BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting No. BOD-08-20 Friday, July 24 ... Documents/board/BOD... · LSRCA – Board of Directors Meeting Agenda BOD-08-20 July 24, 2020 - Page 6 of 6 2. Pefferlaw

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting No. BOD-08-20

Friday, July 24, 2020

9:00 A.M.

AGENDA

Virtual Meeting (Access Details to be Provided)

Minutes and agendas are available on our website: http://lsrca.on.ca/

Upcoming Events

2020

Wednesday, September 23rd Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation 6:00 p.m. 32nd Annual Conservation Dinner (Date subject to change) Manor at Carrying Place Golf and Country Club 16750 Weston Road, Kettleby Friday, September 25th Board of Directors’ Meeting 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Events are also listed on our Events Page on our website: http://lsrca.on.ca/events/

http://lsrca.on.ca/

http://lsrca.on.ca/events/

LSRCA – Board of Directors Meeting Agenda BOD-08-20 July 24, 2020 - Page 2 of 6

I. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Pages 1-6

RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda for the July 24, 2020 meeting of the LSRCA Board of Directors be approved as presented.

III. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

a) Board of Directors Pages 7-10 Included in the agenda are the draft minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meetings No. BOD-07-20 held on Friday, June 26, 2020. RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-07-

20, held on Friday, June 26, 2020 be approved as circulated.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

V. PRESENTATIONS

a) LSRCA Education Program 2020 Accomplishments Manager, Education, Nicole Hamley, will provide an overview of LSRCA’s Education Program 2020 accomplishments. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by Manager, Education, Nicole Hamley

regarding LSRCA’s Education Program 2020 Accomplishments be received for information.

b) LSRCA 2nd Quarter 2020 Financial Report and Forecast Pages 11-21

General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services, Mark Critch, will provide the Board with LSRCA’s 2nd Quarter 2020 Financial Report and Forecast. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by General Manager, Corporate and Financial

Services, Mark Critch, regarding LSRCA’s 2nd Quarter 2020 Financial Report and Forecast be received for information.

Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD regarding LSRCA’s 2nd Quarter 2020 Financial Report and Forecast is included in the agenda.

Page 2 of 200


RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD regarding LSRCA’s Second Quarter Financial Report and Year-End Forecast for the period ending June 30, 2020 be received; and

FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use deferred revenues from

prior years to fund 2020 AOP items where needed; and FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use the Rate Stabilization

reserve to fund COVID-19 related expenditures from March through December 31, 2020.

c) Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Pages 22-28 General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, Ben Longstaff, will provide the Board with a presentation on the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by General Manager, Integrated Watershed

Management, Ben Longstaff, regarding the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed be received for information.

Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD regarding the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed is included in the agenda. RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD regarding the Climate Change

Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed be received; and FURTHER THAT the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy be

approved. d) LSRCA 2021 Budget Assumptions Pages 29-33

General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services, Mark Critch, will provide the Board with a presentation regarding LSRCA’s 2021 Budget Assumptions. This presentation will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDED: THAT the presentation by General Manager, Corporate and Financial

Services, Mark Critch, regarding LSRCA’s 2021 Budget Assumptions be received for information.

Staff Report No. 35-20-BOD regarding LSRCA’s 2021 Budget Assumptions is included in the agenda.

Page 3 of 200


RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 35-20-BOD regarding the recommended budget assumptions for the 2021 fiscal year be approved.

VI. HEARINGS

There are no Hearings scheduled for this meeting.

VII. DEPUTATIONS There are no Deputations scheduled for this meeting.

VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION (Reference Page 5 and 6 of the agenda)

IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

XI. CLOSED SESSION

The Board will move to Closed Session to deal with confidential human resources and legal matters. RECOMMENDED: THAT the Board move to Closed Session to deal with confidential

legal and human resources matters; and FURTHER THAT the Chief Administrative Officer, members of the

Executive Management Team, the Acting Director Regulations, and the Coordinator BOD/CAO remain in the meeting for the discussion on Items a) and b); and

FURTHER THAT the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Human Resources and the Coordinator BOD/CAO remain in the meeting for the discussion on Item c).

The Board will rise from to Closed Session and report findings. RECOMMENDED: THAT the Board rise from Closed Session and report findings. a) Confidential Legal Matter

Staff Report No. 38-20-BOD regarding a confidential legal matter will be provided to Board members prior to the meeting.

Page 4 of 200


b) Confidential Legal Matter Staff Report No. 39-20-BOD regarding a confidential legal matter will be provided to Board members prior to the meeting.

c) Confidential Human Resources Matter A verbal update regarding a confidential human resources matter will be provided to the Board members at the meeting.

XII. OTHER BUSINESS

Next Meeting There is no meeting scheduled for August. The next meeting of the LSRCA Board of Directors will be held at @ 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 25, 2020. This meeting will be held virtually, access details to be provided.

XIII. ADJOURNMENT

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Correspondence Pages 34-46

a) October 30, 2019 letter from John Brassard, MP Barrie-Innisfil to Prime Minister Justin

Trudeau requesting the re-establishment of the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund.

b) November 21, 2019 letter from Scott Davidson, MP York-Simcoe to Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada Johnathan Wilkinson requesting the re-establishment of the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund.

c) April 27, 2020 letter from Scot Davidson, MP York-Simcoe to Minister of Environment

and Climate Change Canada Johnathan Wilkinson regarding the Pefferlaw Dam.

d) Conservation Ontario letters (2) to the Honourable Doug Ford and the Honourable John Yakabuski, both dated June 26, 2020, regarding Conservation Ontario’s Client Service Streamlining Initiative, along with the referenced attachment - Conservation Ontario’s bulletin regarding conservation authorities setting challenging targets and streamlining processes to improve client service and increase the speed of approvals.

RECOMMENDED: THAT correspondence listed in the agenda as Item 1a) to 1d) be received for information.

Page 5 of 200


2. Pefferlaw Dam Pages 47-194 RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 36-20-BOD regarding Pefferlaw Dam

Ownership Review, Structural Assessment, and Recommendations be received; and

FURTHER THAT the following recommendations be approved:

1. That the Board direct Authority staff to complete remedial welding on the truss supports of the Pefferlaw Dam as soon as possible.

2. That the Board approve a request to the Town of Georgina to share the cost to complete the remedial welding works.

3. That upon completion of the welding repairs, Authority staff install the stoplogs, and following the Dam Operational Plan remove them again in the Fall to comply with provincially approved operating protocols.

4. That the Authority maintain the closure to pedestrian access over the bridge on the dam structure.

5. That the Authority continue to seek confirmation of ownership of the dam structure from the Province.

6. That the Authority, with the Town of Georgina, undertake community consultation regarding the current and future status of the Pefferlaw Dam.

7. That the Board approve a recommendation that the Authority permanently discontinue operation and stoplog management of the Pefferlaw Dam after the fall 2020 removal of the stop logs.

3. LSRCA’s Monitoring Report – Planning and Development

Applications for the Period January 1 through June 30, 2020 Pages 195-200 RECOMMENDED: THAT Staff Report No. 37-20-BOD regarding monitoring of planning

and development applications for the period January 1 through June 30, 2020 be received for information.

Page 6 of 200

Thanks Trish

LSRCA Board Members Present: LSRCA Staff Present:

Regional Chairman W. Emmerson, Chair M. Walters, Chief Administrative Officer

Councillor P. Ferragine, Vice Chair R. Baldwin, GM Planning & Development

Councillor K. Aylwin M. Critch, GM, Corporate and Financial Services

Mayor D. Barton B. Kemp, GM, Conservation Lands

Mayor D. Bath-Hadden B. Longstaff, GM, Integrated Watershed Management

Mayor B. Drew K. Christensen, Director Human Resources

Councillor A. Eek C. Taylor, Executive Director, LSCF

Councillor K. Ferdinands K. Yemm, Director, Corporate Communications & Engagement

Councillor W. Gaertner T. Barnett, Coordinator, BOD/CAO

Councillor R. Greenlaw M. Bessey, Director, Planning

Mayor V. Hackson N. Hamley, Manager, Education

Councillor S. Harrison-McIntyre C. Howson, Hydrogeologist

Mayor M. Quirk S. Jagminas, Senior Communications Advisor

Councillor C. Riepma K. Nesbitt, Administrative Assistant, Engineering

Regional Councillor T. Vegh N. O’Dell, Communications Specialist

Councillor A. Waters G. Peat, Manager, Director, Information Services & Technology

M. Rosato, Communications Specialist

Regrets: C. Sharp, Restoration Program Coordinator

Councillor E. Yeo

Township of Ramara

I. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

None noted for this meeting.

II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Moved by: K. Ferdinands Seconded by: M. Quirk

BOD-078-20 RESOLVED THAT the content of the Agenda for the June 26, 2020 meeting of the LSRCA

Board of Directors be approved as circulated. CARRIED

III. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

a) Board of Directors’ Meeting – May 22, 2020 Moved by: K. Aylwin Seconded by: C. Riepma

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

No. BOD-07-20 – Friday, June 26, 2020

Virtual Meeting

MINUTES

Page 7 of 200

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors’ Meeting BOD-07-20 June 26, 2020 – Minutes Page 2 of 4

BOD-079-20 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting No. BOD-06-20 held on

Friday, May 22, 2020 be approved as circulated. CARRIED

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

a) Chair Emmerson noted that the Connect Campaign held a successful and well attended virtual meeting on June 24th to raise awareness of the need for a new Nature Centre at Scanlon Creek Conservation Area for LSRCA’s Education Program.

V. PRESENTATIONS

a) LSRCA’s 2020 Budget Companion Document CAO Mike Walters provided Board members with a glimpse of LSRCA’s 2020 Budget Companion Document, noting that the document talks about all LSRCA programs and services, providing an open and transparent picture of what we do, along with the costs to deliver services. Other details include outcomes for each program area, as well as workplans for 2020. CAO Walters proudly noted that this document is produced entirely inhouse by LSRCA’s Communications department and that other conservation authorities have also begun producing their own budget companion document. To view this document, please click this link: LSRCA's 2020 Budget Companion Document Moved by: W. Gaertner Seconded by: T. Vegh

BOD-080-20 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by CAO Mike Walters regarding LSRCA’s 2020 Budget

Companion Document be received for information. CARRIED

b) LSRCA Stories of Lake Simcoe: Science to Action General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management, Ben Longstaff, noted that as Board members are aware, reporting on the health of Lake Simcoe, along with protecting and restoring the lake, is an important part of the work undertaken by LSRCA. It demonstrates our commitment and allows us to share results for residents and interested stakeholders. The need was identified to share this information with non-technical yet engaged groups, residents, municipal staff, etc., and a unique approach to story telling through on a web-based tool was created. Communications Specialist, Nancie Knight, who led this initiative, shared this new product with Board members, noting this story series was created to inform, engage, and empower our local environmental groups and partners. This tool was selected so the already engaged audience could become more informed and use the information to take action in their own communities. The project team of GIS, Forestry, Restoration, Integrated Watershed Management and Communications worked collaboratively on this initiative. Ms. Knight took the Board through an online tour of the webpage. To view this presentation, please click this link: Stories of Lake Simcoe: Science to Action To access this tool on our website, please click this link: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/watershed-health/stories-of-lake-simcoe

Page 8 of 200

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/2020%20Budget%20Companion_Accessible_FINAL.pdf

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/BOD-Stories-of-Lake-Simcoe-v2.pdf

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/watershed-health/stories-of-lake-simcoe

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/watershed-health/stories-of-lake-simcoe


Moved by: A. Eek Seconded by: D. Barton

BOD-081-20 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Communications Specialist, Nancie Knight,

regarding LSRCA Stories of Lake Simcoe: Science to Action be received for information. CARRIED

c) Scanlon Creek Operations Centre Renovations Update General Manager, Conservation Lands, Brian Kemp, provided the Board with an update on the renovations at Scanlon Creek Operations Centre and was pleased to note that the renovations are very close to completion. He reviewed the project timelines, noting the project was tracking well at the beginning of 2020, then shut down for a month due to COVID-19. Construction recommenced May 19th and virtual site meetings were held every two weeks, and staff had constant daily contact with the contractors. The targeted project completion is July 6th. GM Kemp took the Board through a virtual tour of the renovated building, pointing out the many new features that now make this building fully accessible. He was pleased also to showcase the reuse of some emerald ash trees cut down due to the emerald ash borer, as well as the new watershed science workroom. To view this presentation, please click this link: Scanlon Creek Operations Centre Renovations Update Moved by: P. Ferragine Seconded by: S. Harrison-McIntyre

BOD-082-20 RESOLVED THAT the presentation by General Manager, Conservation Lands, Brian Kemp

regarding an update on the renovations at Scanlon Creek Operations Centre be received for information. CARRIED

VI. HEARINGS

There were no hearings at this meeting.

VII. DEPUTATIONS There were no deputations at this meeting.

VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

Items No. 1a) to 1d) were identified under items requiring separate discussion.

IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

Item No. 2 was identified as items not requiring separate discussion. Moved by: B. Drew Seconded by: K. Ferdinands BOD-083-20 RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as “Items

Not Requiring Separate Discussion” be adopted as submitted to the Board, and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same. CARRIED

Page 9 of 200

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/SCOC_BOD%20Update%20June%2026th.pdf


2. LSRCA Business Continuity and Operational Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

BOD-084-20 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 28-20-BOD regarding the update in LSRCA’s business

continuity and operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic be received for information. CARRIED

X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION

1. Correspondence

Mayor Quirk requested an update on the Pefferlaw Dam. CAO Walters advised that D.M. Wills Associated completed the inspection on May 22nd and their report is expected the first week of July. Once staff and the Town of Georgina have reviewed it, recommendations will be discussed and public consultation will follow. The Ownership issue remains unsolved. A report will be coming to the Board at their July meeting.

Moved by: M. Quirk Seconded by: R. Greenlaw BOD-085-20 RESOLVED THAT correspondence listed in the agenda as Items 1a) to 1d) be received for

information. CARRIED

XI. CLOSED SESSION

There were no Closed Session items for this meeting.

XII. OTHER BUSINESS

XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: K. Ferdinands Seconded by: C. Riepma BOD-086-20 RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned @ 10:15 a.m. CARRIED Original to be signed by: Original to be signed by: Regional Chairman W. Emmerson Michael Walters Chair Chief Administrative Officer

Page 10 of 200

Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD Page No: 1 of 6 Agenda Item No: Vb) BOD-08-20

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Katherine Toffan, Manager Finance DATE: July 16, 2020

SUBJECT: Second Quarter 2020 Financial Report & Year End Forecast

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD regarding LSRCA’s Second Quarter

Financial Report and Year-End Forecast for the period ending June 30, 2020 be received; and

FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use deferred revenues from

prior years to fund 2020 AOP items where needed; and FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use the Rate Stabilization

reserve to fund COVID-19 related expenditures from March through December 31, 2020.

Purpose of Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with a summary of financial activities for the period ending June 30, 2020, as they relate to the 2020 budget approved by the Board on April 3, 2020. Staff have also used this report to forecast, at a corporate level, the estimated year-end financial position of LSRCA, along with high level issues and trends that staff will be observing through the end of the year. Background: The Budget Status Reports have been developed for the use of the Board and management, use the same format as the approved budget, and provide a status update on the programs and projects that fall under LSRCA’s seven service areas: Corporate Services, Ecological Management, Education & Engagement, Greenspace Services, Planning & Development Services, Water Risk Management and Watershed Studies & Strategies. Issues:

The Corporate Budget Status report attached in Appendix 1 presents a deficit position of ($50K) on June 30, 2020. The drivers of this deficit are outlined in the table below:

Page 11 of 200


Staff have conducted a program and project review and forecast at Q2 through year end and have identified variances that will impact LSRCA’s year-end financial position. Summary of Financial Position on June 30, 2020 by Harmonized Service Area

Surplus/ (Deficit)

Drivers

Corporate Services (6) YTD shortfall in overhead revenue

Ecological Management (55) Spring tree planting and bulk seedling sales

Greenspace Services 9 Surplus from rental income on Aurora and Stouffville rental properties

Planning & Development Services

2

YTD small surplus from reduced discretionary spending

Overall Corporate (Deficit) on June 30 (50)

Relevance to Authority Policy: In keeping with LSRCA policy, this staff report has been prepared to provide a Q2 financial update on the current overall financial position, project expenditures, opportunities and risks as they relate to the 2020 approved budget, as well as highlight variances identified through the year end forecast. Impact on Authority Finances: a) Revenues Revenues generated are lower than anticipated on June 30. Main operational drivers of this are in our Tree Planting, Education and Planning programs. Other revenues budgeted in this area are Offsetting funds that cover Capital Projects which have also been slower to materialize at this time. COVID-19 is the main driver of the delay and loss of revenue at Q2. As the Federal/Provincial and Regional governments implemented guidelines and restrictions for businesses, certain areas of LSRCA’s operations were impacted more than others. LSRCA’s forestry program postponed the Spring tree planting to Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 which affected revenues through Q2. Forestry program staff were able to work with many of their clients to secure their commitment for the 2021 Spring planting season. The impact of the school closures on the Education and Engagement programs was that fee-based revenues usually generated by Spring and Summer programming were not realized by

Page 12 of 200


the end of Q2. The program work that has taken place through June has been supported with levy and Foundation donations and therefore is not posting a deficit position at Q2. Planning applications received and reviewed through June 30 have been lower than anticipated which results in lower than anticipated revenues. A summary can be found in Staff Report No. 37-20-BOD, Monitoring Report – Planning and Development Applications for the Period January 1 through June 30, 2020 (in this agenda). The impact associated with this loss is being offset within the program by decreased discretionary spending and a delay in hiring a budgeted replacement FTE position. Staff have worked with the program and project managers on a year-end forecast and will continue to monitor the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on LSRCA operations. Revenue and Fee forecasts through Q3 and Q4 will be prepared and brought to the Board of Directors in our Q3 update. b) Expenditures: While staff have been redeployed to work from home since March 17th, there have been some operational savings identified in materials and supplies, mileage, and delays in hiring some of the budgeted permanent open positions. Our Forestry program expenditures for the 1st and 2nd quarters are reflected in the deficit position of Ecological Management service area. Staff in this program started the year planning and preparing for the Spring planting program, and once the pandemic hit staff had to continue to work through winding down that program. With the loss of this revenue, these expenditures have put a pressure on the program which is also reflected in our year-end forecast. c) Timing Variances: As outlined in Appendix 1, there are some year-to-date revenue and expense variances that can be attributed to timing. Timing variances occur when expenditures have not happened yet, and accordingly recognition of the related revenue is deferred until the project work commences. Projects in some service areas had to be deferred into Q3 and Q4 due to the COVID-19 restrictions. These restrictions and deferral of work will have a greater impact on the workload of staff in Q3 and Q4 but not on the overall financial position, as these projects are covered by Special Capital, Provincial and/or Partner funding. Key areas of these variances include:

i. Ecological Management - $2.5M of projects in the Ecological Restoration program include:

• Ecological Offsetting Capital Projects

• Grassland/Meadow Restoration

• Grants to Partner/Landowners for projects

Page 13 of 200


Projects currently underway or wrapping up:

• Cawthra Mulock Restoration

• Luck Property Wetland Restoration

• Goodyear Farm Restoration

• Circle Park Wetland Restoration

ii. Water Risk Management - $2.4M of projects in the Water Management/ Restoration program include:

• Water Balance Capital Projects

• LSPOP Capital Projects

• Grants to Partner/Landowners for projects

Projects currently underway or wrapping up:

• York Stormwater Management – Tamarac site

• Aurora LID Monitoring

• East Holland Monitoring

iii. Scanlon Infrastructure (see Appendix 2: Corporate Services Budget Status, Facility Management program). Construction is substantially complete. The move in date has been affected by COVID-19, but staff are currently working on moving out of the temporary-leased office to save cost of leasing until they move in, post pandemic.

d) High Level Forecast to the End of 2020: The Finance department has worked with program staff to develop a high-level forecast of revenues and expenditures through the end of 2020. The COVID-19 Pandemic has affected some areas of the organization, specifically in the fee-based programs and the forecast captures this. This forecast also includes assumptions on revenues materializing in late summer and fall as some areas return to work and Provincial restrictions are lifted, redeployment of current full time staff to areas where additional assistance is needed to complete 2020 AOP items and expenditures are incurred to address safety of staff as they return to work in the field. Through working with program managers, staff are forecasting a year-end deficit position of ($211K). Following are some risks and opportunities that the Board should be aware of: i) Delays in some of the projects have led to a shortfall in overhead being charged and a

resulting shortfall of overhead revenue back to the overhead program areas. The forecasted shortfall was ($96K). Staff have taken action to mitigate this shortfall by lowering discretionary spending and redeploying staff from the overhead program areas to complete work on special projects and AOP items where outsourcing or contracts were going to be hired to complete. This has resulted in savings of $56K to bring that pressure down to ($40K). The forecast was also built with the assumption that prior year deferred revenue could be used to fund a 2020 AOP item in the Office of the CAO’s program area.

