PROJECT FILE REPORT. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Reed Bridge on Galway Road. County of Peterborough. Municipality of Trent Lakes

Transcription

1 45 South Front Street Belleville, Ontario K8N 2Y5 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) PROJECT FILE REPORT Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Reed Bridge on Galway Road County of Peterborough Municipality of Trent Lakes April 2015 Submitted To: County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1Y6

2

3 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Executive Summary The County of Peterborough has retained the Ainley Group to undertake a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the Reed Bridge, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. This project has been classified as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007). This Project File Report was prepared in accordance with the MCEA guidelines, and documents the process involved in the selection of the recommended alternative solution for bridge rehabilitation/replacement. In accordance with a Schedule B undertaking, Phase 1 and Phase 2 were carried out. Phase 1 requires identification of the problem/opportunity statement, while Phase 2 requires identifying existing conditions, carrying out an environmental screening, identifying preliminary alternative solutions and the preferred recommended solution, and consulting with the public and agencies on the project. A Public Information Centre was held on February 12, 2015 detailing options for both the Reed Bridge and the Dutch Line Bridge. The Dutch Line Bridge will follow a separate review process for environmental assessment documentation. Comments from agencies and the public were accepted, and those who requested to receive responses were answered. The Reed Bridge is in generally poor condition, with the preliminary recommended solution being replacement with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame open-footing bridge. This solution addresses the problem and opportunity statements by cost effectively ensuring that the Reed bridge meets the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. The approximate cost for construction of the Reed Bridge replacement is $675,000, with expected construction duration of 6-8 weeks. The expected service life of the new Reed Bridge is approximately 75 years, and will be reinstated to the same two-lane traffic configuration as the existing structure. The primary detour route during construction would be Crystal Lake Road via Allen s Alley, Galway Road, and Queen s Line Road, all of which are four-season, maintained roadways. The distance between the Dutch Line Bridge and the intersection of Crystal Lake Road with County Road 121 is approximately 11.5 km (20 minutes travel time). A Notice of Study Completion is issued concurrently with the posting of the Project File Report on the public record, which will mark the beginning of the 30-day review period. If no concerns arise from the Notice and this Project File Report, the Municipality will proceed to design and construction in accordance with a Schedule B undertaking. The Ainley Group Page i

4 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction Background and Purpose Study Area Class EA Process Problem Statement Existing Conditions Structural Natural Environment Topography / Vegetation Surface Water and Drainage Species at Risk Socio-Economic Socio-Economic Structure Community, Traffic, and Emergency Services Environmentally Sensitive Areas Noise Adjacent Lane Use Commercial Properties Cultural, Heritage, and Archaeological Impacts Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative Solutions Do Nothing Alternative Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge Alternative Replacement of the Bridge Alternative Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Alternative Solutions - Summary Traffic Requirements Preferred Alternative Solution Consultation Public Information Centre Impacts and Mitigation Measures Biophysical Environment Erosion and Sediment Control Surface Water Contamination and Debris Accumulation Vegetation Wildlife and Bird Migration Environmentally Sensitive Areas The Ainley Group Page ii

5 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Fisheries and Associated Habitat Species At Risk (SAR) Socio-Economic Environment Cultural and Heritage Resources Noise Air Quality Adjacent Lands and Traffic Disruption Emergency Spill Response Approvals Schedule Closure References The Ainley Group Page iii

6 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Key Map MCEA Process Flow Chart Traffic Detours Staged Construction Traffic Detours Concurrent Construction List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Information Request - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Reed Bridge List of Appendices Appendix A Structural and Geotechnical Reports Appendix B Cultural Heritage Checklist Appendix C Hydraulic Assessment Appendix D Preferred Solution General Arrangement Drawings Appendix E Consultation Appendix F Public Information Centre Summary Report The Ainley Group Page iv

7 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose The Reed Bridge conveys local traffic from Galway Road, which is a two-lane paved rural arterial road, with Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) estimated to be approximately Reed Bridge is a steel girder bridge with a transverse laminated timber deck. The structure is currently 7.4 m long and 9.1 m wide, with a soffit clearance of 2.8 m above the streambed (December 2014 inspection). The date of construction is believed to be circa Reed Bridge Looking West (November 2014) An inspection of the bridge was completed in September 2013 which identified a number of deficiencies with the structure, and recommended remedial measures for rehabilititation within a 1-5 year time horizon. Coating of the structural steel components and installation of approach guiderail were identified to be addressed immediately during the 2013 inspection. Subsequent to the inspection in 2013, the structure was posted for load restrictions in Further details with respect to the structure condition are provided in Section 2.0. Based on the age / condition of the structure, the current load restrictions, and the identified structural deficiencies, the County of Peterborough has retained the Ainley Group to undertake a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA; October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) and Final Design Memorandum for the Reed Bridge, located southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. As part of the study, a site inspection was carried out by HP Engineering Inc. (a The Ainley Group Page 1

8 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report sub-consultant to the Ainley Group) on December 1, 2014 to verify the structural conditions of the Reed Bridge. This project has been classified as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA. This Project File Report has been prepared in accordance with the MCEA guidelines, and documents the environmental assessment study completed for the Reed Bridge. Upon completion of the MCEA process, detail design elements will be completed including all required approvals, and construction is anticipated in Study Area The Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes, in the County of Peterborough. The study area is located within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Bancroft District. The Reed Bridge spans Union Creek, with the general study area and bridge location shown in Figure Class EA Process Figure 1 Key Map As part of the preliminary/detail design process, municipal infrastructure projects in Ontario must meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act, or more specifically, the MCEA (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). The MCEA applies to a group or class of municipal water, wastewater, and roadway projects The Ainley Group Page 2

9 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report which occur frequently and have relatively minor and predictable impacts. As long as these projects are planned, designed, and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the MCEA, the projects are approved under the EA Act. The specific requirements of the Class EA depend on the type of project, including the project s complexity and anticipated environmental impacts. The four categories of Class EA projects are known as Schedule A, A+, B, and C. The environmental assessment for the Reed Bridge is proceeding per the requirements of a Schedule B project in accordance with the MCEA. To meet the requirements of a Schedule B project, Phases 1 and 2 of the MCEA process are to be followed. These phases are identified as follows: - Phase 1: Identification of the Problem / Opportunity Statement - Phase 2: Development and evaluation of Alternative Solutions and Selection of a Preferred Solution to address the Problem / Opportunity Statement. The phases of the MCEA process are shown on Figure 2. The Ainley Group Page 3

10 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Figure 2 MCEA Process Flow Chart (Source: Municipal Engineers Association) The Ainley Group Page 3

11 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report To fulfill the requirements of the MCEA and to avoid/minimize adverse environmental impacts, the Schedule B screening process involves the following: Preparing a screening level inventory of the environment potentially affected by the project, Consulting with the public and agencies, Reviewing potential impacts of the preferred solution, and identifying potential mitigation measures, Documenting the Class EA process with a Project File Report, and Making the Project File Report available to the public for a 30 day review period. 2.0 Problem Statement The Reed Bridge spanning Union Creek on Galway Road was identified as being constructed circa A previous structural inspection in 2013 identified several structural deficiencies. The Municipal Appraisal from this inspection is included in Appendix A. G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc. carried out a site inspection in June 2014 and prepared a letter to the County of Peterborough detailing their observations (Appendix A). As part of this study, a Final Structural Design Memorandum was prepared by HP Engineering Inc., acting as a sub-consultant to the Ainley Group (Appendix A), included in which was a site inspection carried out on December 1, 2014 to verify the structural conditions of the Reed Bridge. During the inspection in 2014, the bridge structure was observed to be generally in poor condition including the following components: The existing barrier does not conform to current standards. Light to medium corrosion was noted on the post brackets throughout, with localized perforations at the base of a few posts. Excessive deformations were also noted on both barriers. Splits, weathering, and localized severe rot were noted on the timber curbs. Localized severe rot was noted on the deck soffit. Medium corrosion was noted on the girders, with severe corrosion observed at the ends of the girders. Wide cracks and localized spalls were noted on the concrete ballast walls. Rot, excessive rotation and bulging was noted on both timber cribs. The Ainley Group Page 4

12 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report The Problem/Opportunity Statement outlines the need and objective for the study, which for the Reed Bridge is identified as follows: The existing bridge does not meet bridge code requirements and has deteriorated to poor condition including severe rot of the timber curbs and deck soffit, corrosion of girders, settlement of the west timber crib (abutment) and the need for the structure to be posted for traffic load restrictions and frequent inspection (minimum of 6 month frequency). The Reed Bridge Opportunity Statement is as follows: Replacement/rehabilitation of the Reed Bridge will provide improved safety conditions on Galway Road for the crossing of Union Creek given the deteriorated condition of the structure. A concrete block retaining wall and surface water intake (for Fire Department use) was identified near the northeast corner of the structure. The retaining wall is not structurally connected to the bridge, and there is a gap of approximately 3 m between the northeast corner of the bridge and the retaining wall. The retaining wall may require minor modifications to allow the new bridge installation; however, the surface water intake will be re-instated following the works. 3.0 Existing Conditions 3.1 Structural The Reed Bridge is currently 7.4 m long and 9.1 m wide, with a soffit clearance of 2.8 m above the streambed (December 2014 inspection), and carries vehicular traffic from Galway Road over Union Creek. The date of construction is believed to be circa A final design report for this structure was completed by HP Engineering Inc. (subconsultant to the Ainley Group). This report is included in Appendix A. A geotechnical report was prepared by Geo-logic. The geotechnical investigations included soil sampling and chemical testing on these soils. The geotechnical report and chemical testing report are also included in Appendix A. 3.2 Natural Environment As part of the Phase 2 MCEA, an environmental screening is required. Environmental investigations for Reed Bridge included a background review and limited field assessment of both the terrestrial and aquatic environments on November 26, The study area incorporated the terrestrial environment located within a 120 m radius of this structure, as well as the aquatic environment upstream and downstream of this The Ainley Group Page 5

13 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report structure. To evaluate existing terrestrial ecosystem conditions and species at risk within the study area, the following tasks have been undertaken: A review of all relevant background information including the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), for the project area. A review of habitat types for species at risk (SAR) having the potential to occur within the study limits as provided by the MNRF and NHIC databases. A field survey to identify the presence of natural heritage features and SAR was conducted on November 26, To evaluate the existing aquatic ecosystem existing conditions within the study area, a field survey was completed in conjunction with the terrestrial field survey. The survey included a review of the following: Watercourse morphology, including type of watercourse, length, velocity and associated wetlands. Subsections of the watercourse, including runs, pools and riffles. Water quality features including temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, resistivity, salinity and ph. Habitat features, including woody debris, undercut banks, boulder clusters, organic debris, and vascular macrophytes. Terrestrial groundwater seepage areas, watercourse substrate, bank stability, riparian and aquatic vegetation. Physical barriers Topography / Vegetation Topography in the study area slopes gradually from north to south, with localized depressional areas associated with unnamed tributaries of Union Creek. The elevation adjacent to Union Creek at the upstream Dutch Line Road is approximately 288 meters above sea level (masl), and the elevation at Galway Road at the Reed Bridge is approximately 275 masl. The study area is located in the 6E-15 Lake Simcoe-Rideau Ecodistrict within the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone, which is typically dominated by mixed broadleaf and conifer forests (MNR, 2009). A field survey was completed by the Ainley Group on November 26, 2014 to document vegetative species within the project limits; however, given the timing of the field survey (i.e. November) limited documentation of herbaceous species The Ainley Group Page 6

