Management Plan Senior Government Materials & Solid Waste Policy Management Systems and Tools Garbage Disposal and Wildlife Attractants Bylaw Rely on SLRD targets to measure success towards zero waste Develop systems to embed Whistler 2020 knowledge and actions into RMOW corporate culture Adopt Zero Waste International Alliance definition of zero waste, as done in OCP Use same depot sites; no OCP adjustment needed Revise plan to incorporate outcomes of garbage reduction strategy Ensure the policy framework is in place to achieve the outcomes Monitor SLRD Board agendas and coordinate meetings to regularly inform RMOW Directors of SLRD solid waste positions Participate in review of SLRD SWMP as requested by SLRD Advocate for permanent, dedicated staff for implementing and monitoring the SWMP at the regional level Minimal participation in senior government policy and regulation development, but rather lobby through RMOW Board Directors for SLRD solid waste staff to actively collaborate and advocate on behalf of Whistler Adjust Garbage and Wildlife Bylaw to: Increase solid waste fee differential to make it more cost effective to divert organics and recyclables Adjust solid waste fees to reward diversion Adapt the composter fee to cover all solid waste aspects, including promotion and education; use second variable fee for residential depot use Adjust bylaw to add clarity and define what can be enforced (e.g. Clause 13: No person shall deposit recyclable materials in a garbage compactor ; change to container so all inclusive) Specify diversion language throughout including for storage containers Respond to complaints and provide intermittent enforcement of actions and (strata) fees collection for those without private haulers Change collection services for ICI, multi-residence dwelling units, and tourist accommodation buildings to require recycling and compost options in addition to garbage service to qualify for waiving of fee (Clause 16) Consider the timing of bylaw changes and corresponding implement to coincide with the packaging and printed paper (PPP) EPR program Provide clear interim targets to support zero waste goals; review and adapt annually and adjust target specific sectors and materials Same as Plan 1 but also ensure increased community awareness and participation Adjust OCP to accommodate potential depot system changes; incorporate a community engagement approach for review 1 Same as Plan 2 Same as Plan 2 Same as Plan 2 Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 Respond to inquiries by senior governments on various policies and legislation related to waste reduction and diversion Participate in all EPR program consultations Work with program stewards to ensure adequate service is provided in Whistler Same as Plan 1 except for: Provide some targeted ad hoc audits and enforce bylaws especially for stratas where fees need to be collected for those without private haulers who use the RMOW depot system Adapt the primary solid waste fee to cover costs, including promotion and education, and rely on a user-pay system to cover garbage Continue to enforce strata collection services having diversion options for recycling and compost Modify bylaw to revise definitions of recycling and garbage. Reclassify all EPR, recyclable and compostable items as not permitted for garbage disposal. Use targeted audits to enforce disposal bans. Create penalties for loads with divertible materials. Same as Plan 1 plus: Regularly provide RMOW Directors with system briefings and recommend position statements Participate in review of SLRD SWMP and proactively advocate on solid waste issues, especially to maximize diversion. This would occur primarily during its periodic review (e.g. disposal ban, lower disposed per capita generation goals) but also during initiatives that involve the RMOW. Same as Plan 2 plus: Actively collaborate and advocate with senior government and Product Stewards to promote further expansion of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system Promote inclusion of diversion strategies to be counted for carbon off-sets Actively advocate for a provincial zero waste policy Advocate for the federal government to develop actions to improve materials use, reduce toxicity, increase recyclability, improve design, and increase recycled content Same as Plan 2 except for: As part of an active compliance program, enforce solid waste related bylaws especially for stratas where fees need to be collected for those without private haulers who use the RMOW depot system. Require stratas to contract details on an annual basis Work with haulers to actively enforce the disposal bans and strengthen penalties for loads with divertible materials Add new bylaws to support waste minimization efforts (e.g. opt in for phone books, plastic bag bans) Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