Page 14 of 200


ii) The forecasted reduction in Planning fees, offset with savings in delayed hiring and reduced discretionary spending in the program are forecasted to result in a deficit of about ($100K). Program management will continue to monitor the volume of applications and spending within the program to ensure that this forecast projection does not increase. LSRCA has experienced surpluses from this program in past years which were put in reserves and if needed would draw on those for this year.

iii) A shortfall from some Municipal funding of Special Capital Levy has created a pressure of

($47K) throughout some program areas. There were adjustments made to discretionary spending that resulted in savings of about $31K to reduce that pressure to ($16K).

iv) There is an anticipated pressure in the Forestry program of ($57K) being forecasted at year

end. This is mainly due to the loss of the Spring planting program. Staff anticipate a Fall planting season which will contribute to the program revenues. Management helped mitigate the loss of the revenue by redeploying staff to address the need for increased maintenance and management of the conservation areas, as well as assisting with work in the Water Science and Monitoring group.

v) Education fees for Spring and Summer programming have not materialized. There is also

uncertainty around what the Province will decide for returning to school in the Fall. To mitigate the impact of lost fees, program management has redeployed staff to help with key deliverables in other areas, specifically Climate Change and Greenspace Services. This redeployment offset the need to hire contract staff in those areas and helped relieve the pressure to the Education program. Therefore, we are not forecasting a material impact on the year-end forecast due the lost Education program revenue.

vi) There is an anticipated shortfall in our budgeted Reserve transfers to Rate Stabilization and

Asset Management for 2020. The main driver of the shortfall to Rate Stabilization is the effect of reduced interest rates being earned through the One Investment Savings program because of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The main driver of the shortfall to the Asset Management is that funding budgeted for the transfer is needed to cover additional work and expense in the information technology management program. The additional work and expense in this area is not resulting in a deficit to the program but rather shortfall of available funds to transfer to reserve.

Finance staff will continue to monitor the ongoing financial position of the organization, conduct regular updates with program managers to ensure that the Q2 forecast assumptions are still in line with the forecast, and ensure that any future Provincial decisions related to the pandemic are assessed for financial impact to LSRCA. Staff will resume the hiring of budgeted staff to ensure that program outcomes are still achieved in 2020 but only with funding that does not impact the deficit/surplus (i.e. provincial funding, service level agreements, special capital projects etc.). Staff will also conduct a Q3 review against current forecast and bring back an update to the Board of Directors in October.

Page 15 of 200


Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD regarding LSRCA’s Second Quarter Financial Report and Year-End Forecast for the period ending June 30, 2020 be received; and FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use deferred revenues from prior years to fund 2020 AOP items where needed; and FURTHER THAT Staff be directed to use the Rate Stabilization reserve to fund COVID-19 related expenditures from March through December 31, 2020. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services/CFO and the Chief Administrative Officer. Prepared by: Katherine Toffan, Manager Finance Original signed by: Original signed by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Mark Critch Mike Walters General Manager, Corporate & Chief Administrative Officer Financial Services/CFO Attachments: Appendix 1 – Q2 Corporate Budget Status Report Appendix 2 – Harmonized Service Area Budget Status Reports

Page 16 of 200

Revenue : Full Year Budget YTD Budget Actual YTD % of YTD Budget

General Levy 4,009$ 2,004$ 1,435$ 72%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners 6,663 3,332 3,420 103%

Provincial & Federal Funding 1,387 694 540 78%

Revenue Generated by Authority 8,201 4,100 1,531 37%

Other Revenue 195 97 36 37%

Total revenue 20,455 10,227 6,961 68%

Expenses:

Corporate Services 6,585 3,293 3,058 93%

Ecological Management 5,333 2,666 1,261 47%

Education & Engagement 665 332 286 86%

Greenspace Services 822 411 451 110%

Planning & Development Services 3,857 1,928 1,779 92%

Water Risk Management 4,252 2,126 742 35%

Watershed Studies & Strategies 1,463 732 712 97%

Total gross expenses: 22,976 11,488 8,290 72%

Expenses included above related to:

Internal Fee for Service 1,868 934 874 94%

Net Expenses 21,108 10,554 7,416 70%

Net (deficit) before reserve activity (653) (327) (455)

Board approved draws on reserve: 939 470 463

Board approved transfers to reserves: (286) (143) (6)

Other reserve activity:

Transfer for offsetting operational surplus to

payback reserve draws from prior years- - (53)

Operational (deficit) at June 30 -$ -$ (50)$

For period ending June 30, 2020 (shown in 000's)

Q2 Corporate Budget Status Report

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Page 17 of 200

Corporate Services 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue:

General Levy 2,735$ 1,368$ 979$ 72%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners 1,368 684 1,106 162%

Provincial & Federal Funding - - -

Revenue Generated by Authority 307 153 62 41%


Total revenue 4,519 2,259 2,152 95%

-

Expenses:

Corporate Communications 834 417 328 79%

Facility Management 1,930 965 1,096 114%

Financial Management 1,387 693 532 77%

Governance 674 337 323 96%

Human Resource Management 509 255 227 89%

Information Management 1,252 626 553 88%



Internal Fee for Service 1,382 691 459 66%

Net expenses 5,204 2,602 2,599 100%

Net (deficit) before reserve activity (685) (342) (447)

Board approved draws on reserve: 685 342 459


Transfer for offsetting surplus - - (17)

Operational (deficit) at June 30 0$ 0$ (6)$

Ecological Management 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 11$ 5$ -$ 0%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners 1,900 950 807 85%

Provincial & Federal Funding 360 180 118 66%

Revenue Generated by Authority 2,797 1,398 43 3%


Total revenue 5,076 2,538 968 38%

Expenses:

Ecosystem Science & Monitoring 882 441 376 85%

Forestry Services 615 308 207 67%

Restoration & Regeneration 3,835 1,918 679 35%



Internal Fee for Service 305 152 236 155%

Net Expenses 5,028 2,487 1,025 41%

Net surplus/(deficit) before reserve activity 48 51 (57)

Board approved transfers to reserve: (48) (24) -


Draw for offsetting operational expenditures - - 2

Operational surplus(deficit) at June 30 (0)$ 27$ (55)$


Harmonized Service Area Budget Status Report


Page 18 of 200

Education and Engagement 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 333$ 167$ 145$ 87%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners - - -



Other Revenue - - -

Total revenue 619 309 267 86%

Expenses:

Community Programming 138 69 16 23%

School Programming 527 264 270 103%

Training & Development - - -

Total gross expenses: 665 332 286 86%



Net expenses 623 311 267 86%

Net (deficit) before reserve activity (4) (2) - 0%

Board approved draws on reserve: 4 2 - 0%

Net position at June 30 (0)$ (0)$ -$

Greenspace Services 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 337$ 168$ 86$ 51%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners 350 175 321 184%



Other Revenue 18 9 - 0%

Total revenue 764 382 430 113%

Expenses: -

Management 637 319 379 119%

Property Services 80 40 11 27%

Recreation - - -

Securement 104 52 61 118%

Total gross expenses: 822 411 451 110%



Net expenses 764 382 420 110%

Net surplus before reserve activity (0) (0) 9

Board approved draws on reserve: - - -

Net position at June 30 (0)$ (0)$ 9$




Page 19 of 200

Planning and Development 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 485$ 243$ 215$ 88%

Special Capital Levy & Municipal Partners 462 231 276 119%


Revenue Generated by Authority 2,720 1,360 1,159 85%


Total revenue 3,829 1,914 1,779 93%

Expenses:

Development Planning 2,250 1,125 1,098 98%

Environmental Compliance Approvals - - -

Permitting & Enforcement 1,607 804 682 85%




Net expenses 3,855 1,927 1,777 92%

Net surplus(deficit) before reserve activity (26) (13) 2

Board approved draws on reserve: 26 13 -

Net position at June 30 (0) (0) 2

Water Risk Management 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 98$ 49$ 10$ 21%



Revenue Generated by Authority 1,954 977 48 5%

Other Revenue - - -

Total revenue 4,221 1,656 768 46%

Expenses:

Flood Management & Warning 441 220 99 45%

Source Water Protection 677 339 241 71%

Water Management & Restoration 2,590 1,295 167 13%

Water Science & Monitoring 544 272 236 87%

Total gross expenses: 4,252 1,736 742 43%



Net expenses 4,222 1,656 730 44%

Net (deficit) before reserve activity (1) - 38

Board approved draws on reserve: 1 0 -


Transfer for offsetting surplus - - (38)

Net position at June 30 0$ -$ (0)$




Page 20 of 200

Watershed Studies and Strategies 2020 Full Year Budget 2020 YTD Budget 2020 YTD Actual % of YTD Budget

Revenue :

General Levy 9$ 4$ 0$ 1%




Other Revenue - - -

Total revenue 1,428 714 598 84%

Expenses:

Climate Change Adaptation 231 115 98 85%

Research & Innovation 704 352 436 124%

Watershed Subwatershed Planning 528 264 178 67%

Total gross expenses: 1,463 732 712 97%



Net expenses 1,413 706 598 85%

Net surplus before reserve activity 15 8 0

Board approved transfers to reserve: (15) (8) -

Net position at June 30 0 0 0




Page 21 of 200

Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD Page No: 1 of 3

Agenda Item No: Vc) BOD-08-20

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Thompson, Manager, Watershed Plans and Strategies DATE: July 10, 2020

SUBJECT: Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD regarding the Climate Change

Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed be received; and FURTHER THAT the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy be

approved.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD is to seek the Board’s approval of the draft Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed. A summary of the strategy is attached for your information and the entire strategy is available through the following link: Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Background: Climate projections for the Lake Simcoe watershed, developed to support LSRCA’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy predict that average annual temperature in the watershed could increase by 5.5°C by the end of the century. However, predictions further suggest that the temperature increase could be limited to 3°C if effective action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing the importance of both adjusting to the changing climate, and taking action to minimize the change, the LSRCA Strategic Plan identified a priority action as being the development of both Climate Adaptation and Climate Mitigation strategies as companion documents. ‘Climate change mitigation’ refers to a broad suite of activities that could be undertaken to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to increase their sequestration (i.e. the absorption of carbon in trees or other natural features). To assess the range of options available to LSRCA,

Page 22 of 200

https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/board/Climate%20Change%20Mitigation%20Strategy.pdf



the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy was based on an estimate of both emissions and sequestration across the watershed, with emissions estimated both geographically, and based on broad economic sectors. Further, population projections were used to estimate how emissions may change in coming years. Currently, emissions in the Lake Simcoe watershed are estimated as being 3,809,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, or 7.44 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita. Over 80% of these emissions were associated with transportation, home heating, and heating of buildings in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector. However, forests and wetlands in the watershed absorb (or sequester) 20% of this amount in a year. Depending on the level of action taken to curb emissions, or increase absorption by trees and wetlands, changes in net emissions in the Lake Simcoe watershed by 2031 could range anywhere from an increase of 57% to a decrease of 19%. Recommendations for action were developed in a series of internal and partner workshops. These workshops included representatives from watershed municipalities, regional/county health units, and neighbouring Conservation Authorities, and were intended to help identify potential mitigation efforts that would both be effective, and within the conservation authority mandate. These workshops resulted in the identification of 18 recommendations, which fall under 5 goals: 1. Provide leadership in the field of climate change and carbon sequestration by continuing to

support and provide resources to our municipal partners 2. Effectively communicate the necessary information to educate and empower people within

the Lake Simcoe watershed to take action to combat climate change within their communities

3. Provide the tools and resources that will allow LSRCA and our municipal partners to apply best practices to their carbon reduction or sequestration efforts

4. Use the tools and resources to expand and build upon our collective knowledge and understanding of climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration

5. Support municipalities in incorporating carbon sequestration into community design and energy plans

The implementation of the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy will be focused and directed through an implementation plan, which will identify actions, responsibilities and timelines. The principles of adaptive management will also be applied to track the progress and effectiveness of recommendations and modify as required.

Page 23 of 200



Issues: There are no issues identified with this project. Relevance to Authority Policy: The Climate Change Mitigation Strategy was identified as a priority action to support Goal Two of LSRCA’s Strategic Plan - to improve knowledge and increase certainty through excellence in research and scientific knowledge. Impact on Authority Finances: It is not expected that the implementation of the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy will have any immediate impact on Authority finances, however there is potential for the re-allocation of existing funds. External funding opportunities will be pursued to assist in the implementation of strategy recommendations. Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 34-20-BOD regarding the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed be received; and FURTHER THAT the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy be approved. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the General Manager, Integrated Watershed Management and the Chief Administrative Officer. Signed by: Signed by: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Ben Longstaff Mike Walters General Manager, Integrated Watershed Chief Administrative Officer Management Attachments: 1) Executive Summary– Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Page 24 of 200

Climate Change Mitigation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe watershed

Executive Summary

Overview and Purpose Climate change is a major environmental threat currently facing society and will require local collective action in order to mitigate its potential detrimental impacts. In the Lake Simcoe watershed, increased air temperature and changing precipitation patterns are projected to have significant impacts on the ecology of the lake and watershed (LSRCA 2019). The extent of these impacts will depend on actions society takes to reduce greenhouse gases both locally and globally. Based on current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; for example, using public transit and carpooling as an alternative way of commuting, a changing climate could mean an increase in average annual temperature of 5.5°C. However, if we are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration, the increase in average annual temperatures may only reach 3°C. Although this difference may seem small; it will greatly improve and sustain the health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The Lake Simcoe watershed supports a variety of different land use types, the most significant of which for the purposes of the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy include urban areas (including residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional), agricultural areas (including both intensive and non-intensive agriculture), and natural heritage features. With respect to mitigating the effects of climate change, this rich and varied landscape provides opportunities to reduce emissions (e.g. urban areas) and increase sequestration (e.g. increase natural features). As growth and development proceed within the Lake Simcoe watershed, urban areas are expected to expand into the agricultural areas, further increasing the challenge of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to engage the public and our municipal partners in taking further action to reduce emissions, as well as alter our own programs and services to better consider climate change mitigation, we recognized that a more widespread and strategic approach was required. The approach taken in developing the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy was first to develop an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration in the Lake Simcoe watershed and then to develop scenarios of possible future emissions and sequestration, depending on levels of effort invested. Quantifying current and future watershed wide greenhouse gas emissions was used as the basis for the development of 18 recommendations for action. The next phase of the strategy will require implementing these recommendations and monitoring the results.

This Climate Change Mitigation Strategy is unique and the first of its kind as it views climate change across a watershed boundary, whereas typically, these types of strategies are specific to political boundaries. However, while watershed-wide, this strategy focuses on actions that LSRCA can undertake and recognizes that action from all sectors across all political boundaries is required.

The goal of creating this strategy is to determine what actions should be taken to be most effective considering the LSRCA mandate, and to determine how we can work together with our municipal partners and the public to decrease our carbon footprint and reduce the impacts of the anticipated changes.

Page 25 of 200

Emissions Inventory and Forecast The watershed-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast provided us with a better idea of which sectors and areas within the Lake Simcoe watershed were “hotspots” for emissions and allowed us to begin thinking about how we can better direct what is delivered in our programs and services. Using 2016 as the baseline year, the results indicate that businesses and residents in the Lake Simcoe watershed produced a total of approximately 3,809,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 7.44 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita. The transportation, residential, and industrial, commercial, institutional sectors produced the highest greenhouse gas emissions within the watershed and together were responsible for over 80% of the total emissions. The emissions for all sectors are generally greater in the more urbanized southern end of the watershed, and lower in the more rural northern end of the watershed. However, if we are to continue with our “Business as Usual” way of life, the anticipated growth within the watershed will undoubtedly affect greenhouse gas emissions in the watershed. An emissions forecast to 2031 was developed and predicted that with this future growth and development, total emissions within the Lake Simcoe watershed could increase 45 percent from the 2016 baseline.

Carbon Sequestration Determining the Lake Simcoe watershed’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast helped us to understand the current and future distribution of emissions across the watershed. However, it is also important to consider the critical role that natural features such as forests and wetlands play in offsetting carbon emissions, through carbon sequestration.

Research conducted in partnership with Lakehead University and the University of Toronto estimates that wetlands and forests in the Lake Simcoe watershed sequester an estimated 632,212 tonnes and 126,827 tonnes, respectively, of carbon from the atmosphere annually.

In order to develop a projection of potential future sequestration rates, two land-use scenarios were developed: a “full build out” scenario that assumes that any forest or wetland which is not protected by provincial or municipal policy would be lost to development, and a “restoration” scenario that assumes that the targets established in LSRCA’s Natural Heritage System Restoration Strategy (2018) are achieved.

Carbon Budget These estimates of carbon emissions and sequestration were compiled into a watershed-scale carbon budget, to examine which parts of the watershed are experiencing net emissions, and which are experiencing net sequestration. Projections of both emissions and sequestration were combined into two projected future carbon budgets: the “business as usual” and the “targets met”. The “Business as Usual” scenario where population growth proceeds as projected, and no specific action is taken on emissions reduction, predicted an increase of 57% in net emissions from the 2016 baseline. The “Targets Met” scenario, where population growth is balanced by LSRCA and watershed municipalities achieving their emission reduction and sequestration targets, predicts a 20% reduction in net emissions.

Page 26 of 200

While sequestration is an important consideration in climate change mitigation, projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions are much greater than projected increases in sequestration. This clearly indicates that LSRCA cannot take climate action alone, and that a collaborative approach between municipalities, other government agencies and the private sector will be necessary to achieve success. What LSRCA can do, however, is optimize the carbon sequestration benefits of the work we do including increasing our focus on wetland creation, and working with municipalities to enhance urban tree canopies, particularly in new developments.

Recommendations This Climate Change Mitigation Strategy has developed a set of 18 recommendations for action under five over-arching goals. These recommendations will build upon the LSRCA’s programs and services and help us collaborate with our municipal partners and the public to further reduce the carbon footprint of the Lake Simcoe watershed. These recommendations focus on creating new and enhancing existing LSRCA programs, services and operations, as well as working with watershed municipalities to enhance urban tree canopies.

Goal 1: Leadership

Provide leadership in the field of climate change and carbon sequestration by continuing to support and provide resources to our municipal partners.

1. Continue to play a leadership role in municipal climate change working groups to help coordinate municipal climate mitigation activities and build expertise in carbon capture and sequestration in watershed municipalities.

2. Work with emerging municipalities who are net emitters to develop their capacity for climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration efforts.

3. Using LSRCA's Corporate Carbon Reduction Strategy as a guiding template, advise municipalities/organizations in the development and implementation of their own Corporate Carbon Reduction Strategies.

4. Work with municipalities to help them develop or update their trail strategies/trail master plans in order to help connect trail systems and create a stronger active transportation network within the watershed.

5. Work with the Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation to create a fundraising program which enables donors to support projects that will offset their carbon footprint

Goal 2: Education & Communications

Effectively communicate the necessary information to educate and empower people within the Lake Simcoe watershed to take action to combat climate change within their communities.

6. Develop a Climate Change Engagement Strategy that will serve to educate LSRCA staff on our current climate change strategies, educate the public on local climate change impacts and mitigation actions, as well as engage a more diverse audience in order to leverage additional perspectives and support for programs.

7. Through the Annual LSRCA Conservation Awards, keep up to date with what community members/organizations are doing and recognize those who have gone above and beyond to help combat climate change within their community.

8. Expand current climate change educational programming to include public workshops as well as resources and tools so watershed residents can engage in climate change mitigation/carbon sequestration efforts within their homes and communities.

Page 27 of 200

9. Develop and provide climate change and carbon sequestration focused materials for teachers and students.

Goal 3: Tools & Resources

Provide the tools and resources that will allow LSRCA and our municipal partners to apply best practices to their carbon reduction or sequestration efforts.

10. Periodically update the emissions inventory, projections, and landcover mapping, while also considering emerging technologies and methodologies in order to provide an accurate accounting tool for the watershed.

