FANNY BAY HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT December 30, 2011 Prepared for: Fanny Bay Harbor Authority Prepared by: Bruce Evans Project Manager 2807 Erin Place Courtenay, B.C. 250-248-1325 bdevans@telus.net

Table of Contents

pg * Project History and Conceptualization……………….. 3 * Project Objectives……………………………………. 3 * Overall Schedule……………………………………... 4 * Details of Project Schedule and Completion ………… 5 * Completion of Project Objectives……………………. 6 * Project Objectives not completed……………………. 6 * Expected Outcomes (Benefits)………………………. 7 1. Project employment…………………………… 7 2. Increased capacity……………………………... 7 3. Efficiencies in product movement…………….. 8 table 1: unloading efficiencies……………. 8 table 2: shellfish weights and values landed 9 4 Product Quality………………………………… 10 5. Job Maintenance and Creation………………… 11 6. New businesses using the facility……………… 12 7. Increased vessel moorage……………………… 12 8. Safety for unloading products…………………. 12 * Final Project Costs…………………………………….. 12-13 * Project Pictures………………………………………... 14-24

2

PROJECT HISTORY AND CONCEPTUALIZATION (2010-2011)

December 30, 2011 The Fanny Bay Harbor Authority identified a bottleneck to both the expanding shellfish industry and the general marine infrastructure in Baynes Sound. The existing wood wharf structure at Fanny Bay was constructed in the 1950’s. When the wharf was first designed, the commercial salmon industry was the main industry at the facility. Since that time, the significant user has become the shellfish industry. Several issues were identified as being restrictive at the old wooden wharf: the load capacity was inadequate, industry needed a facility that was larger and safer for offloading of product, and a commercial style load capacity was not available between Campbell River and Nanaimo. The Harbor Authority engaged a consultant in 2007, to prepare a business model in preparation for a Harbor upgrade. The FBHA worked at a plan to alleviate those structural inadequacies. In 2010, funding applications were made and four agencies supported the project:

1. $500,000 -Small Craft Harbors (DFO), 2. $515,000 Western Economic Development (WED), 3. $515,000 Island Coastal Economic Development

(ICET), 4. $250,000 West Coast Community Adjustment

Program (WestCCAP).

The proponent (FBHA) also contributed $89,700 for a total project value of $1,869,700.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project objectives were defined as “reconstruct and reconfigure the Fanny Bay wharf, to optimize the utility of the existing wharf”. Activities were to include installation of the concrete float with ramp access, so that truck- to- vessel access was available at any tide and that the unloading was safe and expedited. The primary concern was to increase the load capacity of the infrastructure. Other activities were to include an upgrade to the electrical supply and install potable water to the marina.

3

OVERALL SCHEDULE Preliminary project planning and design started in January 2010. The final funding approvals and official project start date was approximately November 2010. The official announcement made by minister John Duncan was January 18th, 2011. “Substantial completion” was issued by the project engineer in November 15, 2011.

Fig 1. Old Wharf (pre 2011)

4

DETAILS OF PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COMPLETION Professional services for the project were received from several sources. Early engineering services were provided by Moffat & Nichol to determine the best design for the project. Later, engineering services were provided by VJH Engineering to design the ramp and trestle sections. Sea Force Consulting won bids to provide pile driving monitoring contracts (first and second pile driving services). The FBHA first major request for bids (tender) was sent out January 17, 2011 (for the steel ramp section down to the concrete wharf. The successful bidder was Alberni Engineering Ltd. Coincidentally, Small Craft Harbors (DFO) was busy having the concrete float built in Vancouver at Vancouver Pile Driving Ltd. The first CEAA document was completed by SCH staff for the installation of the concrete float. This was finalized in December 2010. This 17 m x 26 m concrete float was delivered (tendered package) by Mercury Tug and Launch to Fanny Bay in mid March and installed (tendered package) by Sawchuk Pile Driving by the end of March. The second CEAA application for the trestle and ramp installation was created by Balanced Environmental Consultants (via tender). The approval was finalized in mid March. In early April, Sawchuk Pile Driving reconfigured the wharf and moved the breakwater to get more efficient wharf use and create access room to the concrete float. Two steel trestle (bridge) sections were contracted to Alberni Engineering. The final assembly and installation of the trestles and ramp to the upland was tendered in June and the contract was awarded to Pacific Industrial and Marine of Duncan. The start of that installation was in mid August. “Substantial completion” was received November 15, 2011.

5

COMPLETION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The major component of the project was completed on schedule. The Fanny Bay Harbor now has a facility with a 17 m x 26 m concrete float and road access to the float on a steel trestle and steel ramp with the following new characteristics:

1. The system is rated at essentially highway rated loads (40,800 kg for tractor trailer loads and 30,581 kg for double axel trucks).

2. The concrete float allows for multiple unloading sites at water level i.e. more than one truck can off-load, at one time, in a safe and cost effective manner.

3. Large refrigerated trucks can access harvested shellfish directly- reducing handling times and keeping temperature (quality) of products moved to the local processing plants at optimum conditions.

