city of barrie asset management plan storm water ... hall/asset-management... · 1. introduction 10...

City of Barrie

Asset Management Plan

Storm Water Management Facilities (SWMF)

Appendix Whole of Government Asset Management Plan

December 2012

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan – SWMF (2012) | i

Contents Executive Summary 5

Introduction 5 Stormwater Management Facility Needs 5 Current Asset Status 6 Sustaining the Asset Portfolio 8

1. Introduction 10

1.1 Content of this Asset Management Plan 10 1.2 Relationship to Other City Documents/Outputs 10 1.3 Overview of Stormwater Management Service Delivery 11 1.4 Critical Storm Water Facilities 11 1.5 Purpose of this Asset Management Plan 12

2. Levels of Service 13

2.1 Customer Research and Expectations 13 2.2 Strategic and Corporate Goals 14 2.3 Legislative Requirements 15 2.4 Current Levels of Service 17 2.5 Desired Levels of Service 17

3. Future Demand 18

3.1 Demand Drivers 18 3.2 Demand Forecasts 19 3.3 Demand Impacts on Assets 20 3.4 Demand Management Plans 21

4. Asset Portfolio 22

4.1 Overview 22 4.2 Asset Hierarchy 22 4.3 Asset Inventory 23 4.4 Installation Profile of Assets 26

5. Lifecycle Management 31

5.1 Asset Lifecycle Activities and Cost Data 31 5.2 Asset Failure Modes and Consumption Estimates 37

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan – SWMF (2012) | ii

5.3 Asset Risk Data and Risk Exposure Estimates 43 5.4 Lifecycle Management Plans 56

6. Financial Summary 88

6.1 Financial Projections for Asset Renewal 88 6.2 Financial Projections for Full Lifecycle 92 6.3 Long Term Funding Mechanisms 92

7. Plan Monitoring & Improvement 95

7.1 Overview 95 7.2 Status of AM Practices 95 7.3 Improvement Program 96 7.4 Monitoring & Performance Measures 98

Figure Index Figure 0-1 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF (Total) 7 Figure 0-2 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF (Total) 8 Figure 3: SWMF Renewal Investment, $2012 8 Figure 1-1 AM Plan Relationship to other City Documents 10 Figure 4-1 SWMF Assets Costs, 2012$ 26 Figure 4-2 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF (Total) 27 Figure 4-3 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Pretreatment 27 Figure 4-4 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance 27 Figure 4-5 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Inlet Structure 28 Figure 4-6 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Sediment Forebay 28 Figure 4-7 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Storage Pool 28 Figure 4-8 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Outlet Structure 29 Figure 4-9 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance 29 Figure 4-10 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Maintenance Access 29 Figure 4-11 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Security 30 Figure 4-12 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Landscaping 30 Figure 5-1 Typical Lifecycle Management Activities 32 Figure 5-2 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF (Total) 40 Figure 5-3 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Pretreatment 40 Figure 5-4 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance 40 Figure 5-5 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Inlet Structure 41

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan – SWMF (2012) | iii

Figure 5-6 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Sediment Forebay 41 Figure 5-7 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Storage Pool 41 Figure 5-8 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Outlet Structure 42 Figure 5-9 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance 42 Figure 5-10 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Maintenance Access 42 Figure 5-11 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Security 43 Figure 5-12 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Landscaping 43 Figure 5-13 City of Barrie AM Framework 56 Figure 6-1 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF (Total) 88 Figure 6-2 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance 89 Figure 6-3 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Inlet Structure 89 Figure 6-4 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Sediment Forebay 89 Figure 6-5 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Storage Pool 90 Figure 6-6 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Outlet Structure 90 Figure 6-7 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance 90 Figure 6-8 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Maintenance Access 91 Figure 6-9 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Security 91 Figure 6-10 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Landscaping 91 Figure 7-1 Confidence Level Gap for SWMF AM Plan (2012) 96

Table Index Table 0-1 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, % – SWMF (Total) 7 Table 2-1 Typical Customer Expectations for Stormwater Management 13 Table 2-2 Strategic and Corporate Goals Summary Table 14 Table 2-3 Summary of Stormwater Legislative Requirements 15 Table 2-4 Performance Reporting – SWMFs 17 Table 3-1 Factors Affecting Future Demand 18 Table 4-1 Asset Hierarchy – SWMF 22 Table 4-2 Asset Inventory – SWMF 23 Table 4-3 SWMF Asset Inventory Replacement Cost Percentages 26 Table 5-1 Historic SWMF Annual Maintenance Expenditures / Budget 33 Table 5-2 SWMF 2012 Planned Maintenance 34 Table 5-3 Historic SWMF Renewal Expenditures / Budget (2012$) 36 Table 5-4 SWMF Assets MPL 36 Table 5-5 SWMF Failure Modes 38

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan – SWMF (2012) | iv

Table 5-6 SWMF Condition Rating Scale 39 Table 5-7 SWMF Failure Modes 44 Table 5-8 Stormwater Facility Level CoFs 46 Table 5-9 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF (Total) 49 Table 5-10 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, % – SWMF (Total) 49 Table 5-11 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Pretreatment 50 Table 5-12 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance 50 Table 5-13 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Inlet Structure 51 Table 5-14 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Sediment Forebay 51 Table 5-15 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Storage Pool 51 Table 5-16 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Outlet Structure 52 Table 5-17 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance 52 Table 5-18 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Maintenance Access 52 Table 5-19 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Security 53 Table 5-20 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Landscaping 53 Table 5-21 SWMF Asset Priorities 54 Table 5-22 Summary of SWMF Failure Management Strategy 63 Table 5-23 Summary of SWMF Inventory and Inspection Plan 66 Table 5-24 Summary of SWMF Inspection and Maintenance Plan 68 Table 5-25 Summary of SWMF Renewal and Enhancement Plan 71 Table 6-1 Comparison of Past Expenditures / Budget to Sustainable Renewal Amounts 92 Table 7-1 CLR Scores SWMF AM Plan (2012) 95 Table 7-2 Recommendations for Future Waste Management AM Plan Improvement 97

GHD | City of Barrie | AM Plan – SWMF (2012) | 5

Executive Summary

Introduction

Canadian municipalities build, own and maintain most of the infrastructure that supports the Canadian economy and quality of life. Yet, for the past 25 years, municipalities have been caught in a “fiscal squeeze” caused by growing responsibilities and reduced revenues. Growing responsibilities include rapid growth, more stringent environmental requirements, public demands for high levels of service, aging infrastructure, and increased exposure to liability and risk.

To make ends meet in the short term, Canadian municipalities have deferred needed investment in assets, resulting in deteriorating municipal infrastructure, reduced levels of service, and/or increased risk. The amount of this deferral for all Canadian municipalities, also referred to as the Canadian municipal infrastructure deficit, is estimated to have grown from $12 billion in 1985 to $123 billion in 20071. And, the deficit continues to grow and compound as maintenance is delayed, assets reach the end of their service life, and repair and replacement costs escalate.

It is now recognized that this approach to managing assets is not sustainable over the long term.

This Asset Management Plan is a key document to enable knowledgeable asset investment decisions on stormwater management facilities (SWMFs) by City Council. It is built upon planning and reporting work provided in other City documents, including the City’s Official Plan, Strategic Plan, and various stormwater management policies and plans, and more recent work by the consultant, GHD Inc., and City staff.

Stormwater Management Facility Needs

The City delivers a variety of services that are typically grouped as: environmental, protection, recreation and culture, transportation, and general corporate. Stormwater management facilities, included under the “environmental” grouping, are used to manage stormwater that is often concentrated and contaminated by land development. Stormwater management facilities are built to control runoff rates to minimize downstream flooding and erosion, and to capture and settle pollutants.

In many municipalities, a lack of maintenance and renewal of stormwater management facilities has led to reduced effectiveness in providing rate control and improving water quality. Compounding the issue are increasing regulatory requirements that squeeze municipal budgets. If long-term maintenance and renewal plans are not defined and implemented, municipalities risk flooding, environmental damage and fines for not meeting regulatory requirements and will eventually need to enact costly rehabilitation programs.

A fundamental principle of asset management is to understand the cost and risk associated with delivering various levels of service, and then to select the level of service that best meets the needs of the community. The ability for the City to provide the desired levels of services is, in part, dependant on the

1 Saeed Mirza, PhD., ING., Danger Ahead: The Coming Collapse of Canada’s Municipal Infrastructure, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2007.


ability of the City’s assets to perform as required. Stormwater management facility assets can fail to perform in several different ways, often classified into the following “modes” of failure:

Insufficient water quantity control (e.g., the inlet conveyance, storage pool, outlet structure, and/or outlet conveyance assets that are intended to direct and capture storm event water and discharge it over time do not function appropriately)

Insufficient water quality treatment (e.g., the pretreatment, inlet structure, and/or sediment forebay assets that are intended to capture larger particles at the inlet of the facility and settle the sediment within the facility do not function appropriately)

Other function is not provided, including maintenance access, security and aesthetics.

Not every asset is of equal importance to the City or presents the same failure risk, so it is important to know which assets are most critical to service delivery. Understanding which assets are critical, and why, helps to focus investment decisions. Critical assets are those assets that have major consequences or impacts if they fail and a high probability or likelihood of failing:

Assets with major consequences or impacts if they fail include stormwater management facility assets that support water quantity control functions, and/or water quality treatment functions. A failure could result in damage to adjacent and downstream property, damage to the environment, fines, and/or a loss of the public’s confidence in the City.

Assets with a high probability or likelihood of failing include assets that are in poor physical condition or assets that are not of sufficient size – this may include a sediment forebay or storage pool that is filled with significant sediment.

The consequence of failure is related to the service expectations of the asset, while the probability of failure is related to the performance of the asset against that service expectation, as discussed in the next section, Current Asset Status. City staff assigned Consequence of Failure ratings to all City stormwater management facility assets using a 1 to 4 scale, considering economic, social, environmental, and service delivery factors. This rating scale is consistent with the City’s Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) guide.

Current Asset Status

The City owns a significant and varied portfolio of physical assets, including 93 stormwater management facilities with estimated replacement cost of over $33 million (2012$). Since the 1980’s, these facilities have been built by either the City or Developers to enable land development, and are now owned, maintained and renewed by the City.

Based on visual condition data, as a whole, the City’s stormwater management facilities are currently performing relatively well, as indicated by the figure below, which shows the remaining life of the City’s assets being relatively evenly distributed. However, the lifecycle analysis documented in Section 5 reveals that over $5 million of assets are deemed to have failed.


Figure 0-1 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF (Total)

A key question is: Which of the City’s assets have both a high probability of failure and a high consequence of failure? The “Risk Map” shown in the figure below is a graphic representation of the probabilities and consequences of failure of the City’s stormwater management facilities asset portfolio. 27% of the City’s stormwater management facilities assets are classified as “extreme risk” – SWMF assets that are both critical and are highly likely to fail or are deemed to have failed (based on 2012$ replacement cost). These assets have been programmed in the short-term maintenance and renewal plans that are provided in the “Lifecycle Management” section of the AM Plan.

Table 0-1 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, % – SWMF (Total)

PoF

P4 0% 0% 4% 12%

P3 2% 1% 4% 9%

P2 3% 1% 7% 26%

P1 2% 8% 11% 10%

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

The assets that comprise the extreme BRE for these assets are:

Inlet Structure assets: DY07, GR03, GR04, HT03A, KD01, KD02, LV03, LV05, LV06, LV07

Sediment Forebay assets: HW01, HW04, HW05, HW08, LT02, LT05, LT06, LV19, LV20, LV21, LV22

Storage Pool assets: BR03, BR08A, BR10, BR13, BY03, DY02, DY04, DY07, GR03, GR04, HT03A, HT06, HT08, HW05, HW09, KD02, KD06, LT01, LT05, LT06, LV02, LV03, LV05, LV06, LV10, LV18, LV19, LV28, LV49, SP01, WK04, WK17

Outlet Structure assets: BR03, LT06

Outlet Conveyance assets: BR16, GR01, GR03, HT03A, LT01, LT06, LV03, LV05.


Sustaining the Asset Portfolio

To provide quality public services to the citizens of Barrie, assets must be maintained throughout their lives and renewed when they are no longer able to meet service expectations. The estimated cost over time to replace the City’s existing $33 million stormwater management facility asset portfolio is shown in the figure below. As indicated by the horizontal red line, the average cost to replace the City’s asset portfolio is estimated to be approximately $1.67 million per year, in 2012$. The figure also shows that the City has a substantial backlog of renewal work which is equal to the 2012$ projected replacement cost ($5.25M) less the average annual replacement cost ($1.67M) = $3.58M.

Figure 0-2 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF (Total)

Each year that the City does not reinvest adequately to replace its assets, this deficit will continue to grow and compound, and the level of risk exposure will also increase. Figure 3 below shows the level of expenditures over the past five years compared to the forecast average annual sustainable renewal amount.

Figure 3: SWMF Renewal Investment, $2012


On average, over the past five years (2007-2011), the City reinvested approximately $0.55 million to renew stormwater management facility assets within the portfolio. This rate of renewal is not sustainable.

If the City continues to defer needed replacement of its infrastructure, the City’s assets will continue to deteriorate, service levels will be negatively impacted and/or the City will continue to assume more risk.

A key question is: How does the City make ends meet?

The answer to this question is a complex set of solutions that will take time to implement. Recently, many municipalities have begun to adopt practices to set and meet required levels of service and manage assets in a more cost effective manner, at acceptable levels of risk. Known as “Asset Management”, these practices build confidence in decision-making – guiding investment in the right work, at the right time, at the lowest lifecycle cost.

Recommendations specific to the City’s stormwater management facilities include:

Develop the following lifecycle plans for the City’s SWMFs (outlined in Section 5 of this AM Plan).

– Inventory and Inspection Plan: Actions to complete the inventory and conduct visual inspections on City-owned SWMFs that currently have little or no data in the Pond Database

– Maintenance Plan: Actions to confirm existing inventory and inspection data on City-owned, higher risk SWMFs that have been identified as needing maintenance (e.g., harvesting vegetation, clearing obstructions), and then to plan, schedule, execute and complete maintenance work, as deemed necessary

– Renewal and Enhancement Plan: Action to identify, analyze and program renewal works and/or functional changes, as required.

Plan and implement the Capital Program and Operating budget for the City’s SWMF based on the above plans and available financial and human resources.

Plan the funding of asset reinvestment needs through the annual Long Range Financial Plan – a plan that reflects the long-term nature of infrastructure investments, promotes best practices in asset management and secures the funds necessary (outlined in Section 6 of this AM Plan).


1. Introduction

1.1 Content of this Asset Management Plan

This document forms a part of the City of Barrie’s Asset Management Plan (AM Plan) and addresses the City’s 93 Storm Water Management Facilities (SWMFs). SWMF components included in this AM Plan are: pre-treatment, inlet conveyance, inlet structure, sediment forebay, storage pool, outlet structure, outlet conveyance, maintenance access, security, and landscaping assets. Not all 93 facilities include all of these components.

The body of the AM Plan (prepared in 2011) outlines the general approach and methodology taken in determining the framework for the AM Plan and discusses results at the corporate level. Each Appendix to the main report describes specific results from a study of each asset service area, including this appendix titled Storm Water Management Facilities (SWMF).

1.2 Relationship to Other City Documents/Outputs

The relationship of this AM Plan to other City Documents and planning outputs is illustrated in the figure below. The AM Plan is the base framework (i.e., tool) to assist the City in developing appropriate direction and inputs to budget forecasts, master plans, and associated studies/outputs.

Figure 1-1 AM Plan Relationship to other City Documents


1.3 Overview of Stormwater Management Service Delivery

The City of Barrie is responsible for a broad portfolio of assets that support the goals of stormwater management. These goals, provided in the City’s Official Plan, include:

Environmental Protection To ensure the health and safety of area residents and prevent the loss of life and minimize property

damage due to flooding, erosion, steep slopes and unstable soils.

To protect, preserve environmentally significant natural features and ecological functions and to maintain and improve where possible the diversity of natural features or the ecological functions for which an area is identified.

To maintain Environmental Protection Areas as viable and natural ecosystems through the protection of the wildlife and aquatic habitats, the maintenance of the flood control and storage capacities of the flood plain and the enhancement of the water quality and the natural water filtration capability of the system.

To protect and enhance the water quality and environmental, aesthetic and recreational potential of the City's watercourses, Little Lake and Kempenfelt Bay.

To encourage effective storm water management in order to control flooding, erosion, sedimentation and maintain and enhance water quality in the receiving watercourses and water bodies.

To promote the incorporation of natural waterways, valleys and ponds into continuous green corridors for wildlife habitat, open space, and parkland.

To ensure stormwater management practices minimize storm water peak flows and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces.