67 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Other Bylaws and Guiding Policies Performance Measurement Corporate Leadership Streetscape Bin System Adjust and enforce other bylaws and plans to promote diversion: Adjust and enforce to promote diversion Fire Protection and Fireworks Bylaw strengthen language to ban open burning of waste and enforce the bylaw Business Bylaws specify licensing for haulers to require tracking and to prioritize diversion Commercial Parking Bylaw ensure adequate space/proper use of spaces to allow private haulers timely access BC Transit RMOW lobby BC transit to publish and actively communicate strategies for disposition of waste by transit users Building Permit System Include diversion specifications for major renovations using rebate system Sustainable Purchasing Guide review, strengthen, and enforce use of the guide across departments; oversight provided by one department Special Events Guidelines develop a simplified special events check list and require specific waste reduction parameters for municipally-sponsored events Human -Bear Conflict Management Plan further emphasize diverted materials in plan, participate in working group to ensure inclusion/emphasis of diversion strategies as part of bear management Track data collection and compilation using best management practices, as specified in the Garbage Reduction Strategy, with the primary metrics being garbage disposed (total and per capita) and materials consumed Conduct regular waste composition studies across sectors (every 3 years) to inform goal setting and gauge progress, using the province s uniform categories Disaggregate data for commercial and residential stratas Track biosolids separately from MSW and shift to product categories as more EPR programs come online RMOW to lead by example to reduce corporate garbage, maximize diversion opportunities, provide ongoing staff education, consistent signage, through data tracking and measuring of performance Develop consistent message, sign design, and bin colour-coding but maintain status quo on streetscape bin management with coordinated approach amongst current departments. Work to align what materials are collected as PPP legislation is implemented. For special events, add mobile compost and/or paper recycling to existing permanent streetscape bins Develop mobile Zero Waste stations for the Farmers Markets Same as Plan 1 plus: Support the next round of Whistler 2020 Task Force implementation actions (by sector) to drive the implementation of action items Add a bylaw to support deconstruction over demolition and provide incentives (e.g. expedited process or rebate) Encourage local organizations to adopt or adapt the Sustainable Purchasing Policy Add resources to more actively enforce existing bylaws and guiding policies Same as Plan 2 plus: Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 Consolidate management of streetscape bins to standardize materials and streamline operations Replace the existing infrastructure as need arises with uniform system, ideally using modular containers Require all collection bins to be grouped (e.g. no solo garbage or recycling containers) Replace signs, standardize aesthetics with like colours and bin types Work with MMBC to fund and adapt recycling streetscape containers that include packaging and printed paper Expand collection in high density areas to include food scraps recycling Develop sustainable purchasing tool kits for specific business types in conjunction with those businesses and encourage their use (hotels, restaurants, accommodation, etc.) Highlight local opportunities to buy greener Same as Plan 2 plus: Conduct a mini-waste composition study on the bins and locations. Add organics collection bins for dog waste at high use park areas and offer compostable liners to minimize contamination and educate users 2 Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

68 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Committees SLRD Plan Monitoring Committee - staff to actively participate Same as Plan 1 plus: Same as Plan 2 Staff Resources EPR Programs RMOW Waste Service Contracts Financial Analysis Monitor the effectiveness of the regional levy placed on garbage Continue to participate in the new by-sector iteration of the Whistler 2020 Task Forces to monitor and contribute as relevant Bear Management Working Group continue to participate to provide input on solid waste management issues in the context of zero waste priorities Re-purpose RMOW staff* to: Leverage outreach opportunities within the RMOW and across sectors Participate in committees, advocate and represent the RMOW at senior levels of government, evaluate and promote policy and bylaw changes to promote zero waste Monitor and work with new and existing EPR programs Staff also to seek additional sources of grants or funding for innovative or pilot projects or ways to partner with other entities. Consider funding sources based on the quantification of cost-savings achieved from the PPP EPR program launch and a