4. Commercial traffic can now source a water access point between Campbell River and Nanaimo.

5. Extra wharf tie up space was created, when the wooden wharf was moved into deeper water. (The original plan was to dredge to get water depth). This alternative idea gave the necessary depth of water (without the destructive dredging). This allows for up to three deeper draft vessels to be tied up on the inside of the float “abeam” of each other (originally only one deep draft vessel could be tied up and only two shallow draft vessels- otherwise they would go aground at low tide).

PROJECT OBJECTIVES NOT COMPLETED The Harbor Authority engaged engineering services to provide “Class D” estimates for the original budget submission purposes. This was the basis for the application budgets that were supplied. The HA had aspirations of an upgrade to the electrical service and the addition of potable water to the site. These items will not be completed at this time. Due to higher than anticipated tender prices for both the installation and assembly of the trestles and ramp, the budget was consumed.

6

The Harbor Authority will be left with a small deficit, when the project completes.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES (BENEFITS)

1. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT The overall project employment was approximately 60 man months (1316 man days). This employment was for construction of the facility and therefore temporary. The Harbor Authority currently has part-time staff (1/4 time) to manage the harbor traffic. The marketing strategy (advertising) for the new facility will unfold during the spring of 2012. This staffing will likely increase to manage the new time requirements needed to handle the new traffic at the facility.

2. INCREASED CAPACITY At the start of the project (March 2011), there was an estimated 35 tons per week of shellfish product moving across the old structure. This equates to approximately $107,000 per week or $440,000 per month. Estimated product movement at December 2012 is now 51 tons per week. This is below the project projections of 70 tons per week, but still a 46% increase. This equates to approximately $666,500 per month. This increase in product movement for 2012 is mainly from the smaller producers utilizing the facility. Prior to the completion of the project, these shellfish producers were unable to offload product on the old wharf structure. They unloaded at the beach and then moved to waiting trucks on the upland. The new water- level float allows for direct offloading and therefore greater efficiencies in handling. The big increases of product movement will be seen from the larger shellfish producers, who currently use the facility. This is a function of product that is in-the-pipeline (year class strength). Most shellfish is harvested 2 – 3 years after seed is “planted”. Because there has been a successful year class in 2011, by the fall of 2013, it is estimated that $1.4 million/per month product value will be moving across the concrete float!

7

With the increased volume of shellfish projected for the fall of 2013, there needed to be increased efficiencies in product movements, as well as more space for delivering products at the dock. The old facility has only two “sites” for unloading at one time. The new addition of the concrete float enables an additional 4 sites for simultaneous delivery of product.

3. EFFICIENCIES IN PRODUCT MOVEMENT Two types of efficiency upgrades have been realized at the new facility.

a. Level lifts from the boat to the truck, is obviously more efficient than lifting product that is up to 25 feet below the truck. (truck boom winches are by design-- slow speed- high weight capacity).

b. Smaller operators offloaded product at the beach onto a small truck. They then moved it to the waiting larger truck on the upland. This was double handling.

Table one describes estimates of cost efficiencies associated with these two concepts: Table 1: Unloading efficiencies Daily Unloading Costs Current Dock Facility Tonnage per Day Wages Time Total Cost Cost per Ton 4 Tonnes 4 crew @ $20.00 2.5 hrs $200.00 $50.00 Current Beach Landings (double handling) Tonnage per Day Wages Time Total Cost Cost per Ton 4 Tonnes 4 crew @ $20.00 3 hrs $240.00 $60.00 New Floating Dock Facility Tonnage per Day Wages Time Total Cost Cost per Ton 8 Tonnes 4 crew @ $20.00 1.25hrs $200.00 $25.00

8

9

The larger companies using the old wharf structure have crane trucks to off-load product. There are increased efficiencies seen by those operations- simply by quicker movement onto the trucks. The time to offload is cut in half; a savings of $25/ton. The smaller operators were double handling product to a small truck and then to the larger truck. There is more cost saving here (than above) where the savings per ton unloaded is estimated at $35/ton. When referencing Table 2 below, the Dec 2012 landed weights of shellfish will realize a savings on a monthly basis of approximately $9968. This amount is an averaged savings of both the small operators and the large operators (using $30 per ton savings). The value increases in Dec 2013 to $13,486 per month, when the amount of landed product increases to almost 450 tons per month.

Table 2. SHELLFISH WEIGHTS AND VALUES LANDED AT THE DOCK AT FANNY BAY HARBOR Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13

weight (lbs) value ($) weight value weight value weight value

total weekly production 85,000 107,000 115,000 147,500 170,000 225,500 230,000 311,750 total monthly (x4.3) 365,000 460,100 494,000 634,250 731,000 969,650 989,000 1,340,525

total savings per month (@$30/ton) 9,968.18 13,486.36

10

4. PRODUCT QUALITY

One of the new issues facing shellfish producers in B.C. is the Time/temperature controls being implemented by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), to control Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp). This affects all shellfish, and as a result, CFIA has implemented minimum meat temperatures for products arriving at the processor. This is problematic in the summer time. The new float facility, with a larger load capacity, will allow for several key issues to be addressed.