11. Use LSRCA's Natural Heritage System Restoration Strategy, and data from sequestration studies, to identify areas within the watershed that are not reaching their full carbon sequestration potential, as well as additional areas that could sequester substantial carbon if restored to natural habitat.

Goal 4: Build Knowledge

Use the tools and resources to expand and build upon our collective knowledge and understanding of climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration.

12. Building off York Region's expertise in carbon capture of urban forests, expand the implementation of Urban Forest studies to other watershed municipalities. Use the results of these studies to further our understanding of the current and potential carbon sequestration in urban canopies.

13. Explore the carbon sequestration potential of grassland habitats within the Lake Simcoe watershed. 14. Research and estimate the co-benefits and value of low impact development/green infrastructure

from a carbon reduction/sequestration perspective.

Goal 5: Sustainable Communities

Support municipalities in incorporating carbon sequestration into community design and energy plans.

15. Conduct a review of municipal planning policies to identify best-in-class approaches to 'complete community' design at a local level and convene a workshop with municipal planners and climate change staff to develop template policies as necessary.

16. Promote the uptake of energy efficiency design charettes with industry partners such as developers and builders.

17. Work with others to refine the accounting of carbon sequestration by individual trees, with a long-term goal of developing a community scale carbon budget calculator that would help municipal planners and developers progress towards 'net zero' communities.

18. Support municipalities in developing or updating Green Development Standards that include carbon budgets as a consideration.

Page 28 of 200


Agenda Item No: Vd) BOD-08-20

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Susan McKinnon

Manager, Budgets and Business Analysis DATE: July 16, 2020

SUBJECT: LSRCA’s 2021 Budget Assumptions

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 35-20-BOD regarding the recommended

budget assumptions for the 2021 fiscal year be approved.

Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of this Staff Report No. 35-20-BOD is to seek the Board’s approval on the recommendations for 2021 budget assumptions for the operating and capital budget development process. Background:

Context for Recommendations: External Research and Comparators

In previous years, the Budget Committee was responsible for reviewing budget assumptions and making recommendations to the Board of Directors. Staff report 50-19-BOD, approved December 11, 2019, recommended the discontinuation of LSRCA’s Budget Committee and that budget assumptions and associated discussion be returned to the full Board of Directors.

Research and Policy Decisions Impacting Levies

The levy increase requested from our municipal partners includes salary increases due to COLA and step, inflation, investment in strategic initiatives and funding for asset management.

a) COLA and Step

Staff reached out to various municipalities and conservation authorities to gather information on projected 2021 cost of living adjustments (COLAs). The Region of York, City of Barrie and the Region of Durham are our largest municipal partners and thus were used as comparators. Each has a Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) agreement with their workers and the COLA

Page 29 of 200



from that agreement is used as a comparator. The CUPE agreements that end in 2020 have COLAs ranging from 1.74% to 1.80%. Due to the impact of COVID-19 and end dates of the agreements, no new CUPE agreements have been negotiated or ratified yet for 2021.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) are LSRCAs neighbouring authorities and are used for comparators. TRCA usually uses the City of Toronto’s agreement with CUPE 416 COLA to set their COLA assumption. The City of Toronto currently has an agreement with CUPE 416 for 2.00% until the end of 2022. NVCA generally uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Ontario. They have not made a budget assumption yet but are considering a low COLA increase for 2021. The CPI for March 2020 was reported as 0.90% by Statistics Canada compared to 1.90% for March 2019.

Municipalities 2021 COLA 2020 COLA

2019 COLA

Region of York CUPE 905

Agreement ended March 31,2020. New agreement has not been negotiated yet 1.74% 1.74%

City of Barrie CUPE 2380 Ends December 31, 2020 1.80% 1.75%

Region of Durham CUPE 1764 Agreement has not negotiated yet 1.75% 1.75%

Conservation Authorities 2021 COLA 2020 COLA

2019 COLA

TRCA CUPE 416 2% ends 2022 2.00% 2.00%

NVCA CPI for Ontario no assumptions yet 1.90% 1.80%

b) Inflation

Staff use Bank of Canada’s inflation targets and inflation forecasts to determine inflation rates for the budget assumptions. The Bank of Canada’s 2021 Inflation target is 2.00% and the forecasted 2021 inflation rate is between 1.70% and 1.80%. c) Strategic Initiative Strategic initiatives driven out of the new strategic plan (under development) will be included in future budgets, commencing with the 2022 budget.

d) Asset Management Asset management costs will be incorporated into the 2021 budget, but the full asset management financial strategy (under development) will be put in place for 2021. The long-

Page 30 of 200



term funding strategy for asset management will require additional investments to address the infrastructure gap and will require Board of Directors’ approval.

Lessons Learned From 2020 Forecast

Staff will use the 2020 forecasting to assist in assumptions for the 2021 budget. The current forecast projects a minor deficit for 2020 with the main driver being COVID-19, which has impacted revenues and expenditures. LSRCA does not require additional support from our municipal partners to fund the minor deficit. A complete summary can be found in this agenda, Staff Report No. 33-20-BOD, Second Quarter 2020 Financial Report & Year End Forecast.

a) Revenues COVID-19 resulted in a loss of fees in education and tree planting, delays in fees from planning & permit applications, offsetting and a shortfall in overhead revenue to corporate services due to delays in funded projects. The 2020 forecasts indicated no change to the 2020 donation revenue from Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation (LSCF); however, staff will continue to work with LSCF to determine the level of support that should be anticipated for 2021. Interest income is also forecasted to be significantly below budget for 2020. Staff will continue to monitor and make necessary adjustments to the budget assumptions for the interest earned on invested funds.

b) Expenditures The forecast showed a reduction in some spending due to staff working from home, delays in hiring and redeployment of staff. New costs for staff returning to work will need to be taken into consideration. Staff will continue to monitor the 2020 forecasted results for the remainder of the year and work with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) to reflect any anticipated impacts to the 2021 budget. Issues: a) Board of Directors’ Direction Required Staff will develop the budget to meet our Annual Operating Priorities (AOPs), legislative responsibilities and our strategic plan. Staff will look for efficiencies, program reductions and review our fee schedule. Following that, staff will use these Board approved budget assumptions to build the operating and capital budgets and determine the amount of municipal investment required. With that in mind, staff request a range for the COLA and suggest a maximum cap to the levy increase to allow them to continue to work with changing municipal guidelines.

Page 31 of 200



In summary, staff recommend: 1. Inflation: up to 2.00% used only for applicable expenditures (2020: 2.00%) 2. COLA: up to 1.00% (2020: 1.75%) plus applicable step increases 3. Infrastructure levy for Asset Management: 0.00% (2020: 0.00%) 4. No additional new FTE’s in 2021, unless they are fully funded from grants and/or fees 5. General and Special Operating Levy: Up to 1.00%, (2020: 2.83%). 6. Special Capital Levy: Up to 1.00% (2020: 2.34%). 7. Investment in Strategic Priorities: 0.00% (2020:0.00%) b) Staff May Require Flexibility to Meet Future Municipal Targets Staff have initiated conversations with municipal partners and will continue to be engaged with them. In August, LSRCA has invited all municipal partners to participate in an on-line financial update to review guidelines and any issues arising with the development of the 2021 budget. From initial conversations, staff have learned that many budget approval dates have been pushed back and that municipalities are having difficulties establishing firm financial targets which may result in a need for them to adjust these guidelines later this year. Due to this difficulty in establishing firm targets, LSRCA will recommend a maximum increase to allow flexibility to meet future municipal targets.

2021 Levy Targets Maximum Impact in 000s

General Levy

Special Capital

Special Operating

Total

General Levy 1.00% 40.1

40.1

Special Capital 1.00%

42.9

42.9

Special Operating 1.00%

4.9 4.9

Maximum Estimated Tax Levy

40.1 42.9 4.9 87.9

2021 Budget Assumptions

Inflation* 2.00% 7.2 29.3 2.0 38.6

COLA up to 1.00% 14.0 9.9 1.0 24.9

Strategic Initiative 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Asset Management 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

STEP*

18.8 3.6 1.9 24.4

Additional Costs Due to COVID-19

TBD TBD TBD TBD

Total 40.1 42.9 4.9 87.9

*COLA of approximately .50% was used for calculation, adjustments to COLA or inflation will have to be made to stay within target.

Page 32 of 200



Relevance to Authority Policy: LSRCA is required to prepare annual budgets as part of the fiscal control and responsibilities of the organization. These budgets are also used in the audit process for evaluation by the external auditing firm. Annual audits are required as per Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Impact on Authority Finances: The total levy revenue will be capped at $8,878,554 for 2021, which is a 1.00% increase of $87,906. This total increase is made up of $40,088 increase to general levy, $4,873 increase to special operating, $42,945 increase to special capital. Summary and Recommendations: It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 35-20-BOD regarding the recommended budget assumptions for the 2021 fiscal year be approved. Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services/CFO, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Signed by: Signed by: __________________________________ __________________________________ Mark Critch Michael Walters

General Manager Chief Administrative Officer

Corporate and Financial Services/CFO

Page 33 of 200

Hill Office

543 Confederation Building

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON

Toll Free: (866) 736-7631

Email: [email protected] John Brassard Member of Parliament

Barrie-Innisfil

Riding Office

Eagle Ridge

Professional Complex

480 Huronia Road, Suite 204-B

Barrie, ON L4N 6M2

(705) 726-5959

October 30, 2019

Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street. Ottawa, K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,

During the recent election campaign, both the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada committed to the re-establishment of the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund.

As you know, $59 million was invested from 2007 to 2017 by the previous Conservative Government, until the fund was cancelled in 2017. During the 10 years, well over 200 projects were supported. Scientists immediately found evidence the fund was working, as phosphorous outputs were reduced, lake water quality began to improve, native fish species were breeding in the watershed – including fish that hadn’t done so in many years. The fund also helped improve shoreline naturalization and stormwater retention ponds.

This was all accomplished in collaboration with stakeholders, municipalities, conservation authorities, and just about everyone that had an interest in ensuring this beautiful watershed and important part of our eco-system was healthy and sustainable for future generations.

As local M.P.’s and Candidates, we were very pleased when Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made restoring the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund a key part of our platform in June 2019, when he announced our “Real Plan for the Environment”.

We were equally pleased when, just two days before the advanced voting started, Chrystia Freeland stood on the shore of Kempenfelt Bay with two local Liberal candidates, to announce that an elected Liberal Government would re-establish the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund with an investment of $40 million over four years.

Prime Minister, we believe that communities, and indeed all Canadians, benefit when political parties agree on the importance of issues like re-establishing the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund.

1a)

Page 34 of 200

mailto:[email protected]


Because of the clear commitment and pledge by Ms. Freeland on October 9, 2019, and on behalf of everyone in Central Ontario who has a vested interest in Lake Simcoe, we are asking that funding for the re-establishment of the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund be included in the budget as soon as possible. In addition, the governance model for the fund worked very well to achieve the results it did from 2007-2017.

Considering Ms. Freeland’s announcement, we respectfully request that the governance and funding model which provided oversight and allocated money for the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund be the exact same model to what was in place when you do re-establish the new round of funding you committed to. Furthermore, we would be very pleased to work with the Environment Minister and others to assist in providing information on the previous structure(s) that were in place.

We look forward to receiving your commitment, with a date that we can expect the funding to start. We will be sure to share the good news with our constituents and everyone who loves calling the shores of Lake Simcoe home.

Best Regards,

_________________ John Brassard Member of Parliament Elect | Barrie-Innisfil

__________________ Scot Davidson Member of Parliament Elect | York Simcoe

__________________ Bruce Stanton Member of Parliament Elect | Simcoe North

__________________ Doug Shipley Member of Parliament Elect | Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte

_________________ Jamie Schmale Member of Parliament Elect | Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock

per Terry Dowdall Member of Parliament Elect | Simcoe-Grey

Page 35 of 200

cc: Hon. Chrystia Freeland, MP (University-Rosedale) Mayor Jeff Lehman, City of Barrie Mayor Lynn Dollin, Town of Innisfil Mayor Steve Clarke, City of Orillia Mayor Rob Keffer, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Floyd Pinto, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Mayor Sandie Macdonald, Township of Essa Mayor Rick Milne, Town of New Tecumseth Mayor Harry Hughes, Township of Oro-Medonte Mayor Don Allen, Township of Springwater Mayor, Township of Tiny Warden George Cornell, Simcoe County Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

Page 36 of 200

1b)

Page 37 of 200

Page 38 of 200

Parliamentary Office


House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

(613) 996-7752

[email protected] Scot Davidson Member of Parliament

York-Simcoe

Constituency Office

45 Grist Mill Road, Unit 10,

Holland Landing, Ontario

L9N 1M7

(905) 898-1600

[email protected]

April 27, 2020

Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson

Minister of Environment and Climate Change


Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Wilkinson,

Re: The Pefferlaw Dam

I wish to bring to your attention an urgent matter that has recently developed within my constituency

concerning the state of the Pefferlaw Dam.

Located in Pefferlaw, Ontario within the Town of Georgina, the Pefferlaw Dam has spanned the

Pefferlaw River since 1823. It is a local landmark with considerable historical significance that

continues to bring substantial environmental, economic and practical benefits to the entire

community.

Unfortunately, the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (LSRCA) recently determined that

there were structural and safety concerns with the Pefferlaw Dam that require it be closed. This

has prevented the installation of seasonal stop-logs, drastically affecting both the reservoir and the

river and putting the future viability of the dam into question.

I am recommending that the rehabilitation of the Pefferlaw Dam be considered for any eligible

federal funding as soon as possible. Previously, Environment Canada funded phosphorous input

reduction and shore erosion projects on the upper Pefferlaw River through the 2007-2017 Lake

Simcoe Clean-Up Fund, which would be compromised if the dam’s current state persists.

While the final costing of the required rehabilitation work is still to be determined, it is estimated to

be between approximately $400,000 and $600,000 at this time – although that may increase when

further structural examinations are conducted.

The LSRCA has committed to resuming its examination of the dam once the provincial restrictions

are lifted on these activities. In the meantime, the conservation authority has begun consultations

with the municipality and Province of Ontario about the funding implications of this project –

however, it is evident that both the ability of the Province of Ontario and Town of Georgina to fund

this unanticipated expenditure is especially constrained due to the budgetary realities of the present

situation.

1c)

Page 39 of 200

As the Government of Canada looks to stimulate economic growth and job-creation in the weeks and

months ahead as the COVID-19 pandemic is contained, community-focused infrastructure projects –

especially those with positive implications for the environment – will be critical. The rehabilitation of

the Pefferlaw Dam would be one such project.

Of course, the Pefferlaw Dam and entire Lake Simcoe watershed would also benefit from the

reinstatement of the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up promised by your Government last fall.

As you can appreciate, the Pefferlaw Dam is of great importance to the entire Pefferlaw community,

and I truly appreciate your attention to this matter.

I remain committed to working with you and our colleagues in the House of Commons to ensure that

Canadians come out of the present situation stronger than ever, whilst still ensuring that our

environment and communities are taken care of.

Yours truly,

_________________

Scot Davidson

Member of Parliament for York-Simcoe

cc:

Mayor Margaret Quirk, Town of Georgina

Dan Harding, Ward 5 Councillor, Town of Georgina

Mike Walters, CAO, Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority

Susan Jagminas, Senior Communications Adviser, Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority

The Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Member of Provincial Parliament for York-Simcoe

The Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

The Hon. Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Page 40 of 200

June 26, 2020

The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Room 281, Legislative Building Queen’s Park Toronto ON M7A 1A1

Re: Update on Conservation Ontario’s Client Service and Streamlining Initiative – Reporting on the Timeliness of Section 28 Reviews

Dear Premier Ford:

Conservation Ontario is the network of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs). In April, 2019 I wrote to you to advise of Conservation Ontario’s new Client Service and Streamlining Initiative. The initiative was created to support actions outlined in the provincial Housing Supply Action Plan, and identifies a number of actions to improve client service and accountability, increase speed of approvals and reduce red tape and regulatory burden. This initiative is intended to help the Province address the lack of housing supply, while at the same time not jeopardizing public health and safety or the environment in the process.

A great deal of progress has been made through this initiative, including the training of over 300 staff in client-centric approaches, the creation of 5 template guidelines for CAs and the establishment of a client-centric checklist for CAs in high-growth areas. Further information on our progress can be found on our website. Today, however, I want to highlight the results of our first quarter reporting on the timeliness of our CA Section 28 permit application reviews. In June, 2019 Conservation Ontario set new, challenging targets to improve client service and increase the speed of approvals. Through the Conservation Ontario Client Service Standards for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review (2019) guideline, best practice timelines were developed in response to industry concerns regarding timeliness of CA approvals. These best practice timelines represent a significant overall reduction compared to the expectations described in the Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting (MNRF, 2010), including a 52% reduction in the overall timeline for major permit applications and 42% for minor permit applications.

I am pleased to report that the high-growth CAs were highly successful in issuing permits within the Provincial timelines and the Conservation Ontario best-practice timelines. From January 1st – March 31st, 2020 the high-growth CAs issued a combined total of 1077 permissions. During that same period, 12 of the 14 high-growth CAs issued over 96% of all permits within the Provincial timelines, and over 92% within the Conservation Ontario best practice timelines. Now, more than ever, we recognize the importance of providing superior client service and timely approvals as the Province commences economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

1d)

Page 41 of 200

https://conservationontario.ca/policy-priorities/planning-and-regulations/client-service-streamlining-initiative/

The attached bulletin provides additional background information on the Client Service Initiative as well as conservation authorities’ first quarter performance results. This information has also been shared with Minister Yakabuski, as the lead Minister for Section 28 approvals under the Conservation Authorities Act and carbon copied to Minister Clark and Minister Yurek. We are also very pleased to share this bulletin with our industry partners involved in the Conservation Ontario Client Service and Streamlining Initiative, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Homebuilders Association, the Residential Construction Council of Ontario and the Building Industry and Land Development Association.

In summary, Conservation Ontario has remained actively engaged with our clients and is committed to process improvements in service delivery. Conservation authorities are collectively committed to working in collaboration with our member municipalities, as well as relevant stakeholders in the building and development industry to support the Province’s objective to increase housing supply, while protecting public health and safety, and, the environment.

Should there be any questions or the need for additional information, please contact Kim Gavine, General Manager of Conservation Ontario, at 905-251-3268 or [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Wayne Emmerson Chair, Conservation Ontario

ATTACH: Bulletin: Conservation Authorities Setting Challenging Targets and Streamlining Processes to Improve Client Service and Increase the Speed of Approvals

c.c. All CA General Managers/Chief Administrative Officers

Page 42 of 200


June 26, 2020 The Honourable John Yakabuski Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Room 6630, 6th Floor, Whitney Black 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON, M7A 1W3 Re: Update on Conservation Ontario’s Client Service and Streamlining Initiative – Reporting on the Timeliness of Section 28 Reviews Dear Minister Yakabuski: Conservation Ontario is the network of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs). In April, 2019 I wrote to you to advise of Conservation Ontario’s new Client Service and Streamlining Initiative. The initiative was created to support actions outlined in the provincial Housing Supply Action Plan, and identifies a number of actions to improve client service and accountability, increase speed of approvals and reduce red tape and regulatory burden. This initiative is intended to help the Province address the lack of housing supply, while at the same time not jeopardizing public health and safety or the environment in the process. A great deal of progress has been made through this initiative, including the training of over 300 staff in client-centric approaches, the creation of 5 template guidelines for CAs and the establishment of a client-centric checklist for CAs in high-growth areas. Further information on our progress can be found on our website. Today, however, I want to highlight the results of our first quarter reporting on the timeliness of our CA Section 28 permit application reviews. In June, 2019 Conservation Ontario set new, challenging targets to improve client service and increase the speed of approvals. Through the Conservation Ontario Client Service Standards for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review (2019) guideline, best practice timelines were developed in response to industry concerns regarding timeliness of CA approvals. These best practice timelines represent a significant overall reduction compared to the expectations described in the Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting (MNRF, 2010), including a 52% reduction in the overall timeline for major permit applications and 42% for minor permit applications. I am pleased to report that the high-growth CAs were highly successful in issuing permits within the Provincial timelines and the Conservation Ontario best-practice timelines. From January 1st – March 31st, 2020 the high-growth CAs issued a combined total of 1077 permissions. During that same period, 12 of the 14 high-growth CAs issued over 96% of all permits within the Provincial timelines, and over 92% within the Conservation Ontario best practice timelines. Now, more than ever, we recognize the

Page 43 of 200


importance of providing superior client service and timely approvals as the Province commences economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The attached bulletin provides additional background information on the Client Service Initiative as well as conservation authorities’ first quarter performance results. This bulletin is being shared widely with our industry partners, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Homebuilders Association, the Residential Construction Council of Ontario and the Building Industry and Land Development Association.