14 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report was possible. Areas adjacent to the watercourse were observed to have limited to moderate canopy cover, and contained vegetative species typical of lands which are likely flooded during a portion of the year. Some of the species observed within this area include; Canary Grass (Phalaris canariensis), Ostrich Fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Speckled Alder (Alnus incana), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), and White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) Surface Water and Drainage The Reed Bridge spans Union Creek, which flows from north to south in the vicinity of the structure. Upstream of the Galway Road, Union Creek conveys outflow from wetlands, ponds, and lakes to the northeast before flowing beneath Dutch Line Road approximately 2.0 km north of Galway Road. An information request was sent to the MNRF for information on habitat, fish species present, waterbody classification, and in-water timing windows for construction. Information received from the MNRF in response to that information request is included in Table 1. To limit potential impacts to the adjacent watercourse, in-water works will be restricted during the period of March 15 to July 15 in any calendar year, and erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to limit impacts to the adjacent watercourse. The Ainley Group Page 7

15 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Table 1: Information Request - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) No. Waterbody Waterbody location Watercourse Habitat Historical data on fish species MNR fisheries MNR interpretation In-water Name (UTM NAD83) classification information / present, including whether the management of fish and fish timing (i.e. locations subject waterbody(s) (specify objectives, if habitat sensitivity windows for warmwater, (fish passage location) are considered to applicable (scale of high, construction coldwater) barriers, support any vulnerable, moderate, low or known threatened or endangered unknown) as per spawning aquatic species DFO s Risk habitats etc.) Management Framework No in-water 1 Reed Bridge Union Creek 17T Warmwater Unknown Unknown N/A Low work from March 15 to July 15 Source: MNRF, 2014 The Ainley Group Page 7

16 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Species at Risk Background review sources indicate that occurrences of the following species have been reported within one (1) km of the bridge locations: Snapping Turtle (Special Concern) and Eastern Ribbonsnake (Special Concern). Other species have been reported within the general project area (5 km radius) including: Blanding s Turtle (Threatened), Eastern Musk Turtle (Special Concern), Milksnake (Special Concern), Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Threatened), Common Five-lined Skink (Southern Shield population Special Concern), American Eel (Endangered), Butternut (Endangered), Whip-poor-will (Threatened), Common Nighthawk (Special Concern), Golden-winged Warbler (Special Concern), Barn Swallow (Threatened), Bobolink (Threatened) and Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened). During the completion of the limited field survey, no SAR species were observed. No critical habitats for any of the above noted species were identified within the immediate proximity to the structure location No evidence of turtle nesting was observed during the site visit, and there were no Barn Swallow nests observed beneath the Reed Bridge. 3.3 Socio-Economic As part of the existing conditions review for the project, a review of the socio-economic environment was completed. Factors considered as part of the socio-economic review included: Socio-economic Structure; Community, Traffic, and Emergency Services; Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Noise; Adjacent Land Use; and Commercial Properties. The following sections provide a summary of the above-noted components for the Reed Bridge study area Socio-Economic Structure The study area is located southeast of the Town of Kinmount, Ontario, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Reed Bridge carries traffic over Union Creek on Galway Road. Galway Road is generally east-west oriented and carries local traffic to and from County Road 121 to rural areas east of the structure. The Ainley Group Page 8

17 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Community, Traffic, and Emergency Services The primary settlement area nearest to the bridge is the Town of Kinmount. The Reed Bridge conveys traffic from Galway Road, which provides access to rural areas to the east. Local traffic use of the Reed Bridge is anticipated to increase in the summer months when non-permanent residents return to the area. Fire services within the study areas are governed by the Municipality of Trent Lakes and the County of Peterborough. Fire response services are provided by the Municipality of Trent Lakes, with the closest fire station located at the Galway Fire Hall, located approximately 750 m east of the Reed Bridge. An additional fire hall, Kawartha Lakes Fire Station 18, is located in the Town of Kinmount. Paramedic services are provided to the area by the Peterborough County / City Paramedics. Local school boards servicing the area include the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, and the Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland, and Clarington Catholic District School Board. Transporation services are provided by the Student Transportation Services of Central Ontario Environmentally Sensitive Areas There are no designated environmentally sensitive areas within the Reed Bridge study area Noise The existing noise environment in proximity to the Reed Bridge is dominated by trafficrelated noise, which is minor considering the low traffic volumes on Galway Road. Other sources of noise in the vicinity are considerated to be generally insignificant. Any noise related to the rehabilitation / replacement of the Reed Bridge will be of a temporary nature throughout the duration of construction Adjacent Lane Use Adjacent land use consists primarily of forested areas, lakes, low-lying wetlands, and residential properties Commercial Properties The extent of commercial properties in proximity to the Reed Bridge is relatively low; however, select commercial properties exist in the vicinity of the bridge on County Road 121, and on Crystal Lake Road. Commercial properties are also present within the Village of Kinmount, located approximately 7 km from the Reed Bridge. The Ainley Group Page 9

18 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report 3.4 Cultural, Heritage, and Archaeological Impacts The Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist (Revised April 11, 2014) was used to determine potential cultural, heritage, and archaeological impacts, as the bridge is over 40 years old. The Reed Bridge was identified as being constructed circa A review of the structure was completed in accordance with the checklist, which included visual observation of the structural elements for significant features, and a review of information provided by the County regarding historical information such as review of site registration under the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Conservation District, Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport, National Historic Site, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Archaeological investigations were not undertaken for the Reed Bridge as construction is identified to take place within the previously disturbed footprint of the existing structure. The checklist for the Reed Bridge is included in Appendix B. 4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives 4.1 Alternative Solutions To address the Problem / Opportunity statement for the Reed Bridge, the following alternative solutions were considered as part of the MCEA study Do Nothing Alternative The Do Nothing alternative indicates that the bridge would be kept in its existing condition or status quo and would not have any significant repairs or rehabilitation completed. As discussed in the site inspection reports completed for the structure, rehabilitation / replacement of the structure is required to address the generally poor condition of the existing structure Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge Alternative The rehabilitation alternative includes rehabilitation of the existing structure to a functioning state in accordance with current design standards. The rehabilitation would address all of the deficiencies as identified in the previously completed structural site assessments Replacement of the Bridge Alternative This alternative includes replacement of the existing bridge with a bridge type of similar structure and size. A hydraulic assessment completed for the structure identified that The Ainley Group Page 10

19 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report the existing structure span was sufficient to accommodate design flows (Appendix C). This alternative includes alternative designs including the following replacement types: Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box Bridge Steel Modular Panel Bridge Steel Multi-plate Culvert (Closed Bottom) The above noted alternative solutions / designs were evaluated as part of the MCEA process, with results of the assessment provided in Section Evaluation Criteria The following criteria were utilized in the evaluation of the alternative solutions / designs identified in Section 4.1. Physical / Traffic Environment The physical / traffic environment was evaluated for potential impacts from alternative solutions on roadway safety, ease of construction, construction duration and duration of roadway closure / traffic detours, and impacts on utilities. Natural Environment The natural environment was evaluated for potential impacts from alternative solutions on fish and fish habitat, terrestrial ecosystems, wildlife, vegetation, and species at risk (SAR), and surface water and drainage features. Socio-Economic / Cultural Environment The socio-economic / cultural environment was evaluated for potential impacts from alternative solutions on property, traffic disruptions to local businesses / residents, disruptions to key services such as EMS / Fire and school board transportation services, noise, and cultural and archaeological resources. Cost / Structural Environment The cost / structural environment was evaluated for potential impacts from alternative solutions on overall construction costs, and structural service life of each option. The evaluation of the alternatives using the above factors is provided in Table 2. The potential impacts of the alternatives were reviewed using qualitative methods building upon experience on similar projects. The Ainley Group Page 11

20 Table 2 - Alternative Solutions Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Do Nothing Rehabilitation Alternative Solutions Replacement with new bridge Steel Modular Panel Super Cor structural steel plate Pre-cast concrete rigid frame box Physical / Structural Environment Replacement with culvert 1 Safety X This option does not address structural deficiencies and is considered unacceptable. The rehabilitated bridge would conform to CHBDC standards. The new bridge would conform to CHBDC standards. The new bridge would conform to CHBDC standards. The new bridge would conform to CHBDC standards. X Ease of Construction No construction, and therefore no impacts. Rehabilitation would require major alterations to the existing sub-structure and deck to comply with CHBDC. Easy to install, readily available materials, slightly longer installation time. Easy to install, readily available materials. Fast installation (minimal roadway closure). Easy to install, readily available materials. Fast installation (minimal roadway closure). Duration of Construction / Roadway Closure and Detours No construction, and therefore no impacts. Construction duration would be similar to the time required for a replacement structure. 4 wks 6-8 wks 6-8 wks Utilities No construction, and therefore no impacts. Minimal impact to utilities. Minimal impact to utilities. Minimal impact to utilities. Minimal impact to utilities.

21 Natural Environment Fish & Fish Habitat & Aquatic SAR No construction, and therefore no impacts. Rehabilitation would require major alterations to the existing sub-structure and deck to comply with CHBDC. In water works would be required; however, no new fill below the high water mark anticipated. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. The works would involve in-water works; however, no new fill below the high water mark anticipated. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. The works would involve in-water works; however, no new fill below the high water mark anticipated. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. The works would involve in-water works; however, no new fill below the high water mark anticipated. Terrestrial Wildlife & Vegetation (SAR) No construction, and therefore no impacts. Rehabilitation would require major alterations to the existing sub-structure and deck to comply with CHBDC. Minimal vegetation removal anticipated, no impacts to SAR, and no impacts to wildlife. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. Minimal vegetation removal anticipated, no impacts to SAR, and no impacts to wildlife. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. Minimal vegetation removal anticipated, no impacts to SAR, and no impacts to wildlife. Replacement would involve removal of the existing bridge and replacement with new structure. Minimal vegetation removal anticipated, no impacts to SAR, and no impacts to wildlife. Surface/Groundwa ter No construction, and therefore no impacts. Rehabilitation would result in similar bridge span / width as existing which would not result in drainage impacts. Hydraulic assessment confirmed that span / width consistent with existing would not result in drainage impacts. Hydraulic assessment confirmed that span / width consistent with existing would not result in drainage impacts. Hydraulic assessment confirmed that span / width consistent with existing would not result in drainage impacts.