1. Refrigerated trucks to will be able to unload product efficiently from the farms.

2. More vessels can unload at any given time. The old wood wharf had room for only two smaller trucks to be loaded out. The new concrete float can support up to 6 vehicles at one time.

The minimum meat temperatures, as legislated by CFIA, will be easier to achieve, with this type of infrastructure.

5. JOB MAINTENANCE AND CREATION Product movement from the new facility, in section 2 above, has been discussed. The increased quantity/value of product that is in planned for 2013 harvests will be the largest job creation value seen from this project. In discussion with local processors, the anticipated job creation will be 25 new full time jobs in the processing facility. New jobs- on the farms- in Baynes Sound will increase by 15 full time positions as well. (total of 40 full time jobs).

6. NEW BUSINESSES USING THE FACILITY The harbor manager has reported 4 new shellfish operators using the concrete float to unload materials. These operators used the beach to unload product and then transport those products to trucks waiting on the upland. Trucks picking up the product can now travel down the newly installed ramp to offload product directly from the smaller vessels.

11

The facility was not finished construction, when a phone call was fielded from another harbor authority, to unload a tractor-trailer load of wood. The load was bound for one of the outer islands for float construction. Due to the strategic location, Fanny Bay was the choice location. (the load could not be handled, as the project completion was a few days away!). This is the anticipated,(but not yet realized), new users this project will see over the next 12 months.

7. INCREASED VESSEL MOORAGE The Fanny Bay Harbor Authority early planning for increasing vessel moorage was centered on dredging to create deeper water. The inside of the wood float was too shallow to “raft” vessels together. After discussions with DFO engineers, the plan changed to reconfiguring the wharf; to move the system into deeper water. The environmental review for this type of change was obviously less rigorous and solved the moorage issues. The harbor authority has increased the tie up space by the targeted 6 spaces or approximately 30%.

8. SAFETY FOR UNLOADING PRODUCTS One un-measurable, but very important, feature of the new concrete float is it’s safety element. The old wooden wharf has no side rails where shellfish was unloaded. At certain stages of the tide cycle, unloading occurred with operators working at the dock edge with a 25 foot drop to the vessels that were being unloaded. One slip or stumble could have had an operator falling either into the water or worse onto the deck of one of the vessels. The new water-level unloading creates a much safer work environment!

FINAL PROJECT COSTS Following is a summary of project costs. These are categorized to reflect budget line items. The total overall value for the project was $1,985,734.32

12

Fanny Bay Harbour Authority

Improvements Project March 2011 to December 2011

Project Expenditures Floating Wharf $ 27,153.00 Reconstruction of berths & breakwater $ 120,236.90 Ramp, approach & foreshore preparation $ 1,197,945.25 Professional & Managerial Inputs $ 108,211.32 TOTAL EXPENSES $1,453,546.47 Project Income (Funding Sources) ICET $ 463,499.90 Western Economic Development $ 463,500.00 WCAPP $ 224,999.48 10% Holdback $ 128,000.00 Fanny Bay Harbor Authority $ 89,700.00 Small Craft Harbors $ 75,340.00 TOTAL INCOME $1,445,039.38 Balance -$ 8,507.09 Small Craft Harbor (actual) concrete float $ 528,901.00 Real Project Value $1,982,447.47

13

FANNY BAY HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

Fig. 1. freshly installed concrete float view to NE. (note the breakwater- too close)

Fig. 2. concrete float view to SW. (note: red ramp down to wood float in original position. Later moved)

14

Fig. 3: Wood wharf moved to final location on the end of the concrete float. (note new aluminum transition ramp and new steel piles in wood float. Red ramp has been temporarily installed onto concrete float to keep wood wharf operational

Fig. 4: Electrical service to dock changed/extended (grey boxes on wharf-head) and red ramp location changed.

15

Fig 5: east breakwater moved to deeper water for access to concrete float

Fig. 6: ramp construction at Alberni Engineering

16

Figure 7: inspection of welded seams on ramp by contractor at Alberni Engineering

Figure 8: steel beams for the trestle sections

17

Fig. 9 Construction Starts on site. First pile being “vibro-ed” into mid pile site

Fig. 10 Pile being set (proofed) at beach abutment

18

Fig. 11 Ramp abutment piles being “proofed” (driven) after being Vibro-ed

Fig. 12 Concrete forms in place at ramp abutment for pile cap

19

Fig 13 Structural steel in ramp abutment pile cap

Fig 14 Beach abutment structural steel and formwork supporting road drainage tile

20

Fig 15 Trestles arrive for installation

Fig 16 Trestle 2 in place on ramp abutment cap and trestle 1 being swung into place

21

Fig 17 Steel Ramp arrives from Port Alberni (40 tons)

Fig 18 Steel ramp rolled out on trestle and being lifted off by two cranes on barges

22

Fig 19 “Easy as she goes”- placing the 40 ton ramp onto the concrete float

Fig 20. Completed facility with two small vessels being unloaded

23

Fig 21 view of completed steel trestle and steel ramp connecting beach to concrete float

Fig 22 dockside unloading for small shellfish vessel

24