In summary, Conservation Ontario has remained actively engaged with our clients and is committed to process improvements in service delivery. Conservation authorities are collectively committed to working in collaboration with our member municipalities, as well as relevant stakeholders in the building and development industry to support the Province’s objective to increase housing supply, while protecting public health and safety, and, the environment.

Should there be any questions or the need for additional information, please contact Kim Gavine, General Manager of Conservation Ontario, at 905-251-3268 or [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Wayne Emmerson Chair, Conservation Ontario

ATTACH: Bulletin: Conservation Authorities Setting Challenging Targets and Streamlining Processes to Improve Client Service and Increase the Speed of Approvals

c.c. The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) The Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) All CA General Managers/Chief Administrative Officers

Page 44 of 200


1 | P a g e

June 23, 2020

Since April 2019, Conservation Ontario has been working with Ontario’s conservation authorities (CAs) to make improvements to CA plan review and permitting activities through the Conservation Ontario Client Service and Streamlining Initiative. The Initiative was created to support actions outlined in the provincial Housing Supply Action plan, and identifies a number of actions to improve client service and accountability, increase speed of approvals and reduce red tape to help the Province address the lack of housing supply, while at the same time not jeopardizing public health and safety or the environment in the process.

To support timely reporting of CA Section 28 permit application reviews, Conservation Ontario developed a template which outlines a consistent reporting framework for permit review and approval timelines. Consistent with the new “Client Service Standards for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review”, the template identifies “best practice” timelines which were developed in response to industry concerns regarding timeliness of CA approvals.

These “best practice” timelines represent a significant overall reduction compared to Provincial expectations described in the Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting (MNRF, 2010), including a 52% reduction in the overall timeline for major permit applications and 42% for minor permit applications.

Conservation Ontario worked with a group of 14 high-growth CAs to prepare reports consistent with the reporting framework outlining their progress towards meeting the ‘best practice’ timelines for the first quarter of 2020.

For permits issued outside of the timelines, CAs identified constraints which contributed to the small percentage of permits not meeting the targeted review times. Many CAs cited the need to increase uptake in pre-consultation processes and improve the quality of submissions to ensure a faster review and approval timeframe.

Conservation Authorities Setting Challenging Targets and Streamlining Processes to Improve Client Service and Increase the Speed of Approvals

CHALLENGING TARGETS SET FOR CA REVIEWS and REGULAR REPORTING TO MEASURE RESULTS

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: PRE-CONSULTATION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

FIRST QUARTER PERFORMANCE RESULTS

From January 1st – March 31st, 2020 the high-growth CAs issued a combined total of 1077 permits. The CAs were highly successful in issuing permits within the provincial timelines and the CO best-practice timelines. 12 high-growth CAs issued over 96% of all permits within the Provincial timelines, and over 92% within the CO best practice timelines.

Page 45 of 200



2 | P a g e

To address these constraints and continue to increase the speed of CA approvals, Conservation Ontario is developing a pre-consultation guidance document which outlines best practices for pre-consultation between CAs and their clients. Through a more robust pre-consultation process, CAs can ensure that all necessary information is received from clients to process permit applications in a timely manner with minimal resubmissions.

Beginning in 2021, the high-growth CAs will post annual reports to their websites on their permit review and approval timelines. In the meantime, Conservation Ontario is committed to working with Ontario’s conservation authorities to improve client service, increase the speed of approvals and reduce red tape, while continuing to protect public health and safety, and, the environment.

For more information:

Leslie Rich, Policy and Planning Liaison Conservation Ontario 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket ON L3Y 3WE (705) 716-6174 [email protected]

COMING SOON: ANNUAL REPORTING

Page 46 of 200


Staff Report No. 36-20-BOD Page No: 1 of 7 Agenda Item No: 2 BOD-08-20

TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rob Baldwin General Manager, Planning & Development and Watershed Restoration

Services Brian Kemp General Manager, Conservation Lands DATE: July 16, 2020

SUBJECT: Pefferlaw Dam Ownership Review, Structural Assessment, and

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 36-20-BOD regarding Pefferlaw Dam Ownership

Review, Structural Assessment, and Recommendations be received; and FURTHER THAT the following recommendations be approved:

1. That the Board direct Authority staff to complete remedial welding on the truss supports of the Pefferlaw Dam as soon as possible.

2. That the Board approve a request to the Town of Georgina to share the cost to complete the remedial welding works.

3. That upon completion of the welding repairs, Authority staff install the stoplogs, and following the Dam Operational Plan remove them again in the Fall to comply with provincially approved operating protocols.





Page 47 of 200


Purpose of this Staff Report: The purpose of Staff Report No. 36-20-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with an update on ownership and the findings of the Pefferlaw Dam structural assessment and recommendations. Background: The Pefferlaw Dam is located in the Town of Georgina on the eastern edge of the village of Pefferlaw and is comprised of two parcels of land (Attachment 1) on either side of the dam and spillway. A dam has been located at this site since the 1880s. Originally, the dam was constructed and used for the purpose of powering mills onsite and on adjacent lands. In its current state, the dam is essentially a local amenity. It is an aesthetic and historical focal point within the village and it creates a small reservoir that provides recreational benefits to local residents (ex. canoeing, kayaking, paddling) and dedicated water access for a small number of private residential properties. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (the Authority) has operated the Pefferlaw Dam since the early 1980s after the adjacent properties were conveyed to the Authority by the Town of Georgina, to access government funding to repair and rehabilitate the dam. After the repairs were completed, our records indicate that the dam was intended to be transferred back to the municipality; however, for reasons that are undocumented, the transfer never happened. To that end, the Authority has continued, in-good-faith, to operate the dam annually with the installation and removal of stoplogs and flashboards to create the reservoir. In the fall of 2019, the Authority retained D.M. Wills Associates Limited to undertake a visual inspection to provide information regarding the condition, operation, and safety of the dam. A Dam Inspection Report, dated December 2019 identified 10 recommendations. The highest priority issues were identified as follows: concrete in a number of locations on the dam is in poor condition and repairs were required for the flashboards and posts (this work was completed by Authority staff); and erosion behind the downstream armour stone retaining walls that required immediate minor work to ensure the truss/railing is sufficient for fall arrest and as an anchor point for maintenance staff. Due to staff safety concerns the decision was made to not install the stop logs in the dam structure until a detailed assessment of the dam could be completed. Staff brought forward a series of recommendations to the delayed March 2020 Board of Directors’ meeting (held instead on April 3rd due to COVID-19). The recommendations included requesting clarity on dam ownership from the Province, undertaking a detailed structural and safety assessment of the dam and when appropriate, consultant with the Town of Georgina, the Province, and the community on the future of the dam.

Page 48 of 200


Issues: 1. Dam Ownership Update

The Authority retained Premier Title Services Inc. in 2019 to complete a detailed investigation into the ownership titles and chain of custody for the Pefferlaw Dam and the two parcels on either side of the dam. Based on the detailed investigation only a small section of the eastern side of the dam falls within the eastern parcel that was conveyed to the Authority (Refer to Attachment 1), therefore prompting Premier Title Services Inc. to deduce that ownership of the dam remains inconclusive. The general assumption dating back to the 1980s was the ownership, maintenance and operation of the dam was included as part of the two parcels of land on either side. It was not until the detailed property title review was commenced that the dam ownership was identified as being in question. The two parcels adjacent to the dam were conveyed to the Authority from the Town of Georgina in 1982 for the sole purpose of accessing provincial dam infrastructure funding available to conservation authorities. The intent was to complete the dam reconstruction and repairs and return the lands to the Town of Georgina. This transfer never occurred. In order to confirm who owns the dam, with Board of Directors approval, staff have requested that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) undertake an investigation into the ownership of the dam and associated lands. This includes the lands which the reservoir occupies when at full pool. MNRF recently notified staff that due to the current closure of Ontario ministry buildings, a formal response will not likely be provided until staff are able to return to their office and access archives and historic files. 2. Structural Assessment of the Pefferlaw Dam

The Authority retained D.M. Wills Associates Ltd. to undertake a detailed structural assessment of the dam and associated bridge, truss, and safety supports. The inspection work completed by D.M. Wills Associates Ltd. included concrete assessment of the dam, detailed inspections of the bridge and truss, a loadings and structural assessment of the bridge and truss and provision of recommendations with cost estimates for rehabilitation work. The detailed report can be found attached (Attachment 2). A summary of these results and recommendations follows: Structural and Concrete Assessment:

• The concrete assessment indicated there are three areas requiring remediation: o The outer concrete areas of the dam are in poor to fair condition with delamination,

spalling, scaling and some cracks in the face of the dam; o The eastern dam abutment is recommended for full replacement; and o The eastern slab needs partial replacement or significant grouting.

Page 49 of 200


The above-mentioned works are recommended to occur within the next one to five years. The cost estimate for these remedial works is $368,065. The cost for design and technical supervision is $55,210. The total cost estimate excluding staff time and administration is $423,275. Bridge and Truss Assessment: A detailed bridge and truss assessment was completed including a detailed load model to evaluate impacts from variety of uses and to evaluate adequacy and function. The assessment concluded that the truss can be operated safely at this time, as long as critical welding repairs are completed prior to operation. The findings also concluded that the operation truss either be completely rehabilitated or replaced within 5 to 10 years to realize the life 75-year life span of the dam. Two alternatives were presented:

• Truss rehabilitation at an approximate cost of $52,650, OR

• Truss replacement at an approximate cost of $61,750.

These cost estimates do not include technical oversight or administration. A life cycle cost analysis was completed to compare the alternatives to evaluate best value. The analysis concluded that the full replacement of the truss was the preferred alternative as it had a lower life cycle cost due to reduced maintenance into the future. The total cost estimate including $9,260 for design and supervision is $71,010. The condition of the pedestrian bridge is similar to the condition of the operational truss. The rehabilitation of the bridge can be completed, or it can be replaced if the operational truss is to be replaced. The approximate construction cost for truss and bridge rehabilitation is $137,159 and the cost for full truss and bridge replacement is $165,570. The total cost estimates including design and supervision are respectively $157,732 and $190,430. These cost estimates do not include staff time or administration. These works are recommended to be completed in the next 5 to 10 years. Operational Status: In the immediate future, the dam can be returned to operational status upon completion of the remedial repairs and welding to the operational span truss. The approximate cost for these repairs including welding, oversight and staff time is $5,000 to $6,000. If this work is completed by the beginning of August, this will allow the reservoir to be viable for the remaining 2020 season. Water levels will increase dependent on flow during the period of stoplog and flashboard installation. The fall arrest system is adequate but does not extend across the entire dam structure. Future recommendations include a full extension of the system. The operational status of the dam into the future is dependent on the remedial and restoration works required and recommended by D.M. Wills Associates Ltd. If it is determined that the dam

Page 50 of 200


should remain operational beyond 2020, the dam rehabilitation and concrete substructure restoration work must be completed within the next one to five years to ensure the integrity of the structure, annual operation and to meet its intended 75-year design life. General Recommendations and Costs: There is substantial remedial work required in the next decade if the dam is intended to be maintained to meet the original 75-year design life. Immediate work to operate the dam in 2020 is minor with a cost of $5,000 to $6,000. This work could be completed in a short timeframe and the stoplogs could be placed into the dam following normal protocols. This typically takes a few weeks to complete and the timeframe is dependent on flow rates of the river. The recommendations for concrete rehabilitation and truss replacement put the approximate cost for these total works at an estimated $494,285. If it was determined that full replacement of the truss and bridge were preferable, the total cost of all remedial and rehabilitation works would be approximately $613,705. 3. General Issues

Flood Control Structure: The Pefferlaw Dam was not designed or built to be a flood control structure. There has been some misconception in this regard as often dams can be used to mitigate flooding by storing excess water. This is not the case with the Pefferlaw Dam which is wholly used to create an artificial reservoir for recreation purposes. The dam itself actually poses a flood risk in the winter and spring which is why the Authority undertakes the removal of the stoplogs every fall to reduce the risk of ice jams that could lead to a dam failure. Given that the Pefferlaw Dam has no role in flood control, low water augmentation, waste assimilation or as a drinking water reservoir, the benefit of the structure is strictly for recreation. Its continued operation by the Authority has been a legacy to support the Town of Georgina and otherwise this activity does not fall within the mandate of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Our current watershed development policy prohibits the creation of on-line ponds or impoundments, and the benefits to removing on-line structures to restore natural waterways are well defined and documented to improve ecological health. This knowledge is the rationale behind the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority stewardship efforts to remove or mitigate the impacts of online ponds and dams. As such, we have provided funds and sought grant money to assist with dam removal projects. One of the most recent, and very successful examples of this, was our own significant dam bypass and rehabilitation project at Scanlon Creek. The Scanlon Creek dam was constructed in 1970 to replace an old mill dam and was a concrete structure similar to the Pefferlaw Dam. Costs to remove the structure were prohibitive,

Page 51 of 200


therefore a bypass channel was created in order to remove the reservoir and restore the Scanlon Creek to its natural form allowing for fish passage. This project was extremely successful and Scanlon Creek and the surrounding ecology are now thriving. Impact on Authority Finances: To operate the dam for the remainder of 2020 is relatively inexpensive with costs estimated at $5,000 to $6000 to complete remedial welding excluding supervision and oversight. The total cost estimate to implement the required engineering recommendations is either $494,285 or $613,705, based on either remediation or full replacement of the truss and pedestrian bridge. These cost estimates do not include technical oversight, administration, or staff time. The Authority does not have the reserve or capital budget available to undertake the recommendations outlined in the dam inspection report. As the structure is not for the purpose of flood control there is no ability for the Authority to seek funding through the province under the Water Erosion Control Infrastructure program. Summary and Recommendations The Pefferlaw Dam and reservoir are a significant recreational asset to the local community and in one form or another, has been in place for well over a century. The Pefferlaw Dam provides no formal flood control function, but rather is operated annually by installing and removing stoplogs to prevent the flood risk created by the dam in the winter and early spring seasons. In principle, the Authority does not support the existence of dams unless they provide flood mitigation, low flow augmentation, waste assimilation functions, and/or are drinking water reservoirs. In 1982, the property and dam were conveyed to the Authority from the Town of Georgina for the sole purpose of accessing dam maintenance funding from the Province. Upon completion of the rehabilitation works in the 1980s, the property was to be transferred back to the Town. For reasons that are not documented, this transfer has not occurred. The maintenance of the two abutting properties is still completed by the Town, with dam operations conducted by the Authority. There are several challenging issues regarding the Pefferlaw Dam:

• The costs to rehabilitate the dam to meet the 75-year life cycle are substantial.

• The Authority does not have reserve or capital budget available to rehabilitate or maintain the dam or a mechanism.

Page 52 of 200


The following is a list of recommendations for consideration by the Board for next steps moving forward. 1. That the Board direct Authority staff to complete remedial welding on the truss supports of the

Pefferlaw Dam as soon as possible. 2. That the Board approve a request to the Town of Georgina to share the cost to complete the

remedial welding works. 3. That upon completion of the welding repairs, Authority staff install the stoplogs, and following

the Dam Operational Plan remove them again in the Fall to comply with provincially approved operating protocols.





Pre-Submission Review: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer. Signed by: Signed by: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Rob Baldwin Brian Kemp General Manager, Planning & Development General Manager, Conservation Lands and Watershed Restoration Services Signed by: ___________________________________ Michael Walters Chief Administrative Officer Attachments 1. Parcel Map of Pefferlaw Dam and Abutting Properties 2. Pefferlaw Dam Assessment Report – July 2020

Page 53 of 200

412,257 115

3/25/2020

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere

Printed On:

Features

1,623

This product was produced by the Lake Simcoe RegionConservation Authority and some information depicted on this mapmay have been compiled from various sources. While every efforthas been made to accurately depict the information, data/mapping

errors may exist. This map has been produced for illustrativepurposes from an interactive web mapping site. LSRCA GISServices DRAFT printed 2020. © LAKE SIMCOE REGION

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Thefollowing data sets of Assessment Parcel, Roads, Upper & Lower

Tier Municipalities, Wetlands are © Queens Printer for Ontario.Reproduced with Permission, 2020. The Current Regulation Limit

and Boundary data sets are derived products from several datasets.Orthophotography 2002, 2005, 2007-2009, 2011-2018, © First

Base Solutions Inc.

Pefferlaw Dam

41

Meters

82 82

Scale 1:

0

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere

Mapped By: KCK

LSRCA Watershed Boundary Label1

LSPP Watershed Boundary Label1

LSRCA Lands Label1

Assessment Parcel Label1

Lot and Concession Label1

Assessment Parcel Labels Label1

Watercourse Label1

Roads Label1Hwy 400 Series Label1Highway, Arterials Label1Local Road Label1

Railway Label1

Lower Tier Municipality Label1

Page 54 of 200

Structural Design Memorandum

Pefferlaw Dam

Town of Georgina

Regional Municipality of York

D.M. Wills Project Number 19-5381

D.M. Wills Associates Limited Partners in Engineering, Planning and

Environmental Services

Peterborough

July 2020

Prepared for:

Lake Simcoe Region

Conservation Authority

Page 55 of 200

Pefferlaw Dam Structural Design Memorandum


D.M. Wills Associates Limited Page i Project Number 19-5381

Submissions Summary

Submission

No. Submission Title

Date of

Release Submissions Summary

1 Draft Report Submission July 3, 2020 Submitted for Review

2 Final Report Submission July 16,

2020 Issued as Final

This report / proposal has been formatted considering the requirements of the

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Page 56 of 200



D.M. Wills Associates Limited Page ii Project Number 19-5381

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 2019 Dam Inspection Summary ................................................................................... 2

1.3 Reference Documents .................................................................................................. 2

Concrete Condition Assessment ................................................................................. 2

2.1 Concrete Rehabilitation ............................................................................................... 3

Pedestrian Truss Bridge – Operational Span Evaluation ............................................. 4

3.1 Alternative 1 – Truss Rehabilitation .............................................................................. 6

3.2 Alternative 2 – Truss Replacement .............................................................................. 6

3.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................................................................................. 7

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 7

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Pefferlaw Dam Access Bridge SAP2000 Model ...................................................... 4

Figure 2 – Fall Arrest Anchor Possible Locations ....................................................................... 5

List of Tables

Table 1 – Recommended Rehabilitation Works; Description, Cost, Time Horizon ............... 8

Appendices

Appendix A - Site Photographs

Appendix B - Limited Condition Survey Report

Appendix C - Preliminary Cost Estimates

Appendix D - Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Page 57 of 200



D.M. Wills Associates Limited Page iii Project Number 19-5381

LOCATION PLAN

Pefferlaw Dam

PEFFERLAW DAM

Page 58 of 200



D.M. Wills Associates Limited Page 1 Project Number 19-5381

Introduction

In response to the recommendations within the 2019 Dam Inspection Report completed

by D.M. Wills Associates Limited (Wills), the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

(LSRCA) has retained the services of Wills to complete a Concrete Condition

Assessment (CCA) and Structural Evaluation of the truss over the operational span of

the Pefferlaw Dam and the reporting thereof. This Structural Design Memorandum has

been prepared to summarize the findings of both the CCA and Structural Evaluation

and provide alternatives for the rehabilitation of the structure. A life cycle cost analysis

has been completed to recommend the most cost effective alternative to address the

deterioration of the operation span by considering the expected costs over the life of

the structure for each alternative.

1.1 Background

The Pefferlaw Dam is located on the Main Branch of the Pefferlaw River approximately

200 m south of Pefferlaw Road in the Village of Pefferlaw, Town of Georgina, Regional

Municipality of York.

The substructure of the dam was originally constructed in the early 1880’s. The original

purpose of the dam was to provide water storage to power three (3) mills located on

the watercourse. Mill races were constructed on both the east and west sides of the

Main Branch of the Pefferlaw River to channel water to the mills. The mills have since

ceased operations. The downstream channel and the headpond provide recreational

uses and contribute to the general aesthetic of the area, as the former mill sites

downstream of the dam have been redeveloped as a municipal park and a number of

residences have been constructed adjacent to the headpond. Several residences

have docks constructed on the headpond.