22 Socio-Economic / Cultural Environment Property Impacts Not replacing the structure could negatively impact property owners on Galway Road A rehabilitated structure would not impact property. A new structure would not impact property. A new structure would not impact property. A new structure would not impact property. Disruption to Local Businesses / Residents No construction, and therefore no impacts. Disruption to traffic during rehabilitation as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Shortest disruption to traffic during replacement as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. 2 Disruption to traffic during replacement as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Disruption to traffic during replacements as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Disruption to EMS / Fire Services and Response times No construction, and therefore no impacts. Disruption to EMS / Fire as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Fire services to be provided in cooperation with Municipality of Trent Lakes. On-going communication with EMS to be undertaken during construction. Disruption to EMS / Fire as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Fire services to be provided in cooperation with Municipality of Trent Lakes. On-going communication with EMS to be undertaken during construction. Disruption to EMS / Fire as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Fire services to be provided in cooperation with Municipality of Trent Lakes. On-going communication with EMS to be undertaken during construction. Disruption to EMS / Fire as the structure works would require full road closure. Detour routes would be signed and identified. Fire services to be provided in cooperation with Municipality of Trent Lakes. On-going communication with EMS to be undertaken during construction. Noise No construction, and therefore no impacts. Minor noise during construction. Minor noise during construction. Minor noise during construction. Minor noise during construction. Impacts to Archaeological / Cultural Resources No construction, and therefore no impacts. No impacts to cultural heritage resource based on MCEA checklist completion. No impacts to archaeological resource due to works being maintained within disturbed footprint. No impacts to cultural heritage resource based on MCEA checklist completion. No impacts to archaeological resource due to works being maintained within disturbed footprint. No impacts to cultural heritage resource based on MCEA checklist completion. No impacts to archaeological resource due to works being maintained within disturbed footprint. No impacts to cultural heritage resource based on MCEA checklist completion. No impacts to archaeological resource due to works being maintained within disturbed footprint.

23 Cost / Structural Environment Construction Costs (excl HST) No cost. Significant costs would be incurred to rehabilitate the structure to CHBDC standards. ~$700,000 ~$675,000 ~$675,000 Structure Service Life The bridge is in generally poor condition and will require closure in the future if not replaced. The rehabilitated bridge would have a similar service life as a new structure. 50 yrs yrs 75 yrs LEGEND Least ideal option: Moderately ideal option: Most ideal option: PREFERRED SOLUTION Note: Replacement of the bridge with a steel multi-plate culvert was screened out based on unsuitable founding conditions per geotechnical investigations undertaken during preliminary design.

24 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report 4.3 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions - Summary The alternative solutions considered for the Reed Bridge include Do Nothing, Rehabilitation, and Replacement with a new bridge or culvert, as outlined in Table 2. The Do Nothing alternative does not address the deteriorated condition of the Reed Bridge and would lead to additional deterioration and increased costs for repairs / rehabilitation. It is therefore not a practical alternative solution. Rehabilitation is also not a practical alternative solution, as it would require major alterations to the existing substructure and deck to comply with current design standards. Geotechnical investigation at this site has indicated the need for the structure to be founded on piles driven to bedrock. Significant costs would be incurred to rehabilitate the Reed Bridge to current design standards. Replacement of the structure addresses the problem / opportunity statement and would be a cost-effective long term strategy given the deteriorated condition of the structure. Replacement alternatives include a new bridge or a culvert. If the Reed Bridge were to be replaced with a culvert, a larger footprint would be required to provide the required hydraulic opening, which would cause greater environmental disturbance than other replacement alternatives. Additionally, the geotechnical investigation indicated that the soils at the site are poor and cannot provide adequate capacity for the shallow foundations required during installation of a culvert. Therefore, a culvert would be an impractical alternative for replacement. The viable replacement alternatives include pre-cast concrete rigid frame box bridge, Super Cor structural steel plate box bridge, and steel modular panel bridge. Given the evaluation in Table 2, the preferred alternative solution is the pre-cast concrete rigid frame box bridge. Further details regarding the preferred alternative solution are provided in Section Traffic Requirements The rehabilitation / replacement of the Reed Bridge will require traffic detouring during construction, as the road will be fully closed for the construction duration. As the Dutch Line Bridge (located approximately 2 km to the north) is currently closed, the proposed traffic configuration and detouring involves the simultaneous closure of the Reed Bridge and the Dutch Line Bridge. Both bridges would be closed simultaneously, which would require traffic on Dutch Line Road to take Queen s Line Road to Galway Road to Allen s Alley and then Crystal Lake Road to access County Road 121 (Figure 4). The Ainley Group Page 16

25 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Figure 4 Traffic Detours, Reed Bridge Replacement The traffic detours would be implemented for the duration of construction, which is anticipated to be 6 to 8 weeks with the preferred alternative solution. The primary detour route would be Crystal Lake Road via Allen s Alley, Galway Road, and Queen s Line Road. The distance between the intersection of Dutch Line Road and Queen s Line Road and the intersection of Crystal Lake Road with County Road 121 is approximately 11.5 km (20 minutes travel time). The distance between the Reed Bridge and the intersection of Crystal Lake Road with County Road 121 is 10.3 km (17 minutes travel time). Potential impacts to traffic associated with this method include the Galway Hall Fire Station s response times, as Galway Hall is east of the Reed Bridge. Closing both bridges simultaneously would require the emergency vehicles to use Allen s Alley and Crystal Lake Road to access County Road 121. To alleviate these impacts, the Township / County will entertain an agreement to have the City of Kawartha Lakes Fire Department provide service to locations west of both the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges during construction. Other impacts related to the traffic detours include increase in commuting times for residents and changes to the bus routes for student transportation. The Ainley Group Page 17

26 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report 5.0 Preferred Alternative Solution The preferred alternative solution for the Reed Bridge is replacement with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame box bridge. This replacement structure has the longest structural service life of all structural alternatives (75 years), has a reasonable construction duration (6 to 8 weeks), and optimal construction costs (~$675,000). The new bridge would be designed to similar dimensions and opening of the existing bridge, thereby limiting the extent of impacts during construction. The existing two-lane traffic width would be maintained following contruction given the low AADT volumes on Galway Road. The general arrangement drawing for the proposed Reed Bridge replacement structure is included in Appendix D. 6.0 Consultation Consultation with federal and provincial agencies, authorities with jurisdictional involvement, and interest groups is required as part of the MCEA. Information requests were sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as well as the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority for natural heritage information. Information was received from the MNRF, which is described in more detail in Section 3.2. A Notice of Study Commencement / Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC) detailing the project and providing information on the time and location for the PIC was mailed to the appropriate ministries, agencies, stakeholders, and residents on January 22, The notice was published in local newspapers and posted on the County of Peterborough and Municipality of Trent Lakes websites. Copies of external group correspondence are provided in Appendix E. The following external ministries, agencies, businesses, and stakeholders were consulted regarding the study: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry District Planner Bancroft District Kawartha Region Conservation Authority Resources Planner - Lindsay, ON MPP Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock Lindsay, ON Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Environmental Assessment Coordinator Kingston, ON County of Peterborough CAO Peterborough, ON County of Peterborough Chief, Emergency Services Peterborough, ON Municipality of Trent Lakes CAO Bobcaygeon, ON Municipality of Trent Lakes Fire Chief Bobcaygeon, ON The Ainley Group Page 18

27 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Communications Officer Peterborough, ON Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board Manager of Communications and Freedom of Information Peterborough, ON Student Transportation Services of Central Ontario Transportation Supervisor Peterborough, ON Ontario Provincial Police City of Kawartha Lindsay, ON Galway and Area Ratepayers Association, Inc. Kinmount, ON The following Aboriginal / First Nations Groups were notified of the study: MNO Peterborough and District Wapiti Metis Council Peterborough, ON Alderville First Nation Alderville, ON Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Port Perry, ON Hiawatha First Nation Keene, ON Curve Lake First Nation Curve Lake, ON Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations Barrie, ON Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) Rama, ON Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation (Burleigh Falls) Lakefield, ON In addition to the above, Notice of PIC correspondence were provided to local residents in proximity to the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges. Prior to posting of this Project File Report on the public record, a notice will be placed in the local newspaper, and on the County and Municipal websites identifying locations where the Project File Report may be reviewed and comments provided. A copy of this notice is included in Appendix E. 6.1 Public Information Centre A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on February 12, 2015 at the Galway Hall in Kinmount, Ontario. The PIC provided information on both the Reed and Dutch Line Bridges. Environmental assessment documentation for the Dutch Line Bridge will be provided under a separate process. The PIC was attended by approximately residents. The PIC Summary Report is included in Appendix F. This summary report includes the display panels that were presented at the PIC as well as the consultation received during and after the PIC. Comments were received from the public and agencies at the PIC and following via e- mail. The comments were overall in favour of the replacement of both bridges. Concern was raised about traffic detour routes, current and proposed. The concerns included The Ainley Group Page 19

28 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report driving times during bridge closure as well as the potential use of Allen s Alley, due to its blind hills and curves. The Fire Department raised concern about the emergency response time from Galway Hall with closure of the Reed Bridge for replacement. Finally, some residents were in favour of the staged construction approach while others favoured the concurrent construction approach. Residents / agencies who indicated they would like to receive responses to their comments were answered. All comments and responses are included in the PIC Summary Report. 7.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures As part of the MCEA screening process, an assessment of impacts was completed in consideration of the preferred solution. This section of the report describes the potential impacts on the biophysical and socio-economic environments associated with the proposed bridge replacement. This section also outlines proposed mitigation measures in order to minimize or prevent negative impacts of the undertaking, which are to be considered during detail design. 7.1 Biophysical Environment Erosion and Sediment Control Potential Impacts Excavation, and grading activities as part of the bridge works may result in the release of sediment into the adjacent watercourse/wetland. In addition, exposed soils and/or stockpiles of excess material (such as earth, rock) located adjacent to the bridge location can result in sediment transport to these areas during rain events. Dewatering and temporary diversion of the watercourses/wetlands can also provide the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction activities. Mitigation In order to mitigate the transport of sediment, as well as exposed soils adjacent to these areas, erosion and sedimentation protection measures should be incorporated into the final design and installed during construction. If warranted, and following grading operations around the bridge area, exposed earth should be protected through the application of topsoil, seed and mulch. The Ainley Group Page 20