reduction in fees levied for garbage generation (SLRD fee). Promotion and education staff resources are reviewed in section below *In addition to re-purposing existing staff, contracted staff, consultants or new staff could be utilized to address gaps (as per the discretion of RMOW) Pro-actively monitor new and existing EPR programs and work with them to ensure adequate service in Whistler (e.g. determine if tires would be better collected at official tire program sites for the general public) Ensure information on program availability is available to all users Examine metal recycling costs and space to determine if the RMOW may benefit from changing the system (some new programs will not pay for collection of metal products, assuming the revenue from the sale of metal is sufficient) Revise contracts to ensure that there are incentives to reduce waste and provide a high level of service Assess the value of dividing the contract into multiple components. Contracts should consider future EPR programs to ensure the RMOW is not paying for services that should be covered by product stewards (e.g. PPP, batteries) Contract for organics should ensure highest quality of output (i.e. do not accept contaminants) Adapt revenue streams to finance new system Determine fixed and variable costs for all streams RMOW Technical Advisory Committee to consist of internal and external stakeholders and focus on specific actions for implementation of zero waste Use dedicated RMOW staff to fulfill Plan 1 plus: Staff and supervise the depot sites (RMOW or private) Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 2 plus: Additional bylaw resources for education and enforcement Same as Plan 1 plus: Same as Plan 1 Same as Plan 1 RMOW to volunteer to facilitate pilot projects with programs 3 Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

69 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Operational Infrastructure and Services Improve Existing Depot and TS Infrastructure Improve existing depots, update layout and secure sites Move compactor to area where vehicle access is not possible making access to recycling containers more convenient Expand existing depots where possible to provide sufficient space Secure sites to mitigate bear issues, close vehicle gate at night, and provide pedestrian-only access for after-hours drop-off to ensure 24/7 availability yet limit opportunities for discreet dumping of larger, often commercial, volumes Improved signage and lighting Provide space for reuse containers for organics; provide hose and water for rinsing compost pails at compactor sites Provide contact numbers to report any overflows or bin malfunctions Best practices for user pay (i.e. pay as you throw [PAYT]) system applies for garbage collection for all proposed sites. Charge users based on weight and track by sector, and include a breakout for surrounding area residents. Satellite Resource Recovery Depot (1) One RMOW managed and contractor operated satellite resource recovery depot to service small business and residential customers with better geographic coverage: RMOW works in consultation with residents, Product Stewards and other stakeholders to design optimal system Conduct a Request for Proposals to select a contract to operate the facility Modified TS Transition Construction & Demolition (C&D) recyclable materials from the TS to the Resource Recovery Centre, depending on space availability and program development Keep commercial PPP recycling collection at TS New Infrastructure Centralized Resource Recovery Centre Design and install one larger full service centralized Resource Recovery Centre to collect residential and commercial: Expand existing or use new site RMOW sets development standards, performance expectations, sets up leases for private entities; and oversees services for organics and garbage drop-off Includes complete system with: Re-Build-It and Re-Use-It stores; EPR product collection; household compostables, invasive species, and yard/garden debris and clean wood; scrap metal and other construction debris; and garbage compactor. Volume limits, as appropriate, would apply across all categories (i.e. larger loads for organics, garbage and commercial PPP still need to utilize the TS. A small fee, to match the TS, would still be charged for yard/garden debris, which could have a four bag (or equivalent) limit. Utilize a sorting area with a conveyer belt to recover beverage containers, and possibly other recoverable products, in RMOW streetscape containers Use multilingual/pictoral signage and design in RMOW theme and make it a centre of excellence for resort resource recovery processing RMOW to lease space to various providers and work with depot managers to provide areas for their resource recovery efforts 4 Same as Plan 2 PAYT system Satellite Resource Recovery Depots (1-2) Two contractor owned and operated satellite resource recovery depots to service small business and residential