A major rehabilitation of the dam was completed in 1982, which included construction

of the current steel truss pedestrian bridge, concrete repairs of the piers and

substructure elements, and construction of a fish ladder (now removed). In 1990 the

structure was converted from a twin sluice configuration to a single sluice.

The dam consists of a 31 m long concrete gravity structure with a 20 m long earth

embankment on the west side and a 30 m long earth embankment on the east side.

The concrete gravity structure includes a 13 m long concrete weir topped with timber

flash boards on the left (west) side of the structure, a 4.8 m wide sluiceway with timber

stoplogs in the middle of the structure and a 7.2 m long overflow weir on the right (east)

side of the structure. There are concrete aprons below the weirs and the centre

sluiceway as well as concrete wingwalls on both the left (west) and right (east) sides.

Access across the dam is provided by a 1.1 m wide steel truss approach spans, and a

1.82 m wide steel truss operation span. The truss bridge is supported on a stub concrete

abutment located behind the dams east wingwall, by steel posts at the sluiceway piers,

and on a bearing seat at the dams west wingwall. The west approach span has existing

fall arrest anchorage in place, while the operation span and east approach span do

not. The dam is accessed from Pefferlaw Road, which is located approximately 200 m

Page 59 of 200




north (downstream) of the structure. Access by motorized vehicles is available via a

gravel road on the west side of the Pefferlaw River. A gate at Pefferlaw Road restricts

unauthorized vehicles from accessing the west side access road. There is a secondary

gated access on the east side of the Pefferlaw River that could be used as an

emergency or maintenance access to the east side of the dam.

1.2 2019 Dam Inspection Summary

Wills conducted an inspection of the Pefferlaw Dam in November 2019. The inspection

was generally comprised of visual inspection of the various elements of the structure, as

well as documentation via several methods including - underwater, on ground, and

aerial photography and videography, sketches, and physical measurements. Following

the inspection, Wills provided the LSRCA with ten (10) recommendations.

Of the ten (10) recommendations presented in the Dam Inspection Report, LSRCA has

opted to move forward in addressing four (4) recommendations, listed below:

1. Undertake a concrete condition assessment of the dam;

2. Complete a structural evaluation of the truss bridge and develop repair or

replacement options;

3. Confirm that the truss/railing has sufficient capacity to act as a fall arrest anchor

point for use by operators during stoplog operations; and

4. Complete a new Dam Safety Review.

This report has been prepared to address recommendations 1-3 listed above.

1.3 Reference Documents

The following documents were available in preparation of this report:

Dam Inspection Report, D.M. Wills Associates Limited, December 2019.

Draft Limited Condition Survey Report, Bridge Check Canada, June 2020.

Original Tender Drawing (D3), Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd., May 1982.

Concrete Condition Assessment

Wills retained the services of Bridge Check Canada Ltd. to complete a limited condition

survey of the dam in accordance with the requirements of the MTO Structural

Rehabilitation Manual (2007). The condition survey consisted of a delamination and

concrete deterioration survey on all exposed concrete components, as well as coring

and physical testing of concrete core samples to determine air entrainment and

compressive strength. A total of twelve (12) cores were extracted from across the

structure; three (3) from the west abutment and retaining wall, two (2) from the east

abutment and retaining wall, two (2) from the west apron slab and weir, three (3) from

the east apron and weir, and one (1) from each of the east and west piers.

Page 60 of 200




The findings of the limited condition survey report indicate that the majority of the

concrete elements are experiencing deterioration in the form of wide cracks,

efflorescence staining, delamination, and spalling, with areas of light, medium, and

severe scaling. In general, the concrete elements of the dam are described as being in

fair to poor condition, as summarized below:

East Abutment / Retaining Wall in poor condition.

West Abutment / Retaining Wall in fair to poor condition.

East Weir in fair condition.

East Apron in poor condition.

West Weir in fair to poor condition.

West Apron in poor condition.

East Pier in fair condition.

West Pier in fair to good condition.

The concrete cores tested for compressive strength results ranged from 21.7 MPa to

57.1 MPa. The original tender drawings for the dam restoration completed in 1982

specified a minimum concrete strength of 28 MPa, therefore the east abutment and

retaining wall, west abutment and retaining wall, and west pier each recorded one

concrete core with a compressive strength lower than the intended design strength

(26.6 MPa, 21.7 MPa, and 24.5 MPa, respectively). In core samples where reinforcing

steel was encountered, the steel was in good condition with no evidence of surface

corrosion.

Delamination planes were noted in three (3) of the twelve (12) cores (25%), however,

these cores were extracted from areas where delamination was known to be present

through surface sounding. The depth at which the delamination planes were recorded

ranges between 15-190 mm, with an average depth of 163 mm. Large aggregate was

encountered below the 1982 rehabilitation work in several of the cores, which is

common for early concrete dams.

Two (2) cores were extracted to determine the air entrainment of the existing concrete.

The West retaining wall was found to not be air entrained, and the east weir was found

to be air entrained.

The entirety of the Limited Condition Survey Report can be found in Appendix B.

2.1 Concrete Rehabilitation

Based on the extent of deterioration noted in the concrete condition assessment and

remaining service life of the structure, rehabilitation of the concrete elements is required

to extend their useful life. Given that deterioration is primarily attributed to the surface

concrete, rehabilitation through crack injection and typical localized shallow depth

removal and patch repairs is considered suitable. If the cumulative area of

delamination and spalling on any given element covers the majority of the exposed

Page 61 of 200




face, partial or complete refacing of the concrete element should be considered.

Complete replacement of the east abutment retaining wall is recommended, and

partial replacement or grouting below the east apron slab will be required.

The approximate cost to implement all concrete rehabilitation recommendations is

$368,065. The detailed preliminary cost estimate can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Truss Bridge – Operational Span Evaluation

The pedestrian truss bridge spans the entirety of the structure and is comprised of

coated square HSS steel sections for the truss elements and a galvanized grate walking

surface. The operational span, located between the east and west piers, includes an

opening for stoplog operation. Erected in 1981, the steel truss is in year 39 of an

assumed 75-year design life.

The 2019 Dam Inspection reported that the east and west spans are in fair condition,

with coating failure and minor corrosion throughout. In addition, the inspection report

indicated that the operational span is in poor condition with wide cracks in some

corners of the square HSS. A bearing seat failure in the form of a spall was found at the

southwest bearing of the west abutment. As a result of the 2019 Dam Inspection, an

evaluation of the operational span has been completed.

The evaluation included creation of a model of the existing operational truss in SAP2000

as shown in Figure 1, including member dimensions from the design drawings that were

verified onsite, and design strengths from the drawings. Various loading scenarios were

applied to determine the demand on the elements of the operational truss to

determine if elements of the truss are overstressed.

Figure 1 – Pefferlaw Dam Access Bridge SAP2000 Model

Page 62 of 200




The operational span of the pedestrian bridge was analyzed using the following loads:

Pedestrian Live Load of 3.95 kPa as per CHBDC, Clause 3.8.9

Wind Load of 0.96 kPa

Log stockpiling load (Max. five (5) of 200x300x4890 timber logs)

It was determined through the evaluation that the effect of the storing of stoplogs is less

than the effect of the specified pedestrian live load. Furthermore, it was determined

that the cracking at the end vertical HSS of the middle truss section are not due to

overstressing. The operational span truss was found to be capable of carrying the

above mentioned loads, and the anchorage at the pier posts were determined to be

adequate.

As there is no fall arrest anchorage provided across the operational span, the truss was

also analyzed for the following load:

Fall Arrest Load of 8 kN with a Factor of Safety of 2.0 (16 kN total) as per the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, Construction Projects Regulation (O. Reg.

213/91, s.16)

It was determined through the evaluation that the top chord of the truss has inadequate

capacity to be used as a fall arrest anchor. The operation span truss was found to be

capable of carrying the fall arrest load if the anchor was located on the bottom chord

at the convergence of diagonals and at the end posts. All fall arrest systems and

anchorage should be verified to be in compliance with O. Reg. 213/91, s.16.

Figure 2 – Fall Arrest Anchor Possible Locations

Page 63 of 200




The existing fall arrest system does not span the operational span of the truss. However,

the existing system on the western span, comprised of a steel cable passing through

eyelets welded to L-shaped HSS members which are fastened to the underside of the

approach truss, should be assessed and if suitable can be extended over the

operational span. Preferably new supports erected on top of the concrete piers would

remove the fall arrest system from the truss altogether. This approach to the extension of

the existing fall arrest system separates the operational span truss from the fall arrest

system, which is preferred when considering future maintenance or replacement of

either element.

Notwithstanding the adequacy of the existing truss structure, the following

recommendations are presented as a result of the evaluation:

Repair cracks at the operation span truss end vertical HSS.

Repair concrete and repair the bearing seat at the west abutment.

Recoat structural steel.

Review current fall arrest anchorage practices and modify as necessary.

Based on the findings of the structural evaluation of the pedestrian truss bridge, two (2)

alternatives for addressing the condition of the operational span are considered for

further evaluation.

3.1 Alternative 1 – Truss Rehabilitation

Alternative 1 has been developed based on the recommendations of the structural

evaluation and is comprised of the rehabilitation of the pedestrian truss bridge through

weld repair, recoating of the structural steel over the operational span, as well as repair

of the spalled concrete under the bearing at the west abutment. Alternative 1 is

considered to be a short term solution and is intended to realize the remaining service

life of the structure (36 years).

The approximate cost to implement Alternative 1 is $52,650. The detailed preliminary

cost estimate can be found in Appendix C.

3.2 Alternative 2 – Truss Replacement

Alternative 2 addresses the recommendations from the structural evaluation through

replacement of the operational span of the dam. Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative

includes rehabilitation of the spalled concrete under the bearing seat at the west

abutment. The purpose of Alternative 2 is to provide LSRCA with a long term solution

and determine which of the short and long term solutions provides LSRCA the best

value.

The approximate cost to implement Alternative 2 is $61,750. The detailed preliminary

cost estimate can be found in Appendix C.

Page 64 of 200




3.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

In order to determine which alternative to address the condition of the operational

span presents the best value to LSCRA, a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is required. For

the purposes of the LCCA, the costs related to the concrete rehabilitation have been

discounted from each alternative, with the exception of the bearing concrete repair

required under both Alternatives. The resulting net present value of the costs of

Alternatives 1 & 2 are $67,902 and $63,959, respectively. At the end of their respective

life cycles the cost to replace the truss was entered to represent a truss replacement at

the dam in the future. Service lives of 35 and 75 years were assigned to Alternative 1

and 2, respectively, with 75 years used thereafter to represent subsequent truss

replacements.

The results of the LCCA, found in Appendix D, indicate that there is greater value in

replacing the operational span of the truss as opposed to its rehabilitation.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Having been constructed in 1981, the pedestrian truss bridge across the Pefferlaw Dam

has progressed through 39 years of its assumed design life of 75 years. The 2019 Dam

Inspection and subsequent Limited Condition Survey revealed several sources of

deterioration across the dam which require intervention in the form of replacement

and/or rehabilitation. Two (2) alternatives have been developed with consideration

given to short and long term effectiveness, and the costs compared.

Alternative 1, truss repair / rehabilitation, was developed as a short term solution with

the aim to address deterioration noted during the field investigations. Alternative 2, truss

replacement, was developed to provide LSRCA with a long term solution against which

Alternative 1 could be compared through an LCCA in order to determine which

alternative presents the best value. Based on the results of the LCCA, Alternative 2 is the

recommended rehabilitation solution for the Pefferlaw Dam. As stated in Section 3.2,

the cost to implement Alternative 2 is $ 61,750.

The scope of this assignment limited evaluation of the pedestrian truss bridge to the

operational span. Given that the protective coating of the structural steel is in poor

condition across both the approach and operational spans, consideration should be

given to the complete replacement of the pedestrian access bridge. If the structural

steel over the operational span is replaced and no remedial work completed on the

remainder of the pedestrian bridge, an additional rehabilitation of the remaining

structural steel will be required in the next 5 – 10 years as deterioration progresses in the

form of corrosion and section loss. Consideration should also be given to rehabilitating

the Substructure Concrete during this rehabilitation cycle. If no remedial work is

completed on the Substructure Concrete, an additional rehabilitation of the east

abutment and truss bearing seat will be required in the next 1 - 5 years and

rehabilitation of the remainder of the substructure within the next 5 – 10 years.

Page 65 of 200




Completing all of the recommended work under a single contract will result in savings

on items related to mobilization, construction layout, and environmental protection.

Furthermore, replacement of all structural steel would be aesthetically preferential.

Note that completion of a Dam Safety Assessment is required prior to undertaking the

recommended concrete rehabilitation work as the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry will require this information prior to issuing a permit for the work under the Lakes

and Rivers Improvement Act. The current Dam Safety Assessment is outdated as it was

completed in 2008 and the Hazard Potential Classification, Inflow Design Flood, and

Hydraulic Capacity should be confirmed to determine if additional measures beyond

those identified in this report are required. The current Dam Safety Assessment also

identified stability deficiencies with the existing dam that should be addressed. Given

this the estimates provided in this report should be considered a lower bound for the

estimated concrete rehabilitation cost.

The general rehabilitation work, associated costs, and recommended timeline for

implementation are tabulated below:

Table 1 – Recommended Rehabilitation Works; Description, Cost, Time Horizon

Rehabilitation Area Description of Work Associated

Cost

Time

Horizon

Substructure Concrete

Misc. localized concrete removal

and form and pump patch repair,

isolated refacing of widely

deteriorated elements

$ 368,065 1 – 5 Yrs

* Operational Span

(Replacement)

Replace pedestrian bridge over

operational span, including

extension of existing fall arrest

system

$ 61,750 5 – 10 Yrs

* Pedestrian Access

Bridge (Full

Replacement)

Replace pedestrian bridge,

including operational and

approach spans

$ 165,750 5 – 10 Yrs

* Requires localized concrete repair under bearing at southwest edge of west abutment

If access across the pedestrian access bridge and operation of the dam is required in

the interim prior to the implementation of the above recommendations, the following

work is to be completed:

Weld Crack Repair of the Operational Span

The estimated cost to complete this work is $ 5,000.

Page 66 of 200




Prepared by:

_________________________________ _________________________________

Tim Rosborough, EIT Zach Staples, P.Eng.

Structural EIT Assistant Manager, Structural Engineering

Page 67 of 200

Appendix A

Site Photographs

Page 68 of 200

Structural Design Memorandum – Pefferlaw Da,

Appendix A – Site Photographs


D.M. Wills Associates Limited 19-5381

Photo 1 – Downstream Elevation, Looking South

Photo 2 – Upstream Elevation, Looking Northwest

Page 69 of 200





Photo 3 – Upstream West Retaining Wall, Spalling at Top Edge

Photo 4 – West Abutment, Erosion at Waterline and Wide Vertical Cracking

Page 70 of 200





Photo 5 – West Abutment, Spalling Under Southwest Bearing

Photo 6 – Downstream Retaining Wall at West Abutment, Wide Vertical Crack and

Spalling at Weir

Page 71 of 200





Photo 7 – West Overflow Weir, Wide Crack along Weir

Photo 8 – West Overflow Weir Concrete Apron, Severe Scaling (Typ.)

Page 72 of 200





Photo 9 – West Pier, Downstream Face

Photo 10 – Underside of West Span of Pedestrian Bridge, Failed Protective Coating and

Moderate Corrosion of Longitudinal HSS (Typ.)

Page 73 of 200





Photo 11 – HSS Support at West Pier, Loss of Protective Coating and Light Corrosion (Typ.)

Photo 12 – Bearing Anchorage of HSS Support (Typ.)

Page 74 of 200





Photo 13 – Underside of Pedestrian Bridge over Operational Span, Failing Protective

Coating and Moderate Corrosion of Longitudinal HSS (Typ.)

Photo 14 – Joint Between Operational and East Span, Loss of Protective Coating and

Light to Moderate Corrosion (Typ.)

Page 75 of 200





Photo 15 – East Pier, East Face

Photo 16 – East Abutment and Upstream Retaining Wall

Page 76 of 200





Photo 17 – East Concrete Apron, Severe Spalling and Undermining (Typ.)

Photo 18 – East Overflow Weir, Downstream Face

Page 77 of 200





Photo 19 – Downstream East Retaining Wall, Severe Spalling, Disintegration, and

Delamination with Wide Cracks (Typ.)

Photo 20 – East Concrete Apron, Medium Scaling (Typ.)

Page 78 of 200





Photo 21 – Pedestrian Truss Bridge over Operational Span, Looking East, Loss of

Protective Coating on HSS (Typ.)

Photo 22 – Winch Anchorage on Truss HSS, Moderate Corrosion (Typ.)

Page 79 of 200





Photo 23 – Vertical HSS at Operational Span, Wide Cracks in Steel (1)


Page 80 of 200






Page 81 of 200

Appendix B

Limited Condition Survey Report

Page 82 of 200

LIMITED CONDITION SURVEY REPORT Pefferlaw Dam Conservation Area

Prepared for: D.M. WillS Associates Limited

BCC Project No.: BCC20030 Report Date: June 12, 2020

Your Bridge & Concrete Inspection Specialists

Bridge Check Canada Ltd. 200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4, Vaughan, ON L4K 3N8 T 905‐660‐6608 F 905‐660‐6608 www.bridgecheckcanada.com

Page 83 of 200

200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4, Vaughan, ON L4K 3N8 Tel: 905‐660‐6608 Fax: 905‐660‐6609 www.bridgecheckcanada.com [email protected]

BRIDGE CHECK CANADA Ltd. Your Bridge and Concrete Inspection Specialists

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Structure Identification Sheet ...................................................................................................................... 1 Key Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Summary of Significant Findings .................................................................................................................. 5

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Dam Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 East Abutment and Retaining Wall ................................................................................................. 8 3.2 West Abutment and Retaining Wall ............................................................................................... 8 3.3 East Weir and Apron ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.4 West Weir and Apron ................................................................................................................... 10 3.5 East Pier......................................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 West Pier ....................................................................................................................................... 10

APPENDICES

Appendix A Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets Exposed Concrete Components

Appendix B Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures Appendix C Core Photographs and Sketches Appendix D Core Logs Appendix E Site Photographs Appendix F Laboratory Test Results Appendix G ACAD Drawings

No. 1a Surface Deterioration of Abutments, East Weir and Apron Slab No. 1b Surface Deterioration of Pier, West Weir and Apron Slab No. 2a Concrete Cover of Abutments, East Weir and Apron Slab No. 2b Concrete Cover of Piers, West Weir and Apron Slab

Page 84 of 200


BRIDGE CHECK CANADA Ltd.Your Bridge and Concrete Inspection Specialists

Structure Identification Sheet

1Page 85 of 200

GENERAL INFORMATION

STRUCTURE NAME Pefferlaw Dam

SITE NUMBER Pefferlaw Dam DISTRICT NUMBER N/A

HIGHWAY above N/A Below

TYPE OF STRUCTURE Reinforced cast‐in‐place concrete dam

NUMBER OF SPANS N/A SPAN LENGTHS

ROADWAY WIDTH YEAR BUILT

DIRECTION OF STRUCTURE East to West

SEQUENCE NUMBER N/A TOWNSHIP NUMBER N/A

LHRS NUMBER N/A MUNICIPAL BRIDGE NUMBER N/A

LOCATION JURISDICTION

Conservation

Authority

INSPECTOR’S NAME Mohammad Abdollahi P.Eng.,

PARTY MEMBERS A.Rashid P.Eng., A.Shantaf, P.Pandyan, J.Murray

DATE OF INSPECTION 22‐May‐20

TEMPERATURE 18oC WEATHER sunny

MTO REGION AADT

DECK RIDING SURFACE Exposed concrete

YEAR LAST REHABILITATED N/A

N/A

ENGINEER'S STAMP

STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION SHEET

N/A

N/A

Central

1981

Pefferlaw Dam Conservation

Area

2Page 86 of 200



Key Plan

3Page 87 of 200



KEY PLAN

Pefferlaw Dam, Georgina, ON

Site: Pefferlaw Dam Co‐ordinates: 44.313930, ‐79.197374

4Page 88 of 200



Summary of Significant Findings

5Page 89 of 200



SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

Pefferlaw Dam, Pefferlaw Brook Watershed, Pefferlaw, ON

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bridge Check Canada Ltd. was retained by D.M. Wills Associates to carry out a limited dam condition

survey for Pefferlaw Dam under Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s request. This report

presents Bridge Check Canada Ltd.’s findings, through the field investigations and laboratory testing, for

Pefferlaw Dam located on Pefferlaw Dam Conservation Area (44°18'50.0"N 79°11'50.8"W). First‐time field

investigations were carried out on May 22, 2020. The investigation included delamination survey and

concrete cover survey for all concrete components that are in the DRY (2 piers, 2 abutments, 2 overflow

weirs with apron slabs, and the west retaining wall), extraction of twelve (12) x 3‐4” diameter concrete

cores and Laboratory testing. Core locations were determined by D.M. Wills engineer on site.