29 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Surface Water Contamination and Debris Accumulation Potential Impacts During construction activities, the potential for accidental fuel or lubricant spillage, debris accumulation, and subsequent contamination to surface water is increased. Construction activities may also result in litter and debris accumulation within the immediate study area. During the bridge works, temporary diversion of surface water may be required to facilitate dewatering activities, and the installation of coffer dams (as required). Mitigation To prevent the contamination of any surface water features within and adjacent to the project area during construction, precautions will be taken to avoid accidental spillage or discharge of chemical contaminants (e.g., gasoline, oils and lubricants). These precautions require refueling to be carried out in a controlled manner so as to prevent fuel spillage and to be conducted at a minimum of 30 m from the watercourse/wetland. The precautions to avoid surface water contamination should also include the requirement for the added protection of a drip pan to be installed under non-mobile equipment. Contact information for local authorities including the Ministry of Environment, Kingston Office, and the Spills Action Centre is covered by the provisions of the General Conditions of Contract. An emergency spill response kit should be kept on the site at all times and in the event that a spill occurs, proper containment, clean up and reporting, in accordance with provincial requirements, is required. The Contractor will be required to take all necessary precautions to prevent the accumulation of litter and construction debris in any natural areas within and outside of the construction grading limits Vegetation Potential Impacts Construction activities are anticipated to result in only minor vegetation removal at the bridge location within the Right of Way (ROW). There will be no temporary or permanent impacts on significant plant species or SAR as none were observed at the culvert locations. The Ainley Group Page 21

30 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Mitigation Impacts to vegetation area anticipated to be minimal; however, should clearing and grubbing be required, all works should occur outside of the migratory bird timing window from April 1 to August Wildlife and Bird Migration The majority of the potential impacts to wildlife are associated with vegetation removal, and excavation and grading activities associated with the bridge works, and are interpreted to consist of the following: Temporary disruption of the bridge area during construction. Potential impacts to SAR are also a concern with the proposed construction activities, and are detailed in Section Mitigation Mitigation measures are required to limit potential impacts to the terrestrial environment, wildlife, and birds during construction activities. Mitigation measures include the following: If vegetation clearing is required, it should be avoided during the migratory bird timing window between April 1 and August 30. If works are to proceed within this timing window, a qualified avian biologist must be retained to screen for active nests prior to vegetation removal activities. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be put in place including silt fence barriers, control of dewatering activities, and restoration / re-vegetation of all disturbed areas following completion of earthworks. Harassment to wildlife should not occur during construction activities, including special concern SAR not covered under the Ontario Endangered Species Act Environmentally Sensitive Areas Potential Impacts No environmentally sensitive areas were identified by the MNR within the study limits; however, watercourses/wetlands that provide permanent and / or seasonal fish habitat characteristics, are considered to be sensitive. Protection of these areas is detailed in Sections The Ainley Group Page 22

31 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Fisheries and Associated Habitat Potential Impacts The proposed works include the replacement of the Reed Bridge, which will include removal of the existing bridge, and reinstatement with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame structure. The new bridge will be constructed in the same footprint as the existing structure, and will consist of an open-bottom design. During construction, potential impacts to the adjacent watercourse and fish habitat may originate from the bridge works, exposed soils, equipment maintenance and refuelling, and stockpiles of excess material being located adjacent to the watercourse during rain events. Suspension of sediments can have direct negative effects on resident fish such as respiratory stress, reduced feeding efficiency, and impairment of physiologic processes such as growth and reproduction. Indirect effects may include changes in the diversity of food source, and the loss of spawning and nursery habitat. Elevated levels of suspended sediments may result in a shift in fish population diversity and density, as various species will leave the area for more suitable environments. The bridge works are not interpreted to require a review by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) as no new fill or temporary fill will be placed below the high water mark, and in-water working restrictions will be abided by. All works will be considered in accordance with DFOs Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the detail design to limit potential impacts at each respective crossing. Mitigation measures are detailed below. The bridge works will be completed in accordance with DFOs Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat. Construction works will be completed in the dry and natural flows will be maintained downstream of the bridge at all times during construction. Watercourse flows upstream of the bridge shall be maintained downstream of the bridge at all times, and shall be clean and free of sediment. All in-water work is to be completed in accordance with the timing windows provided by the MNRF. In-water working restrictions between March 15 and July 15. The Ainley Group Page 23

32 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Duration of in-water work should be kept to the minimum required to complete the replacement to minimize potential risk to fish through isolation due to dewatering. Erosion and sediment controls will isolate areas of exposed soils and provide protection to limit potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation in areas adjacent to the bridge. All areas of exposed soils with the potential to impact the adjacent watercourse / wetland will be stabilized with topsoil and seed immediately following construction Vegetation removal for access should be kept to a minimum and should avoid the removal of large trees providing shade to the watercourse to ensure that changes to the temperature profile of the creek do not occur as a result of increased sunlight exposure. Where required, dewatering activities and silt fence will be maintained during construction to prevent sediment from entering the watercourse. Erosion and sediment controls will be installed as necessary to control site drainage and sediment movement Species At Risk (SAR) Potential Impacts As discussed in Section 3.2.3, SAR have the potential to occur within the study area; however, no footprint impacts are anticipated to occur, as the new bridge will have the same footprint as the existing structure. Given the location of the proposed works within the previously disturbed footprint, and relatively short duration of the undertaking, impacts to SAR are not anticipated. No Barn Swallows were observed beneath the structure during the field investigation, and no turtle nesting was observed on the structure embankments. Mitigation Mitigation measures for protection of SAR are required, and are anticipated to include the following: A trained person who is familiar with the identification of Endangered or Threatened SAR (Blanding s Turtle, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, and Barn Swallow) should be on-site to perform a visual sweep/inspection of the construction zone for SAR prior to starting work on a daily basis between May 15 The Ainley Group Page 24

33 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report and the shutdown of any year to ensure that SAR are not present and will not be impacted by equipment or worker activities. If a SAR is encountered during construction, all works in the immediate area must cease and the Contract Administrator and the SAR Biologist, Bancroft Ministry of Natural Resources should be contacted immediately. Harassment to SAR should not occur during construction activities. 7.2 Socio-Economic Environment Cultural and Heritage Resources Potential Impacts Construction activities proposed for this undertaking will be confined to the highway ROW, and areas already disturbed by previous highway construction. There are no expected impacts upon cultural, heritage, or archaeological resources. Mitigation As noted in Ministry of Transportation (MTO) General Condition GC , should human remains be encountered during construction, such construction activity shall cease, and the proponent shall immediately contact the Contract Administrator. In addition, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (416) , and Ministry of Culture Development Plans Review Unit should also be contacted. Depending on the antiquity of human remains, certain aboriginal groups may need to be contacted. Should any cultural heritage remains be encountered during construction activities, such activities shall cease, and the proponent shall immediately contact the Contract Administrator and the Ministry of Culture Development Plans Review unit Noise Potential Impacts Construction activities may generate temporary noise conditions that may disrupt the noise environment of adjacent residents during daily construction operations. The Ainley Group Page 25

34 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Mitigation All equipment shall be maintained in an operating condition that prevents unnecessary noise and idling of equipment shall be restricted to the minimum necessary to perform the work Air Quality Potential Impacts During construction dust, fumes and odours may be created by working machinery. These fumes may degrade air quality in the immediate vicinity of the work site. Mitigation Dust generated during the construction period will be controlled by the Contractor in accordance with General Conditions of Contract clause GC Odor and fume impacts will be minimized by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained and that all pollution control devices on the equipment are operational and properly maintained Adjacent Lands and Traffic Disruption Potential Impacts Roadway construction may temporarily disrupt traffic during the bridge works, as the Reed Bridge will be closed during construction. As the Dutch Line Bridge is currently closed, both bridges will be closed simultaneously, which will require traffic detours for local residents, emergency services, and others accessing the area through the Dutch Line and Galway Roads. Mitigation To address potential traffic disruption associated with temporary construction delays, provisions will be included in the contract to address the use of public roadways and disruption of traffic over the duration of the construction. In addition, in order to limit the impacts to the travelling public, the following measures have been implemented: Traffic detours will be adequately signed to direct the travelling public to detour routes during construction. The Ainley Group Page 26

35 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Emergency services will be notified prior to construction to advise of the bridge closure, and will be kept up to date on construction progress. Local school boards and transportation authorities will be notified prior to construction to advise of the bridge closure, and will be kept up to date on construction progress. An agreement with the City of Kawartha Lakes fire department will be instated to ensure provision of fire services on the west side of the Reed Bridge Emergency Spill Response The Contractor will be required to have a spill kit available on site in the event of a spill in or near the watercourse/wetland. All spills that may have an adverse effect are reported to the Ontario Ministry of Environment s Spills Action Centre ( ). 8.0 Approvals Schedule This Project File Report will be made available to the public for a 30-day review period. The 30-day review period begins when the Notice of Study Completion is posted in local newspapers and on the County of Peterborough and Municipality of Trent Lakes website. The Project File Report will be available at the following location: Kinmount Public Library, 3980 County Road 121, Kinmount, ON, K0M 2A0 Municipality of Trent Lakes Office, 701 County Road 36, Box 820, Bobcaygeon, ON, K0M1A0 County of Peterborough Office, 310 Armour Road, Peterborough, ON, K9H 1Y6 If concerns arise regarding this project which cannot be resolved at this review phase, a person or party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which addresses individual environmental assessments. Requests must be received by the Minister at the address below within the 30 calendar day review period for the Project File Report. The Ministry / Minister of Environment and Climate Change 77 Wellesley St. West, 11 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T5 Fax: (416) The Ainley Group Page 27

36 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Upon completion of the 30-day review period, if no Part II Orders or comments are received, then the project may proceed to detail design and construction. The project schedule following the 30-day review period is proposed as follows: Preparation and finalization of detail design drawings and Contract documents for the construction of the new bridge, including the mitigation measures and commitments as specified in Section 7.0. Construction for the Reed Bridge in the 2015 construction season, subject to funding and approvals. 9.0 Closure The Ainley Group has prepared this Project File Report to document the planning process involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this MCEA. If no concerns arise from the Notice of Study Completion and the 30-day review period associated with the posting of this Project File Report, the Municipality will proceed to detail design and construction. The Ainley Group Page 28

37 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report 10.0 References HP Engineering Inc., Final Preliminary Design Memorandum Structural Component, Reed Bridge Replacement, The County of Peterborough. March Ministry of Natural Resources, The Ecosystems of Ontario, Part 1: Ecozones and Ecoregions. Science and Information Branch: Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Section. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Municipal Engineers Association. Approved by Order-in-Council no. 1923/2000. October 2000, as amended in 2007 and The Ainley Group Page 29

38 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix A: Structural and Geotechnical Reports The Ainley Group