This AM Plan addresses only the City-owned SWMFs, consisting of wetlands and ponds, and including both wet and dry pond types. These facilities are to be operated and maintained in accordance with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued Certificates of Approvals (CofAs) to provide quantity and/or quality control of stormwater runoff from urban areas within the City. Note that recent amendments to the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act came into effect resulting in a two-path environmental approval process: the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) process and the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) process. The ECA is a new instrument of environmental approval that replaces the Certificate of Approval.

1.4 Critical Storm Water Facilities

Not every SWMF is of equal importance or presents the same failure risk to the City. Understanding which are critical and how they might fail, helps focus lifecycle management strategies on what is most important.

In April 2012, the City undertook a project to identify critical SWMFs that present the most significant consequences or impacts if they fail, and have a high probability or likelihood of failing. Nine (9) critical SWMFs were identified and assessed, and data was collected to support effective AM planning of these assets. For the remaining SWMF assets, existing data was used in the development of this AM Plan.


This AM Plan provides:

Detailed lifecycle management strategies recommendations on the 9 critical SWMFs (capital rehabilitation or replacement projects and/or maintenance works)

High level recommendations for the remaining 84 facilities – identifying next most critical assets and recommended short term actions including survey and inspections

Recommendations on long term sustainable funding amounts for the City`s SWMFs.

1.5 Purpose of this Asset Management Plan

This AM Plan is intended to improve the City of Barrie’s ability to achieve its corporate goals and objectives in a way that best services its customers. It provides a rational framework that enables systematic and repeatable processes to manage costs, risks and levels of service for the City’s asset portfolio. The AM Plan identifies expected future costs and assists in predicting future barriers to efficient and effective service delivery. With this understanding, the City’s asset managers and operators will be better equipped to remove physical, financial and political barriers before they negatively impact customer levels of service.

This appendix is a refinement of the second set of AM Plans for the City of Barrie, produced in 2011. Additional data has been amended to the original set of plans which improves the confidence in the results. It is intended that the continual improvement of asset management practices within the City of Barrie will result in further updates to this document. As such, this AM Plan is a living document that will require ongoing refinement to reflect the evolution of asset management maturity within the City of Barrie over time.


2. Levels of Service

One of the basic cornerstones of sound asset management is to provide the level of service that current and future communities want and are prepared to pay for.

To achieve this, the City needs to plan for the provision of desired service levels, for the least cost, over the life span of its assets. Establishing levels of service requires knowledge of customers and stakeholders, and an understanding of their expectations and requirements in terms of stormwater management services.

This section of the AM Plan covers the following:

Customer Research and Expectations

Strategic and Corporate Goals

Legislative Requirements

Current Levels of Service

Desired Levels of Service

2.1 Customer Research and Expectations

Understanding the City’s stormwater management customers and their expectations is a key input into levels of service. This understanding will be balanced against legislative requirements and the customer’s ability / willingness to pay. The following table summarises typical customer expectations for SWMFs.

Table 2-1 Typical Customer Expectations for Stormwater Management

Customer Value Customer Expectation

Available • Provision of stormwater drainage outlet of sufficient capacity for all customers • Clear and accessible information is available when needed

Cost Effective • Stormwater management usage costs are affordable • Stormwater is managed at the lowest possible cost for required level of service • Compliance requirements result in affordable usage costs

Reliable • Facilities function as and when required • Any withdrawal of service, facility closure or shutdown is well communicated • Facility maintenance and repairs are completed promptly

Responsive • Opportunities for stakeholder involvement in decision making are provided • People understand their rights and responsibilities • People are informed, consulted and heard • Customers are treated fairly and consistently, within acceptable timeframes, demonstrating respect,

empathy and integrity • Failures and service requests are responded to promptly

Safe • Facility providers take safety seriously and have safety measures in place


Customer Value Customer Expectation • Customers and City staff feel safe when using and working in facilities, including crime prevention,

personal security, and pest control Suitable • Facilities are suitable for the functions for which they are required, including provision of water

quantity control, water quality treatment, and a safe, accessible and aesthetically attractive facility Sustainable • Long term plans are prepared and facilities are being maintained and managed to provide the

required functions for future generations • Facilities operate in a way that minimizes damage to the environment

2.2 Strategic and Corporate Goals

The management of SWMFs is undertaken within the context of the City’s Official Plan, Strategic Plan, and other policies and by-laws. An outline of these requirements is provided in the following table.

Table 2-2 Strategic and Corporate Goals Summary Table

Source Description of Source Key Goals (applicable to SWMF)

City of Barrie Strategic Plan 2010-2014

• City Council has set five goals for Barrie, and have prepared a plan to reach these goals

• The City of Barrie will be progressive, diverse and prosperous with opportunities for all citizens to build a healthy and vibrant community

• Balanced growth. We will plan growth to ensure long lasting community benefits. Managing changes in our community will help ensure we protect the environment and improve upon active transportation opportunities that include transit, GO Train and trail system services.

• Undertake infrastructure studies (e.g. stormwater, water, solid waste, transportation, wastewater) Work continues on preparation of a Sustainable Waste Management Strategy. Community meetings have been held and several interim reports reviewed.

• Technical background reviews completed for water, wastewater, and transportation services. First Public Information Centre (PIC) regarding Infrastructure Master Plan environmental assessment process has been held

City of Barrie Watercourse By-law 90-92 (LC)

• City Council has set a by-law that regulates the obstruction and altering of drains and watercourses in the City

• The primary purpose of the By-law 90-92 is to prohibit the obstruction of drains and watercourses, to require the repair and maintenance of drains and watercourses, and to regulate the altering of drains and watercourses in the City

City of Barrie Site Alteration By-law 2006-101 (LC)

• City Council has set a by-law that regulates the alteration of sites in the City

• No person shall cause or permit Site Alteration within the City of Barrie without a permit, in breach of a condition in the permit or of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan

• No person shall cause or permit Site Alteration within the City of Barrie where stormwater or snowmelt reaches a protected area without passing through a final control device, stormwater or snowmelt down gradient of a final control device contains more than 100 mg/L of suspended solids, except during or within 30 minutes of precipitation of more than 12 mm in an hour; or


Source Description of Source Key Goals (applicable to SWMF) sedimentation occurs in a protected area.

2.3 Legislative Requirements

Legislated requirements define the standards by which the City is obligated to provide stormwater management services. Legislative requirements are a significant business driver and a major consideration in decision-making for stormwater management.

The legislated regulations, policies, and guidelines related to stormwater management service delivery are provided in the following table.

Table 2-3 Summary of Stormwater Legislative Requirements

Name Objective Source

Municipal Act • A municipality may enter into an agreement with any person to construct, maintain and operate a private road or a private water or sewage (includes stormwater and other drainage from land) works

• A municipality may enter on land, at reasonable times, to inspect the discharge of any matter into the sewage system of the municipality or into any other sewage system the contents of which ultimately empty into the municipal sewage system and may conduct tests and take samples for this purpose

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Planning Act • When drafting a subdivision plan, issues of interest include health, safety, convenience and accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to the welfare of present and future inhabitants of the municipality. Conservation of natural resources and flood control should also be considered

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Ontario Water Resources Act

• The Ministry should be notified of all discharges not occurring in the normal course of events, or from control material into any waters that may impair the water quality

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Environmental Protection Act

• Provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment • Under the act, regulations can be made to prevent or reduce the growth of

aquatic vegetation that is caused by the release of nutrients in waters and is interfering with the functioning of an ecosystem

• Requirements for Certificate of Approval (CofA) & Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)


Lake Simcoe Protection Act

• Provides a legislative framework for protecting the Lake Simcoe watershed

• The plans, strategies, and projects supporting the act include (see below for further details):

- Lake Simcoe Protection Plan - Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy


Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

• The plan is a model for watershed protection aimed to protect, improve or restore the elements that contribute to the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed, including water quality, hydrology, and key hydrologic



Name Objective Source features and their functions

• The most critical issues include: - Restore a self-sustaining cold water fish community in Lake Simcoe - Reduce loadings of phosphorus and other nutrients of concern to Lake

Simcoe and its tributaries - Reduce the discharge of pollutants to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries - Promote environmentally sustainable land and water uses, activities and

development practices Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy

• As the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy moves forward, stewardship activities will be vital to the success of the Province’s objectives for the long term health of the Lake Simcoe watershed

• 160 stormwater retrofit opportunities have been identified in the watershed to reduce approximately 4.2T/yr of phosphorus, such as retrofitting quantity ponds into water quality ponds


Drainage Act • Defines legal agreements that can be made regarding drainage works, requirements for construction and engineering assessment of drains, and prohibits the discharges

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)

Conservation Authorities Act

• Ensuring the conservation, restoration and responsible management of our water, land, and natural habitat

• Provides Conservation Authority with various powers and authorities

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act

• Applies to construction in watercourses (e.g. dams). The purpose of the Act to provide for the management, protection, preservation and use of the waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario and the land under them


Public Lands Act • No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited any material, substance or thing on public lands, whether or not the lands are covered with water or ice, except with the written consent of the Minister or an officer authorized by the Minister


Regulation of Development, Interface with Wetlands and Alternations to Shorelines and Watercourses

• Designed to protect life and property from natural hazards such as flooding, erosion and pollution, barring permission granted otherwise from the Conservation Authority

Conservation Authority

Natural Hazard Land Policies

• Outlines policies associated with development within hazard lands • Hazard lands are defined as areas susceptible to flooding and erosion

events. The objectives of these policies are to prevent damages to developments from hazardous events and to minimize erosion through restricting development


Water Quality and Quantity Policies

• Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water


MTO Drainage Management Policy

• The objective of the MTO drainage policy is to ensure that water conveyed through highway drainage works will not infringe upon the riparian rights of landowners located upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)


Name Objective Source

Species at Risk Act (SARA)

• The Act is a key federal government commitment to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct and secure the necessary actions for their recovery.

• It provides for the legal protection of wildlife species and the conservation of their biological diversity.

Environment Canada

Federal Fisheries Act • The Federal Fisheries Act provides for the protection of fish habitat, which is defined as: "spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes".

Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Navigable Waters Protection Act

• The Navigable Waters Protection Act provides for the protection of the public right to navigate waters and to protect the environment

Transport Canada

2.4 Current Levels of Service

2.4.1 Performance Management Programs

The City participates in a number of performance management programs, including the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) and the Municipal Performance Management Program (MPMP), and an internal City program.

Table 2-4 Performance Reporting – SWMFs

Source Description 2011 Result 2010 Result 2009 Result

OMBI Operating Costs for Urban Storm Water Management per km of Drainage System

$3,534.16 $1,848.58 $2,312.00

Total Costs for Urban Storm Water Management per km of Drainage System

$8,074.64 $6,320.18 $6,714.39

Corporate Balanced Scorecard The City of Barrie Balanced Scorecard includes four quadrants: Community Services, Finance, Process, and People. The scorecard reports Target, Previous Year, and Current Year for a number of indicators. There are currently no indicators related to stormwater management.

2.5 Desired Levels of Service

Desired Levels of Service and the City’s performance against them will be included in future iterations of the AM Plan.


3. Future Demand

Future demand is a measure of how much customers consume the services provided by the assets. Understanding and predicting demands enable asset managers to plan ahead and identify the best way to meet future conditions. The City of Barrie expects to enter a period of growth over the coming years with the addition of annexed lands to the south of the City in January 2010 and new employment lands.

Changes to current levels of service need to be identified, and considered and approved by City Council before they are implemented. This business process is described in more detail within the parent document which outlines the corporate asset management policy and framework for the City of Barrie. The discussion with the City Council should be a balanced trade-off discussion between:

Levels of service

The cost of that service, customers willingness to pay, and availability of budgets necessary to meet the service levels

The inherent risk profile in the infrastructure program related to delivering the agreed level of service and the budget provided.

This section outlines the following:

Demand Drivers

Demand Forecasts

Demand Impacts on Assets

Demand Management Plans.

3.1 Demand Drivers

Multiple interconnected factors will continue to influence demand for assets that support stormwater management. These factors are outlined below in Table 3-1:

Table 3-1 Factors Affecting Future Demand

Factor Discussion

Development and population growth

• Development and population growth are significant factors influencing future stormwater demand for the City of Barrie

• The City of Barrie has identified eight key elements for focus in its 2010-2014 Strategic Plan. This includes directing and managing economic development for attracting, promoting and engaging industry for the purpose of establishing the City as a centre for excellence in innovation and entrepreneurship.

• The City has also identified the management of this approaching growth period as priority. This includes the allocation and planning of employment and annexed lands whereby growth will be within these designated growth areas.

Weather patterns and global climate

• Weather patterns influence the demand for stormwater services within the City of Barrie. The demand on stormwater assets vary with natural cycle of season change. Cyclical seasonal variations do not impact long term demand. Cyclical variations such as El Nino and enhanced human influenced global


Factor Discussion change climate change, can influence air temperatures and have the potential to influence the resulting long

term future demand for assets. Consumer preference

• Consumer preference is linked to user attitudes and behaviours, which can influence demand. Understanding consumer preference is critical to understanding the potential for which demand management techniques can be used to influence consumers and subsequently control future demand. This includes sustainable development which strives to foster and support a wide range of solutions to meet evolving community needs.

• The preference of customers within the City of Barrie has been examined via a citizen satisfaction report which strives to represent customer opinions against a scale of priority. Stormwater ponds are of a neighborhood landscape, and often regarded as a community “feature”.

Legislation & Policy

• Lake Simcoe Protection Act provides the means to control and influence behaviours that negatively impact the Lake Simcoe water shed through legal tools. This includes controlling the discharge of pollutants and phosphorous, of which stormwater is a major contributor (estimated 31% of total phosphorus load to Lake Simcoe).2

• Legislation and policy changes, perhaps as far reaching one day as to restrict the percentage of a property’s surface that can be paved, can have both a direct and indirect influence on the future demand for the City of Barrie’s stormwater assets

• The introduction of stormwater user rates may also bring awareness to, and generate revenue from activities that impact or benefit from effective stormwater management

Technology change and usage efficiency

• Technology changes increasing efficiency can result in the obsolescence or substitution of fixed assets. This can influence future residential, industrial and commercial demand. Software can enable structured network analysis and renewal prioritization against specified criteria such as levels of services and demand drivers to ensure the City continues to meet ongoing asset needs. Real time monitoring and control can be used to control capacity, which can increase infrastructure asset life and yield maximum economic benefits for meeting short term changes in demand.

Network and operational efficiency

• Business improvement initiatives such as performance monitoring, leakage identification and repair and registered metering can be expected to result in a reduction of asset demand for the City.

• The adoption of genetic algorithms and heuristic modelling techniques can yield greater network efficiencies and can increase capacity to meet the short term needs of a growing community.

3.2 Demand Forecasts

Development and population forecasts, along with future demand projections, for the City of Barrie are currently under study as part of the upcoming Master Plan. Population growth, along with industrial and commercial growth, and other growth forecasts or projections for existing urban areas, designated growth areas and rural regions within the City of Barrie and annexed lands will be included in the next set of asset management plans.

3.2.1 Corporate References and City Studies - Future Demand for Environmental Services

The future demand for environmental services has been defined in various studies commissioned by the City of Barrie, these include:

Kidd’s Creek Master Drainage Plan Class Environmental Assessment, prepared by the City of Barrie Engineering Department, January 2005

2 Lake Simcoe Phosphorous Reduction Strategy, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010


Master Drainage Plan, Municipal Class Environmental Assessments, Dyments Creek, prepared by Jones Consulting Group Ltd, June 2004

Sophia Creek Watershed Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Skelton Brumwell and Associates Inc, February 2002

Hotchkiss Creek Master Drainage Plan Update Environmental Assessment Document, prepared by RG Robinson and Associates, April 2000

Lovers Creek and Hewitts Creek Master Watershed Plans, prepared by Cumming Cockburn Limited, December 1995

Bunkers Creek Master Drainage Plan Update, prepared by Giffels Group, June 2004

Ardagh West Secondary Plan Area Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Andrew Brodie Associates Inc., September 1996.

Intensification Study In April 2009, the City of Barrie’s Planning Services Department completed an intensification study as part of the City’s overall growth management plan. The intent of the study was to:

Define a long term vision and establish specific principles to guide future decisions on development;

Assess the City’s capacity to meet the intensification targets established through the Provincial growth plan; and

Recommend policies and performance standards for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

3.3 Demand Impacts on Assets

For the purpose of this AM Plan it has been assumed that growth of the stormwater asset portfolio is commensurate with the City’s population growth.

Near term capital improvements to cater for future demands are discussed below with assumptions applying to all assets relating to stormwater assets, including storm water management facilities.

Storm: There are several intensification areas that are regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority as well as the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority that will limit developable area and may limit required servicing works. Storm drainage would require local sewer system upgrades associated with additional road surface widths. The increase in asphalt surface would increase the need for additional storm water quality measures including pond retro fits and larger oil grit separator structures. Intensification would require storm water runoff controls that limit peak flows to existing conditions.