customers with better geographic coverage: Consider privatizing by leasing land as Resource Recovery Centres to collect all diverted materials (reusables and recyclables) Provide design performance specifications (including the number of materials accepted), with consideration of best practices (e.g. BC Product Stewardship), and aesthetics requirements conforming to the RMOW image Have professional recycling businesses work with Product Stewards to design optimal resource management centre for review by RMOW staff Specify that site is to provide household organics drop-off that would be serviced by the RMOW with costs covered by taxes Specify that private companies have garbage drop-off available for residents with a user-pay model and a volume limit per visit Implement system first with Request for Expressions of Interest and then go to formal Request for Proposals Modified TS Same as Plan 2 plus: Utilize primarily for garbage and organics; transition commercial PPP recycling collection to the Resource Recovery Centre Same as Plan 2 PAYT system and Centralized Resource Recovery Centre plus: Use new site given depots will remain in place Offer finished compost products in smaller volumes to facilitate residential and small contractor use and close the loop Sort and bale all PPP onsite with Product Stewards paying for the residential portion. Work with PPP Product Stewards to fund sorting and baling increase recovery and add efficiency to hauling. Eliminate PPP drop off at the transfer station (TS) and ensure Resource Recovery Centre had adequate capacity and was designed appropriately to process all PPP produced within the RMOW. Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

70 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Space considerations will include possible future EPR programs as well as key products/materials that could be separated Compost System Clarify what materials can be accepted, particularly: approved compostable liners, waxed cardboard and pizza boxes. Do not accept noncompostable biodegradable or plastic lined (PET vs. PLA) materials to ensure highest quality end product. Change doggie bags to a type that works with existing composter as part of public education (can even print this on it) Separate recommendations will considered through the separate cost-benefit analysis Should the RMOW composter be expanded as a regional facility, consider a 2 streams approach (biosolids versus non-biosolids) Use one channel for bio-solids composted with MSW organics Use one channel for composting only MSW organics With greater organics diversion and the requirement that haulers use this facility for local organics, may be sufficient tonnages Consider increasing Squamish s tipping fee for biosolids to capture capital investment and operation and have Squamish deal with any excess biosolids they produce Mini-Depots Use a secured, staffed bin to collect commercial organics at 4340 Blackcomb Way for businesses in the Village. Consider two models: 1. Businesses bring totes to a central site or 2. Businesses pay RMOW to service their sites with electric cart collection. Zero Waste Promotion and Education Programs Roles and Responsibilities Educational Programming - General Underlying principles: Utilize pollution prevention hierarchy and adopt a community-based social marketing (CBSM) approach RMOW divides responsibility for education and outreach with the contracted hauler, EPR program providers, WCSS and SLRD Allocated dedicated RMOW staff resources to coordinate zero waste promotion and leverage internal and external partner resources Include specific education goals and metrics in the hauler contract to ensure performance measures are met RMOW program initiatives to include but not be limited to: Provide complementary outreach for specific initiatives (e.g. twice yearly green waste pickup, plastic bag ban) with allocated staff time Actively promote waste reduction and the RMOW zero waste vision in media and online (e.g. newspaper, radio, local TV, theatre ads, link new updates from RMOW homepage) Update and maintain website to provide accurate information, make it easy for users to find, and further promote online information through a regular listserv newsletter updates Update information for Recycling Council of BC (RCBC) Hotline and App and promote their use (partner with RCBC for this) Participate in education partner meetings (e.g. Bear Management Working Group, AWARE, SLRD) and/or meet regularly with partners to coordinate waste reduction program activities Work with SLRD to incorporate region-wide branding for signage and consider adapting free communications resources from Metro Vancouver or other Engage small business owners and operators to get input on best model, hours, frequency and other factors Tipping fee to match TS Use a community-based social marketing (CBSM) approach that includes testing with pilots RMOW assumes primary responsibility for