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47 G.D. Jewell ENGINEERING Inc. June 5, 2014 The Corporation of the County of Peterborough County Court House 470 Water Street, Peterborough, ON K9H 3M3 Attn: RE: Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager of Technical Services County of Peterborough Reed Bridge County Structure No Our File No MAIN OFFICE 71 Millennium Parkway Unit 1 Belleville, ON K8N 4Z5 Tel: Fax: TOLL FREE: garry@jewelleng.ca MISSISSAUGA OFFICE 2155 Leanne Blvd. Suite 200A Mississauga, ON L5K 2K8 Tel: Fax: KINGSTON OFFICE 1040 Gardiners Rd. Unit D Kingston, ON K7P 1R7 Tel: Fax: Dear Sir: As requested, I completed a site inspection of the Reed Bridge along with Mrs. Kendra Reid from the County of Peterborough on June 2 nd, The Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2km east of County Road 121 in the Township of Galway-Cavendish-Harvey. The bridge is a single span, two lane structure with a clear span of +/-6.2m and a deck width between timber curbs of +/-6.7m. The deck structure consists of laminated timber deck with a surface treated wearing surface supported on steel beams. We completed a structural evaluation report on the Reed Bridge in January, 2014 at which time the following load restriction was recommended for the bridge: Level 1 (vehicle train) - 50 tonnes Level 2 (two unit vehicle) - 36 tonnes Level 3 (single unit vehicle) - 20 tonnes At the time of our site inspection, there was no apparent change in the condition of the structure identified in our structural evaluation report, therefore we recommend that the load restriction remains as recommended. Photos from our site visit can be found attached for reference. We recommend that the bridge remain on an inspection frequency of once every six (6) months until it is rehabilitated or replaced. (Cont )

48 2 If you have any questions, or require any further information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Matt MacDonald, P.Eng. G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc. MM/mm Encl. BDS NEILSEN REED BRIDGE SITE INSPECTION JUNE 2, 2014

49 3 Photo No.1 View of Bridge Looking West Photo No.2 View of North Side of Structure

50 4 Photo No.3 Misaligned/Damaged North Railing Photo No.4 Settlement of West Timber Crib

51 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GALWAY ROAD TRENT LAKES, ONTARIO PROJECT NO. G030318A1 Prepared for: Peterborough County 470 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3M3 Geo-Logic (member of Inspec-Sol Inc.) 347 Pido Road, Unit 29 Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6X7 JANUARY, 2015

52 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GENERAL SURFACE TREATMENT FILL SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT SAND DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING PRACTICAL REFUSAL (BEDROCK) GROUNDWATER DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL EXCAVATION, DEWATERING, AND BACKFILL FOUNDATION DESIGN ABUTMENTS ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION (APPROACHES) GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Test Pits During Tendering Sensitivity of Subsoil Winter Construction DESIGN REVIEW & INSPECTION STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS...10 TABLES Page TABLE 1: H-PILE LOAD CAPACITIES*... 8 TABLE 2: GRANULAR STRUCTURE... 9 ENCLOSURES Page PLATE 1 TESTHOLE LOCATION PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX A BOREHOLE LOGS APPENDIX B LABORATORY DATA

53 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GALWAY ROAD TRENT LAKES, ONTARIO PROJECT NO. G030318A1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed replacement of the Reed Bridge located on Galway Road, within the Municipality of Trent Lakes, Ontario. Geo-Logic (member of Inspec-Sol Inc.) was retained by Peterborough County (the Client), to complete this geotechnical investigation. The work conducted for this investigation was carried out under the authorization of Mr. Peter Nielsen, representing the Client, in accordance with our proposal (PG-2849) dated October 15, Based on the information provided by the Client it is Geo-Logic s understanding that the project shall include the replacement of the Reed Bridge with a structure with a similar span. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to define the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site, and to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding earthwork construction, reuse of existing soils as backfill materials, dewatering and drainage, lateral earth pressures, approach construction and bridge foundation design. Please note that the contents of this report must in no way be construed as an opinion of this site s chemical or environmental status. The following scope of work was performed in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes. 1. Underground services were cleared prior to drilling. The boreholes were located as shown on the attached Test Hole Location Plan (Plate 1).

54 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 2. As requested or otherwise authorized by the Client, the subsurface condition were explored by advancing, sampling and logging four (4) borehole to depths ranging from 9.1 to 22.3 metres below existing grade (mbeg). 3. Traffic control was provided throughout the fieldwork. 4. The ground at the boreholes was reinstated as close as possible to its original condition upon completion of fieldwork. 5. Geotechnical analysis of subsurface materials encountered was performed by means of laboratory testing to obtain relevant soil physical properties, including grain size and moisture content. 6. Geotechnical engineering analysis of acquired field and laboratory data, and preparation of a geotechnical investigation report outlining our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of Geo-Logic staff between November 13 and December 30, The work consisted of subsurface exploration by means of drilling, logging and sampling four (4) exploratory boreholes. All of the boreholes were extended to the originally-proposed depth of approximately 9.1 mbeg (30 ft), however suitable bearing soils were not encountered within this depth. As a result of phone conversations with Mr. Peter Nielsen (representing the Client) while on site during the initial Investigation on November 13, 2014, one borehole (BH-101) was advanced utilizing dynamic cone penetration to practical refusal (22.2 mbeg), while a second borehole (BH-102) was advanced between December 29 and 30, 2014 down to bedrock, and diamond coring was conducted to confirm bedrock. Practical refusal of the dynamic cone penetration testing was inferred to be as a result of encountering bedrock. Borehole BH-102 was advanced to practical refusal (approximately 19.3 mbeg) and 3 metres of diamond coring was conducted to confirm the presence and characteristics of the bedrock. A detailed log of the borehole was maintained, and representative samples of the materials encountered in the boreholes were obtained. 2

55 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flight augers; boreholes BH-101 and BH-102 were advanced with hollow-stem augers while boreholes BH-103 and 104 were advanced with solid-stem augers. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated by the boreholes were obtained using a split-barrel, 50 mm outer-diameter (OD) sampler advanced by a 63.5 kg hammer dropping approximately 760 mm. The results of these standard penetration tests (SPT s) are reported as N values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated were also obtained directly from the auger cuttings. Dynamic cone penetration testing was conducted in one borehole from approximately 9.5 to 22.2 mbeg (it should be noted the dynamic cone penetration values do not necessarily represent SPT N-Values). Diamond coring was conducted in one borehole from approximately 19.3 to 22.3 mbeg to confirm the presence and characteristics of the bedrock. Groundwater observations were taken from the open borehole. The groundwater data is presented on individual log, which is attached as Appendix A. Soil samples obtained from the borehole were inspected in the field immediately upon retrieval for type, texture, colour, and other relevant characteristics. The borehole was backfilled following completion of the fieldwork. All soil samples were sealed in clean plastic containers and then transported to the Geo-Logic laboratory for further visual-tactile examination, and to select appropriate samples for laboratory analysis. Laboratory testing was completed on selected soil samples, and consisted of moisture content tests on all recovered samples and gradation analyses on two (2) representative soil samples. The analytical results of the moisture content and gradation tests are incorporated into the attached log, while the gradation test result is presented graphically in Appendix B. 4.0 SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION The bridge to be replaced is located along Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of County Road 121, within the former Township of Galway, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes, County of Peterborough, Ontario. The existing road has a surface treatment road surface and road pavement conditions at the time of our fieldwork appeared to be fair. The surrounding properties are generally residential or undeveloped. 3

56 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 GENERAL Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are presented graphically on the borehole logs (Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred from the borehole observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the boreholes. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, this site s subsurface stratigraphy generally consists of a surficial layer of surface treatment, over fill, over native soils consisting of silty sand and/or sandy silt, underlain by bedrock (confirmed in one borehole). Groundwater seepage and accumulation was observed in all of the boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 1.8 mbeg (approximately the same depth as the adjacent Creek water level). The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation in more detail. 5.2 SURFACE TREATMENT The existing road had a surface treatment road surface. approximately 15 to 25 mm in thickness. The surface treatment was 5.3 FILL Layers of fill were encountered in all of the boreholes immediately beneath the surface treatment. Upper layers of fill consisting of granular materials were encountered in all of the boreholes. This fill extended to depths ranging from approximately 0.5 to 1.2 mbeg and consisted of brown gravelly sand and/or brown sand with gravel, in a moist, generally compact in-situ state. In borehole BH-101, trace organics were encountered with the fill between approximately 0.2 to 0.6 mbeg. Lower layers of fill consisting of earth fill materials were encountered in boreholes BH-101, 102 and 104. This fill extended to depths ranging from approximately 1.7 to 2.6 mbeg, and consisted predominantly of sand and silt (varying composition), occasionally with organics, in a moist, very loose to loose in-situ state. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the fill yielded values ranging from about 3 to 40 % moisture by weight. 4

57 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 5.4 SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT Layers of silty sand and/or sandy silt were encountered in all of the boreholes. These soils extended to the depth at which the dynamic cone penetration testing was conducted in borehole BH-101, to the depth of practical refusal in borehole BH-102, and to the full depth of the investigation in boreholes BH-103 and 104 (approximately 9.1 mbeg). These soils were generally brown to grey in colour, and in a moist to wet, typically very loose, to loose, to occasionally compact in-situ state. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the fill yielded values ranging from about 3 to 40 % moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on samples of these soils suggest the following compositional ranges: 0 % gravel, 13 to 28 % sand, and 72 to 87 % silt and clay-sized particles. 5.5 SAND A layer of coarse-grained, grey to red to black sand was encountered in borehole BH-102 from approximately 18.3 to 18.6 mbeg. This coarse sand layer was generally in a wet, compact in-situ state. 5.6 DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING Dynamic cone penetration testing was initiated in borehole BH-101 at a depth of approximately 9.6 mbeg, and extended to practical refusal (at a depth of approximately 22.2 mbeg). The dynamic cone was advanced using the SPT hammer, and blows were record for each 300 mm interval. It should be noted that the dynamic cone values do not necessarily represent equivalent SPT N-Values. The dynamic cone values are presented on the borehole log for borehole BH The dynamic cone penetration testing was terminated due to practical refusal of further cone advancement. The presence of bedrock was inferred as the cause of the practical refusal, but was not confirmed by diamond coring in this particular borehole. 5.7 PRACTICAL REFUSAL (BEDROCK) Practical refusal to further auger advancement was encountered at depth of approximately 19.3 mbeg in BH-102. The presence of bedrock was confirmed by way of diamond coring in this borehole. 5

58 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 The depth at which practical refusal was encountered was interpreted by Geo-Logic as being the depth of competent bedrock for the purpose of logging the test holes. However, it is noted that bedrock typically exhibits a certain degree of weathering and fracturing in its upper zone. This weathering effect can increase significantly in different types of bedrock. Due to the penetrative nature of advancing boreholes with drilling equipment, the test holes may have penetrated partly into the bedrock, (i.e., through this upper zone of more fractured / weathered bedrock) before encountering refusal. 5.8 GROUNDWATER Groundwater observations and measurements were recorded upon completing the drilling operations. Groundwater seepage and accumulation was observed in all of the open boreholes during drilling operation at depths ranging from approximately 1.2 to 1.8 mbeg. It is expected that the groundwater levels at this site will approximate the water levels within the open water channel. It must be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons, periods of precipitation, and temperature. 6.1 GENERAL 6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site, and assumes that they are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, this site s subsurface stratigraphy generally consists of a surficial layer of surface treatment, over fill, over native soils consisting of silty sand and/or sandy silt, underlain by bedrock (confirmed in one borehole). Details regarding our conclusions and recommendations are outlined in the following sections. 6