There is expected to be minimal material impacts to demand within this period covered by this AMP due to the nature of supply in services generated by the City of Barrie’s Environmental Services asset portfolio.


3.4 Demand Management Plans

The most effective way to maintain a SWMF is to prevent the pollutants from entering the facility in the first place. Common pollutants include sediment, trash and debris, chemicals, dog wastes, runoff from stored materials, and illicit discharges into the storm drainage system.

A thoughtful maintenance program will include measures to address these potential contaminants, and will save the City money and time in the long run. Key points to consider in a SWMF demand management plan include:

Educate the residential and institutional/ commercial/ industrial (ICI) communities to be aware of how their actions affect water quality, and how they can help reduce maintenance costs

Develop programs to encourage the reduction and improved quality of stormwater. Programs could include: downspout disconnection, rain barrels, rain gardens, green roof tops, oil and grit separators, and permeable pavement.

Keep properties, streets and gutters, and parking lots free of trash, debris, and lawn clippings

Provide for the proper disposal of hazardous wastes and chemicals

Provide lawn care to minimize the use of chemicals and pesticides

Sweep paved surfaces and put the sweepings back on the lawn

Be aware of automobiles leaking fluids. Use absorbents such as cat litter to soak up drippings – dispose of properly

Re-vegetate disturbed and bare areas to maintain vegetative stabilization

Clean out the upstream components of the storm drainage system, including sump manholes and grit chambers, inlets, storm sewers and outfalls

Do not store materials outdoors (including landscaping materials) unless properly protected from runoff

Specify and enforce construction practices to prevent sediment from flowing downstream (i.e., silt fence and fiber blankets).


4. Asset Portfolio

4.1 Overview

The City of Barrie is responsible for a broad portfolio of assets that support the goals of stormwater management. This AM Plan addresses only the City-owned SWMFs, consisting of wetlands and ponds (dry, wet and infiltration). These facilities are to be operated and maintained in accordance with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued Certificates of Approvals (CofAs) to provide quantity and/or quality control of stormwater runoff from urban areas within the City. Recently, the City has identified a risk that some SWMFs may not be meeting the required levels of service specified by MOE regulatory requirements.

4.2 Asset Hierarchy

Asset information is needed to support decision-making. The asset hierarchy provides the framework for segmenting the City’s asset portfolio into appropriate classifications and describing the linkages. The asset hierarchy used for this SWMF AM Plan appendix is shown below.

Table 4-1 Asset Hierarchy – SWMF

Asset Primary Function(s) Function Description Components

Pretreatment Water quality treatment

To remove suspended solids from the stormwater prior to entering the pond(s)

Low Impact Developments (LIDs), Oil/Grit Separator

Inlet Conveyance Water quantity control

To convey stormwater from the tributary area into the pond(s)

Overland Flow Route, Piping, Mtce Hole, Flow Splitter, Weir, Orifice Plate, Grate

Inlet Structure Water quantity control

To control the flow of stormwater into the pond(s) Grate, Screen, Energy Dissipater

Sediment Forebay

Water quality treatment

To retain a permanent pool of water for 24 hours in between storm events to settle and trap sediment and remove phosphorous

Available Volume, Riprap

Storage Pool Water quantity control and water quality treatment

To provide reserve capacity to capture storm event water to enable its release to the receiving water body in a controlled manner over time

Available Volume, Vegetation, Floating Island, Berm, Bed / Liner, Riprap, Benching, Fountain

Outlet Structure Water quantity control

To control volume and flow of stormwater from the pond(s) to the receiving body

Orifice Plate, Pipe, Hickenbottom, Reverse Slope Pipe, Maintenance Drain Pipe (Fish Screen, Valve)

Outlet Conveyance

Water quantity control

To convey stormwater from the pond(s) to the receiving water body

Headwall, Flow Splitter, Emergency Spillway, Receiving Watercourse

Maintenance Access

Facility access To enable access to the SWMF for maintenance and renewal

Road, Material Drying / Laydown Area

Security Safety To control access to the SWMF Fence, Sign, Gate, Lock

Landscaping Water quality treatment

To control access to the ponds by animals and humans and to provide aesthetic component

Vegetation


4.3 Asset Inventory

To focus needs for investments, it is helpful to understand the number of assets and replacement value of assets against the hierarchy. The City currently owns and manages 93 SWMFs, each of which has been provided a unique identification number which indicates the watershed or drainage area in which the facility is located. The following table identifies which of the elements or assets included in the asset hierarchy exist in each of the City’s SWMFs asset portfolio at this time, as provided in the SWMF Database. “Y” indicates that the asset exists at a particular SWMF.

Table 4-2 Asset Inventory – SWMF

SWMF Vol (m3) Pretreat-ment

Inlet Convey

Inlet Structure

Sediment Forebay

Storage Pool

Outlet Structure

Outlet Convey

Mtce Access Security Land-

scaping

BK03 4,500 Y Y Y Y Y Y

BK04 Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR01 Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR03 42,668 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR05 8,900 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR06 11,900 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR07 4,371 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR08A 30,100 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR08B 25,600 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR09 15,011 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR10 15,290 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR13 9,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR14 19,600 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR15 12,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR18 200 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR20 50,513 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR22 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BR24 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BY01 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BY03 Y Y Y Y Y

DY01 Y Y Y Y Y Y

DY02 11,400 Y Y Y Y Y Y

DY03 29,865 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

DY04 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

DY07 Y Y Y Y Y Y



Inlet Convey

Inlet Structure

Sediment Forebay

Storage Pool

Outlet Structure

Outlet Convey


scaping

DY09 1,576 Y Y Y Y Y Y

GR01 13,460 Y Y Y Y Y Y

GR02 8,100 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

GR03 17,853 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

GR04 19,400 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

GR05 63,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HR01 28,136 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HR02 12,980 Y Y Y Y Y Y

HT03A 800 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HT06 Y Y Y

HT08 Y Y Y

HW01 3,979 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HW04 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HW05 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HW06 12,162 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

HW08 Y Y Y Y

HW09 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

KD01 118,420 Y Y Y Y Y Y

KD02 128 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

KD03 Y Y Y Y Y Y

KD04 Y Y Y Y Y

KD05 Y Y Y Y Y Y

KD06 26,455 Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT01 9,300 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT02 28,613 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT03 910 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT04 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT05 1,680 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LT06 2,520 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV01 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV02 77,200 Y Y Y

LV03 3,600 Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV04 Y Y Y

LV05 9,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y



Inlet Convey

Inlet Structure

Sediment Forebay

Storage Pool

Outlet Structure

Outlet Convey


scaping

LV06 4,460 Y Y Y Y Y

LV07 Y Y Y Y Y

LV10 Y Y Y

LV11 1,600 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV12 2,530 Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV13 2,815 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV14 15,500 Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV15 4,220 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV18 560 Y Y Y Y Y

LV19 69,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV20 4,484 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV21 8,906 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV22 40,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV23 11,421 Y Y Y Y Y

LV25 1,485 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV27 1,738 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV28 3,140 Y Y Y

LV32 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

LV49 Y Y Y

LV50 Y Y Y Y Y

SP01 Y Y Y Y Y Y

SP02 Y Y Y Y Y Y

SP03 10,910 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SP04 Y Y Y Y

WK01 Y Y Y

WK02 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

WK04 1,710 Y Y Y

WK05 88,270 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

WK17 179 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Note of above table: SWMF ID’s BK07, BR25, SH01 were identified by the City as ponds to be included in future iterations of the SWMF AM Plan.

The replacement values of the SWMF asset portfolio included in this AM Plan are based on the assets included in the City’s SWMFs asset portfolio at this time (from the table above) and 2007 Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) historical cost data, inflated to 2012 dollars by applying appropriate indices. For each SWMF, the PSAB cost data was allocated to the various SWMF elements in the asset hierarchy


according to the following table. If an element does not exist for a SWMF (per the above table), the % cost of that element was allocated to the “Storage Pool” element.

Table 4-3 SWMF Asset Inventory Replacement Cost Percentages

SWMF % Cost

Pretreatment 3%

Inlet Conveyance 10%

Inlet Structure 5%

Sediment Forebay 25%

Storage Pool 35%

Outlet Structure 5%

Outlet Conveyance 5%

Maintenance Access 5%

Security 2%

Landscaping 5%

The following figure outlines the replacement value of the City’s SWMFs asset portfolio, in 2012$, by SWMF asset or element.

Figure 4-1 SWMF Assets Costs, 2012$

4.4 Installation Profile of Assets

To assist the City with asset management decision-making including future funding needs analysis, it is helpful to understand the installation profile of the asset portfolio. The following graphs show the replacement value of the assets by year of installation, in 2012$. The SWMFs were installed to support development of the City – generally between 1983 to present.


Figure 4-2 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF (Total)

Figure 4-3 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Pretreatment

Figure 4-4 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance


Figure 4-5 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Inlet Structure

Figure 4-6 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Sediment Forebay

Figure 4-7 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Storage Pool


Figure 4-8 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Outlet Structure

Figure 4-9 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance

Figure 4-10 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Maintenance Access


Figure 4-11 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Security

Figure 4-12 Asset Installation Profile – SWMF: Landscaping


5. Lifecycle Management

This section of the AM Plan describes the lifecycle management of City-owned SWMF assets. Information is provided about the lifecycle activities and associated costs, how the assets might fail to meet requirements, and lifecycle management plans for maintenance and renewal. This section includes:

Asset Lifecycle Activities and Cost Data

Asset Failure Modes and Consumption Estimates

Asset Risk Data and Risk Exposure Estimates

Lifecycle Management Plans.

5.1 Asset Lifecycle Activities and Cost Data

Lifecycle activities for can be categorized into the following main areas:

Create or Acquire: Activities that provide new or donated / gifted assets that increase service potential, performance capability or capacity

Operate: The active process of using an asset which may consume resources such as manpower, energy, chemicals, and materials.

Maintain: Activities necessary to retain an asset as near as practicable in its original condition, but excluding refurbishment / rehabilitation or replacement

Refurbish or Rehabilitate: Activities to sustain the original service potential or substantially extend the life of existing assets by replacing component systems or assemblies without increasing service potential, performance capability or capacity

Enhance: Activities that augment or upgrade existing assets to increase service potential, performance capability or capacity

Replace: Activities that replace existing assets with assets of equivalent service potential, performance capability or capacity

Dispose: Work that permanently removes assets from service.


The figure below illustrates the above lifecycle management activities and cumulative lifecycle costs, the amounts of which will vary by asset type.

Figure 5-1 Typical Lifecycle Management Activities

Significant population growth has caused the creation and acquisition of a number of SWMFs that are the most common form of stormwater management for residential and commercial development.

Managers of SWMFs understand that it is important that SWMFs function as designed and that they must be maintained and renewed (rehabilitated and replaced) over time to retain this function. However, many municipalities are without current maintenance and renewal programs – largely due to lack of funding. Changing legislation has caused the need to enhance some existing SWMFs.

The lifecycle activities and associated costs for City-owned SWMF currently include creation, maintenance and renewal, as described below.

5.1.1 Creation

Land developers design and install SWMFs as required to support growing communities. Ownership of the SWMF is transferred to the City upon completion of the development, as per the assumption process. Developers are required to clean out and bring the SWMF to design standards prior to assumption however, this requirement has not been enforced.

As outlined in the preceding section, the replacement values of the SWMF asset portfolio included in this AM Plan are based on the 2007 PSAB historical cost data, inflated to 2012 dollars by applying appropriate indices. The history of creation of SWMFs is provided in the Asset Installation Profile graphs provided in the previous section.

5.1.2 Operations and Maintenance

The history of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, organized as much as possible around the asset hierarchy, provides a basis for understanding the dynamic of various maintenance and renewal


investments, forecasting future O&M costs, and analyzing current funding levels against financial projections.

The City currently carries out the following maintenance activities on SWMF:

Annual inspection

Survey every five years

Vegetation harvesting when required

Vegetation removal when it becomes obstructive.

The following table provides an example of the annual operating expenditures and budgets for SWMFs. These expenditures and budgets were used as a baseline to forecast future operations and maintenance costs.

Table 5-1 Historic SWMF Annual Maintenance Expenditures / Budget

Year SWMF ID Description of Work Cost

2011 BR09 Brush removal $2,000

BY03 Brush removal $6,000

HT03A Brush removal $13,000

HW01 Sediment Survey and Assessment $3,000


HW05 Sediment Sampling/Analysis $2,200


LV01 Brush removal $10,825




LV19 Developer Pond Sediment Removal $0



LT02 Brush removal $6,400

LT04 Brush removal $7,401

LT06 Dead Tree Removal $11,100

LT06 Soft Vegetation Removal $3,600

LT06 Sediment Analysis $500

WK04 Fence Repair $1,000

Various Beaver/Muskrat Control $12,000

2012 HW01 Sediment Sampling/Analysis $2,000

HW04 Sediment Sampling/Analysis $2,000


Year SWMF ID Description of Work Cost

HW05 Brush Removal $3,700

LV04 Sediment Survey and Assessment $4,500



LV18 Sediment Sampling/Analysis $2,000


LV21 Sediment Sampling/Analysis $2,000

LT02 Dangerous Tree Removal $2,600

LT06 Tree Removals $7,500

Table 5-2 SWMF 2012 Planned Maintenance

SWMF ID Description of Work Priority Complete?

BY03 All 3 inlet spillways to be fixed Medium

BY04 Debris in inlet grate Medium Low Y

BR01 Sediment removal at Inlet Medium Low

BR03 Sediment removal needed High

Debris needs to be removed from outlet grate Critical High Y

Inlet grate open Medium Low Y

Vegetation & Decayed Vegetation to be removed throughout High

BR05 Sediment removal at Inlet Medium

Debris garbage removal at inlet and outlet Medium Y

BR06 Vegetation should be removed at inlet and forebay Medium

Sign Faded Medium

BR08a Fence to be repaired/More signs High-Critical High Y

Graffiti/ Asphalt/Sediment on East Inlet pipe Medium Low Y

Hickenbottom filled with debris, clean out Medium Low Y

Garbage cleanup required Medium Y

Decayed vegetation should be removed Medium

BR08b Signs graffiti-replace Medium Low Y

Sediment/veg removal at Inlet directly into forebay Medium

Debris in inlet- filled High Y

BR08 Garbage cleanup required Medium Low Y

BK03 Walkway to be repaired Medium Y

Garbage removal between Atwood and Bethune place Medium Low Y

Vegetation to be removed around outlet Medium Low Y


SWMF ID Description of Work Priority Complete?

Inlet grate to be cleared of debris Medium Y

DY03 Small trees in Inlet Spillway Medium Low

Sediment and debris to be removed from outlet grate High Y

DY04 Vegetation removal required at outlet spillway Medium

Some sediment in sediment trap Medium Low Y

beaver house on South East corner but no sign of beaver Medium

GR02 Vegetation/Sedimentation at Inlet and Outlet Medium Low

Graffiti on walls at Inlet and Outlet Medium Low Y

HT03a Fence needs to be repaired High

Debris/garbage needs to be removed throughout High Y

HR02 Outlet grate needs to be cleaned High Y

Vegetation throughout to be removed Medium

KD03 Sediment/Vegetation should be removed throughout Medium

Debris in outlet grate Y

LT02 Sediment/Vegetation build up Medium - High

Out structure remove manhole cover and install beehive grate. No high level overflow protection. High Y

Damage to Inlet walls Medium Low

LV06 Garbage Removal Medium Y

Gabion baskets to be replaced/repaired at Inlet and Outlet Medium - High

Sediment Removal needed at outlet Medium

LV07 Outlet Grate to be cleaned out Medium

Garbage clean up by gabion baskets Medium Y

Cattail removal at inlet Medium Low

Sediment removal after gabion baskets Medium Low

Vegetation Overgrowth High

Debris to be removed at Outlet High Y

Garbage needs to be removed Medium Y

SP01 Sediment build up at inlet Medium Low

Graffiti at inlet Medium Low Y

WK05 Damage to gate and fence Medium

Inlet grate open Medium Low Y

Algae at inlet Medium


5.1.3 Renewal

The current 10-year capital renewal program, organized as much as possible around the asset hierarchy, provides a basis for understanding the dynamic of various maintenance and renewal investments, forecasting future renewal asset investments, and analyzing current funding levels against financial projections.

The City currently prioritizes SWMF renewal work by assessing whether the SWMF is worth saving or whether it makes more sense to leave it to run to failure.

The following table provides a summary of the renewal expenditures and budgets for SWMFs. These expenditures and budgets were used as a baseline to forecast future operations and maintenance costs.