education and outreach Allocate dedicated Infrastructure Services staff time to coordinate promotion efforts and leverage program development and implementation through partners; divide responsibilities with the hauling contractor. Include specific education goals and metrics to the hauler contract to ensure performance measures are met. Program initiatives same as Plan 1 plus: Create a cross-organization Zero Waste Program Working Group that convenes regularly to coordinate zero waste initiatives, leverage relationships with partners, and solicits input from the public Develop a vivid resort-oriented Zero Waste Whistler logo to be used on all promotional materials. Create a story that emphasizes the connection between the draw of the local environment, bears, responsible action and respecting the community. Actively promote waste reduction and the RMOW zero waste vision in existing promotion and events (e.g. Spirit Pass Program, Bear Smart, Welcome Week, Whistler Survivor Kid, Village Hosts and EnviroFest) and media (e.g. newspaper, radio, local TV, theatre ads, link new updates from RMOW homepage) Coordinate interdepartmentally to utilize volunteer Zero Waste station monitors during larger events when streetscape bins are expanded (to include compostables, paper etc.) Same as Plan 2 Same as Plan 2 plus: Install mini-depots at transit exchanges that focus on collecting materials including beverage containers, mixed containers and paper, food scraps and garbage. Pilot sites for depots could include 4340 Blackcomb Way right across from municipal hall (where Parks currently sorts recycling and near the Gondola bus loop) and at Creekside Intent is to target seasonal staff and others using preferred modes of transportation (i.e. not single-occupancy vehicle) RMOW assumes primary responsibility for education and outreach RMOW dedicates Infrastructure Services staff to work on communications and CBSM behaviour change programming directly and through leveraging relationships with partners. This can potentially be funded through cost-savings achieved from the PPP EPR program launch and a reduction in fees levied for garbage generation (SLRD fee). Program initiatives same as Plan 1 and 2 plus: Provide technical assistance to businesses and stratas; engage strata managers, Tourism Whistler, Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders to promote zero waste as part of the visitor experience; make zero waste toolkit resources (from signage to procurement recommendations and new staff orientation guides) available online and work with businesses to utilize them Develop and maintain a green business certification program that includes zero waste, with criteria, checklists and a certificate to be posted at the businesses. Engage a local partner (e.g. Centre for Sustainability) to administer the program and build on the ishift business program Work in schools at a different level from SLRD (possibly high school or another grade) to provide a community-linked program (such as a sustainability themed program where students work on a project with local businesses to decrease their footprint) Provide oversight and support to bylaw enforcement staff to ensure clear behaviourchange oriented messaging for residents, businesses and visitors 5 Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

71 WHISTLER Garbage Reduction Plans: Lowest to Highest Potential for Moving Towards Zero Waste Goals Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Strategies Minimal Strategies Moderate Strategies Advanced Strategies Education Programming Prevention Focus Education Programming Compost Focus Special Events Zero Waste Stations Acronyms jurisdictions Staff also to seek additional sources of grants or funding for innovative or pilot projects or ways to partner with other entities Provide information on repair/maintenance service businesses within Whistler Provide information to encourage use of Canada Post Red Dot system Finalize system to support reduction of single use bags Re-purpose RMOW staff to develop consistent communications about what is accepted for collection Use existing guidelines but make sure it s easily accessible, online and through staff Improve streetscape station consistency for signage (pictoral, matching descriptions), messaging and bin colour Pursue funding through the BC Resort Municipality Initiative CBSM Community Based Social Marketing C&D Construction and Demolition EPR Extended Producer Responsibility ICI Institutional, Commercial and Industrial MSW Municipal Solid Waste Provide oversight and support to depot attendants to ensure clear behaviourchange oriented messaging for residents and visitors using the sites Work with staff to develop seasonal feedback updates and a yearly report card marking progress towards zero waste and future steps, to be shared at point of generation and disposal sites, online and through newspaper articles Partner with SLRD to ensure RMOW schools