59 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 6.2 EXCAVATION, DEWATERING, AND BACKFILL Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation 213/91 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA). All excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2 m in depth may be constructed with vertical, unsupported slopes. The soils encountered during this investigation above the bedrock are classed by OHSA as Type 4. As such, unsupported walls of excavations in this soil must maintain a gradient of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) or flatter. Any groundwater infiltration above the water table, if encountered, is expected to be controlled by pumping from collection sumps to an acceptable frost-free outlet, within the excavation depths anticipated for this project. Excavations below the water table will require prior dewatering/groundwater control, (such as creek diversion, sheet piles, or cofferdam) or will be carried out in wet conditions. It is anticipated that construction will place some soil into suspension into the water flow. Adequate protection to prevent any soil entering the waterflow must be undertaken, in accordance with any requirements of regulating agencies. Measures to restrict the movement of this material into the water at the culvert location may include suitable silt curtains constructed to enclose the area of work. It is expected that some of the existing fill materials may be suitable for reuse as trench and/or road subgrade backfill provided such materials are free of organics and at a moisture content that will permit adequate compaction. A final review and approval to reuse any soils should be made at the time of construction. 6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN It is recommended that structural loading for the new bridge be supported on piles. Practical pile capacities may be achieved by advancing H-piles, using suitable driving shoes that will assist in driving through any cobbles or boulders encountered, and seat into the bedrock. Appropriate piles driven at this bridge location should encounter suitable resistance on the bedrock, expected at depths of approximately 19 to 23 mbeg based on the borehole results. Due to the variable depths of bedrock anticipated for this project, it is recommended that the contract tender request per-unit rates to allow for variations in the pile installation depths. 7

60 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 The following table summarizes the loads that selected H-piles are capable of providing. Table 1: H-Pile Load Capacities* Pile Size Factored Capacity at ULS Capacity at SLS (Type II) 310 HP kn (260 kips) 825 kn (185 kips) 310 HP kn (360 kips) 1150 kn (260 kips) * values provided in Table 1 (above) are the geotechnical capacities, and the structural engineer should confirm the structural capacities of the actual piles. The following general recommendations should be followed for design and installations of the pile foundation system: Driving difficulties due to the possible presence of cobbles and/or boulders in the deposits overlying the bedrock may be encountered; The piles must be installed under full-time geotechnical supervision to ensure that the piles are constructed in accordance with the above recommendations; A specialist piling-contractor should review the borehole logs and verify piling suitability and capacity based on piling experience under similar conditions. The pile driving contractor should develop pile refusal criteria in advance of construction, and submit it for review. The piles should be installed in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 903. It is recommended that the piles be driven using pile driving equipment capable of developing a minimum 30 kj of energy per blow in order to set the piles. Maximum energy utilized should be in the order of approximately 50 kj per blow. Geo-Logic staff should supervise throughout the pile driving operation. The load carrying capacity of the piles must be checked using a dynamic pile driving formula, or other approved method during construction. It is recommended that an experienced deep foundation specialist contractor be consulted and should carry out the installation of the piles. 6.4 ABUTMENTS We recommend that a free draining non-frost susceptible granular material such as Granular B Type I, in accordance with OPSS Form 1010 (and having maximum aggregate diameter of 100mm) be provided as backfill to the abutments. The backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200mm before compaction, and compacted to 98 % of its SPMDD. The backfill should extend horizontally from the back of the abutment for a minimum distance of 1.5m. Provisions for drainage of the backfill should be implemented. 8

61 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 With positive drainage behind the abutments, and using Granular B Type I, the following lateral earth pressure parameters are recommended for design purposes: Compacted Granular B Type I: Internal Friction Angle (Ø) = 30 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (K a ) = 0.33 Coefficient Earth Pressure at Rest (K o ) = 0.50 Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure including compaction (K b ) = 0.41 Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest including compaction (K oc ) = 0.57 Assumed unit weight 21 kn/m 3 Scour protection measures should be confirmed using the Canadian Bridge Design Code once the location-specific hydraulic factors can be determined. 6.5 ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION (APPROACHES) The rebuilt pavement structure should match (as a minimum) the existing, adjacent granular depths, and utilize appropriate frost tapers (see OPSD or ). For design purposes, the reconstructed roadway may consist of a surface treated road surface with the following minimum granular structure: Table 2: Granular Structure Profile Material Thickness (mm) Conforming to OPSS Form Granular Base Granular A 150 Granular Subbase Granular B Type I It is recommended that all granular fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200mm in thickness before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ moisture content within 2 % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be compacted to 100 % of their SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular A and B conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent. 6.6 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Test Pits During Tendering It is strongly recommended that test pits be dug at representative locations of this site during the tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors. This will allow them to make their own assessments of the groundwater and soil conditions at the site and how these will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules. 9

62

63 Geotechnical Investigation Report Reed Bridge Replacement Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030318A1 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is intended solely for Peterborough County and other parties explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without Geo-Logic s prior written consent. This report is considered Geo-Logic s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of Geo-Logic. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient s sole risk, without liability to Geo-Logic. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold Geo-Logic harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices. The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, Geo-Logic will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design. By issuing this report, Geo-Logic is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that Geo- Logic be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases. It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the four (4) borehole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the 4 borehole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by construction activities on site (ex. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by Geo-Logic is completed. 11

64 ENCLOSURES

65

66 APPENDIX A BOREHOLE LOGS

67 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: November 13, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-1 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 1 of 2 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/ ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK SURFACE TREATMENT (25 mm) FILL - Brown Gravelly Sand, moist, compact Brown to dark brown, trace ORGANICS Dark brown to reddish brown Sandy Silt, moist, very loose SANDY SILT - Brown Sandy Silt, moist to wet, loose Wet, compact Grey, loose Compact Loose Compact UNDETEMINED OVERBURDEN - Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing Type and Number SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 SS-8 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0.3 m) Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS WL m 11/13/2014 SS-3: 0% Gravel, 28% Sand, 72% Silt and Clay SS-5: 0% Gravel, 13% Sand, 87% Silt and Clay

68 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: November 13, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-1 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 2 of 2 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15 ft Depth m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy END OF BOREHOLE Type and Number Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK "N" Value RQD (blows / 0.3 m) CONE m 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N UNDETEMINED 23 OVERBURDEN - Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing Field Lab >> >> COMMENTS 130 blows for 250 mm (10") Practical refusal to further cone advancement encountered (presence of bedrock inferred - but not confirmed)

69 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: December 30, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-2 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 1 of 2 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/ ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N Stratigraphy DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK SURFACE TREATMENT (15 mm) FILL - Brown Gravelly Sand, moist Brown Sand, with Gravel, moist Dark brown Sand, with Silt, moist, loose Brown Sand, with Silt, occasional layers of ORGANICS, moist, very loose SANDY SILT - Grey Sandy Silt to Silty Sand, wet, compact Grey Sandy Silt, trace Clay, wet, loose Very loose Compact Type and Number SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 SS-8 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l "N" Value (blows / 0.3 m) Field Lab RQD CONE COMMENTS WL m 12/30/2014

70 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: December 30, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-2 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 2 of 2 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15 ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy SAND - Grey/red/black coarse Sand, wet, compact SANDY SILT - Grey Sandy silt, trace Clay, wet, loose to compact BEDROCK - Grey Granite RQD = 85% TCR = 100% FI = >25, 0, 0 RQD = 80% TCR = 95 % FI = 1, 1, 0, 1, 0 RQD = 83 % TCR = 90 % FI = 1, 1 END OF BOREHOLE Type and Number SS-9 SS-10 CS-11 CS-12 CS-13 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index 9 10 Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK "N" Value RQD (blows / 0.3 m) CONE 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N Loose Field Lab COMMENTS Practical refusal to further auger advancement encountered (presence of bedrock confirmed by diamond coring)

71 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: November 27, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-3 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 1 of 1 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/ ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy Grey END OF BOREHOLE Type and Number AS-4 AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK "N" Value RQD (blows / 0.3 m) CONE 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N SURFACE TREATMENT (25 mm) FILL - Brown Gravelly AS Sand, moist Brown Sand, with Gravel, AS-2 12 moist, compact SANDY SILT - Brown AS-3 19 Sandy Silt, wet, loose Field Lab COMMENTS WL m 11/27/2014

72 REFERENCE No.: G030318A1 BOREHOLE No.: BH ELEVATION: Existing Grade CLIENT: Peterborough County PROJECT: Peterborough County Bridges LOGGED BY: P. Hynes DATE: November 27, 2014 DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig NOTES: Reed Bridge ENCLOSURE No.: A-4 BOREHOLE REPORT Page: 1 of 1 LEGEND SS - SPLIT SPOON AS - AUGER SAMPLE ST - SHELBY TUBE CS - CORE SAMPLE - WATER LEVEL BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, , BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/ ft Depth m m Below Existing Grade Stratigraphy Grey END OF BOREHOLE Type and Number AS-5 AS-6 AS-7 AS-8 Recovery Moisture Content Blows per 6 in. / 15 cm Penetration Index Shear test (Cu) Sensitivity (S) Water content (%) Atterberg limits (%) w p w l DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND BEDROCK "N" Value RQD (blows / 0.3 m) CONE 0.0 GROUND SURFACE % % N SURFACE TREATMENT (25 mm) FILL - Brown Gravelly AS Sand, moist Brown Sand, with Gravel, AS moist, compact AS-3 34 Brown Silt with Sand, with 1.7 ORGANICS, moist, loose SANDY SILT - Brown Sandy Silt, wet, loose AS-4 25 Field Lab COMMENTS WL m 11/27/2014

73 APPENDIX B LABORATORY DATA

74 CLIENT: Peterborough County PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS (GEOTECHNICAL) (USCS) (LS 702) LAB No.: SS PROJECT/ SITE: Bridges PROJECT No.: G030318A1 Borehole No.: BH101 Sample No.: SS3 Depth: 2.3 to 2.7 mbeg Enclosure: B PERCENT PASSING PERCENT RETAINED DIAMETER (mm) CLAY & SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH101 SS REMARKS: PERFORMED BY: VERIFIED BY: DATE: DATE: December 1, 2014 December 1, 2014 FO c/ GA / 11-13

75 CLIENT: Peterborough County PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS (GEOTECHNICAL) (USCS) (LS 702) LAB No.: SS PROJECT/ SITE: Bridges PROJECT No.: G030318A1 Borehole No.: BH101 Sample No.: SS5 Depth: 4.6 to 5.0 mbeg Enclosure: B PERCENT PASSING PERCENT RETAINED DIAMETER (mm) CLAY & SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Description Gravel Sand Clay & Silt BH101 SS REMARKS: PERFORMED BY: VERIFIED BY: DATE: DATE: December 1, 2014 December 1, 2014 FO c/ GA / 11-13

76 Peterborough County 470 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9H 3M3 Attention: Mr. Peter Nielsen January 21, 2014 Re: Letter Report - Chemical Testing Results Proposed Bridge Replacements Reed, Dutch Line and North River Bridges Peterborough County, Ontario Project No. G030160A1 Dear Mr. Nielsen: This letter report presents results of chemical testing performed on samples of soil and surface water obtained from the above-referenced sites during recent geotechnical investigations performed by Geo-Logic. Geo-Logic (a member of Inspec-Sol Inc.) was retained by Peterborough County (the Client) to complete a geotechnical investigation and submit representative soil samples for chemical testing. The work conducted for this investigation was carried out under the authorization of Mr. Peter Nielsen, in accordance with our proposal PG-2849 dated October 15, Boreholes were advanced during the geotechnical investigation. See our reports, which details the location of each borehole and samples obtained, entitled: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Reed Bridge Reconstruction, Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario, Project No. G030318A1, dated January, 2015; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Dutch Line Bridge Reconstruction, Dutch Line Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario, Project No. G030318A1, dated January, 2015; and Geotechnical Investigation Report, North River Bridge Bridge Reconstruction, County Road 46, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Ontario, Project No. G030318A1, dated January 15. As requested, three (3) soil samples (one from each structure) were tested for sulphate content and three (3) water samples (one from each structure) were collected directly from the water courses and submitted for analysis of it ph, resistivitiy and CaCO 3 (hardness).