Table 5-3 Historic SWMF Renewal Expenditures / Budget (2012$)

Year SWMF ID Description of Work Work By Cost

2012 HW05 Sediment Removal & Restoration Contractor $553,730

LT06 Sediment Removal & Restoration City Forces $80,000

5.1.4 Maximum Potential Life (MPL)

The Maximum Potential Life (MPL) is the time from installation to replacement, with maintenance and refurbishment activities taking place during the asset lifecycle to restore the condition and prolong the life of the asset. The MPLs for SWMF assets, as agreed with City staff who manage the various SWMF lifecycles, are shown in the table below

Table 5-4 SWMF Assets MPL

SWMF MPL

Pretreatment 40

Inlet Conveyance 40

Inlet Structure 40

Sediment Forebay 10

Storage Pool 20

Outlet Structure 40

Outlet Conveyance 40

Maintenance Access 40

Security 20

Landscaping 50


5.2 Asset Failure Modes and Consumption Estimates

5.2.1 Failure Modes

There are several different ways that an asset can fail to provide its required level of service – known as the failure modes of an asset. Each of these failure modes could have a different probability or consequence of failure. Most asset failures can be classified under one of the following four failure modes:

Utilization: The demand exceeds the capacity of the existing asset or network of assets, or vice versa in some cases (e.g., current pond water quantity capacity is diminished due to buildup of sediment; designed capacity is no longer adequate due to increased development and changes to the natural environment)

Physical Mortality: The structural condition of the asset is such that it has reached the end of its effective life (e.g., erosion of the inlet structure foundation; deterioration of the concrete in the inlet structure)

Financial Efficiency: The asset is not being managed at the lowest lifecycle cost (e.g., the current management strategy of “run the SWMF to failure” and replace it every 40 years may be more costly than a strategy to regularly inspect the facilities and remove sediments from the forebay).

Level of Service: The asset no longer performs reliably or does not meet higher regulatory requirements (e.g., technical and legislated requirements have been increased since SWMF construction and are not currently being satisfied (phosphorus loading limits, MOE regulations) or customer expectations are not being met (safety issues, aesthetic considerations)).

All decisions about the refurbishment and replacement of an asset and the timing of these activities should be based on a sound determination of assets’ critical failure modes (the ones with the highest consequence and probability of occurrence). Identification of critical failure modes will ensure that the City focuses on the assets and failures that can have the most impact on its business.

Failure modes are related to the intended function of the assets. To simplify the risk analysis, the following table aligns each of the SWMF assets to one of the following three failure modes.

Insufficient water quality treatment (e.g., the pretreatment, inlet structure, and/or sediment forebay assets that are intended to capture larger particles at the inlet of the facility and settle the sediment within the facility do not function appropriately)

Insufficient water quantity control (e.g., the inlet conveyance, storage pool, outlet structure, and/or outlet conveyance assets that are intended to direct and capture storm event water and discharge it over time do not function appropriately)

Other function is not provided, including maintenance access, security and aesthetics.


Table 5-5 SWMF Failure Modes

Failure Mode Asset Function Components

Insufficient Water Quality Treatment

Pretreatment To remove suspended solids from the stormwater prior to entering the pond(s)

Low Impact Developments (LIDs), Oil/Grit Separator

Inlet Structure To control the flow of stormwater into the pond(s) Grate, Screen, Energy Dissipater

Sediment Forebay



Landscaping To control access to the ponds by animals and humans and to provide aesthetic component

Vegetation

Insufficient Water Quantity Control

Inlet Conveyance



Storage Pool To provide reserve capacity to capture storm event water to enable its release to the receiving water body in a controlled manner over time

Available Volume, Vegetation, Floating Island, Berm, Bed / Liner, Riprap, Benching, Fountain

Outlet Structure



Outlet Conveyance



Other Functions is not provided

Maintenance Access

To enable access to the SWMF for maintenance and renewal

Road

Security To control access to the SWMF Fence, Sign, Gate, Lock

5.2.2 Remaining Life and Asset Consumption

For each failure mode, the remaining life and probability of failure were determined. Remaining life was determined based on two methods:

For those assets for which condition information was available, remaining life was calculated based on observed condition. The City conducts annual visual inspections of all SWMFs and records inspection information on a hard copy Pond Inspection Form, a 10-page form that includes inventory information, asset condition data, and water quality condition data, and rates condition from A (acceptable) to F (failure) and work priority from 1 (critical high) to 5 (low, not required). The hard copy Pond Inspection Form was reorganized to better align with the SWMF asset hierarchy and digital data collection techniques. The nine (9) SWMF inspections conducted for this AM Plan were conducted using this new format. The data included in the City’s POND DATABASE and the data collected in the new format was transferred to a digital database, with the condition ratings of A (acceptable) to F (failure) being translated to a five point scale, as shown in the table below, to better enable digital analysis. The work priority scale was not used in the analysis, as it was found to generally be the inverse of the condition rating, rather than an independent consequence of failure.


Table 5-6 SWMF Condition Rating Scale

Rating Description

5 Very Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are well within standards & norms. Typically, asset is new or recently rehabilitated.

4 Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are within acceptable standards and norms but are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for some time but is within mid-stage of its expected life.

3 Fair Asset is showing signs of deterioration and is performing at a lower level than originally intended. Some components of the asset are becoming physically deficient. Required maintenance costs exceed acceptable standards and norms and are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for a long time and is within the later stage of its expected life.

2 Poor Asset is showing significant signs of deterioration and is performing to a much lower level than originally intended. A major portion of the asset is physically deficient. Required maintenance costs significantly exceed acceptable standards and norms. Typically, asset is approaching the end of its expected life.

1 Failed Asset is physically unsound and/or not performing as originally intended. Asset has higher probability of failure or failure is imminent. Maintenance costs are unacceptable and rehabilitation is not cost effective. Replacement / major refurbishment is required.

For all other assets, remaining life was calculated simply by subtracting the Install Year from the current year (2012) and then subtracting the estimated Maximum Potential Life (MPL) (i.e., Remaining Life = Current Year – Install Year – MPL). MPL for each of the SWMF assets are provided in the preceding section.

Based on the remaining life predictions for each of the failure modes described above, the consumption of each asset in the hierarchy has been calculated based on the least remaining life. The Asset Consumption Distribution graphs shown in Figures 5-1 to 5-11 below illustrate the value of assets that are new (0% consumed) through to assets that have reached their maximum potential life (100% consumed). These graphs provide a good indication of which assets are at the end or nearing the end of their life and may require replacement in the near future. Note that condition information is currently available for over 65% of the 600 SWMF assets in the asset portfolio. To improve the confidence in the next SWMF AM Plan, condition information should be gathered on the remaining SWMF assets.


Figure 5-2 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF (Total)

Figure 5-3 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Pretreatment

Figure 5-4 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance


Figure 5-5 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Inlet Structure

Figure 5-6 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Sediment Forebay

Figure 5-7 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Storage Pool


Figure 5-8 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Outlet Structure

Figure 5-9 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance

Figure 5-10 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Maintenance Access


Figure 5-11 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Security

Figure 5-12 Asset Consumption Distribution – SWMF: Landscaping

5.3 Asset Risk Data and Risk Exposure Estimates

5.3.1 Overview

Not every SWMF asset is of equal importance or presents the same failure risk to the City. Understanding which assets are critical and how they might fail helps focus lifecycle management strategies on what is most important. Critical SWMF assets are those assets that have major consequences or impacts if they fail and high probability or likelihood of failing.

The asset consumption determined in the preceding section provides insight into the likelihood or probability of City-owned SWMF asset failure. To determine which of these SWMFs are critical to the City’s management of stormwater, the consequence of failure must also be assessed and included in the analysis. The Risk Exposure calculation used by the City is as follows:

Risk Exposure = Probability of Failure (PoF) x Consequence of Failure (CoF) x Mitigation Factor

The methodology used to derive the Risk Exposure is outlined in the following sections.


5.3.2 Probability of Failure (PoF)

The probability of failure was derived from the Condition Rating, Installation Year and Maximum Potential Life (MPL) data, as follows:

For assets where condition data exists, PoF (Cdn) = 1.25 – 0.25 x Condition Rating, where Condition Rating is an integer from 5 (Very Good) to 1 (Failed)

For assets without condition data, PoF (Age) = (2012 – Installed Year) / MPL

5.3.3 Consequence of Failure (CoF)

The Consequence of Failure (CoF) was assigned at each of the asset and facility levels for each of the failure modes (Water Quantity, Water Quality and Other Functions), as described below, and combined as follows to determine the highest CoF for each SWMF asset:

CoF (Qnty) = Square Root of [Facility CoF (Qnty) x Facility MF(Qnty) x Asset CoF (Qnty)]

CoF (Qlty) = Square Root of [Facility CoF (Qlty) x Facility MF(Qlty) x Asset CoF (Qlty)]

CoF (Othr) = Square Root of [Facility CoF (Othr) x Facility MF(Othr) x Asset CoF (Othr)]

Asset Level CoF: The Asset Level CoFs were determined by City staff at the AM Planning Workshop held in April 2012 and shown in the table below. To simplify the risk analysis, water quality was considered as a combined failure mode, including the most critical of suspended solids and phosphorus failures.

Table 5-7 SWMF Failure Modes

Asset Function Water Quantity

Water Quality (Suspended Solids)

Water Quality (Phosphorus)

Other Functions

Pretreatment To remove suspended solids from the stormwater prior to entering the pond(s)

N/A C2 C2 N/A

Inlet Conveyance


C2 C1 N/A N/A

Inlet Structure To control the flow of stormwater into the pond(s) C2 C3 C3 N/A

Sediment Forebay


C2 C3 C3 N/A

Storage Pool To provide reserve capacity to capture storm event water to enable its release to the receiving water body in a controlled manner over time

C3 C3 C3 N/A

Outlet Structure


C4 C3 C3 N/A

Outlet Conveyance


C4 C2 C2 N/A

Maintenance Access


N/A N/A N/A C1

Security To control access to the SWMF N/A N/A N/A C1


Asset Function Water Quantity

Water Quality (Suspended Solids)

Water Quality (Phosphorus)

Other Functions

Landscaping To control access to the ponds by animals and humans and to provide aesthetic component

N/A N/A C1 C1

Facility Level CoF: The CoF for Water Quantity of each of the 93 SWMFs was determined by City staff for the 2011 AM

Plan, and included considerations such as proximity to urban development, whether an On Line facility, Certificate of Approval requirements, and fisheries value of the facility.

The CoF for Water Quality of each SWMF asset was discussed at the AM Planning Workshop held in April 2012 with City staff and included considerations such as whether subject to the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (LSPA), whether a wet pond necessary for water quality, proximity to a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA), whether a Cold Water Fishery, and whether an On Line facility (i.e., situated within an existing watercourse). Based on available data, the CoF for Water Quality at the Facility Level was assigned as follows:

– Major or C4: Long-term damage, with lasting consequences (assigned if more than one of the criteria for C3 are present)

– Moderate or C3: Long-term damage, with repairable consequences (assigned if only one of the following is present)

Part of LSRCA and LSPA Wet Pond Part of WHPA: Ponds are designated as High, Medium, Low or No Risk, with High and Medium

Risk considered C3, based on the need to protect groundwater supply, as agreed by the Conservation Authority and City of Barrie.

Part of Cold Water Fishery Online Pond

– Minor or C2: Short-term, repairable damage (assigned if none of the criteria for C3 are present)

– Insignificant or C1: Non-lasting damage (never assigned).

The CoF for Other Functions, including maintenance access, security and aesthetics, was set at C1.

The CoF ratings at the Facility Level are summarized in the table below. Note that the Mitigation or Redundancy Factor has been set at 1 because it has been included in the CoF ratings.


Table 5-8 Stormwater Facility Level CoFs

ID Description LSRCA/ LSPA Wet WHPA

Cold Water Fishery

Online CoF (Qnty)

CoF (Qlty)

CoF (Other)

MF (All)

BK03 Shelley Lane and Anne St. Yes No Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

BK04 Innisfil and Perry (Milligan's Pond) Yes Wet High Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

BR01 Lougheed Rd. and Hwy.27, channel Yes No Risk On 2 4 1 1

BR03 Lougheed Rd. (South Valley), Channel section 3 No Risk On 2 3 1 1

BR05 West end of Harvie Rd. No Risk 2 2 1 1

BR06 Cummings Dr. and N. end of Stapleton Wet No Risk 2 3 1 1

BR07 Hawthorne Cres. No Risk On 2 3 1 1

BR08A Bear Creek Dr., West end of Woodfern Wet No Risk 3 3 1 1

BR08B Bear Creek Dr. and Hubbert Cresc, W of Red Oak Wet No Risk 3 3 1 1

BR09 North of Summerset Dr. West of Gore Dr Wet No Risk On 2 4 1 1

BR10 SE of intersection of Ardagh and County Road 27 Wet No Risk 2 3 1 1

BR13 Wildwood Trail and Snowshoe Trail No Risk 3 2 1 1

BR14 N. of Bishop Dr. Low Risk 2 2 1 1

BR15 Cityview Circle No Risk 3 2 1 1

BR16 SW of Mapleview and Reid intersection Wet No Risk 3 3 1 1

BR18 Ardagh And Ferndale S-Firehall 4 No Risk 1 2 1 1

BR20 N of Mapleview W, W of Reid Dr. Wet No Risk 3 3 1 1

BR22 Ardagh and Summerset Drive Wet Medium Risk 2 4 1 1

BR24 King St S Wet No Risk 2 3 1 1

BY01 Yes Wet No Risk On 4

BY03 Yes Wet No Risk 2 4 1 1

DY01 Under George St. and Anne, "Dyment's Pond" Yes Wet High Risk On 2 4 1 1

DY02 McVeigh Drive Yes No Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

DY03 Ferndale Drive N Yes No Risk Yes On 2 4 1 1

DY04 Yes Wet Low Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

DY07 South end of Ellen St. (WPCC pond) Yes Wet No Risk On 4 4 1 1

DY09 Sandy Hollow Landfill Yes No Risk Yes 1 4 1 1

GR01 Rosenfeld Dr. No Risk On 3 3 1 1

GR02 Hickling and Rosenfeld, N. of Mayor (soccer field) No Risk On 2 3 1 1



Cold Water Fishery

Online CoF (Qnty)

CoF (Qlty)

CoF (Other)

MF (All)

GR03 Hickling Trail and Johnson St. No Risk On 2 3 1 1

GR04 Johnson St. and Grove St. (behind arena + school) No Risk On 2 3 1 1

GR05 Penetanguishene Rd. Wet No Risk On 2 4 1 1

HR01 S of Lakeshore, N of Garden Yes High Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

HR02 between Kelly Pl. and Woodcrest Rd. Yes High Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

HT03A Hotchkiss Creek / Loggers Run Yes Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

HT06 Bryne Drive at Essa/Ardagh, behind Days Inn Yes Medium Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

HT08 Tiffin and Bradford Yes High Risk Yes 4 4 1 1

HW01 Edwards Drive, N of Big Bay Pt. Rd. Yes Wet No Risk Yes 1 4 1 1

HW04 S of Capps Drive, E of Crimson Ridge Yes Wet High Risk Yes 1 4 1 1

HW05 Birkhall and Sandringham Yes Wet High Risk Yes 1 4 1 1

HW06 Camelot Square and Pioneer Trail Yes Wet High Risk Yes 1 4 1 1

HW08 E of Prince William, N of Regalia Yes Wet No Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

HW09 W. of Consort, NW of Sun King Cresc. Yes Wet No Risk 1 4 1 1

KD01 Hwy 400 - Sunnidale Park, E. of park Yes No Risk On 4 4 1 1

KD02 Cundles Rd. W and Lillian Cres. Yes No Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

KD03 between Sunnidale Rd. and Irwin Dr. Yes Low Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

KD04 Barwick Dr. Yes No Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

KD05 Livingstone St. W. and Etherington Cres. Yes No Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

KD06 Livingstone St.W. and Ford, S. end of School Yes No Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LT01 Cardinal St. No Risk 3 2 1 1

LT02 Liva Herman Way Wet No Risk 2 3 1 1

LT03 Crompton Dr., E end of Forest Dale Wet No Risk 1 3 1 1

LT04 Hanmer St., between Palmer and Stanley Wet No Risk 2 3 1 1

LT05 NE corner of Osprey Ridge Rd. Wet No Risk 1 3 1 1

LT06 NE corner of Lions Gate Blvd No Risk 2 2 1 1

LV01 Cox Mill Rd. and Hurst Dr. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LV02 E of Welham Rd. between Ellis and Churchill ES Yes High Risk Yes On 2 4 1 1

LV03 E of Welham between Churchill and Mapleview Yes High Risk Yes On 2 4 1 1

LV04 S of Mapleview Dr. between Bayview and Welham Yes Wet Low Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

LV05 W of Bayview Dr. between Saunders and Mapleview Yes Low Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1



Cold Water Fishery

Online CoF (Qnty)

CoF (Qlty)

CoF (Other)

MF (All)

LV06 E of Bayview Dr. between Saunders and Lockhart Yes Wet Low Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

LV07 W of Bayview Dr. between Saunders and Lockhart Yes Wet Low Risk Yes On 2 4 1 1

LV10 Mary Anne Rd. and Cox Mill Rd. Yes Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV11 Yonge St. and D'ambrosio Dr. Yes Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV12 End of Hooper,S of Mapleview and E of Welham Yes Medium Risk Yes On 2 4 1 1

LV13 East of Dixon Cres. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV14 NW of Caplan/Bryne intersect., N of Home Depot Yes Medium Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LV15 East of Bryne Dr, between Mapleview and Caplan Yes Wet No Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV18 South of Chalmers Dr. and Ward Dr. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV19 Grace Cresc. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV20 Country Lane Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV21 Loon Ave. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV22 Bryne Dr. S and Commerce Park Yes Wet Low Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LV23 Patrick Dr and Seline Cresc. Yes Wet No Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV25 Yes Wet Low Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV27 Macmillan and Little Ave. Yes Wet Medium Risk Yes 2 4 1 1

LV28 Mapleview & Bayview, Arena parking lot, S of L29 Yes Medium Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LV32 Yes Wet No Risk 4

LV49 Mapleview and Bayview, Arena parking lot Yes Low Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

LV50 King St. & Veterans Dr. Yes Wet No Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

SP01 Grove St. and Bothwell Cres. Yes No Risk On 2 4 1 1

SP02 Patricia Ave. Yes No Risk 2 3 1 1

SP03 100m N of Intersection of Ottaway Ave & Currie St. Yes No Risk On 2 4 1 1

SP04 Barrie Public Library parking lot Yes High Risk 1 4 1 1

WK01 Little Ave., Firman Dr. and Hurnoia Yes Low Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

WK02 Little Ave. and Mc Conkey Pl. Yes Low Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

WK04 Tollendale Mill Rd. and Minet's Point Rd. Yes Wet Low Risk Yes 3 4 1 1

WK05 Between Harvie and Caplan Yes Wet High Risk Yes On 3 4 1 1

WK17 Veterans Drive and Veterans Lane Yes Wet No Risk Yes 1 4 1 1


5.3.4 Asset Risk Exposure Estimate

The following section includes risk maps showing the total replacement value of assets for Risk Exposure by asset type, based on the risk methodology and criteria described above. The risk maps show the value of assets by asset type (in 2012$) at extreme (red), high (orange), moderate (green), or low (blue) risks of failure. The assets falling in the extreme and high categories are those assets that are most consumed, as illustrated in the consumption graphs and therefore have a high probability of failure, and that also have a high consequence of failure.