A micro drone was used to take aerial photos of the structure (Photos P1 and P2). Bridge Check Canada

Ltd.’s staff have received proper training to operate the drone.

The site, constructed circa 1981. The reinforced cast‐in‐place concrete dam consists of 2 piers, 2

abutments, 2 overflow weirs with apron slabs, steel access bridge, concrete west retaining wall and gabion

walls on the northeast and northwest sides.

Photo P1 in Appendix E shows a view of the north elevation of the site. Photo P2 in Appendix E shows a

view of the south elevation.

North Elevation of Pefferlaw Dam, Pefferlaw Brook Watershed

A dam safety assessment was done in 2006 by Totten Sims Hubicki, which the drawings are available.

6Page 90 of 200



2.0 METHODOLOGY

In general, the procedures followed to conduct the condition survey and delamination survey were those

defined in Part 1 of the MTO Structure Rehabilitation Manual (2007). This assignment involved the

observation and recording of surface defects, delamination detection, grid layouts (1.0 m x 1.0 m),

concrete cores, concrete cover meter survey, and physical testing of the concrete cores.

The delaminations in the concrete were detected by striking the surface with a heavy hammer and

noting the change in sound being emitted. It should be mentioned that, while this method is quite

reliable, it may not detect delaminations at a depth greater than 100 mm. The hammer sounding

method was used for all accessible vertical and overhead surfaces. If the striking object is highly

resonant, the difference between sound and delaminated concrete may be difficult to distinguish.

Therefore, additional care was taken when interpreting the sound produced. The chain drag method has

been found to be the most suitable for detecting delaminations on the exposed horizontal concrete

surfaces. The chain is moved from side‐to‐side in a swinging motion along the surface of the concrete. A

change in the normal ringing sound to that of a dull sound would normally indicate that a delaminated

area had been encountered. A heavy chain (2.2 kg/m with 50 mm links) has proved to be most suitable,

especially, in areas where there is interference from traffic noise.

The areas and locations of patches, spalls, delaminations, exposed reinforcement, honey‐combing, wet

areas, scaling and other observed defects were recorded.

The concrete cover over the outer layer of reinforcing steel was measured using an approved MTO cover‐

meter (Elcometer Protovale 331). The covermeter measures the disturbance in a magnetic field and the

magnitude of the disturbance is proportional to the size of the bar and its distance from the probe. The

cover to the top bar in the top mat was measured nearest the grid point or by taking an average of the

bars on either side of the grid point. The value recorded was the cover to the uppermost bar nearest to

the intersection of the grid lines. A cover meter survey was carried out for the accessible exposed concrete

components.

Twelve (12) cores {3 west abutment and retaining wall, 2 east abutment and retaining wall, 2 west apron

slab and weir plan, 3 east apron slab and weir, 1 each east and west pier}, in compliance with the

requirements of D.M. Wills engineer on site. The inside of the core holes was examined carefully for cracks

and the condition of the concrete. All the test samples were reinstated to their original condition using

MTO‐approved products.

Enclosed with this report are detailed condition survey summary sheets, survey equipment and calibration

procedures, core photos/sketches, core logs, site photos, laboratory test results and drawings.

7Page 91 of 200



3.0 DAM STRUCTURE

The abutments, retaining walls, weirs and piers were inspected and hammer sounded, where accessible,

to check for delaminations. Field measurements are presented in the field summary sheets.

3.1 East Abutment and Retaining wall

The exposed surfaces of the east abutment and retaining wall were inspected and sounded to check for

delaminations. The total surveyed area of the east abutment and retaining wall was 15.10 m2. The

deterioration is shown on Drawing 1a in Appendix G. General views of the east abutment and retaining

wall are shown in Photos P5 to P7 in Appendix E. The east abutment and retaining wall are in poor

condition. The field investigation of the east abutment and retaining wall revealed clean and stained

medium width cracks (5.0 m), delaminations (6.00 m2), spalls (1.50 m2), light scaling (0.20 m²), and severe

scaling (3.71 m²).

Cores C10 and C12 were extracted from the east abutment and retaining wall at locations shown on

EDrawing 1a in Appendix G. Photo P52 in Appendix E shows the inside of the Corehole C12. Review of the

concrete cores revealed a delamination plane in core C10. Full depth core C10 confirms 190 mm concrete

thickness over rock material. The compressive strength of Cores C10 and C12 was 26.6 MPa and 34.4 MPa,

respectively. Reinforcing steel, encountered in Core C12 was in good condition with no evidence of surface

corrosion. The concrete cover for the east abutment and retaining wall ranged from 69 mm to 125 mm

with an average cover of 103 mm. Drawing 2a in Appendix G shows the concrete cover data for the east

abutment and retaining wall.

3.2 West Abutment and Retaining wall

The exposed surfaces of the west abutment and retaining wall were inspected and sounded to check for

delaminations. The total surveyed area of the west abutment and retaining wall was 39.20 m2. The

deterioration is shown on Drawing 1a in Appendix G. General views of the west abutment and retaining

wall are shown in Photos P8 to P15 in Appendix E. The west abutment and retaining wall are in fair to poor

condition. The field investigation of the west abutment and retaining wall revealed clean and stained

medium width cracks (14.0 m), clean wide width cracks (2.0 m), delaminations (1.50 m2), spalls (2.90 m2),

light scaling (18.70 m²), medium scaling (1.40 m²) and severe scaling (1.20 m²).

Cores C1, C2 and C6 were extracted from the west abutment and retaining wall at locations shown on

Drawing 1a in Appendix G. Photo P46 in Appendix E shows the inside of the Corehole C1. Review of the

concrete cores revealed a delamination plane in cores C1 and C2. Full depth core C1 confirms 225 mm

concrete thickness over rock material. The compressive strength of Core C1 was 21.7 MPa. The concrete

cover for the west abutment and retaining wall ranged from 70 mm to 125 mm with an average cover of

114 mm. Drawing 2a in Appendix G shows the concrete cover data for the west abutment and retaining

wall.

Core C6 was tested to determine the air void system of the hardened concrete in accordance with ASTM

C457 using the Modified Point Count Method. Test results are summarized below:

8Page 92 of 200



Core No. Air Content

(%)

Specific Surface

(mm‐1)

Spacing Factor

(mm)

C6 2.7 93.70 0.073

Concrete is normally considered to be properly air entrained if the air content exceeds 3.0%, the specific

surface exceeds 24 mm‐1, and the average spacing factor is less than 0.200 mm. Therefore, the air void

system for this core is considered non air‐entrained.

3.3 East Weir and Apron

The exposed surfaces of the east weir and apron were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations.

The total surveyed area of the east weir was 32.26 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1a in

Appendix G. General views of the east weir and apron are shown in Photos P16 to P22 in Appendix E. The

east weir is in fair condition. The field investigation of the east weir revealed stained medium width cracks

(6.0 m), spalls (1.20 m2), light scaling (8.45 m²), and honeycombing (1.00 m²).

The total surveyed area of the east apron was 37.94 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1a in

Appendix G. The east apron is in poor condition. The field investigation of the east apron revealed clean

and stained medium width cracks (9.0 m), delaminations (1.30 m²), spalls (10.20 m2), light scaling (32.00

m²), and medium scaling (3.30 m²).

Cores C8, C9 and C11 were extracted from the east weir and apron at locations shown on Drawing 1a in

Appendix G. Photos P50 and P51 in Appendix E show the inside of the Coreholes C8 and C9, respectively.

Review of the concrete cores did not reveal any deteriorations. The compressive strength of Cores C8 and

C11 was 35.9 MPa and 57.1 MPa, respectively. A review of the reinforcing steel revealed light rusting in

Core C9. The concrete cover for the east weir ranged from 107 mm to 122 mm with an average cover of

114 mm. The concrete cover for the east apron ranged from 117 mm to 128 mm with an average cover

of 124 mm. Drawing 2a in Appendix G shows the concrete cover data for the east weir and apron.

Core C9 was tested to determine the air void system of the hardened concrete in accordance with ASTM

C457 using the Modified Point Count Method. Test results are summarized below:

Core No. Air Content

(%)

Specific Surface

(mm‐1)

Spacing Factor

(mm)

C9 6.3 50.40 0.080

Concrete is normally considered to be properly air entrained if the air content exceeds 3.0%, the specific

surface exceeds 24 mm‐1, and the average spacing factor is less than 0.200 mm. Therefore, the air void

system for this core is considered air‐entrained.

9Page 93 of 200



3.4 West Weir and Apron

The exposed surfaces of the west weir and apron were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations.

The total surveyed area of the west weir was 60.10 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1b in

Appendix G. General views of the west weir and apron are shown in Photos P23 to P32 in Appendix E. The

west weir is in fair to poor condition. The field investigation of the west weir revealed clean and stained

medium width cracks (5.0 m), clean wide width cracks (24.0 m), delaminations (3.20 m²), spalls (1.90 m2),

and light scaling (10.20 m²).

The total surveyed area of the west apron was 55.42 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1b in

Appendix G. The west apron is in poor condition. The field investigation of the west apron revealed

delaminations (10.10 m²), spalls (7.50 m2), patches (0.10 m²), and medium scaling (35.56 m²).

Cores C3 and C4 were extracted from the west weir and apron at locations shown on Drawing 1b in

Appendix G. Photo P47 in Appendix E shows the inside of the Corehole C3. Review of the concrete cores

revealed scaling on top of core C4. The compressive strength of Core C3 was 44.1 MPa. The concrete cover

for the west weir ranged from 85 mm to 124 mm with an average cover of 112 mm. The concrete cover

for the west apron ranged from 109 mm to 125 mm with an average cover of 121 mm. Drawing 2b in

Appendix G shows the concrete cover data for the west weir and apron.

3.5 East Pier

The exposed surfaces of the east pier were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations. The total

surveyed area of the east pier was 28.00 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1b in Appendix G.

General views of the east pier are shown in Photos P33 to P39 in Appendix E. The east pier is in fair

condition. The field investigation of the east pier revealed clean and stained medium width cracks (19.0

m), pattern cracks (0.91 m²), light scaling (7.50 m²), and medium scaling (0.30 m²).

Core C7 was extracted from the east pier at location shown on Drawing 1b in Appendix G. Photo P49 in

Appendix E shows the inside of the Corehole C7. Review of the concrete cores did not reveal any defects.

The compressive strength of Core C7 was 41.5 MPa. The concrete cover for the east pier ranged from 55

mm to 121 mm with an average cover of 84 mm. Drawing 2b in Appendix G shows the concrete cover

data for the east pier.

3.6 West Pier

The exposed surfaces of the west pier were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations. The total

surveyed area of the west pier was 28.70 m2. The deterioration is shown on Drawing 1b in Appendix G.

General views of the west pier are shown in Photos P40 to P45 in Appendix E. The west pier is in fair to

good condition. The field investigation of the west pier revealed clean and stained medium width cracks

(22.0 m), and light scaling (10.50 m²).

Core C5 was extracted from the west pier at location shown on Drawing 1b in Appendix G. Photo P48 in

Appendix E shows the inside of the Corehole C5. Review of the concrete cores did not reveal any defects.

The compressive strength of Core C5 was 24.5 MPa. The concrete cover for the west pier ranged from 50

10Page 94 of 200



mm to 125 mm with an average cover of 78 mm. Drawing 2b in Appendix G shows the concrete cover

data for the west pier.

11Page 95 of 200



Appendix A:

Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets

Exposed Concrete Components

Page 96 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam

Component Type & Location: East Abutment & Retaining Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth ‐ Length ‐ Height ‐

Diameter ‐ Total Area Surveyed 15.10 m²

2. Cracks (medium and wide)Transverse Longitudinal Other Total

Clean 0.0 0.0 2.0

Stained 1.0 1.0 1.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

3. Alkali Aggregate ReactionArea of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction 0.0 m²

Minimum Maximum Average

69 125 103 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 15.1 m2

0.0 100.0 %

Wide Width

40 – 60 mm

4. Concrete Cover

over 60 mm20 – 40 mm

Medium Width 5.0

0.0

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET Page 1 of 4

EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS (Exposed Deck, Deck Soffit, Curbs, Medians, Sidewalks, Barrier/Parapet Walls,

etc.): Use separate form for each component

Type

m

m

0 – 20 mm

Remarks

Dimensions were taken

from the

structural drawings & site

measurements

Remarks

Page 97 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: East Abutment & Retaining Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %

6. Delaminations and Spalls

Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches*Wet areas = 0.00 m²

Area (m2) 6.00 1.50 0.00

7.50 m² 49.7 % N/A N/A

Light MediumSevere to Very

Severe

0.20 0.00 3.71 m2

1.3 0.0 24.6 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

5. Corrosion Activity


EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS

7. Scaling

Total Delaminations and SpallsTotal Delaminations and Spalls in

Areas ≤‐0.35 V

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not Applicable.

Page 98 of 200


9. Adjusted Chloride Content Profile

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

10. Chloride Content at Rebar LevelCore No. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar.

Corrosion Activity at Core Location

(volts)

Chloride

Content*

* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background

chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.

* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides.

Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2

Calculated AC

Resistance *Connection #1

Connection #2

11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar

Remarks

Remarks

Table # 9 and 10 are Not

Applicable.



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Page 99 of 200


12. IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

13. Concrete Air Entrainment

Concrete Air Entrained: not tested

14. Compressive Strength

Average Compressive Strength: 30.5 MPa



Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Connection #1 (positive)

Connection #2 (negative)

Remarks

* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection.

IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2True Half Cell

Potential *

Page 100 of 200


Component Type & Location: West Abutment & Retaining Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments




Clean 1.0 1.0 3.0

Stained 4.0 1.0 4.0

Clean 1.0 0.0 1.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



70 125 114 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 39.2 m2

0.0 100.0 %

40 – 60 mm

Type

2.0

4. Concrete Cover

Medium Width

Remarks


from the


measurements

Remarks

m14.0




0 – 20 mm

20 – 40 mm

mWide Width

over 60 mm

Page 101 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: West Abutment & Retaining Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 1.50 2.90 0.00

4.40 m² 11.2 % N/A N/A


Severe

18.70 1.40 1.20 m2

47.7 3.6 3.1 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Total Delaminations and Spalls in

Areas ≤‐0.35 V

Remarks



7. Scaling

Total Delaminations and Spalls

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks


Page 102 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

Remarks






Applicable.


Connection #2

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Chloride

Content*


(volts)


Remarks



Calculated AC


Page 103 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

13. Concrete Air EntrainmentYes No Marginal

Concrete Air Entrained:

C6 X



Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.



Connection #2 (negative)True Half Cell

Potential *



Remarks

IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2

Page 104 of 200


Component Type & Location: East Weir OSIM Identifier: Piers




Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 6.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



107 122 114 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 32.3 m2

0.0 100.0 %

Wide Width

40 – 60 mm

4. Concrete Cover


Medium Width 6.0

0.0




Type

m

m

0 – 20 mm

Remarks


from the


measurements

Remarks

Page 105 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: East Weir OSIM Identifier: Piers


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 0.00 1.20 0.00

1.2 m² 3.7 % N/A N/A


Severe

8.45 0.00 0.00 m2

26.2 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 1.00 m²




7. Scaling


Areas ≤‐0.35 V

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Page 106 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐



(volts)

Chloride

Content*





Calculated AC


Connection #2


Remarks

Remarks


Applicable.



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Page 107 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

13. Concrete Air EntrainmentYes No Marginal

Concrete Air Entrained:

C9 X





Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.



Remarks



Potential *

Page 108 of 200


Component Type & Location: East Apron Slab OSIM Identifier: Decks



2. Cracks (medium and wide)Vertical Horizontal Diagonal Total

Clean 0.0 1.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 6.0 2.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



117 128 124 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 37.9 m2

0.0 100.0 %




Type

Medium Width 9.0m

Wide Width 0.0m

Remarks


from the


measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Page 109 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: East Apron Slab OSIM Identifier: Decks


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 1.30 10.20 0.00

11.50 m² 30.3 % N/A N/A


Severe

32.00 3.30 0.00 m2

84.3 8.7 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Areas ≤‐0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Page 110 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

Calculated AC


Connection #2




(volts)

Chloride

Content*




11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated RebarMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2


Remarks


Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Page 111 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐







Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks





Potential *

Page 112 of 200


Component Type & Location: West Weir OSIM Identifier: Piers




Clean 2.0 0.0 1.0

Stained 1.0 1.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 24.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



85 124 112 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 60.1 m2

0.0 100.0 %

40 – 60 mm

Type

24.0

4. Concrete Cover

Medium Width

Remarks


from the


measurements

Remarks

m5.0




0 – 20 mm

20 – 40 mm

mWide Width

over 60 mm

Page 113 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: West Weir OSIM Identifier: Piers


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 3.20 1.90 0.00

5.10 m² 8.5 % N/A N/A


Severe

10.20 0.00 0.00 m2

17.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks

Total Delaminations and Spalls in

Areas ≤‐0.35 V

Remarks



7. Scaling

Total Delaminations and Spalls


Remarks


Page 114 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐

Remarks






Applicable.


Connection #2

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Chloride

Content*


(volts)


Remarks



Calculated AC


Page 115 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐





Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.



Connection #2 (negative)True Half Cell

Potential *

Remarks




Page 116 of 200


Component Type & Location: West Apron Slab OSIM Identifier: Decks




Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



109 125 121 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 55.4 m2

0.0 100.0 %




Type

Medium Width 0.0m

Wide Width 0.0m

Remarks


from the


measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Page 117 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: West Apron Slab OSIM Identifier: Decks


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 10.10 7.50 0.10

17.60 m² 31.8 % N/A N/A


Severe

0.00 35.56 0.00 m2

0.0 64.2 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Areas ≤‐0.35 V

7. Scaling


Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Page 118 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐




(volts)

Chloride

Content*




11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated RebarMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2

Calculated AC


Connection #2


Remarks


Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Page 119 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐




Average Compressive Strength: not tested





Potential *Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Page 120 of 200


Component Type & Location: East Pier OSIM Identifier: Piers




Clean 2.0 0.0 7.0

Stained 3.0 3.0 4.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pattern cracks= 0.91m²



55 121 84 mm

0.0 4.0 m2

0.0 14.3 %

0.0 24.0 m2

0.0 85.7 %

Wide Width

40 – 60 mm

4. Concrete Cover


Medium Width 19.0

0.0




Type

m

m

0 – 20 mm

Remarks


from the


measurements

Remarks

Page 121 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: East Pier OSIM Identifier: Piers


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Severe

7.50 0.30 0.00 m2

26.8 1.1 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²




7. Scaling


Areas ≤‐0.35 V

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks


Page 122 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐



(volts)

Chloride

Content*





Calculated AC


Connection #2


Remarks

Remarks


Applicable.



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Page 123 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐







Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.



Remarks



Potential *

Page 124 of 200


Component Type & Location: West Pier OSIM Identifier: Piers




Clean 1.0 0.0 5.0

Stained 3.0 2.0 11.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



50 125 78 mm

0.0 9.6 m2

0.0 33.3 %

0.0 19.1 m2

0.0 66.7 %

Medium Width

4. Concrete Cover

20 – 40 mm

22.0m

0.0

40 – 60 mm

over 60 mm

Remarks

m




Remarks


from the


measurements

0 – 20 mm

Type

Wide Width

Page 125 of 200

Site No: Pefferlaw Dam Component Type & Location: West Pier OSIM Identifier: Piers


‐ ‐ ‐ V

0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.30 ‐0.30 to ‐0.35 ‐0.35 to ‐0.45 < ‐0.45 V

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ m2

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Severe

10.50 0.00 0.00 m2

36.6 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

7. Scaling


Areas ≤‐0.35 V

5. Corrosion Activity Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.



Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Page 126 of 200



0 to ‐0.20 ‐0.20 to ‐0.35 ≤ ‐0.35

0‐10 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

20‐30 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

40‐50 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

60‐70 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

80‐90 mm ‐ ‐ ‐

100‐110 mm ‐ ‐ ‐


Chloride

Content* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐



Calculated AC



Connection #2

Remarks


Applicable.