77 Letter Report Chemical Testing Results Proposed Bridge Replacements Reed, Dutch Line and North River Bridges, Peterborough County, Ontario Geo-Logic Project No. G030160A1 Representative samples were collected and submitted to Caduceon Environmental Laboratories (Caduceon), for chemical analysis of the above-mentioned parameters. Caduceon s certificates of analyses for these tests are attached. The sulphate level within the soil samples ranged from approximately < 10 (less than 10) to 50 parts per million (ppm) and suggest that the soil is considered as possessing a mild potential for sulphate attack on concrete. Class S-3 concrete may be used (for all three (3) structures), as the potential for sulphate attack is less than the degree of exposure outlined in Table 12 of CSA s Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction (A ) for Class S-3 concrete. The ph level within the water samples ranged from approximately 7.24 to The resistivity analysis results ranged from approximately 8850 to 9430 ohms-cm. Resistivity analysis conducted during this investigation suggested the soils possess a moderate potential for corrosivity. The hardness of the water samples submitted were reported as 96, 86 and 27 mg/l for Reed Bridge, Dutch Line Bridge and North River Bridge, respectively. The water samples obtained from the creek at Reed Bridge and Dutch Line Bridge suggests it is moderately hard water; while the sample obtained at North River Bridge suggests it is soft water. Hardness, ph, alkalinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations can lead to corrosion or incrustation (scaling) on steel. Generally low ph, soft water, and low alkalinity produce corrosive conditions; while high ph, hard water and high alkalinity produce scale-forming conditions. It is therefore recommended that appropriate corrosion protection (i.e. galvanizing or cathodic protection) be utilized for any steel features (for all three (3) structures). We trust that this letter meet with your immediate requirements. This report should not be construed as an Environmental Site Assessment. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any aspect of this report, or should you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely yours, Geo-Logic Inc. Pete Hynes, B.A.Sc. Enclosures: Caduceon Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis (3 pages) 2 Garnet Brenchley, P.Eng.

78 C.O.C.: G49030 Report To: Geologic Inc. (Peterborough) 347 Pido Road, Unit 29 Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada Attention: Jeff Van Egmond DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX: 20-Nov Nov-14 Soil CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Caduceon Environmental Laboratories 110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14 Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9 Tel: Fax: JOB/PROJECT NO.: P.O. NUMBER: WATERWORKS NO. Final Report REPORT No. B Peterborough County/G030318A Client I.D. Sample I.D. Date Collected BH-101-SS-2 BH-201-SS-1 BH-303-SS-3 B B B Nov Nov Nov-14 Reference Date/Site Parameter Units M.D.L. Method Analyzed Sulphate µg/g 10 SM4110C 25-Nov-14/O < 10 M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Christine Burke Lab Supervisor Page 1 of 1.

79 C.O.C.: G49030 Report To: Geologic Inc. (Peterborough) 347 Pido Road, Unit 29 Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada Attention: Jeff Van Egmond DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX: 20-Nov Nov-14 Surface Water CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Caduceon Environmental Laboratories 110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14 Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9 Tel: Fax: JOB/PROJECT NO.: P.O. NUMBER: WATERWORKS NO. Final Report REPORT No. B Peterborough County/G030318A Client I.D. Sample I.D. Date Collected SW SW SW B B B Nov Nov Nov-14 Parameter Units M.D.L. Reference Method Date/Site Analyzed C ph Units SM Nov-14/R Resistivity ohms cm 1 SM Nov-14/R Total Organic Carbon mg/l 0.2 EPA Nov-14/O M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Christine Burke Lab Supervisor Page 1 of 1.

80 C.O.C.: G49221 Report To: Geologic Inc. (Peterborough) 347 Pido Road, Unit 29 Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada Attention: Pete Hynes DATE RECEIVED: DATE REPORTED: SAMPLE MATRIX: 19-Jan Jan-15 Surface Water CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Caduceon Environmental Laboratories 110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14 Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9 Tel: Fax: JOB/PROJECT NO.: P.O. NUMBER: WATERWORKS NO. Final Report REPORT No. B Peterborough County/G030318A1 Client I.D. Sample I.D. Date Collected SW B SW B SW B B B B Jan Jan Jan-15 Reference Date/Site Parameter Units M.D.L. Method Analyzed Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/l 1 SM Jan-15/O M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories. Christine Burke Lab Supervisor Page 1 of 1.

81 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, Ontario K7M 8N2 Tel: (343) Fax: (343) Reed Bridge Replacement Preliminary Design Memorandum Galway Road, County of Peterborough, Ontario Structure No MTO Site No County of Peterborough Agreement No. P AG File No March 2015 Submitted To: County of Peterborough County Court House 470 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 3M3

82 March 2015 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ainley Group was retained by the County of Peterborough to complete a Preliminary Design for Structural Rehabilitation/Replacement of Reed Bridge (Structure No , MTO Site No ), located on Galway Road approximately 2.5km east of County Road 121. This Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the structural component has been prepared to document the planning process for the Preliminary Design of this structure. The goal of this study is to document the need and justification for rehabilitation/replacement of the Reed Bridge, identify the preferred rehabilitation/replacement alternative for this structure, and determine the traffic staging/detour plan and roadway required for the scope of this project. It has been confirmed that the preferred rehabilitation/replacement alternative for this structure would be Replacement of the bridge with precast concrete rigid frame structure with similar dimensions as the existing bridge. The scope of this alternative would involve replacement of the entire structure with a similar structure, maintaining the existing roadway geometry and hydraulic opening. This alternative overall provides a reasonable construction duration, construction cost, and long structural service life.

83 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Inspection Bridge Waterway Detouring and Staging / Dewatering during Construction Foundation Alternatives Bridge Replacement Alternatives Alternative 1 Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge Alternative 2 Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box Alternative 3 Steel Modular Panel Bridge Construction of Wingwalls / Retaining Walls Existing Cross Section and Alignment Estimates of Expected Construction Costs Discussion and Conclusions APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING HP Engineering Inc., Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

84 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement 1.0 INTRODUCTION HP Engineering Inc. has been retained by Ainley Group for the County of Peterborough, to perform a detailed replacement study for Reed Bridge and carry out the detailed design. The bridge is on Galway Road located approximately 2.5km east of County Road 121. Galway Road is a 2 lane paved rural road. Reed Bridge is a steel girder bridge with a transverse laminated timber deck. The structure currently has a length of 7.4m (6.1m clear span), a width of 9.6m (clear width between the curbs are 9.1m, 2 lanes of traffic) and a soffit height of 2.8m (above the water level, December 2014). The date of construction of the bridge is believed to be circa Reed Bridge currently has a reduced load posting of: L1 = 50 Tonnes L2 = 36 Tonnes L3 = 20 Tonnes The scope of work for this assignment included the following: Perform a detailed visual and tactile inspection of the bridge. Review existing information regarding the bridge. Develop replacement alternatives. Develop estimates of expected construction costs for the replacement alternatives. Provide recommendations. Prepare a preliminary design memorandum outlining the review of alternatives. Perform the detailed design for the replacement of the bridge upon approval of the preliminary design by the County. The following report details the results of the investigation and preliminary design. 2.0 INSPECTION 2.1 Bridge A site inspection was carried out on December 01, As per RFP P issued by the County of Peterborough, the replacement of Reed Bridge has been tentatively scheduled. Our review of the existing structure has found no reason to disagree with the decision to replace Reed Bridge. During our site visit, the bridge structure was observed to be generally in poor condition including: The existing barrier does not conform to current standards. Light to medium corrosion was noted on the post brackets throughout, with localized perforations at the base of a few posts. Excessive deformations were also noted on both barriers. Splits, weathering and localized severe rot were noted on the timber curbs. HP Engineering Inc., Page 3 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

85 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement Localized severe rot was noted on the deck soffit. Medium corrosion was noted on the girders, with severe corrosion observed at the ends of the girders. Wide cracks and localized spalls were noted on the concrete ballast walls. Rot, excessive rotation and bulging was noted on both timber cribs. A concrete block retaining wall is present near the northeast corner of the structure. We understand that a retaining wall will be maintained at this location (approximately 3m from the northeast corner of the bridge). The feasibility of maintaining the existing retaining wall will be reviewed during detailed design and appropriate measures will be taken (i.e. protecting the wall, replacing the wall, etc.). 2.2 Waterway The waterway was generally in good condition and flows from the north to the south. There were no visible flow obstructions observed at the time of inspection. Erosion was noted at the base of the embankments. 3.0 DETOURING AND STAGING / DEWATERING DURING CONSTRUCTION Given the scope of work (structure removal and new structure replacement) and the presence of a feasible detour, it has been assumed that the roadway will be closed to all traffic during construction. The recommended detour route around the construction of Reed Bridge is Crystal Lake Road via Allens Alley. The described detour route is approximately 10km. The County should confirm the acceptability of the detour route with County traffic and emergency service officials. The flow in the stream at the bridge will have to be managed during the replacement of the bridge. This could be achieved by the installation of a cofferdam during construction work. The County may be required to contact landowners at the location of the bridge should the dewatering requirements extend to the landowner s property (outside of the culvert s right-of-way). The exact dewatering scheme shall be provided by the contractor. 4.0 FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES The Geotechnical Investigation Report (No. G030318A1) from Geo-Logic indicates that the soils at the site are poor, so a new bridge would require a pile foundation. The types of piled foundations examined will include driven H-piles, drilled micropiles and helical piles. The most feasible type of piles will be determined during the detailed design. HP Engineering Inc., Page 4 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