The risk maps have enabled the identification and prioritization of high risk assets that need to become candidates for closer inspection (to verify if they truly are high risk), renewal or replacement.

In summary, approximately 27% of SWMF assets, by 2012 replacement dollars, are an extreme business risk, with a further 30% of assets being a high business risk.

Table 5-9 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF (Total)

PoF

P4 $82,699 $59,047 $1,283,729 $4,084,174

P3 $556,407 $315,045 $1,373,608 $2,938,892

P2 $953,309 $182,652 $2,334,734 $8,470,803

P1 $576,184 $2,762,783 $3,775,090 $3,251,175

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

Table 5-10 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, % – SWMF (Total)

PoF

P4 0% 0% 4% 12%

P3 2% 1% 4% 9%

P2 3% 1% 7% 26%

P1 2% 8% 11% 10%

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

The assets that comprise the extreme BRE for these assets are:

Inlet Structure assets: DY07, GR03, GR04, HT03A, KD01, KD02, LV03, LV05, LV06, LV07


Sediment Forebay assets: HW01, HW04, HW05, HW08, LT02, LT05, LT06, LV19, LV20, LV21, LV22

Storage Pool assets: BR03, BR08A, BR10, BR13, BY03, DY02, DY04, DY07, GR03, GR04, HT03A, HT06, HT08, HW05, HW09, KD02, KD06, LT01, , LT05, LT06, LV02, LV03, LV05, LV06, LV10, LV18, LV19, LV28, LV49, SP01, WK04, WK17

Outlet Structure assets: BR03, LT06

Outlet Conveyance assets: BR16, GR01, GR03, HT03A, LT01, LT06, LV03, LV05.

Table 5-11 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Pretreatment

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $0 $0

P3 $0 $0 $1,125 $0

P2 $11,047 $0 $6,232 $0

P1 $0 $0 $0 $0

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

No SWMF Pretreatment assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-12 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance

PoF

P4 $0 $45,459 $0 $0

P3 $0 $140,228 $74,422 $0

P2 $0 $102,149 $218,544 $0

P1 $0 $985,253 $913,256 $0

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

No SWMF Inlet Conveyance assets are an extreme business risk to the City.


Table 5-13 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Inlet Structure

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $0 $0

P3 $0 $0 $127,750 $305,858

P2 $0 $0 $234,999 $407,711

P1 $0 $0 $24,547 $138,790

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

25% of SWMF Inlet Structure assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-14 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Sediment Forebay

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $22,767 $723,025

P3 $0 $0 $174,586 $207,826

P2 $0 $0 $275,773 $668,550

P1 $0 $0 $658,972 $852,656

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

27% of SWMF Sediment Forebay assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-15 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Storage Pool

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $1,210,971 $3,338,965

P3 $0 $0 $958,977 $2,377,452

P2 $173,842 $0 $1,441,616 $7,273,860

P1 $0 $331,412 $1,684,626 $1,659,195

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

34% of SWMF Storage Pool assets are an extreme business risk to the City.


Table 5-16 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Outlet Structure

PoF

P4 $0 $13,588 $49,991 $0

P3 $0 $0 $4,553 $0

P2 $0 $0 $40,050 $0

P1 $0 $11,358 $117,494 $171,086

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

12% of SWMF Outlet Structure assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-17 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $0 $22,184

P3 $0 $35,426 $32,194 $47,756

P2 $0 $234 $117,519 $120,682

P1 $0 $31,686 $376,194 $429,448

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

6% of SWMF Outlet Conveyance assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-18 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Maintenance Access

PoF

P4 $45,939 $0 $0 $0

P3 $547,533 $0 $0 $0

P2 $719,410 $0 $0 $0

P1 $336,214 $0 $0 $0

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

No SWMF Maintenance Access assets are an extreme business risk to the City.


Table 5-19 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Security

PoF

P4 $36,759 $0 $0 $0

P3 $8,874 $3,001 $0 $0

P2 $47,007 $6,786 $0 $0

P1 $179,540 $26,284 $0 $0

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

No SWMF Security assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

Table 5-20 Asset Risk Exposure Matrix, 2012$ – SWMF: Landscaping

PoF

P4 $0 $0 $0 $0

P3 $0 $136,389 $0 $0

P2 $2,003 $73,483 $0 $0

P1 $60,430 $1,376,790 $0 $0

C1 C2 C3 C 4

CoF

No SWMF Landscaping assets are an extreme business risk to the City.

5.3.5 Assets Priorities by SWMF

The risk maps above have identified extreme risk assets that should be considered candidates for closer inspection/verification, renewal, or replacement. The candidate assets for the capital program are listed over the next several pages, with the replacement cost in 2012$, the basis for determining PoF (Condition or Age), calculated Risk Exposure shown with highest at the top of the list, whether the SWMF has been inspected by MOE, and the recommended type of program (last three columns).

Please note that ponds are listed alphabetically by pond. This list provides a review the priorities by pond. The intent is that this will assist the City in organizing/group potential projects.


Table 5-21 SWMF Asset Priorities

ID Asset Repl Cost (2012$)

Max. Risk Exposure

PoF Basis

MOE Insp?

Inventory & Inspections

Inspection & Maintenance

Renewal &/or Enhancement

Comment/Status from the City

BR03 Storage Pool $629,889 3 Cdn Yes BR03 Outlet Structure $49,991 2.83 Cdn

BR08A Storage Pool $268,023 2.25 Age Yes Design completed in 2012, construction recommended for 2013

BR10 Storage Pool $58,996 2.25 Age Yes BR13 Storage Pool $143,408 3 Age Yes BR16 Outlet Conveyance $22,184 3.46 Age Yes BY03 Storage Pool $96,392 2.6 Age Yes DY02 Storage Pool $186,992 2.6 Age Yes DY04 Storage Pool $261,486 2.6 Cdn Yes

DY07 Storage Pool $381,095 2.6 Age Yes Inlet Structure $27,221 2.42 Cdn

GR01 Outlet Conveyance $15,770 2.6 Age Yes

GR03 Storage Pool $284,473 2.25 Cdn Yes Inlet Structure $20,917 2.18 Cdn Outlet Conveyance $20,917 2.12 Cdn

GR04 Storage Pool $309,123 3 Age Yes Inlet Structure $22,730 2.18 Age

HT03A

Storage Pool $12,747 2.6 Age Yes Clean out recently completed - dead tree removed

Outlet Conveyance $937 2.12 Cdn Clean out recently completed - dead tree removed

Inlet Structure $937 2.08 Cdn Clean out recently completed - dead tree removed

HT06 Storage Pool $239,786 2.25 Cdn Yes Pond to be retrofitted by developer

HT08 Storage Pool $826,907 3.46 Cdn Yes HW01 Sediment Forebay $18,633 2.6 Cdn Yes Yes

HW04 Sediment Forebay $38,157 2.6 Cdn Yes Yes Clean out budgeted for 2013

HW05 Sediment Forebay $67,938 3.46 Cdn Pond was cleaned out

in 2012

Storage Pool $108,701 2.6 Age Yes Complete* Pond was cleaned out in 2012

HW08 Sediment Forebay $394,492 3.12 Cdn Yes HW09 Storage Pool $76,609 2.6 Cdn Yes KD01 Inlet Structure $138,745 2.42 Cdn Yes

KD02 Storage Pool $2,040 2.6 Age Yes Inlet Structure $150 2.51 Cdn

KD06 Storage Pool $433,937 2.6 Age Yes Have been identified as requiring retrofit

LT01 Outlet Conveyance $10,896 2.6 Age EA in progress for

retrofit Storage Pool $148,188 2.25 Cdn Yes EA in progress for


ID Asset Repl Cost (2012$)

Max. Risk Exposure

PoF Basis

MOE Insp?

Inventory & Inspections

Inspection & Maintenance

Renewal &/or Enhancement

Comment/Status from the City retrofit

LT02 Storage Pool $93,945 3 Cdn Yes Sediment Forebay $58,716 2.25 Cdn

LT05 Storage Pool $16,928 2.25 Cdn Yes Sediment Forebay $9,842 2.25 Cdn

LT06

Storage Pool $34,605 2.45 Age Yes Rehabilitation completed

Sediment Forebay $22,767 2.45 Age Rehabilitation completed

Outlet Structure $4,553 2.12 Cdn Rehabilitation completed

Outlet Conveyance $4,553 2.12 Cdn Rehabilitation completed

LV02 Storage Pool $1,628,100 3.46 Cdn Yes Sediment to be removed by developer

LV03 Storage Pool $54,764 3.46 Cdn Yes Outlet Conveyance $3,912 2.12 Cdn Inlet Structure $3,912 2.08 Cdn

LV05

Storage Pool $147,626 3.46 Age Yes Recommended for retrofit and cleanout 2013

Outlet Conveyance $10,545 2.17 Cdn Recommended for retrofit and cleanout 2013

Inlet Structure $10,545 2.17 Cdn Recommended for retrofit and cleanout 2013

LV06 Storage Pool $78,382 3.46 Cdn Yes

Recommended for retrofit and cleanout 2013

Inlet Structure $5,225 2.17 Cdn Recommended for retrofit and cleanout 2013

LV07 Inlet Structure $31,283 2.17 Cdn Yes LV10 Storage Pool $26,910 3.46 Cdn Yes LV18 Storage Pool $93,288 2.6 Cdn Yes Yes

LV19 Storage Pool $144,836 2.6 Cdn Yes Yes Clean out completed by developer

LV19 Sediment Forebay $95,287 2.6 Age Clean out completed by developer

LV20 Sediment Forebay $26,268 3.46 Cdn Yes

LV21 Sediment Forebay $55,749 2.6 Age Yes Yes Clean out budgeted for 2013

LV22 Sediment Forebay $234,326 3.46 Cdn Yes LV28 Storage Pool $66,221 2.94 Cdn Yes LV49 Storage Pool $473,992 2.94 Age SP01 Storage Pool $237,499 2.6 Cdn Yes WK04 Storage Pool $36,063 2.77 Cdn Yes WK17 Storage Pool $102,041 2.6 Cdn Yes TOTAL $9,971,026


5.4 Lifecycle Management Plans

5.4.1 SWMF Best Practice Lifecycle Management

The City’s AM Framework is a representation of the City’s business embodying asset management best practices (i.e., to continuously deliver service levels customers desire, at minimal lifecycle cost, and at an acceptable level of risk). The City’s AM Framework, shown in the figure below, was developed as part of the Corporate AM Strategy Project and is outlined in the City of Barrie Corporate AM Policy, Framework and Business Processes (2009). The AM Framework consists of processes organized around planning, service delivery, performance management, and supporting functions. This section of the AM Plan describes best practice lifecycle management activities for SWMFs relating to each of these functions.

Figure 5-13 City of Barrie AM Framework


Best practices outlined in the City’s Corporate AM Framework and Business Processes were translated into stormwater practices and are described below:

1. PLANNING

1.1 SWMF Strategic AM Planning

Step 1. Levels of Service and Future Demand Levels of Service: Update customer expectations, strategic and corporate goals, legislative

requirements, and current and desired levels of service

Future Demand: Update demand drivers, factors influencing demand, demand forecasts, demand impacts on assets, and demand management plans.

Step 2. Asset Portfolio Asset Inventory: Update the current asset inventory based on newly acquired SWMF from

developers and changes to the current asset portfolio

Installation Profile of Assets: Update the current installation profile of SWMF assets based on the updated asset inventory.

Step 3. Lifecycle Management Analysis and Plans Asset Lifecycle Activities and Cost Data: Update the list of current SWMF lifecycle activities and

associated historical expenditures and current budgets (organized around the SWMF asset hierarchy)

Asset Failure Modes and Consumption Estimates: Update SWMF failure modes, condition data, remaining life, and asset consumption analysis

Asset Risk Data and Risk Exposure Estimates: Update SWMF risk inputs based on most recent asset inventory, condition inspection and cost data, revise risk exposure analysis and list of high priority SWMF assets to be considered for the capital program

Lifecycle Management Plans: Update lifecycle management plans for maintenance, enhancement, and renewal.

Step 4. Financial Projections Financial Projections for Asset Renewal: Update the financial projections for SWMF asset renewal

to determine any backlog of work and the average annual renewal cost to sustain City SWMFs, and compare to current funding levels

Financial Projections for Full Lifecycle: Update the financial projections for SWMF full lifecycle management including operating costs and forecast growth to determine any backlog of work, the average annual renewal cost for City SWMFs, compare to current funding levels, and plan for sufficient sources of funding


1.2 SWMF Tactical AM Planning

Step 1. Capital Programming Capital programming involves determining the best value program of projects to meet corporate objectives within financial constraints from a pool of candidate projects. SWMF capital programming includes:

Renewal: Removal of sediment from the pond sediment forebay and/or storage pool, as necessary, and at least once every 5 to 25 years (usually more frequently than once every 25 years). The frequency of sediment removal depends on the years of sediment accumulation that were incorporated into the design volume of the sediment forebay or storage pool and on the occurrence of any high-loading events.

Enhancements, as necessary, to improve the function of the SWMF to reduce risk and/or to meet regulatory requirements or improve performance.

Capital programming involves the following activities:

Further Assess the SWMF and Identify Options: Confirm the results of existing information including SWMF inventory, performance requirements and condition; collect and analyze additional information such as bathymetric and sediment survey; and identify options and method of analysis

Analyze Options and Optimize Solution: Develop analysis input parameters such as costs and benefits (e.g., risk reduction), and timing; and determine the optimal solution by conducting cost / benefit analysis

Define and Program the Project: Define project scope of work, schedule and budget; program project; and obtain funding.

Step 2. Maintenance Planning & Budgeting Plan and budget for the optimal balance of proactive and reactive maintenance.

– SWMF Proactive Maintenance is work done in advance of asset failure such as preventive, predictive and corrective maintenance.

– SWMF Reactive Maintenance is work deliberately done after asset failure (i.e., the asset is intentionally allowed to break down or is run to failure).

2. SERVICE DELIVERY

2.1 SWMF Creation and Acquisition

Step 1. Design and Construction Developer designs SWMF to meet requirements and submits design and construction documents to

the City for review

Review and ensure that SWMF design meets all City requirements (i.e., sediment drying area, and adequate maintenance access)

Review and ensure that SWMF design meets Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) requirements


Specify and enforce developer construction practices to prevent sediment from flowing downstream (i.e., silt fences, and fibre blankets)

Specify and enforce that developers clean out SWMFs prior to assumption by the City

Specify and enforce developer-provided SWMF as-built drawings (based on bathometric survey), asset inventory database, and maintenance and inspection schedules.