Chloride

Content*




Remarks



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.


(volts)

Page 127 of 200



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G2 ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G3 ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐ ‐

G4 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐ ‐

G5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A ‐










True Half Cell

Potential *

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks


Page 128 of 200



Appendix B:

Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures

Page 129 of 200



SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Component Type: Exposed Concrete Dam Site Number: Pefferlaw Dam

1. Delaminations:

Weight of Chain: 2.2 kg/m

Other Equipment: Hammer

2. Concrete Cover:

Covermeter Make and Model: ELCOMETER Protovale 331

Battery Check: Reading at Start of Test: OK

Reading at End of Test: OK

Concrete Cover Check: Location of Check: @ ‘W Abut.’

Actual Depth and Rebar Diameter: ‐

Reading Before Test: 70 mm

Readings Each 30 minutes During Test: 70 mm

Reading at End of Test: 70 mm

3. Corrosion Activity:

Half Cell Make and Model: MC MILLER Electrode RE‐3a (3” ø)

Multimeter Make and Model: Mastercraft Digital Multimeter 3R93

Length and Gauge of Lead Wires: 150 m of 18 gauge

Deck Temperature: Start of Test: 18 oC End of Test: 18 oC

Ambient Temperature: Start of Test: 18 oC End of Test: 18 oC

Battery Check: O.K.

Ground Check: Method of Connection: self‐tapping screw

Ground Location: ‐ Check Location: ‐

Lead Resistance: 1.8 ‐ 1.9 Voltage Drop (mV’s): 0.1

Resistance c: 1.8 ‐ 1.9 Resistance Reversed: 1.8 ‐ 1.9

Grid Point Potential Readings Check – See Table Below

Location Initial Reading Check Reading a Check Reading – Latex Concrete Overlay b

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ a Check at least five readings at beginning of test and each change in ground. b On decks with latex modified concrete overlay, check at least five locations by drilling holes through the

latex concrete overlay into the original concrete substrate. c Resistance is the net resistance after deducting the lead resistance.

Page 130 of 200



Appendix C:

Core Photographs and Sketches

Page 131 of 200



Core C1

Page 132 of 200



Core C2

Page 133 of 200



Core C3

Page 134 of 200



Core C4

Page 135 of 200



Core C5

Page 136 of 200



Core C6

Page 137 of 200



Core C7

Page 138 of 200



Core C8

Page 139 of 200



Core C9

Page 140 of 200



Core C10

Page 141 of 200



Core C11

Page 142 of 200



Core C12

Page 143 of 200



Appendix D:

Core Logs

Page 144 of 200

Page 1 of 4 Site: Pefferlaw Dam

Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected

0‐10 mm

20‐30 mm

40‐50 mm

60‐70 mm

80‐90 mm

AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY

1. Defects ‐ C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling

2. Condition Rebar ‐ G = Good, LR = Light Rust, SR = Severe Rust, N/A = No rebar exposed

Condition of Epoxy Coating – ECG = Good, ECF = Fair, ECP = Poor‐rusted & debonded areas

Chloride

Content %

Chloride by

Weight of

Concrete

Air Content,%

Spec. Surf.,mm2/mm3

Spacing Factor, mm

BCC BCC

REMARKS

‐ orientation of rebars and cover

‐ presence of overlay, patch and thickness

‐ other observed defects

Delamination Plane @

190mm.

Delamination Plane

@ 15‐25mm.

Delamination Plane

@ 90‐115mm.

Core damage upon

removal.

Corrosion Potential

Compressive Strength, MPa 21.7 44.1

Defects in Concrete (1) D D ‐

Condition of Rebar (2) N/A N/A N/A

Full Depth (yes/no) Yes No No

Length, mm 225.0 150.0 240.0

Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0

CORE LOG FOR EXPOSED CONCRETE

Core No. C1 C2 C3

Location (between gridlines)

West Abutment and

Retaining Wall

West Abutment and

Retaining Wall West Weir Plan

Page 145 of 200



0‐10 mm

20‐30 mm

40‐50 mm

60‐70 mm

80‐90 mm

AIR VOIDS 2.7

93.7

0.073

TEST LABORATORY




BCC BCC

REMARKS




Note scaling at the

top.

Compressive Strength, MPa 24.5

Chloride

Content %

Chloride by

Weight of

Concrete

Air Content,%

Spec. Surf.,mm2/mm3

Spacing Factor, mm

Condition of Rebar (2) N/A N/A N/A

Corrosion Potential

Defects in Concrete (1) ‐ ‐ ‐

Length, mm 80.0 195.0 235.0

Full Depth (yes/no) No No No

Location (between gridlines)West Apron Slab Plan

West Pier ‐ North

Face

West Abutment and

Retaining Wall

Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0


Core No. C4 C5 C6

Page 146 of 200



0‐10 mm

20‐30 mm

40‐50 mm

60‐70 mm

80‐90 mm

AIR VOIDS 6.3

50.4

0.080

TEST LABORATORY




BCC BCC BCC

REMARKS




Core damage upon

removal.

Rebar imprint @

105mm (Horizontal‐

LR).

Compressive Strength, MPa 41.5 35.9

Chloride

Content %

Chloride by

Weight of

Concrete

Air Content,%

Spec. Surf.,mm2/mm3

Spacing Factor, mm

Condition of Rebar (2) N/A N/A LR

Corrosion Potential

Defects in Concrete (1) ‐ ‐ ‐

Length, mm 210.0 180.0 110.0

Full Depth (yes/no) No No No

Location (between gridlines)East Pier ‐ East Face East Weir Plan

East Wier ‐ North

Elevation

Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0


Core No. C7 C8 C9

Page 147 of 200



0‐10 mm

20‐30 mm

40‐50 mm

60‐70 mm

80‐90 mm

AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY




BCC BCC BCC

REMARKS




Delamination plane @

175‐180mm.

Rebar imprint @

110mm (Horizontal).

Compressive Strength, MPa 26.6 57.1 34.4

Chloride

Content %

Chloride by

Weight of

Concrete

Air Content,%

Spec. Surf.,mm2/mm3

Spacing Factor, mm

Condition of Rebar (2) N/A N/A G

Corrosion Potential

Defects in Concrete (1) D ‐ ‐

Length, mm 190.0 155.0 110.0

Full Depth (yes/no) Yes No No

Location (between gridlines)

East Abutment and

Retaining Wall East Apron Plan

East Abutment and

Retaining Wall

Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0


Core No. C10 C11 C12

Page 148 of 200



Appendix E:

Site Photographs

Page 149 of 200



North Elevation

South Elevation

Page 150 of 200



Aerial Overview of Pefferlaw Dam

Dam – Access Bridge, looking east

Page 151 of 200



East Abutment and Retaining Wall (fair to poor condition – cracks, spall, delamination and light to severe scaling)

East Abutment and Retaining Wall (cracks, spall, delamination and light to severe scaling)

Page 152 of 200



East Abutment and Retaining Wall (cracks, delamination and severe scaling)

West Abutment and Retaining Wall (fair condition – cracks, spall, delamination, light to medium scaling and staining) note undermining, and alkali aggregate reaction on the

surface

Page 153 of 200



West Abutment and Retaining Wall (cracks, spall and light to medium scaling)

West Abutment and Retaining Wall (light scaling) note undermining

Page 154 of 200



West Abutment and Retaining Wall (severe scaling) note undermining

West Abutment and Retaining Wall (cracks, spall, light to severe scaling and staining) note undermining

Page 155 of 200



West Abutment and Retaining Wall (wide crack, spall and delamination)

West Abutment and Retaining Wall (cracks, spall and delamination)

Page 156 of 200



West Abutment and Retaining Wall – Top Face (spall and light scaling)

East Weir and Apron Slab, North Elevation (fair to poor condition – cracks, spall, delamination, honeycombing and light to medium scaling)

Page 157 of 200



East Weir and Apron Slab, North Elevation (spall, delamination and medium

scaling)

East Weir, North Elevation (cracks, spall and honeycombing)

Page 158 of 200



East Weir, North Elevation (light to medium scaling)

East Apron Slab Plan (cracks, spall and light scaling and staining)

Page 159 of 200



East Apron Slab Plan (cracks, spall and light scaling and staining)

East Weir – South Elevation (good condition – light scaling)

Page 160 of 200



West Weir and Apron Slab Plan (poor condition – wide cracks, spall, delamination

and light to medium scaling)

West Apron Slab Plan (spall and medium scaling)

Page 161 of 200



West Apron Slab Plan (spall, delamination and medium scaling)

West Weir Plan (wide cracks, spall and delamination)

Page 162 of 200



West Weir and Apron Slab – North Elevation (fair to poor condition – spall and medium scaling)

West Weir and Apron Slab – North Elevation (spall, delamination and medium scaling) note, undermining

Page 163 of 200



West Weir and Apron Slab – North Elevation (spall, delamination and medium

scaling) note, undermining

West Weir and Apron Slab – North Elevation (spall and medium scaling)

Page 164 of 200



West Weir – South Elevation (good condition – spall and light scaling)

West Weir – South Elevation (spall and light scaling)

Page 165 of 200



East Pier – Top Face (good condition – cracks and light scaling)

East Pier – Top Face (cracks)

Page 166 of 200



East Pier – Top Face (cracks and staining)

East Pier – West Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

Page 167 of 200



East Pier – East Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

East Pier – South Face (fair to good condition ‐ cracks, light scaling and wet stain )

Page 168 of 200



East Pier – North Face (fair condition ‐ cracks, medium scaling and wet stain)

West Pier – Top Face (good condition ‐ cracks and light scaling)

Page 169 of 200



West Pier – Top Face (light scaling)

West Pier – East Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

Page 170 of 200



West Pier – West Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

West Pier – South Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

Page 171 of 200



West Pier – North Face (fair to good condition – cracks, light scaling and wet stain)

Typical Condition of Inside Core – C1 (delamination)

Page 172 of 200



Typical Condition of Inside Core – C3


Page 173 of 200





Page 174 of 200





Page 175 of 200



Upstream, looking north

Downstream, looking south

Page 176 of 200



Appendix F:

Laboratory Test Results

Page 177 of 200



AIR VOID TEST RESULTS (Modified Point Count – ASTM C457, Procedure B)

Project No.: BCC20030

Site No.:

Location: PEFFERLAW DAM, DETAILED CONCRETE CONDITION SURVEY

Core ID C6 C9

Lab No. T20-1013 T20-1016

Air Content (%) 2.7 6.3

Specific Surface (mm-1) 93.7 50.4

Spacing Factor (mm) 0.073 0.080

Length of Traverse (mm) 3819.2 3819.2

Dimensions of Tested Sample 125mm x 90mm 125mm x 90mm

Area Traversed (mm2) 11075.68 11075.68

Average Chord Length 0.043 0.079

Number of Stops 1364 1364

No. of Voids per mm 0.635 0.795

Paste-Air Ratio 11.811 4.047

Paste Content (%) 32.0 25.5

Aggregate Content (%) 65.3 68.2

Tested By: Brad Wiersma

Date Tested: June 4, 2020

____________________________________________

Savio DeSouza, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Principal Engineer

Page 178 of 200

200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4, Vaughan, ON L4K 3N8 Tel: 905-660-6608 Fax: 905-660-6609 www.bridgecheckcanada.com [email protected]


COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE CORES (CSA A23.2-14C)


Site No.: -----------------------------------------------


Core ID C1 C3 C5

Location West Abutment and Retaining Wall West Weir Plan West Pier - North

Face

Lab No. T20-1010 T20-1011 T20-1012

Date Cast ------------- ------------- -------------

Date Cored May 22, 2020 May 22, 2020 May 22, 2020

Date Tested May 29, 2020 May 29, 2020 May 29, 2020

Capped Height (mm) 157.0 200.0 176.0

Average Diameter (mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0

Density (kg/m3) 2313 2307 2352

Corrected Compressive Strength (MPa) 21.7 44.1 24.5

* Direction of Loading Perpendicular Perpendicular Same

Moisture Contact at Time of Test Moist Moist Moist

Remarks

*Relative to the direction of original placement.

Page 179 of 200





Site No.: -----------------------------------------------


Core ID C7 C8 C10

Location East Pier - East Face East Weir Plan East Abutment and

Retaining Wall

Lab No. T20-1014 T20-1015 T20-1017

Date Cast ------------ ------------- -------------

Date Cored May 22, 2020 May 22, 2020 May 22, 2020

Date Tested May 29, 2020 May 29, 2020 May 29, 2020

Capped Height (mm) 196.0 100.0 159.0

Average Diameter (mm) 100.0 100.0 100.0

Density (kg/m3) 2369 2271 2251

Corrected Compressive Strength (MPa) 41.5 35.9 26.6

* Direction of Loading Same Perpendicular Perpendicular

Moisture Contact at Time of Test Moist Moist Moist

Remarks

Page 180 of 200





Site No.: -----------------------------------------------


Core ID C11 C12

Location East Apron Plan East Abutment and Retaining Wall

Lab No. T20-1018 T20-1019

Date Cast -------------- --------------------

Date Cored May 22, 2020 May 22, 2020

Date Tested May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

Capped Height (mm) 140.0 103.0

Average Diameter (mm) 100.0 100.0

Density (kg/m3) 2393 2281

Corrected Compressive Strength (MPa) 57.1 34.4

* Direction of Loading Same Perpendicular

Moisture Contact at Time of Test Moist Moist

Remarks

_________________

Savio DeSouza, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Principal Engineer

Page 181 of 200

Appendix G:

ACAD Drawings



Page 182 of 200

http://www.bridgecheckcanada.com/


BCC20030BCC20030

Vaughan, ON L4K 3N8Vaughan, ON L4K 3N81:1251:125

1a1a

JLJL

Checked by:Checked by:

Drawing No.:Drawing No.:

Date:Date:

Project No.:Project No.:

Scale:Scale:

Drawn by:Drawn by:

MAMA

200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4

June 2020June 2020

T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609

SpallsSpalls

Medium Concrete CracksMedium Concrete CracksMedium ScalingMedium Scaling

Light ScalingLight Scaling

Severe Scaling Severe Scaling

DelaminationsDelaminationsMedium Stained/ Medium Stained/ Efflorescence CracksEfflorescence Cracks

Patched SpallsPatched Spalls Honeycombed AreasHoneycombed Areas

Wet AreasWet Areas

Core Sample LocationCore Sample LocationC1C1

DD DrainDrain

Concrete Pattern CracksConcrete Pattern Cracks

Wide Concrete CracksWide Concrete CracksWW

LEGEND:LEGEND: PROJECT:PROJECT: TITLE:TITLE:KEY PLANKEY PLAN

Pefferlaw DamPefferlaw DamGeorgina, ONGeorgina, ON

SURFACE DETERIORATIONSURFACE DETERIORATIONOF ABUTMENTS, EAST WEIR,OF ABUTMENTS, EAST WEIR,

AND APRON SLABAND APRON SLAB

SITESITE

Pefferlaw Rd

Pefferlaw Rd

Concrete abutmentConcrete abutmentto access bridgeto access bridge

CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON

Existing accessExisting accessbridgebridge

ConcreteConcreteretaining wallretaining wall

Concrete filled steel bollardConcrete filled steel bollard(TYP. each pier)(TYP. each pier)



12.93m12.93m 1.79m1.79m 4.78m4.78m 1.79m1.79m 7.20m7.20m

4.386m4.386m

WEST WEIRWEST WEIR EAST WEIREAST WEIREAST PIEREAST PIERWEST PIERWEST PIER STOPLOG CONTROLLEDSTOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY SLUICEWAY

DAM PLANDAM PLAN

Existing apronExisting apron

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC

access bridge access bridge

EAST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL EAST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL

NorthNorth SouthSouth

EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN

EAST PIEREAST PIERWestWestEastEast

EAST WEIRAND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION EAST WEIRAND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION

EAST PIEREAST PIERWestWest EastEast

EAST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION EAST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC



WEST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL WEST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL

EAST PIEREAST PIERWEST PIERWEST PIER

WestWest EastEast

STOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY - PLAN STOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY - PLAN

C1C1

C2C2

C3C3

C4C4

C6C6

C9C9

C10C10

C12C12

Water LevelWater Level

RETAINING WALL - TOP FACE RETAINING WALL - TOP FACE

WaterWater

EAST PIEREAST PIERC8C8

C11C11

WestWestEastEast

WW

WW

C2C2

C1C1

C6C6

C5C5

C9C9

C11C11C10C10

C12C12

C8C8

C7C7

WE

IR W

EIR

SLA

BS

LAB

WE

IR W

EIR

SLA

BS

LAB

Page 183 of 200

WEST PIER - EAST FACE WEST PIER - EAST FACE

SouthSouth NorthNorth

WEST PIER - WEST FACE WEST PIER - WEST FACE



WEST PIER - SOUTH FACE WEST PIER - SOUTH FACE

WestWest EastEast

Water LevelWater Level WEST PIER - NORTH FACE WEST PIER - NORTH FACE

EastEast WestWest

WEST PIER - TOP FACE WEST PIER - TOP FACE

WestWest EastEast


WEST WEIRAND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION WEST WEIRAND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION

WEST PIERWEST PIER

EastEast

WestWest

WEST PIERWEST PIERWestWest EastEast

WEST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION WEST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION

BCC20030BCC20030


1b1b

JLJL



Date:Date:


Scale:Scale:

Drawn by:Drawn by:

MAMA


June 2020June 2020

T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609

SpallsSpalls

Medium Concrete CracksMedium Concrete CracksMedium ScalingMedium Scaling

Light ScalingLight Scaling

Severe Scaling Severe Scaling

DelaminationsDelaminationsMedium Stained/ Medium Stained/ Efflorescence CracksEfflorescence Cracks

Patched SpallsPatched Spalls Honeycombed AreasHoneycombed Areas

Wet AreasWet Areas

Core Sample LocationCore Sample LocationC1C1

DD DrainDrain

Concrete Pattern CracksConcrete Pattern Cracks

Wide Concrete CracksWide Concrete CracksWW

LEGEND:LEGEND: PROJECT:PROJECT: TITLE:TITLE:


SURFACE DETERIORATIONSURFACE DETERIORATIONOF PIERS, WEST WEIR ANDOF PIERS, WEST WEIR AND

APRON SLABAPRON SLAB

EAST PIER - EAST FACE EAST PIER - EAST FACE

EAST PIER - WEST FACE EAST PIER - WEST FACE


SouthSouthNorthNorth


EAST PIER - SOUTH FACE EAST PIER - SOUTH FACE

WestWest EastEast


EAST PIER - NORTH FACE EAST PIER - NORTH FACE

EastEast WestWest

EAST PIER - TOP FACE EAST PIER - TOP FACE

WestWest EastEast

KEY PLANKEY PLAN

SITESITE

Pefferlaw Rd

Pefferlaw Rd

C7C7

C5C5

Water LevelWater LevelWater LevelWater Level


WW WW WW

Water LevelWater Level Water LevelWater Level

WestWestEastEast

C4C4

C3C3

WW WWWWWW

WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN

WEST PIERWEST PIER

WE

IR W

EIR

SLA

BS

LAB

WE

IR W

EIR

SLA

BS

LAB

Page 184 of 200

BCC20030BCC20030


2a2a

JLJL



Date:Date:


Scale:Scale:

Drawn by:Drawn by:

MAMA


June 2020June 2020

T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609

LEGEND:LEGEND: PROJECT:PROJECT: TITLE:TITLE:KEY PLANKEY PLAN


SITESITE

Pefferlaw Rd

Pefferlaw Rd


TRUSSTRUSSLLCC

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC


EAST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL EAST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL


EAST PIEREAST PIERWestWestEastEast

EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB - NORTH ELEVATION

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC

TRUSSTRUSSLLCC



WEST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL WEST ABUTMENT AND RETAINING WALL

C1C1

C2C2

C6C6

C9C9

C10C10

C12C12


Concrete cover-mmConcrete cover-mm8080

Cover over 60mmCover over 60mmCover from 40mm to 60mmCover from 40mm to 60mm

Cover from 20mm to 39mmCover from 20mm to 39mmCover less than 20mmCover less than 20mmCore Sample LocationCore Sample LocationC1C1

DD DrainDrain

EAST PIEREAST PIERWestWest EastEast

EAST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION EAST WEIR - SOUTH ELEVATION

111111 125125

112112 9191 6969 7575

119119109109

119119

125125

123123

121121

122122

123123

119119

125125

111111

111111

105105

9797

101101

124124

122122 7070

121121 125125

EAST PIEREAST PIERWEST PIERWEST PIER

WestWest EastEast

STOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY - PLAN STOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY - PLAN