have consistent programming Develop and implement new behaviour change pilots and programs based on CBSM best practices; target specific behaviours and audiences for each program (e.g. various strata types, food service, hotel, rental agencies, transit users, seasonal staff, residents using depots, etc.) Same as Plan 1 plus: Create a database of local rental businesses Where gaps exist, consider developing sharing libraries for products such as toys, tools, etc. (see Vancouver Tool Library for some idea, existing library has some space in lower level) Work with Canada Post to encourage all users to use the red dot system (modify red dot system to ensure all government mail is still sent) Regulate the phone book companies so that customers must opt in for a delivery Develop a policy supporting the organics reduction hierarchy and then develop partnerships to implement its use Work with partners to promote a community wide garage sale day (possibly building on the Rotary event) Same as Plan 1 plus: Use a CBSM approach to increase participation with a targeted approach for specific sectors including: resident, strata and food service Use a CBSM approach to increase switching to compostable products (e.g. foodservice takeout products) Develop toolkit materials for special events producers and sponsors to use for programs within the RMOW; provide some follow up Publically acknowledge waste reduction achievements through a recognition program that advertises successes and builds in incentive for further action Same as Plan 1 plus: Augment existing stations with food and/or paper scraps recycling for larger events OCP Official Community Plan PAYT Pay as you throw PET Polyethylene terephthalate PLA Polylactic acid PPP Packaging and Printed Paper 6 Embed zero waste language and focus in all key documents where possible Same as Plan 2 plus: Work with SLRD and/or RCBC to be a model for regional/provincial repair database (seek funding) Use organics pollution prevention hierarchy framework and actively promote reduction of wasted food, food recovery (work with food bank, local farms, Get Bear Smart, etc.), and (non-food) back yard composting Ensure adequate water fountains available (plus side dog fountains) to support minimizing the use of bottled water Same as Plan 2 plus: Work with partners to increase demand and awareness of soil amendment product Promote (non-food) yard and garden debris backyard composting as a cost effective and low carbon way to manage some organics onsite Same as Plan 2 plus: Actively work with special events producers and sponsors from the signing of contracts through implementation to reduce packaging and swag size; consider transition to specific guidelines For events chosen by RMOW, require higher standards and measurement of results Pilot CBSM projects at RMOW events Same as Plan 2 plus: Add monitored Zero Waste Stations for events generating a large amount of material (especially organics) RCBC Recycling Council of BC RMOW Resort Municipality of Whistler SLRD -Squamish Lillooet Regional District TS Transfer Station WCSS Whistler Community Services Society Appendix B. Plan Options.docx

72 APPENDIX C TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

73 ZERO WASTE PLAN REDUCTION: STRATEGIES FOR GARBAGE REDUCTION Triple Bottom Line Assessment Scores Option Description Best Possible Score Plan 3 - Vision Advanced Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Plan 2 - Vision Moderate Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Plan 1 - Vision Minimum Strategies - Vision and Strategic Policies Plan 3 - Management Advanced Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Plan 2 - Management Moderate Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Plan 1 - Management Minimal Strategies - Management Systems and Tools Plan 3 - Operations Advanced Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Plan 2 - Operations Moderate Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Plan 1 - Operations Minimum Strategies - Operational Infrastructure and Services Plan 3 - Education Advanced Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Plan 2 - Education Moderate Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Plan 1 - Education Minimum Strategies - Zero Waste Promotion and Education Potential Economic Effect Potential Environmental Effect Social Effect Potential Total Overall Ranking Assumption: Components of each plan are inter-related (e.g. infrastructure is most effective when the public are educated and inspired to use it)

74 Assessment Score ZERO WASTE PLAN REDUCTION: STRATEGIES FOR GARBAGE REDUCTION Whistler Zero Waste Plan: Strategies for Garbage Reduction Triple Bottom Line Assessment Economic Environmental Social Plan 3 - Vision Plan 2 - Vision Plan 1 - Vision Plan 3 - Management Plan 2 - Management Plan 1 - Management Plan 3 - Operations Plan 2 - Operations Plan 1 - Operations Plan 3 - Education Plan 2 - Education Plan 1 - Education