Step 2. Asset Inspection and Assumption Conduct visual inspection of SWMF to confirm compliance with approved plans and adequate clean

out prior to assumption by the City.

Review and verify developer provided SWMF as built drawings, asset inventory data, including bathometric survey, and maintenance and inspection schedules, and enter in City SWMF database

If deemed necessary by City inspector, conduct a independent survey to measure sediment levels and verify as-built drawings and developer bathometric survey.

2.2 SWMF Maintenance

Step 1. Plan Maintenance Receive and review planned and emergency work requests

Plan proactive and emergency work: Determine operational requirements to complete the requested work; estimate the type and amount of labour resources required (e.g., internal versus contractor, craft type, etc.); determine the tools and equipment required; plan the materials (drawings, etc.) and spare parts required

Obtain approval for planned requested work, as required.

Step 2. Schedule Maintenance Maintain a backlog of all approved requested work

Build a tentative weekly schedule from the work backlog and assign daily work to the Maintenance Technicians

Assign all emergency work for immediate execution

Use the CMMS to ensure Maintenance Technicians have the right parts, right tools and right information to do the job

Monitor the weekly scheduled work progress.

Step 3. Execute Maintenance Review job plan prior to starting the work. Job plan must include health and safety procedures and

lockout procedure to ensure work can be performed safely with minimal operational impact.

Liaise with and coordinate work performed by contractors

Order, issue, return, adjust, and receive stores, and obtain planned tools and materials


Perform work per job plan instructions including collecting necessary data and conducting tests before returning asset to function – report any problems with the job to the Maintenance Supervisor

Return tools and unused materials / parts to storeroom.

Step 4. Complete Maintenance Enter completion information on the work order: Record maintenance information such as Failure

Code and Cause Code and any additional comments on what was found, document work performed, record actual time and manpower to complete the work, catalogue parts used for the work

Create maintenance work requests for any additional work, and make requests for changes to drawings and/or job plans

Update job status as complete or incomplete and file all completed work orders.

2.3 SWMF Renewal & Enhancement

Step 1. Project Management and Administration Project Management: Initiate, plan and start up, execute, monitor and control, and close out project

Consultant Selection and Administration: Choose use of internal staff or external consultants for best advantage to the City giving consideration to risk; prepare and evaluate Requests for Qualifications / Proposals; award and prepare Consultant Agreement; review and approve monthly progress reports and invoices.

Step 2. Design and Construction Preliminary Design: Once the work has been programmed, but prior to detailed design, review all

requirements, including Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) requirements and adequate maintenance access. This information will be used to develop the construction cost estimate and to write the project specifications for the contractor to properly bid and build the project.

– Testing and Permitting: Conduct sediment testing within the pond to determine sediment management levels, and confirm estimated excavation volume to determine permitting requirements.

– Dredging and Disposal Costs: Sediment testing, dredging, and disposal costs should be calculated to help determine if the project is financially feasible. Planning level costs are critical to this decision. It should also be noted that should additional exaction be required (beyond sediment removal) costs will need to be analyzed separately from the methods provided in this report.

Detailed Design, Tender and Asset Handover: Based on the preliminary design, prepare the detailed design and tender documents. Administer the tendering process and the construction contract. Conduct visual inspection of SWMF prior to assumption by the City to confirm compliance with approved plans. Receive and review SWMF as-built drawings, detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal, asset inventory database, and maintenance and inspection schedules.


3. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

3.1 Performance Monitoring and Assessment

Step 1. Annual Visual Inspection Conduct annual inspections of all SWMFs to verify asset inventory and proper functioning of all assets

in the inventory

Record asset inventory and visual inspection data in City SWMF database

Identify SWMFs that required survey and assessment

At least once per year, inspect dry ponds to ensure that they are operating as designed. Potential problems that should be checked include: subsidence, erosion, cracking or tree growth on the embankment; damage to the emergency spillway; sediment accumulation around the outlet; inadequacy of the inlet outlet channel erosion control measures; changes in the condition of the pilot channel; and erosion within the basin and banks. Make any necessary repairs immediately. During inspections, note changes to the dry pond or the contributing watershed, as these may affect basin performance.

Test sediments for toxicants in compliance with current disposal requirements if land uses in the catchment include commercial or industrial zones, or if visual or olfactory indications of pollution are noticed.

– If test results indicate that pond sediment is within toxicity limits it can be safely landfilled. The City should consider on-site sediment disposal(if local authorities permit) and as long as the sediments are deposited away from the shoreline to prevent their reentry into the pond and away from recreation areas, where people could inhale resulting dust.

Step 2. Survey and Assessment Bathymetric Survey: This allows the sedimentation depths to be calculated. The top layer of

sediment is compared to the as-built files. If no as-built files exist, then the survey should attempt to determine original pond bottom elevation.

Calculate Sedimentation: Calculate estimated volume of sediment by comparing original bottom with current bottom (top of sediment layer).

Ensure Adequate Permanent Pool Volume: Verify the storage is adequate as determined by using the Walker Method (2.5”, 24-hour storm event which allows for roughly 25 years of sedimentation). This is to determine if additional SWMF excavation above and beyond sediment removal is needed.


5.4.2 SWMF Failure Management Strategy

A failure management strategy determines what must be done to ensure that any physical asset continues to do what its users need it for in a certain operating context. It focuses on the preservation of system function and, therefore, begins with the expected outputs and functions that the components support – that is, the real purpose of having the asset in the first place.

The following table outlines the Failure Management Strategy for SWMF components, including:

Functions: What are the functions and associated desired standards of performance of the asset in its present operating context?

Failure Modes: What causes each functional failure?

Failure Effects: What happens when each failure occurs?

Failure Consequences: In what way does each failure matter?

Failure Management Strategy: What should be done to predict, prevent or address each failure?


Table 5-22 Summary of SWMF Failure Management Strategy

SWMF Asset Components Functions Failure

Modes Failure Effects Consequence Evaluation Failure Management Strategy

Pretreatment Low Impact Developments (LIDs), Oil/Grit Separator

To remove suspended solids from the stormwater prior to entering the pond(s)

Water Quality (SS enter pond)

• Components are damaged, obstructed, do not function

C2: Minor (Environmental & Economic)

• Inspect annually for damage, obstructions, functionality

• Inspect for damage, obstructions, functionality after storm events

• Plan and carry out maintenance to clear obstructions, as required

• Identify, analyze and program repairs and/or functional changes, as required

Inlet Conveyance



Water Quantity (Excessive flow enters pond)


C2: Minor (Environmental, Economic, Service Delivery)

• As above

Inlet Structure

Grate, Screen, Energy Dissipater

To control the flow of stormwater into the pond(s)

Water Quality (Large / foreign materials enter pond)


C3: Moderate (Environmental, Economic, Service Delivery)

• As above

Sediment Forebay



Water Quality (SS enter storage pool)

• Reduced sediment storage volume (excessive sediment accumulation)

C3: Moderate (Environmental, Economic)

• Inspect annually for damage including excessive sediment accumulation, obstructions, functionality


• Plan and carry out maintenance to harvest vegetation & clear obstructions, as required

• Plan and conduct bathymetric survey, as required

• Identify, analyze and program sediment removal, other repairs and/or functional changes, as required




Storage Pool Available Volume, Vegetation, Floating Island, Berm, Bed / Liner, Riprap, Benching, Fountain

To provide reserve capacity to capture storm event water to enable its release to the receiving water body in a controlled manner over time

Water Quantity (Excessive flow released to receiving body) & Water Quality (SS enter receiving body)

• Reduced water storage volume (limited water circulation, bank erosion, animal presence)

• Reduced water quality (eutrophication, presence of contaminants, overgrown vegetation)

C3: Moderate (Environmental, Economic, Social, Service Delivery)

• As above, but for Dry Cells, consider enhancing to Wet Cells

Outlet Structure



Water Quantity (Excessive flow released to receiving body)


C4: Major (Environmental, Economic, Social, Service Delivery)

• Inspect annually for damage including erosion, obstructions, functionality


• Plan and carry out maintenance to clear obstructions, as required


Outlet Conveyance



Water Quantity (Excessive flow released to receiving body)


C4: Major (Environmental, Economic, Social, Service Delivery)

• As above

Maintenance Access

Road, Material Drying / Laydown Area


Other: Work Access (Limited work access to pond)


C1: Insignificant (Economic)

• As above

Security Fence, Sign, Gate, Lock

To control access to the SWMF

Other: Safety (Public access to pond)

• Components are damaged, obstructed, do not

C1: Insignificant (Social)

• Inspect annually for damage, obstructions, functionality

• Plan and carry out maintenance to




function clear obstructions, as required • Identify, analyze and program repairs

and/or functional changes, as required Landscaping Vegetation To control access

to the ponds by animals and humans and to provide aesthetic component

Water Quality (Animal access to pond increases phosphorus concentration)


C1: Insignificant (Environmental, Economic)

• Inspect annually for damage, functionality, aesthetics

• Plan and carry out maintenance to improve aesthetics, as required


5.4.3 SWMF Lifecycle Management Plans

Based on the performance monitoring of existing SWMF assets and the failure mode and risk analysis conducted in the preceding sections of this AM Plan, the following lifecycle plans are recommended for the City’s SWMFs.

Inventory and Inspection Plan: Actions to complete the inventory and conduct visual inspections on City-owned SWMFs that currently have little or no data in the Pond Database

Maintenance Plan: Actions to confirm existing inventory and inspection data on City-owned higher risk SWMFs that have been identified as needing maintenance (e.g., harvesting vegetation, clearing obstructions), and then to plan, schedule, execute and complete maintenance work, as deemed necessary

Renewal and Enhancement Plan: For three groupings of SWMFs, actions on City-owned higher risk SWMFs are as follows:

– For Wet Cell SWMFs without Current Bathymetric Survey: Plan and conduct bathymetric survey, and then identify, analyze and program sediment removal, other repairs and/or functional changes, as required

– For Wet Cell SWMFs with Current Bathymetric Survey: Identify, analyze and program renewal works and/or functional changes, as required.

– For Dry Cell SWMFs: Identify, analyze and program renewal works and/or functional changes, as required.

Timing on implementation of each of these plans is subject to availability of resources – both financial and human (whether internal or external to the City). To allow flexibility in implementation, each plan indicates the priority of the list of recommended actions. Cost estimates provided are order of magnitude only, as the scope of work is still to be defined through a design process.


Inventory and Inspection Plan: A number of SWMFs have little or no condition information in the Pond Database; in particular, many lack condition data for the storage pool. The recommended SWMF Inventory and Inspection Plan shown in the following table, with priority based on Risk Exposure and available condition information, will “complete the picture” of all City-owned SWMFs and improve confidence in decision-making. Note that the cost to confirm inventory, conduct visual inspection and record information in the Pond Database, for each SWMF, ranges from $500 to $1,000 if carried out by the City internally. For the 13 SWMFs listed below, and using the upper limit, the estimated cost for this plan is $13,000.

Table 5-23 Summary of SWMF Inventory and Inspection Plan

SWMF Comments Recommended Actions Priority* Est. Cost

HT08 • No condition inspection reports found • Installed in 1975 (based on age, storage pool is 100% consumed) • Max Risk Exposure = 3.46 (Extreme)

• Confirm inventory, conduct visual inspection, and record information in Pond Database

1 $1,000

LV06 • Condition inspection report found but condition rating not completed (key remarks: Spillway & gabion basket damaged; obstructed water flow through channel; debris- & garbage-filled pool located at end of channel near gabion baskets; some gabion baskets cut open, with rocks falling out , outlet structure in poor condition, recommended for retrofit in 2013

• Installed in 1987 (based on age, storage pool is 100% consumed) • Max Risk Exposure = 3.46 (Extreme)


• For inclusion in 2013 work

1 $1,000

LV10 • No condition inspection reports found (City has noted a condition inspection in 2011 and 2012 however this information was not analyzed in this AM Plan)



1 $1,000

HW08 • No condition inspection reports found • Installed in 2003 (based on age, storage pool is 45% consumed) • Max Risk Exposure = 3.12 (Extreme)


8 $1,000

LV28 • Condition inspection report found but not completed • Installed in 1995 (based on age, storage pool is 85% consumed) • Max Risk Exposure = 2.94 (Extreme)


9 $1,000

LV49 • No condition inspection reports found • Confirm inventory, conduct visual inspection, 9 $1,000




and record information in Pond Database

WK04 • No condition inspection reports found (City has noted a condition inspection in 2011 and 2012 however this information was not analyzed in this AM Plan)



11 $1,000

HT06 • Condition inspection report found but not included in Pond Database (most SWMF asset conditions listed as “Low”)



13 $1,000

• •

* Priority based on Risk Exposure and available condition information

Inspection and Maintenance Plan: The selection of assets for inspection and maintenance is based on a low Risk Exposure for Sediment Forebay and Storage Pool, high Risk Exposure for Inlet Conveyance/Structure or Outlet Structure/Conveyance, as well as a range of input data from condition ratings and inspection comments to consumption based solely on age. The recommended SWMF Inspection and Maintenance Plan is shown in the following table, with priority given to facilities with available condition information first and then based on Risk Exposure. Implementing this plan will restore the intended functions to the SWMFs, if this can be done without major renewal works. Note that the cost to confirm inventory and inspection data, and to plan, schedule, execute and complete maintenance work depends upon the requirements of each SWMF. Estimated costs are $1,000 for the inventory and inspection update plus $5,000 for vegetation harvesting and clearing of obstructions, for a total of $6,000 for each of the 10 SWMFs = $60,000 for the plan outlined below.


Table 5-24 Summary of SWMF Inspection and Maintenance Plan


BR16

• Based on visual inspection data, the Outlet Conveyance asset has failed (Condition = 1, Failed)

• Risk Exposure = 3.46 (Extreme) • Inspection comments are: Berms highly overgrown, with minor

erosion; fence bordering auto business is pushed over, allowing easy pond access; lock on Reid gate is rusted & will no longer open

• Confirm inventory and previous visual inspection data (Condition = 1, Failed; and comments), and record information in Pond Database

• Plan, schedule, execute and complete* maintenance work, as deemed necessary after visual inspection

1 $6,000

GR01

• Based on visual inspection data, the Outlet Conveyance is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.60 (Extreme) • Inspection comments are: Excess sediment @ inlet; vegetation

overgrowth in spillways & outlet; graffiti • Earlier comments are: Cattail growth obstructing water flow,

exacerbated by sedimentation in spillways; this has decreased spillway width by half & increased vegetation growth; graffiti on inlet & outlet walls; fence is broken & incomplete

• Confirm inventory and previous visual inspection data (Condition = 2, Poor; and Comments), and record information in Pond Database


2 $6,000

KD01 • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure is deemed to be 70% consumed

• Risk Exposure = 2.42 (Extreme) • Inspection comments are: A pipe has been pushed downstream @

the outlet location, possibly from an inlet, and is full of sediment; several shopping carts @ Cundles St. W inlet; several fallen trees are blocking water flow; sediment accumulation at first inlet near Cundles St. W; no gate/lock, or sign posted

• Confirm the presence of the Inlet Structure and other SWMF assets, conduct visual inspection, and record the information in the Pond Database


5 $6,000

LV07 • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure is deemed to be 63% consumed

• Risk Exposure = 2.17 (Extreme) • Inspection comments are: A fence should be installed at this

location; suggested installation of caution signs; overgrowth of terrestrial plants; erosion after gabian basket created large, deep pool, causing disruptions to water flow & localized dry areas; outlet severely blocked by debris, further restricting water flow



7 $6,000




• Risk Exposure = 1.99 (High) • Inspection comments are: No gate or signs present; minor

vegetation accumulation in spillway



8 $6,000


• Risk Exposure = 1.99 (High) • Inspection comments are: None



9 $6,000

GR02 • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure is deemed to be 65% consumed

• Risk Exposure = 1.95 (High) • Inspection comments are: Only first page of report has been filled • Earlier comments are: No water present at time of pond

investigation; only a partial fence, w/o gate, around pond; no signs at inlet or outlet; excess vegetation blocking spillways



7 $6,000

LV12 • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure is deemed to be 55% consumed




8 8

SP02 • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure is deemed to be 63% consumed


• Confirm the presence of the Inlet Structure, conduct a visual inspection, and record the information in Pond Database


9 $6,000

SP03 • Based on visual inspection data, the Outlet Conveyance is 50% consumed (Condition = 3, Fair)

• Confirm inventory and previous visual inspection data (Condition = 3, Fair; and Comments), and

10 $6,000



• Risk Exposure = 1.41 (High) • Inspection comments are: Oil sheens present at outlet; excessive

vegetation obstructing water flow; gate sits lower than adjacent fence, making it difficult to close; minor damage to fence includes a top pole out of joint, about 1/2 way up left side; faded signage

record information in Pond Database • Plan, schedule, execute and complete*

maintenance work, as deemed necessary after visual inspection

* Note that “complete” maintenance includes updating the SWMF database condition data after execution of the maintenance work

* Priority based on available condition information and Risk Exposure

Renewal and Enhancement Plan: A third group of City-owned higher risk SWMFs require more significant renewal and/or enhancement work to mitigate risks. The work on these assets has been divided into three subsets:

1) Wet Cell SWMFs with Current Bathymetric Survey: These SWMFs can be programmed immediately for renewal and enhancement design and construction, pending approval and funding.