WaterWater


CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON CONCRETE APRONCONCRETE APRON


ConcreteConcreteretaining wallretaining wall

Concrete filled steel bollardConcrete filled steel bollard(TYP. each pier)(TYP. each pier)



12.93m12.93m 1.79m1.79m 4.78m4.78m 1.79m1.79m 7.20m7.20m

4.386m4.386m

WEST WEIRWEST WEIR EAST WEIREAST WEIREAST PIEREAST PIERWEST PIERWEST PIER STOPLOG CONTROLLEDSTOPLOG CONTROLLED SLUICEWAY SLUICEWAY

DAM PLANDAM PLAN

C3C3

C4C4

EAST PIEREAST PIER

C8C8

C11C11

WestWestEastEast

121121 122122 121121 115115

124124 126126 127127 128128

123123 121121 122122 125125

121121 117117 121121 125125

125125

124124

EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN EAST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN

108108 112112 119119 108108

109109 121121 110110 107107

122122 125125 121121

CONCRETE COVERCONCRETE COVEROF ABUTMENTS, EAST WEIR,OF ABUTMENTS, EAST WEIR,

AND APRON SLABAND APRON SLAB

Page 185 of 200

WEST PIER - EAST FACE WEST PIER - EAST FACE


WEST PIER - WEST FACE WEST PIER - WEST FACE



WEST PIER - SOUTH FACE WEST PIER - SOUTH FACE

WestWest EastEast

WEST PIER - NORTH FACE WEST PIER - NORTH FACE

EastEast WestWest

WEST PIER - TOP FACE WEST PIER - TOP FACE

WestWest EastEast

WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB PLAN


WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB- NORTH ELEVATION WEST WEIR AND APRON SLAB- NORTH ELEVATION

WEST PIERWEST PIER

EastEast

WestWest

BCC20030BCC20030


2b2b

JLJL



Date:Date:


Scale:Scale:

Drawn by:Drawn by:

MAMA


June 2020June 2020

T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609T: 905-660-6608 F: 905-660-6609

LEGEND:LEGEND: PROJECT:PROJECT: TITLE:TITLE:


CONCRETE COVERCONCRETE COVEROF PIERS, WEST WEIR ANDOF PIERS, WEST WEIR AND

APRON SLABAPRON SLAB

EAST PIER - EAST FACE EAST PIER - EAST FACE

EAST PIER - WEST FACE EAST PIER - WEST FACE


SouthSouthNorthNorth


EAST PIER - SOUTH FACE EAST PIER - SOUTH FACE

WestWest EastEast

EAST PIER - NORTH FACE EAST PIER - NORTH FACE

EastEast WestWest

EAST PIER - TOP FACE EAST PIER - TOP FACE

WestWest EastEast

KEY PLANKEY PLAN

SITESITE

Pefferlaw Rd

Pefferlaw Rd

C7C7

C5C5


105105 9494 8989 8585 121121 121121 9999

118118

109109

115115

125125

113113

116116

121121

119119

8080 8585 8585

8484

6464 7373 8484

7777

6262 5959 5050 5858 6565

6565

6666

6262

5555

6868

5353

5757

5353

WestWestEastEast

C4C4

C3C3

117117 122122 125125 125125 122122109109 121121 124124

122122 124124 119119 125125 123123121121 122122 121121

123123 124124 121121 123123 118118 122122 119119

Water LevelWater Level Water LevelWater Level

Concrete cover-mmConcrete cover-mm8080

Cover over 60mmCover over 60mmCover from 40mm to 60mmCover from 40mm to 60mm

Cover from 20mm to 39mmCover from 20mm to 39mmCover less than 20mmCover less than 20mmCore Sample LocationCore Sample LocationC1C1

DD DrainDrain


Page 186 of 200

Appendix C

Preliminary Cost Estimates

Page 187 of 200

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Concrete Rehabilitation

Item No. Description Unit Quantity Est. Unit Price Extension

1 Mobilization and Demobilization L/S 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00

Environmental / Watercourse Protection L/S 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00

2 Dewatering and Temp. Flow Control L/S 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00

3 Concrete in Substructure and Retaining Walls m3

13.0 $7,500.00 $97,500.00

4 Concrete Removal - Partial Depth, Type A m3 8.0 $4,000.00 $32,000.00

5 Concrete Removal - Partial Depth, Type C m3 3.6 $8,000.00 $28,800.00

6 Abrasive Blast Cleaning of Reinforcing Steel m2 50 $65.00 $3,250.00

7 Concrete Patches, Unformed Surface m3 8.0 $3,000.00 $24,000.00

8 Concrete Patches, Form and Pump m3 2.0 $10,000.00 $20,000.00

9 Concrete Refacing, Form and Pump m3 1.5 $12,000.00 $18,000.00

10 Crack Injection m 2 $500.00 $1,000.00

11 Dowels into Concrete ea. 35 $45.00 $1,575.00

Subtotal $283,125.00

$84,940.00

Total Estimated Project Cost $368,065.00

Notes and Assumptions:

Pefferlaw Dam Structural Design MemorandomWills Project No.: 19-5381

30% Contingency

1. A loose earth / topsoil layer of 0.5m is assumed to be present in the excavation area.

2. This cost estimation assumes that a cofferdam composed of a combi-wall constructed from a combination of drilled tube and sheet

piles will be used for dewatering purposes. The plan length of the cofferdam is assumed to be 60m and tube piles are assumed to be

drilled 1m into bedrock.

3. Plan dimensions of new concrete footings for "Extreme Danger" warning signs are assumed based on visual observation, depth of

footings is assumed to not be deeper than frost penetration depth.

Page 188 of 200


Alternative 1 - Truss Rehabilitation and Bearing Seat Repair



2 Coating of Structural Steel L/S 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00

3 Extension of Existing Fall Arrest System L/S 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

4 Concrete Removal - Partial Depth, Type C m3 0.1 $8,000.00 $800.00


6 Dowels into Concrete ea. 5 $100.00 $500.00

7 Weld Crack Repair m 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00

Subtotal $40,500.00

$12,150.00




30% Contingency







Page 189 of 200


Alternative 2 - Truss Replacement and Bearing Seat Repair



2 Removal of Bridge Structure L/S 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00

3 Prefabricated Bridge L/S 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00





Subtotal $47,500.00

$14,250.00




30% Contingency







Page 190 of 200


Truss Rehabilitation (Full Coating) and Bearing Seat Repair



2 Coating of Structural Steel L/S 1 $90,000.00 $90,000.00





7 Weld Crack Repair m 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00


$31,650.00




30% Contingency







Page 191 of 200


Complete Truss Replacement and Bearing Seat Repair



2 Removal of Bridge Structure L/S 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00

3 Prefabricated Bridge L/S 1 $105,000.00 $105,000.00




7


$38,250.00




30% Contingency







Page 192 of 200

Appendix D

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Page 193 of 200

Year

Cost Pres.Value Cost Pres.Value Cost Pres.Value

0 $52,650 $52,650 $61,750 $61,750

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 $61,750 $15,648

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75 $61,750 $3,259

80

85

90

95

100

Total Present Value: $68,298 $65,009

Residual Value : ($397) ($1,051)

Net Present Value : $67,902 $63,959

Option

Replacement

/ Rehab.

Cost

Year of

Replacement

(Next Cycle)

Residual

Years

Value at

100 years

Residual

Value at 100

Years

Present

Residual

Value

1 $61,750 110 10 $41,716 -$20,034 -$397

2 $61,750 150 50 $8,689 -$53,061 -$1,051

3

Alternative 3

None

Lake Simcoe Region Concervation Authority

Pefferlaw Dam, Township of Georgina

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS (4% Discount Rate)

Appendix D - Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

RESIDUAL VALUE ANALYSIS

Alternative 1

Truss Rehabilitation

Alternative 2

Truss Replacement

Page 194 of 200


TO: Board of Directors FROM: Melinda Bessey, MSc, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning Ashlea Brown Acting Director, Regulations DATE: July 8, 2020

SUBJECT: Monitoring Report – Planning and Development Applications for

the Period January 1 through June 30, 2020

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report No. 37-20-BOD regarding monitoring of planning

and development applications for the period January 1 through June 30, 2020 be received for information.

Purpose of this Staff Report:

The purpose of this Staff Report No. 37-20-BOD is to provide the Board of Directors with an update on the progress of planning and development applications submitted to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority for the period January 1 through June 30, 2020.

Background:

A summary of the total number of applications for this period is shown in the attached Tables 1, 2, and 3. These tables summarize the number of applications received by application type and by municipality, as well as the number of pre-consultations, non-application technical reviews and general inquiries. The type of applications reviewed and processed are statutory requirements under the following legislation:

Planning Act (Table 1)

• Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Community Plans and Amendments

• Comprehensive Zoning By-Laws and Amendments

• Consent and Minor Variance Applications

• Plans of Subdivision and Condominium

• Site Plan Applications

Page 195 of 200


Conservation Authorities Act (Tables 2 and 3)

• Section 28 Permit Applications

• Public Information Requests (PIR)

• Site Clearances

• Solicitor Inquiries

Other Legislation (Table 2)

• Undertakings in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act

Tables 4, 5, and 6 summarize the total number of planning and development applications and inquiries for the period January 1 through June 30, 2019.

Planning Act Applications

In general, the total number of applications reviewed under the Planning Act as of June 30, 2020 was 17% lower than the total number of applications reviewed during the same period in the previous year. The areas of variance of application submissions are as follows:

Applications for Plan of Subdivision/Condominium

• During the same time period last year, 44 applications for Plan of Subdivision were submitted. This year we have received 18. This decline may be attributed to a number of factors, most notably being servicing allocation. It is also noted that while the number of new applications for subdivision is lower, we are receiving a high volume of detailed design resubmissions seeking final approval for subdivision applications which were received between 2017 and 2019.

Committee of Adjustment Applications

• The number of Committee of Adjustment Applications (Minor Variance and Consent) are down by 42% and 33% respectively. It is assumed that this is the result of COVID-19 where legislation was passed (Bill 189 and O.Reg 73/20) to suspend limitation periods and procedural timelines under any statute, regulation, rule or by-law in effect in Ontario. The result was a “pause” on various forms of litigation and administrative proceedings to allow parties, adjudicators, local authorities, and the Province to effectively respond to the changing needs of the crisis. In the land use planning context, this suspended all timelines under the Planning Act. As a result, many of our member municipalities ceased holding Committee of Adjustment hearings and stopped circulating these applications to us for review. This timeline suspension ended on June 22, 2020 and we have already noticed an increase in the number of these types of applications being submitted as municipalities commence Committee of Adjustment hearings again.

It is important to note that we now track pre-consultation review as shown in Table 1. This tracking was not implemented until Q3 of 2019, accordingly, the comparative calculation of applications has only considered applications submitted under the Planning Act and not pre-consultations. Per the report provided to the Board of Directors on May 22, 2020 (30-06-20

Page 196 of 200


Service Delivery Improvements Planning and Development) LSRCA Planning and Development staff are encouraging proponents to pre-consult with our team prior to submitting their applications. For larger development sites, we are strongly encouraging that a stormwater management / Low Impact Development Design Charrette be held with LSRCA Staff, Municipal Staff, and the proponent. This provides all parties the opportunity to identify any constraints or design challenges early in the process and the chance to brainstorm together to find solutions to these matters. We are learning that working together to establish these key agreements in principle, is resulting in a more streamlined technical review of Planning Act applications, which in turn results in more timely approvals.

Conservation Authorities Act Applications

The number of applications received as of June 30, 2020 under the Conservation Authorities Act was 7% lower than received during the same period the previous year. We generally see an increase in permit applications in the spring of each year as people start to prepare for their summer construction projects and as the site conditions are favorable for larger development and infrastructure projects to proceed. It is assumed that the cause of the reduced number of applications under the Conservation Authorities Act is COVID-19. The pandemic has caused a great deal of uncertainty in the industry – mainly related to when construction projects were able to proceed. This decrease in applications can also be related to the decrease in the Planning Act applications noted above.

Currently, we adhere to the Service Standard Timelines specified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) through the “Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities” (2010) document. However, as part of the commitment to improve client service and accountability, the LSRCA has adapted Conservation Ontario’s “Client Service Standards for Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review”. The LSRCA provided a first quarter report to Conservation Ontario on our timelines and we have met or exceeded all required timelines for 98% of the Section 28 applications and inquiries.

Tables 3 and 6 summarize the customer service statistics for the first six months of 2020 and 2019, respectively. As a result of the pandemic we have not been able to offer our in-person counter service, however, the Regulations Analysts have been providing responses to all inquiries through email, telephone, or video conferencing. The number of inquiries is 10% less than last year, it is assumed that this is a result of our offices not being open for “walk in” inquiries.

Issues:

The statistics presented in the attached tables do not provide any indication of the complexity of the applications. Many of the new development applications are being proposed on lands that have previously been overlooked due to the constraints that are associated with them. The statistics also do not provide a clear indication of the amount of staff time which is focused on pre-consultation and design charrettes.

Page 197 of 200


Relevance to Authority Policy:

Client service and satisfaction has been identified as an important guiding principle in LSRCA’s Strategic Plan 2016-2020. As previously reported, in response to Bill 108, Conservation Ontario has engaged senior conservation authority staff in a streamlining initiative that provides a commitment to improve plan and permitting review through improving client service and accountability, increasing the speed of approvals, and reducing red tape and regulatory burden. Monitoring the number of applications processed is important to ensure customer service targets are met.

Impact on Authority Finances:

The LSRCA Planning and Development department operates on a cost recovery rate of 100% for the review and processing of planning and permit applications. This reduction to application numbers impacts the department’s budget. Accordingly, department management have been working with the Finance Department through a budget forecasting exercise to gain an understanding of how to proceed for the remainder of the year. Continued monitoring of application numbers is important to understand staffing requirements of the departments and to assess revenue generation against the approved budget. Through our pre-consultation meetings with proponents, it is expected that we will see a higher number of applications in the second half of 2020.

Summary and Recommendations:

It is therefore RECOMMENDED THAT Staff Report No. 37-20-BOD regarding monitoring of planning and development applications for the period January 1 through June 30, 2020 be received for information.

Pre-Submission Review:

This Staff Report has been reviewed by the General Manager, Planning & Development and Watershed Restoration Services, and the Chief Administrative Officer. Signed by: Signed by: ________________________________ ________________________________ Rob Baldwin Michael Walters General Manager, Chief Administrative Officer Planning & Development and Watershed Restoration Services Attachments: Tables 1, 2, and 3 - Summary of Planning Program Statistics – January 1 – June 30, 2020 Tables 4, 5, and 6 - Summary of Planning Program Statistics – January 1 – June 30, 2019

Page 198 of 200

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara

City of

OrilliaBrock Scugog Uxbridge

Town of

Caledon

Region of

DurhamAurora

East

GwillimburyGeorgina King Newmarket

Whitchurch-

Stouffville

Region of

York

Official Plans,

Official Plan

Amendments 0 6 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 7 3 1 0 2 1 0 30

Secondary

Plan Review 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 10

Zoning By-

laws, Zoning

By-law

Amendments 0 15 7 2 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 7 5 11 2 4 4 0 68

Plans of

Subdivision,

Plans of

Condominium 0 3 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 18

Site Plans 0 15 12 4 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 15 5 6 8 5 12 0 90

Consents 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 0 0 0 26

Minor

Variances 1 2 2 7 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9 2 4 2 7 0 49

Peer Review 1 9 5 7 0 6 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 7 3 5 4 3 0 58

Tech Review/

Special

Studies 1 34 18 18 1 16 2 0 2 5 7 0 0 1 1 5 12 13 14 0 150

Pre Cons 1 35 14 14 0 8 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 16 8 5 10 12 12 0 145

Total Number

of Apps by

Municipality 5 121 64 56 7 50 4 0 26 10 20 0 0 61 45 33 45 43 54 0 644

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara

City of

OrilliaBrock Scugog Uxbridge

Town of

Caledon

Region of

DurhamAurora

East


Whitchurch-

Stouffville

Region of

York

Section 28

Applications 2 26 17 69 0 40 47 0 20 0 13 0 0 9 26 73 19 7 8 0 376

Violation

Notices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

Legal Inquiries 0 11 3 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 10 0 1 0 0 49

Site

Clearances 1 12 15 54 1 31 24 0 8 0 8 0 0 13 26 61 26 9 9 0 298

Environmental

Assessment

Undertakings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Number

of Apps by

Municipality 3 49 35 131 1 74 71 0 28 0 21 0 0 29 58 144 45 20 17 0 726

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara General Brock Scugog Uxbridge Outside Aurora

East


Whitchurch-

Stouffville

Region of

York

Calls/Emails 9 36 39 143 5 102 108 12 65 1 74 7 63 63 324 78 56 31 3 1219

Counter Visits 1 2 5 5 0 4 6 0 3 0 6 0 1 12 14 10 2 4 0 75

Total 10 38 44 148 5 106 114 12 68 1 80 7 0 64 75 338 88 58 35 3 1294

Table 3 -- Summary of Customer Service Statistics January 1, 2020 - June 30, 2020

Application

Type

County of Simcoe Region of Durham Region of YorkTotal Number

of Applications

by Type

Table 2 -- Summary of Regulations Program Statistics January 1, 2020 - June 30, 2020 ~ Review of Applications Under the Conservation Authorities Act & the Environmental Assessment Act

Application

Type


of Applications

by Type

Table 1 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1, 2020 - June 30, 2020 ~ Review of Applications Under the Planning Act

Application

Type


of Applications

by Type

Page 199 of 200

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara

County of

SimcoeBrock Scugog Uxbridge

Town of

Caledon

Region of

DurhamAurora

East


Whitchurch-

Stouffville

Region of

York

Official Plans,

Official Plan

Amendments 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 6 0 1 21

Secondary Plan

Review 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Zoning By-laws,

Zoning By-law

Amendments 2 13 3 4 0 4 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 6 2 15 0 6 2 0 68

Plans of

Subdivision,

Plans of

Condominium 1 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 12 0 4 1 0 44

Site Plans 0 10 9 14 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 6 6 7 14 2 6 0 80

Consents 1 2 3 5 0 2 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 4 1 14 1 1 1 0 42

Minor Variances 1 1 4 17 0 11 5 0 5 1 2 0 0 10 2 16 6 2 6 0 89

Total Number

of Applications

by Municipality 6 39 27 43 0 18 6 0 17 1 14 1 1 32 16 64 22 21 16 1 345

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara

County of

SimcoeBrock Scugog Uxbridge

Town of

Caledon

Region of

DurhamAurora

East


Whitchurch-

Stouffville

Region of

York

Section 28

Applications 4 27 22 61 0 35 48 0 21 1 26 0 0 17 27 73 24 14 6 0 406

Violation

Notices 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 11 2 0 2 0 33

Legal Inquiries 1 13 10 2 0 1 1 1 4 0 2 0 0 4 4 6 1 7 0 0 57

Site Clearances 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Environmental

Assessment

Undertakings 0 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 15

Total Number

of Applications

by Municipality 5 47 36 68 0 39 51 1 27 1 31 0 0 22 35 91 27 23 8 0 512

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

City of

Barrie

City of

Kawartha

Lakes

BarrieBradford West

GwillimburyInnisfil

New

Tecumseth

Oro-

MedonteRamara General Brock Scugog Uxbridge

Town of

CaledonGeneral Aurora

East


Whitchurch-

StouffvilleGeneral

Calls/Emails 30 81 59 143 9 101 133 47 83 6 114 0 39 51 104 354 65 39 55 0 1513

Counter Visits 3 6 13 14 2 6 14 8 9 0 13 0 3 9 30 48 12 4 11 0 205

Total 33 87 72 157 11 107 147 55 92 6 127 0 42 60 134 402 77 43 66 0 1718

Table 6 -- Summary of Customer Service Statistics January 1 - June 30, 2019

Application

Type

County of Simcoe Region of Durham Region of York Total Number

of

Applications

by Type

Table 5 -- Summary of Regulations Program Statistics January 1 - June 30, 2019 - Review of Applications Under the Conservation Authorities Act & the Environmental Assessment Act

Application

Type


of

Applications

by Type

Table 4 -- Summary of Planning Program Statistics January 1 - June 30, 2019 ~ Review of Applications Under the Planning Act

Application

Type


of

Applications

by Type

Page 200 of 200