2) Wet Cell SWMFs without Current Bathymetric Survey: These SWMFs require bathymetric survey and analysis to further define the scope and cost of work, followed by renewal work such as sediment removal and/or enhancement work such as conversion from on line to off line, addition of a sediment forebay, and/or addition of permanent maintenance access

3) Dry Cell SWMFs for Consideration of Enhancements: These SWMFs should be assessed further to determine the most appropriate course of action. Enhancement from a dry to a wet cell SWMF would be very costly, but the two SWMFs that have been assessed have been found to be undersized. Consideration should also be given to taking online SWMFs offline.

Priorities within each of these three groupings are based largely on Risk Exposure, but with priority given also to those facilities where renewal of one asset may save another asset from further damage (e.g., removal of sediment from the forebay to reduce the risk of further sedimentation of the storage pool). Implementing the Renewal portion of this plan will restore the intended functions to the SWMFs, if this must be done with major renewal works such as sediment removal. Implementing the Enhancement portion of this plan will increase the function of SWMFs in some way, including reducing risk of flooding and/or environmental damage or reducing the future cost of sediment removal. Estimated costs have only been provided for the first two sets of SWMF actions; however, the confidence in the scope of recommended actions and associated estimated costs are not high due to the lack of visibility within the ponds.


Table 5-25 Summary of SWMF Renewal and Enhancement Plan

SWMF Results & Comments Recommended Actions Priority (Est’d Costs)

Part 1 Wet Cell SWMFs with Current Bathymetric Survey

LV20 • Based on visual inspection data, the Sediment Forebay is Condition = 1, Failed

• Risk Exposure = 3.00 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection, bathymetric survey and vegetation analysis

completed by GHD in 2012. Results include: - Pond Volume is 4,484 M3 - Sediment Volume is 970 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 1,200

m3 - Clean out not yet required

• Inspection comments are: Good circulation in permanent pool, stagnant water in sediment forebay; excess sediment accumulation in forebay; full visual inspection of inlet made difficult by excess vegetation; non-standard lock used at one of the gates, could not be opened with 104 or 103 key; "No Trespassing" sign suggested

• Most recent inspection comments: Overgrown vegetation in forebay; sediment accumulation observed through overgrown vegetation; beaver dam visible in main cell; minor erosion downstream of outlet headwall; no vehicle or construction access (overgrown vegetation/no access road)

• Additional comments: There is no clarification of its end state upon assumption from development; there is environmental sensitivity in the area; the discharge from the pond is loaded with sediment; there is a high sand load from development that occurred; significant sediment and decaying vegetation collected in forebay

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Protect the natural environment during any renewal operations - Remove overgrown vegetation from the pond - Drain the pond and conduct a detailed sediment survey and visual

inspection to reduce sources of error and uncertainty associated a pond full of water

- Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis prior to sediment removal

- Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 970 m3 – not yet critical)

• Analyze Options & Optimize Solution - Develop analysis input parameters such as costs and benefits (e.g.,

risk reduction), and timing - Determine the optimal solution by conducting cost / benefit analysis

• Define & Program the Project - Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget - Program project, obtain funding and implement - Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal

1 ($175k for Renewal)

LV21 • Based on visual inspection data, the Sediment Forebay is • Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options 2



75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) • Risk Exposure = 2.60 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection, bathymetric survey and vegetation analysis

completed by Azimuth in 2011. Results include: - Pond Volume is 8,906 m3 - Sediment Volume is 1,299 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 630

m3 - Clean out required

• Inspection comments are: Significant water quality deterioration; excessive debris obstructing hickenbottom, which is submerged; flooding in sediment forebay & permanent pool; faded signs; sediment accumulation

• Most recent inspection comments: Pond water level appears elevated (outlet intake pipe blockage?); evidence of outlet blockages in the past (pile of debris near the outlet MH);turbid water; algae blooms present; tadpoles observed in forebay; small trees growing in pond (water level appeared elevated); forebay berm not visible; no defined forebay or main cell; could not locate emergency spillway; overgrown vegetation surrounding the outlet headwall and outlet conveyance channel; gravel missing in geoweb on maintenance access (greatly reduces bearing capacity); no construction access to forebay and inlet headwall; shared access with LV18; no sediment drying area

• Additional comments: Gabion basket not removed during construction of the pond

• Pond was inspected by MOE, is considered non-compliant which could result in fines

- Locate SWMF drawings - Investigate elevated water level (possible outlet blockage) - Confirm existence of an emergency spillway - Protect fish and amphibians observed in the pond during any

renewal operations - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to sediment removal - Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 1,299 m3) - Construct a maintenance access to the forebay and inlet headwall

(enhancement) - Fix access ramp (fill geoweb with gravel) (enhancement) - Consider constructing a sediment drying area (enhancement)



• Define & Program the Project - Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget - Program project, obtain funding and implement

• Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal

($205k for Renewal $50k

for Enhancements)

LV22 • Based on visual inspection data, the Sediment Forebay is Condition = 1, Failed

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Locate the original SWM report

2 ($380k for Renewal




completed by GHD in 2012. Results include: - Pond Volume is 40,000 m3 - Sediment Volume is 3,040 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 1,100


• Inspection comments are: Minor shoreline eutrophication; localized areas of sedimentation in forebay; extensive sedimentation @ inlet near main gate; indication of possible vehicular collision with main gate; faded warning sign @ Bryne Dr.

• Most recent inspection comments: Large sediment plume directly in front of inlet headwall; waterfowl activity and droppings; heavy algae blooms present in main cell; red stained ground water flowing through pond banks; steep pond banks and difficult access

• Additional comments: This pond is by the south-end cinema; there are culvert blockages; visual evidence supports sediment buildup; discharge cascades into ponds LV6 and LV7 which are recommended for retrofits; site plan development in the area has been approved

- Protect the natural environment during any renewal operations - Drain the pond and conduct a detailed sediment survey and visual

inspection to reduce sources of error and uncertainty associated a pond full of water

- Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis prior to sediment removal

- Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 3,040m3 ) • Analyze Options & Optimize Solution

- Develop analysis input parameters such as costs and benefits (e.g., risk reduction), and timing

- Determine the optimal solution by conducting cost / benefit analysis • Define & Program the Project

- Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget - Program project, obtain funding and implement - Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal

$50k for Enhancements)

HW04 • Based on visual inspection data, the Sediment Forebay is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)


completed by Azimuth in 2011. Results include: - Pond Volume is unknown - Sediment Volume is 777 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 320

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Confirm the results of the sediment survey - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to any sediment removal - Protect fish and amphibians observed in the pond during any

renewal operations - Clean out the overgrown/dead vegetation and remove litter in the

SWMF - Clean out the accumulated sediment visible in the forebay pending

4 ($150k for Renewal $50k for

Enhancements)




• Inspection comments are: Rock needs to be replaced @ outlet spillway; outlet spillway submerged

• Most recent inspection comments: Overgrown vegetation in forebay and dead vegetation near inlet headwall; excessive sediment accumulation observed through vegetation in forebay; erosion around inlet headwall; erosion near outlet headwall; heavy vegetation around pond; no sediment drying area; litter observed in pond


further investigation (estimated to be 320 m3) - Stabilize erosion noted at the inlet and outlet headwalls - Consider constructing a sediment drying area (enhancement)




LV18 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)


completed by Azimuth in 2011. Results include: - Pond Volume is 560 m3 - Sediment Volume is 1,740 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 530


• Inspection comments are: Flooded; high vegetation overgrowth

• Most recent inspection comments: The forebay is overgrown with vegetation and large tree stumps; sediment levels could not be visually inspected; the pond is marshy/stagnant and has a very low water level; the cutlet conveyance channel is overgrown; the access road is shared with LV21; there is limited construction access to LV 18 (no access to the forebay and inlet headwalls)

• Additional comments: Gabion traps were not removed

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to sediment removal - Remove all overgrown vegetation and cut-off tree stumps - Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 1,740m3) - Construct a dedicated maintenance access to the SWMF so that the

forebay and inlet headwalls can be accessed (enhancement) - Consider constructing a sediment drying area (enhancement)




4 ($250k for Renewal $75k for

Enhancements)



during construction when they should have been • Pond was inspected by MOE, is considered non-compliant

which could result in fines HW01 • Based on visual inspection data, the Sediment Forebay is

75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) • Risk Exposure = 1.73 (High) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection, bathymetric survey and vegetation analysis

completed by Azimuth in 2011. Results include: - Pond Volume is 3,979 m3 - Sediment Volume is 2,370 m3 - Volume for 5% decrease in SS removal efficiency is 570


• Inspection comments are: Manhole requires bolting down; spillway @ inlet is broken; berm is damaged; sediment accumulation is forming surface-breaking islands

• Most recent inspection comments: Excessive sediment accumulation in the forebay; sediment/debris accumulation around the inlet headwall chute blocks; could not locate the emergency spillway shown on the drawings; poor construction access (no road); no sediment drying area; frogs and ducks observed in pond


• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Confirm the results of the sediment survey - Confirm existence of an emergency spillway - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to sediment removal - Protect fish and amphibians observed in the pond during any

renewal operations - Clean out the accumulated sediment visible in the forebay and

around the inlet headwall chute blocks (estimated to be 2,370 m3) - Construct a maintenance access road to the forebay and inlet

headwall (enhancement) - Consider constructing a sediment drying area (enhancement)




6 ($310k for

Renewal $100k for

Enhancements)

Part 2: Wet Cell SWMFs wo Current Bathymetric Survey

LT05 • Based on visual inspection data: - Sediment Forebay asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2,

Poor) - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Sediment Forebay asset = 2.25 (Extreme)

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Confirm the results of existing information including SWMF

inventory, performance requirements and condition - Collect and analyze additional information such as bathymetric and

sediment survey - Identify options and method of analysis

1



- Storage Pool asset = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Refer to photo to see if pipe is

no longer submerged in pond; creation of islands due to vegetation and sediment buildup; damage to fence due to fallen tree; erosion of walls resulting in sediment accumulation




DY04 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Concrete head pond has

approx. 1 m stagnant water (excessive algae growth) with oil contamination; erosion primarily in the sediment forebay; of the two gates, the first requires a new lock; significant damage to the fence includes a hole cut into the perimeter, through which adjacent landowner appears to be driving four wheelers & skidoos, and another section where a ladder was placed through the fence; vegetation removal required for both spillways; excess algae may accrue from goose/mallard habitation of the pond








2

BR08A • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Debris inside hickenbottom;

public access to pond through fence; signs covered in graffiti; excessive debris

• Earlier comments are: Rubbish includes paint cans; fallen logs obstructing water flow; spillway clogged with beachy





risk reduction), and timing

3



sand en route to BR8b; fence has been damaged with access holes cut in multiple locations, with other sections torn down


- Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget - Program project, obtain funding and implement


BR10 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Obstruction @ outlet culverts;

many fallen logs in permanent pond area; sediment accumulation at forebay; inlet pipe has substantial debris in grate; no sign at gate

• Most recent inspection comments: Large logs in pond; excessive rubbish on east side of pond; some bricks from the berm are sinking into pond bottom, resulting in the sinking/slanting of berm; fence should be installed around in lots; sediment accumulation @ north inlet, resulting in water flow constriction








3

HW05 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 1, Failed)

• Risk Exposure = 3.46 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Evidence of beavers, frogs,

snapping turtle, muskrat in pond area; beaver dam interfering with pond functionality; damage to outlet pipe; hickenbottom valve is submerged; sediment washout @ berm, evidence of sediment accumulation from forebay to permanent pool; berm partially submerged






• Define & Program the Project - Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget

3



- Program project, obtain funding and implement • Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal

HW09 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Silt fence obstructing inflow;

erosion @ inlet spillway, with rocks having fallen into permanent pond; washout beside head wall @ sediment forebay; bridge @ berm is damaged & needs leveling








3

LT02 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is Condition = 1, Failed

• Risk Exposure = 2.45 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Overgrown, eroded spillway;

broken fence near gate








3



LV19 • Based on visual inspection data: - Sediment Forebay asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2,

Poor) - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Sediment Forebay asset = 2.25 (Extreme) - Storage Pool asset = 2.25 (Extreme)

• Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Berm is significantly overgrown

& damaged; sediment accumulation in front of both inlets • Most recent inspection comments: Foul smell and methane

bubbles observed in forebay turbid water heavy waterfowl activity and waste yard waste dumped into pond block from neighbouring properties erosion observed on access roads and forebay berm erosion near headwalls trash and algae present in energy dissipaters could not visually inspect sediment levels; algae growth in outlet channel to creek


• Sediment removal occurred in 2011 in the sediment forebay








3

DY07 • Based on visual inspection data: - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) - Outlet Conveyance asset is 50% consumed (Condition = 3,

Fair) • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure asset is deemed to

be 70% consumed • Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows:

- Storage Pool asset = 2.60 (Extreme) - Inlet Structure asset = 2.42 (Extreme) - Outlet Conveyance asset = 2.00 (High)

• Wet Cell, Online SWMF






• Define & Program the Project

3



• Inspection comments are: Larger caution signs suggested; high amounts of rubbish

• Earlier comments are: Obstructions/dams approx. 3/4 way down pond, near outlet



WK17 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.60 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Water circulation varies

throughout pool, as some areas display signs of stagnant water; mice dens observed; inlet 1 highly obstructed w/ sediment








3

BY03 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Wet Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Dead raccoon on site; sediment

removal required @ inlet spillway; broken lock was replaced on 4-Jun-11







11



• Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal Part 3: Dry SWMFs for Consideration of Enhancements

LT06 • Based on visual inspection data: - Sediment Forebay asset has Condition = 1, Failed - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) - Outlet Structure asset has Condition = 1, Failed

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Storage Pool asset = 2.45 (Extreme) - Outlet Structure asset = 2.12 (Extreme) - Outlet Conveyance asset = 2.12 (Extreme)

• Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Pond reported in a state of

complete failure; sediment forebay too overgrown to allow for water flow or extra sediment removal; permanently wet area has gone completely stagnant, with algae growth overtaking entire surface of pond; excess vegetation & petrified forest in pool; overland flow route for outlets; no gate or signage



sediment survey - Identify options and method of analysis, including options for both

renewal and enhancements • Analyze Options & Optimize Solution




1

KD02 • Based on visual inspection data the Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Based on age only, the Inlet Structure asset is deemed to be 73% consumed

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Storage Pool asset = 2.60 (Extreme) - Inlet Structure asset = 2.51 (Extreme)

• Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: Reasonable flow rates, despite

high levels of erosion & sedimentation







- Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget

2



- Program project, obtain funding and implement • Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal

KD06 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Shopping carts & other rubbish

around inlet pipes; cattails obstructing spillway; missing sign on inlet railing









2

LT01 • Based on visual inspection data: - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) - Outlet Conveyance asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2,

Poor) • Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows:

- Storage Pool asset = 2.60 (Extreme) - Inlet Conveyance asset = 2.25 (Extreme)

• Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Sediment removal required to

allow for proper drainage/water flow, as it has reduced spillway to 1/4 original width; one broken garbage catcher at top grate; missing sign at entry gate








2



• Complete a detailed pond bottom survey after the sediment removal LV05 • Based on age only:

- Storage Pool asset has failed (100% consumed) - Inlet Structure asset is 63% consumed - Conveyance asset is 63% consumed

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Storage Pool asset = 3.46 (Extreme) - Inlet Structure asset = 2.17(Extreme) - Outlet Conveyance asset = 2.17 (Extreme)

• Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: PRIORITY POND: extreme

amounts of sediment; inlet completely submerged; extreme excesses of vegetation (living & decayed)









2

SP01 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.60 (Extreme) • Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: Pond is extremely overgrown,

restricting water passage to outlet & inlet is almost blocked from sight









2



DY02 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor)

• Risk Exposure = 2.25 (Extreme) • Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Overgrown @ inlet; erosion

along banks of second inlet; spillway overgrown; tree in outlet; brick in outlet grate

• Earlier comments are: Overgrown spillways; excess vegetation preventing proper water flow; debris in grate not allowing proper water flow









7

BR13 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool asset has failed (Condition = 1, Failed)

• Based on age only, the Outlet Conveyance asset is deemed to be 55% consumed

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Storage Pool asset = 3.00 (Extreme) - Outlet Structure asset = 1.91 (High)

• Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Signs are faded; Wildwood Trail

entrance blocked; top of damaged; unable to find outlets due to excessive vegetation overgrowth

• Earlier comments are: Pole missing near gate









8

LV02 • Based on visual inspection data, the Storage Pool is • Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options 8



Condition = 1, Failed • Risk Exposure = 3.46 (Extreme) • Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: Significant sedimentation;

beaver dam blocking outlet; excessive vegetation overgrowth

• Most recent inspection comments: One inlet pipe partially blocked with sediment; overgrown vegetation; sediment accumulation observed near inlet; major erosion on pond banks; no access; beaver dam at outlet structure; beware of poison Ivy at outlet headwall near creek

• Railway embankment forms berm – potential for significant damage

• On line pond • Parkplace development impacted the pond and resulted in

significant deposition upstream • Inspection, bathymetric survey and vegetation analysis

completed by GHD in 2012. Results include: - Estimated accumulated sediment is 21,600 m3

- Locate the detailed SWM report - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to sediment removal - Protect the natural environment during any renewal operations - Remove all overgrown vegetation interfering with the operation of

the pond - Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 21,600m3) - Remove the beaver dam - Repair areas with erosion - Consider retrofitting the SWMF to provide quality control

(enhancement) - Consider the feasibility of bring the pond offline (enhancement) - Construct a dedicated maintenance access to the SWMF – consider

constructing a sediment drying area (enhancement) • Analyze Options & Optimize Solution




LV03 • Based on visual inspection data: - Storage Pool asset is Condition = 1, Failed - Outlet Conveyance asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2,

Poor) • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure asset is deemed to


- Storage Pool asset = 3.46 (Extreme) - Outlet Conveyance asset = 2.12 (Extreme) - Inlet Structure asset = 2.08 (Extreme)






8



• Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: None




BR03

• Based on visual inspection data: - Outlet Structure asset has failed (Condition = 1, Failed) - Storage Pool asset has failed (Condition = 1, Failed)

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Outlet Structure asset = 2.83 (Extreme) - Storage Pool asset = 3.00 (Extreme)

• Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: Much garbage, with extreme

plant overgrowth; complete blockage of spillway by logs; gate is blocked from opening

• Further Assess the SWMF & Identify Options - Locate SWM drawings - Confirm inventory and previous visual inspection data and record

information in Pond Database - Conduct bathymetric survey and analysis - Protect natural environment during any renewal operations - Collect sediment samples and submit to a laboratory for analysis

prior to sediment removal - Clean out the accumulated sediment (estimated to be 1,300m3)




8

HT03A • Based on visual inspection data: - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) - Outlet Conveyance asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2,

Poor) • Based on age only, the Inlet Structure asset is deemed to


- Storage Pool asset = 2.60 (Extreme) - Inlet Structure asset = 2.12 (Extreme) - Outlet Conveyance asset = 2.08 (Extreme)



prior to sediment removal - Clean out the accumulated sediment

• Analyze Options & Optimize Solution

14



• Dry Cell, Offline SWMF • Inspection comments are: Small tree and long grass

vegetation requires removal; no gate



- Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget • Program project, obtain funding and implement

GR04 • Based on visual inspection data: - Storage Pool asset is 75% consumed (Condition = 2, Poor) - Outlet Conveyance asset has failed (Condition = 1, Failed)

• Risk Exposure analysis results are as follows: - Storage Pool asset = 3.00 (Extreme) - Inlet Conveyance asset = 2.00 (High)

• Dry Cell, Online SWMF • Inspection comments are: Trench along backyard backing

onto pond; extremely overgrown inlet; gate in fence from backyard; algae on inlet; unlocked, damaged gate; overgrown spillway

• Earlier comments are: Extreme vegetation overgrowth interfering with water flow; central marshy area & sedimentation prevent optimum water flow, as inlets are blocked; resident report of rats inhabiting large outlet pipe; areas of fencing have been cut out



prior to sediment removal - Clean out the accumulated sediment



• Define & Program the Project - Define Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget

• Program project, obtain funding and implement

15


6. Financial Summary

This section contains the financial requirements resulting from all the information presented in the previous sections of this asset management plan. The projections are based on the best available information.

6.1 Financial Projections for Asset Renewal

The following figures illustrate the estimated long term investment needs to sustain the City’s existing SWMF asset portfolio, in 2012$. That is, the estimated amount of money the City needs to reinvest in its existing asset portfolio on an annual basis to sustain the current level of service. The estimated amounts only represent the investment needed to renew (i.e., rehabilitate and replace) these assets – they do not include the costs to maintain or operate them throughout their lives nor do they include costs for growth or enhancement the facilities. These full lifecycle management costs are provided in Section 6.2 below. All costs are order of magnitude estimates only, based on the best available information, as presented in the preceding sections of this AM Plan, and do not include any factors for inflation.

The figures indicate that the City needs to be reinvesting approximately $1.67 million in its SWMF assets on an annual basis to sustain its existing asset portfolio. The figures also show that the City has a substantial backlog of renewal work which is equal to the 2012 projected replacement cost ($5.25M) less the average annual replacement cost ($1.67M) = $3.58M.

Figure 6-1 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF (Total)


Figure 6-2 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Inlet Conveyance

Figure 6-3 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Inlet Structure

Figure 6-4 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Sediment Forebay


Figure 6-5 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Storage Pool

Figure 6-6 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Outlet Structure

Figure 6-7 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Outlet Conveyance


Figure 6-8 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Maintenance Access

Figure 6-9 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Security

Figure 6-10 Financial Projection for Asset Renewal – SWMF: Landscaping


The City’s average reinvestment over the past five years is $0.55 million, which is only 33% of the forecast average annual sustainable renewal amount of $1.67 million. Thus the historic rate of replacement is not sustainable.

Table 6-1 below shows the level of expenditures over the past five years and the estimated budget for 2012 compared to the forecast average annual sustainable renewal amount (all in millions of 2012$).

Table 6-1 Comparison of Past Expenditures / Budget to Sustainable Renewal Amounts

Asset 2008 Exp 2008 Exp 2009 Exp 2010 Exp 2011 Exp 2012 Bud (AASR) Amount

Storm Facilities $0.11 $0.38 $0.96 $0.90 $0.38 $1.67

6.2 Financial Projections for Full Lifecycle

In addition to the capital renewal investments forecast in Section 6.1 above, the City must also budget for growth-related capital investments and recurrent operations and maintenance expenditures. To understand the costs to sustain stormwater service delivery, these estimated capital investments and operating expenditures must be added to the cost of renewing the existing assets.

This analysis was not undertaken at this time due to the lack of confidence in the input data, as the City is completing master planning for annexation.

6.3 Long Term Funding Mechanisms

Currently the City relies on money collected through property taxes to fund stormwater capital projects. Given the current financial condition and future pressures, the City is reviewing a broad spectrum of funding mechanisms to sustain current services and service levels. One such possible funding option is a dedicated and stable cost based structure that would require customers to pay for the demands they impose on stormwater services and infrastructure.

There are several criteria that are commonly used to evaluate and select stormwater funding mechanisms. They include legality, equity, revenue sufficiency, flexibility, balance of rates with level of service, data requirements, compatibility with data processing systems, consistency with other local funding and rate policies, and revenue stability and sensitivity.

There are many different stormwater funding mechanisms the City can consider including:

General revenues

Special charges

User rates.

Finding a funding mechanism that is appropriate for the City will require a comprehensive study. The following information has been compiled to provide a cursory review of long term funding mechanisms commonly used across Canada and the United States.


6.3.1 General Revenues

General revenues are collected through property tax, which assigns a fee to property owners based on an assessed property value. This method is the most commonly used approach for funding stormwater management in Canada. General revenues are well-established, stable from year to year, and fully understood and well-accepted by the community. In most cases general revenues are sufficient to support effective stormwater management.

General revenues also have significant disadvantages as a source of stormwater management funding. Many competing and high priority projects and services are also funded through general revenues. Historically stormwater management has struggled to compete effectively against other needs. In the absence of a major budget reallocation, increasing general revenues to support stormwater management implies approval of a tax increase of some sort. Neither option is politically attractive. Furthermore, this method gives little incentive for property owners to improve their property to lessen their impact on the stormwater system.

6.3.2 Special Charges

Development Charges

Development Charges are assigned to land developers to offset the additional cost of system improvements and growth-related costs resulting from their development activities. Although these costs are widely accepted by the development community, the specifics are often prepared on a case by case basis and can result in lengthy negotiations. Development charges are limited by the amount of developable land within the municipality and are directly dependent on growth and economic conditions.

Funds collected through development charges cannot be applied to renewal work, operations or maintenance that are unrelated to the initial construction of growth related development.

Special Purpose Charges

Special purpose charges are assigned to specific service zones to fund localized improvements or services.

6.3.3 User Rates

Stormwater user rates have been a popular in the Unites States, and are growing in popularity in Canada. Their growing acceptance is likely due to their highly flexible structure that can be tailored to individual situations and coordinated with other funding methods and incentive programs.

The most significant advantage of user rate mechanism is a stable and dedicated revenue stream that ensures that long-range scheduling of capital improvements can be implemented.

The greatest potential disadvantage of the stormwater user fee is the cost of its development and implementation. Implementing a stormwater utility can represent a formative cost, including program and financial analyses, data assembly, modification of billing and other information systems (or activation of a new system), and public education and involvement.


The following are examples of user rate structures:

i) Stormwater Surcharge – This method charges customers based on their metered potable water flow. The ease of implementation is the greatest advantage, processes and systems to meter and bill customers are already in place. The most significant drawback to this method is that metered water flow bears no relationship to the stormwater runoff. Commercial properties generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff from impervious areas (i.e., building footprints and parking lots) but typically consume a relatively small amount of metered potable water.

ii) Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) – Customers are billed on the basis of how much impervious area is on their property. This method is relatively easy to implement and is a concept that the public can understand: “You pave you pay”. This mechanism does not allow a charge for the expenses associated with runoff from pervious areas.

iii) Intensity of Development (ID) – Customers are billed based on the ratio of total impervious area to total area of their property. This method is more equitable that the ERU method because it captures and charges fees associated with pervious areas. Drawbacks to this method include the complexity of calculating the pervious to impervious areas ratios, and the additional data that is required.

iv) Equivalent Hydraulic Area (EHA) – Customers are billed on the basis of the combined impact of their impervious and pervious areas in generating stormwater runoff. This method is perceived to be the most equitable because customers are billed on the basis of the direct measureable impact of pervious and impervious areas. Drawbacks to this method include its complexity (requires pervious area analysis), it requires additional data, and is more difficult to explain to customers.


7. Plan Monitoring & Improvement

7.1 Overview

The underpinning premise of asset management is that an organization will seldom have perfect processes and perfect data with which to manage its asset portfolio. Asset management is a process of continuous improvement. The Confidence Level Rating (CLR) approach to AM Plan monitoring and improvement helps to identify the most appropriate improvements and to inform the user of the AM Plan on the quality of the data and processes that were used to prepare the AM Plan. More information on the CLR methodology is provided in the body of the AM Plan.

7.2 Status of AM Practices

The CLR Scores for Data Quality and Process Effectiveness for each of the Key AM Plan Elements are provided below, along with the Primary Weightings and the calculated CLR for each element. The last column, CLR for AMP, combines both the Data Quality and Process Effectiveness ratings and is pro-rated bases on the Primary Weighting for each element (i.e., the CLR for the first element is 2% out of a maximum of 5%). Based on the quality elements and weighting allocated in Table 7-1below, the SWMF overall CLR is 55%. Although this is a low score, it does reflect the quality and type of data available, current processes and management strategies.

Table 7-1 CLR Scores SWMF AM Plan (2012)

# Key AM Plan Element Process Effective-ness

Data Quality Element Rating

Secondary Weightings

Primary Weightings

CLR for AMP

1 Existing Standards of Service 51% 51% 51% 100% 4% 2.0

2 Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio 60% 60% 60% 100% 12% 7.2

3 Current Demands 50% 50% 50% 100% 4% 2.0

4 Future Demands / Changes in LOS 40% 40% 40% 100% 8% 3.2

5 Prediction of Failure Mode 50% 50% 50% 100% 8% 4.0

6 Timing of Failure 52% 52% 52% 100% 6% 3.1

7 Consequence of Failure 75% 75% 75% 100% 14% 10.5

8 Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program 73% 73% 73% 100% 12% 8.8

9 Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs 60% 60% 60% 100% 10% 6.0

10 Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions 48% 48% 48% 100% 6% 2.9

11 Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions 40% 40% 40% 100% 4% 1.6

12 Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes 40% 40% 40% 100% 4% 1.6


# Key AM Plan Element Process Effective-ness

Data Quality Element Rating

Secondary Weightings

Primary Weightings

CLR for AMP

13 Plan and Customer Expectations 60% 60% 60% 100% 4% 2.4

14 Ability to Modify Plan 60% 60% 60% 100% 2% 1.2

15 Links to Business Goals 60% 60% 60% 100% 2% 1.2

Totals 100% 55%

7.3 Improvement Program

The CLR assessment process allows for the identification of the most critical elements to production of the AM Plan and targets these for a future improvement program. The following figure illustrates the gap in confidence based on each of the 12 key elements involved in production of the AM Plan. The greater the percentage gap, the greater the improvement required. The gaps are calculated as the difference between the Primary Weighting and the CLR score for each element. For example, the gap for Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio is 4.8% = 12% - 7.2%.

Figure 7-1 Confidence Level Gap for SWMF AM Plan (2012)

It is recommended that the City focus on the key findings from the above gap analysis. Key recommendations are summarised in the table below.


Table 7-2 Recommendations for Future SWMF AM Plan Improvement

# AM Plan Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan 1 Existing Standards of

Service • Current service standards are listed in the

AM Plan, but service performance is not included in AM Plan analysis

• A Department AM Policy exists • Logical links from high level objectives to

asset service standards are not documented

• Develop performance indicators for key assets to provide feedback into AM planning decision-making

2 Knowledge of Existing Assets / Portfolio

• SWMF Asset data is contained in a number of information systems and sources

• Create a single master copy collecting all SWMF data

3 Current Demands • Probability of quality failure was not updated from previous AM Plan

• Review and update probability of failure data

4 Future Demands / Changes in LOS

• City is waiting for input regarding Annexation

• Update future demand information so that it can be included in the AM Plan

5 Prediction of Failure Mode

• Physical failure was the only failure mode used

• Develop more robust asset failure prediction models, as available

6 Timing of Failure • City did not consider the timing of financial efficiency, capacity or LOS failures


7 Consequence of Failure

• City considered both quality and quantity physical failure consequences


8 Quality of Proposed Maintenance Program

• The maintenance program proposed in this AM Plan is based on needs determined by risk analysis

• Analyze differing blends of planned and unplanned maintenance and identify cost reduction opportunities more formally

9 Appropriateness of Recurrent Budgets / Costs

• The City does not have a formal process to determine how to achieve the greatest improvements and benefits from the available budget.

• Develop a process to identify and predict recurrent costs

10 Appropriateness of Renewal Solutions

• The renewal program included in the AM Plan is based on needs determined by risk analysis – but is more robust for 9 SWMFs that included detailed inspection data

• Collect data for all SWMF to support the AM Planning process including more advanced risk and renewal needs analysis

11 Appropriateness of New Asset Solutions

• City doesn’t not currently consider growth in the SWMF asset portfolio

• Update future demand information and use it to project future full lifecycle costs

12 Appropriateness of Economic Evaluation Processes

• The AM Plan is based on constant dollars, with the analysis covering a 100 year period.

• None

13 Plan and Customer Expectations

• Regulatory and CofA requirements are understood

• Document and include CofA requirements in AM Plan analysis

14 Ability to Modify Plan • Assumptions are noted in the AM Plan • None 15 Links to Business • Links to business drivers and customer • Continually analyse business drivers and


# AM Plan Element Comments Recommendations for Next AM Plan Goals requirements are noted customer requirements and modify AM Plan

analysis, as required

7.4 Monitoring & Performance Measures

Monitoring of the CLR should be carried out on an annual basis and with each production of the AM Plan. The CLR scores and assessed gaps should be compared year-to-year and program improvements modified accordingly. As time progresses and the AM Plan data and processes are improved, the expectation is the CLR scores will improve to be commensurate with the Division’s maturity and commitment to asset management best practices.


GHD Inc.

11 Allstate Parkway, Suite 310 Markham Ontario L3R 09T8 T: 905-752-4300 F: 905-752-4301

© GHD Inc. 2012

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD Inc. The document may only be used for the purpose of assessing our offer of services and for inclusion in documentation for the engagement of GHD Inc. Unauthorized use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev No. Author

Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Name Signature Date 0 Donna

Querengesser

1 Donna Querengesser

Roop Lutchman Lena Dianda 2012 10 26

2 Donna Querengesser

Roop Lutchman Lena Dianda 2012 11 28