86 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement 5.0 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES The existing bridge has a timber barrier over the structure and no barriers over the approaches. Based on the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), Reed Bridge requires a PL-1 barrier over the structure. A thrie beam on steel posts is recommended for the traffic barrier over the structure. The barrier would be mounted on the exterior face of the structure. It is also recommended that appropriate approach barriers (including their end treatments) be installed on the approaches. The existing bridge could either be replaced with a culvert or a bridge. If the existing bridge were to be replaced with a culvert, a larger footprint would be required to provide the required hydraulic opening, which would present greater environmental disturbance. Additionally, the soils at the site are poor (Geo-Logic Report No. G030318A1) and cannot provide adequate capacity for the shallow foundations required during installation of a culvert. Therefore, culvert alternatives were not considered for the replacement of the Reed Bridge. The bridge replacement options are presented and discussed in sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 below: 5.1 Alternative 1 Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge This alternative would involve the replacement of the existing steel girder bridge with a new precast concrete rigid frame bridge complete with a distribution slab. The new bridge will have similar dimensions to the existing structure. The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: Advantages Existing roadway grade will be maintained The required hydraulic opening (as per the results of the hydraulic / hydrologic analysis) will be satisfied Easy to install Readily available materials Speed of installation (minimal roadway closure) Disadvantages Delivery time of bridge (typically between weeks from the date of shop drawing approval) The estimated construction duration is approximately 6 to 8 weeks. The estimated service life of this structure is approximately 75 years. HP Engineering Inc., Page 5 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

87 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement 5.2 Alternative 2 Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box This alternative would involve the replacement of the existing steel girder bridge with a new Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box. The new structure will have a clear span of 6.2m (the clear span of the existing structure is 6.1m) and a height of 3.1m. The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: Advantages Easy to install Readily available materials Speed of construction Disadvantages Delivery of structure (typically between 6-8 weeks from the date of shop drawing approval) Lesser service life compared with the concrete rigid frame The estimated construction duration is approximately 6 to 8 weeks. The estimated service life of this structure is approximately 50 to 75 years. 5.3 Alternative 3 Steel Modular Panel Bridge We understand that the County wishes to consider the alternative of replacing the existing steel girder bridge with a steel modular panel bridge as the County has utilized this type of structure successfully in recent years. It should be noted that the MTO does not recommend the use of Modular Panel Bridges (i.e. steel modular panel bridges) for permanent structures. If the existing bridge were to be replaced with a steel modular panel bridge, the dimensions of the new steel modular panel bridge would be similar to the dimensions of the existing structure. The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are as follows: Advantages Existing roadway grade will be maintained The hydraulic opening will be satisfied Easy to install Readily available materials Disadvantages Delivery time of bridge (typically between 6-8 weeks from the date of shop drawing approval) More expensive construction cost of the three alternatives Steel modular panel bridges are usually installed for temporary use only HP Engineering Inc., Page 6 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

88 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement The estimated construction duration is approximately 4 weeks. The estimated service life of this structure is approximately 50 years. 5.4 Construction of Wingwalls / Retaining Walls It is recommended that wingwalls / retaining walls be installed on the new structure in order to retain the fill required during structure replacement. The two wingwall / retaining wall alternatives for the replacement alternatives presented above are the installation of a wire mesh retaining wall and the construction of concrete wingwalls. A wire mesh retaining wall is recommended for alternative 1 (concrete rigid frame bridge) and alternative 2 (super cor structural steel plate box) because it is more economical and easier to construct for these types of bridges. In the case of alternative 3 (steel modular panel bridge), concrete wingwalls would be used along with the cast-inplace abutment walls. 6.0 EXISTING CROSS SECTION AND ALIGNMENT Galway Road is a 2 lane Roadway with a posted speed of 60km/hr. The existing alignment at the bridge is being maintained (changes to the roadway alignment and profile are beyond the scope of work of this assignment). The width of the roadway at the bridge is approximately 9.1m. The County has advised that Galway Road has an AADT of 1000 for Galway Road at the bridge. Based on the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario s (MTO) Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways, for a design speed of 70km/hr (posted speed is 60km/hr) and an AADT of 1000, a minimum lane width of 3.0m is recommended. For an undivided rural collector road with a design speed of 70km/hr (that does not have a sidewalk component), the minimum side clearance of 1.5m is recommended. Therefore, the minimum recommended bridge roadway width is 9.0m. Therefore the current roadway width is compliant with the aforementioned standard and will be maintained for the new structure. 7.0 ESTIMATES OF EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS The following preliminary estimate of expected construction costs are presented for the three alternatives in section 5.0. The estimates are based on the results of this investigation without the benefit of detailed design and should be used for budgeting purposes only. Actual construction costs may vary based on detail design and market forces at the time of tender. Note that the cost estimates are for structural items only and do not include roadway work (i.e. asphalt, approach barriers, etc.). HP Engineering Inc., Page 7 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

89 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 1: PRE-CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST 1 Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization LS $ 30, $ 30, Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing LS $ 10, $ 10, Dewatering LS $ 50, $ 50, Environmental Protection / Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring LS $ 5, $ 5, Protection of Existing Utilities / Services LS $ 5, $ 5, Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal LS $ 2, $ 2, Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and Associated Dewatering m³ $ $ 9, Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure tonne $ $ 52, mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway tonne $ $ 3, mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile m² $ $ 5, mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt tonne $ $ 21, Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts) m $ $ 7, Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 2, $ 2, Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 1, $ 1, Unwatering Structure Excavation LS $ 10, $ 10, Remove Existing Structure including Abutments LS $ 30, $ 30, Mobilize and Install New Piles LS $ 100, $ 100, Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing m³ $ 1, $ 15, Supply and Install New Pre-Cast Rigid Frame Structure LS $ 110, $ 110, Supply and Install Welded Wire Retaining Wall including Geotextile LS $ 20, $ 20, Reinforcing Steel tonne $ 4, $ 8, Concrete in 150 Thick Distribution Slab m³ $ 1, $ 10, Waterproofing LS $ 4, $ 4, Subtotal Construction Estimate $511, Contingency on Construction (20%) $102, TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST) $613, HP Engineering Inc., Page 8 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

90 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 2: SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST 1 Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization LS $ 30, $ 30, Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing LS $ 10, $ 10, Dewatering LS $ 50, $ 50, Environmental Protection / Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring LS $ 5, $ 5, Protection of Existing Utilities / Services LS $ 5, $ 5, Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal LS $ 2, $ 2, Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and Associated Dewatering m³ $ $ 9, Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure tonne $ $ 52, mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway tonne $ $ 3, mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile m² $ $ 5, mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt tonne $ $ 21, Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts) m $ $ 7, Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 2, $ 2, Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 1, $ 1, Unwatering Structure Excavation LS $ 10, $ 10, Remove Existing Structure including Abutments LS $ 30, $ 30, Mobilize and Install New Piles LS $ 100, $ 100, Reinforcing Steel tonne $ 4, $ 12, Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing m³ $ 1, $ 25, Supply and Install New Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box LS $ 100, $ 100, Supply and Install Welded Wire Retaining Wall including Geotextime LS $ 30, $ 30, Subtotal Construction Estimate $511, Contingency on Construction (20%) $102, TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST) $613, HP Engineering Inc., Page 9 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

91 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 3: BAILEY BRIDGE ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST 1 Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization LS $ 30, $ 30, Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing LS $ 10, $ 10, Dewatering LS $ 50, $ 50, Environmental Protection / Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring LS $ 5, $ 5, Protection of Existing Utilities / Services LS $ 5, $ 5, Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal LS $ 2, $ 2, Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and Associated Dewatering m³ $ $ 9, Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure tonne $ $ 52, mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway tonne $ $ 3, mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile m² $ $ 5, mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt tonne $ $ 21, Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts) m $ $ 7, Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 2, $ 2, Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas Disturbed During Construction LS $ 1, $ 1, Unwatering Structure Excavation LS $ 10, $ 10, Remove Existing Structure including Abutments LS $ 30, $ 30, Mobilize and Install New Piles LS $ 100, $ 100, Reinforcing Steel tonne $ 4, $ 20, Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing m³ $ 1, $ 25, Concrete in New Abutment Walls and Wingwalls m³ $ 1, $ 120, Supply and Install New Bailey Bridge Including Steel Deck LS $ 75, $ 75, Subtotal Construction Estimate $584, Contingency on Construction (20%) $116, TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST) $701, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS HP Engineering Inc. has been retained by Ainley Group for the County of Peterborough, to perform a detailed replacement study and carry out the detailed design for Reed Bridge. Based on the extent of the observed deterioration, the existing structure is considered beyond its useful service life and immediate replacement is warranted. A failure to replace the structure in the near future could lead to a reduced load posting and / or could result in roadway closure. Based on our review of the replacement alternatives (in section 5.0), it is recommended that the existing structure be replaced with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge, with HP Engineering Inc., Page 10 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

92 March County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Replacement similar dimensions as the existing bridge. With this alternative, all structural requirements are met (as per CHBDC and MTO Standards), while maintaining the existing roadway geometry and hydraulic opening. This alternative also provides a reasonable construction duration, construction cost, and has the longest structural service life between all the alternatives presented in this report. Respectfully submitted, April 8, /04/2015 8/04/2015 Tova Govia, B. Eng. Luc Monette, Ph.D., P.Eng. Tashi Dwivedi, P.Eng. Structural Designer Principal Principal HP Engineering Inc., Page 11 of Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2 Office: ~ Fax:

93 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

94

95 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix B: Cultural Heritage Checklists The Ainley Group

96

97

98

99

100

101 MEMORANDUM Ainley Graham & Associates Limited 45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON K8N 2Y5 Tel: (613) ? Fax: (613) To: Ramin Rameshni Ph.D, P.Eng., Project Manager Copies To: Scott Reynolds From: Heather Rielly MCIP, RPP, CAHP File No.: Date: February 6 th, 2015 Fax No: Ref: Cultural Heritage Resources Screening/Assessment for Reconstruction of Reed and Dutch Line Bridges Municipality of Trent Lakes The County of Peterborough retained Ainley Group to provide detailed design services for replacement of two bridges located in the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The project has been initiated as a Schedule B project in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA). As part of this process, any bridges built more than 40 years ago are to be assessed regarding their cultural heritage value. The following outlines the conclusions of a screening/assessment of the bridges regarding any cultural heritage importance. Study Area Both bridges are located within the Municipality of Trent Lakes (former Galway, Cavendish and Harvey townships) in north-east Peterborough County. Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road and the Dutch Line Bridge is situated on Dutch Line Road. Both are located in rural areas. Background Data The Dutch Line Bridge is a single-lane bridge and the Reed Bridge is a two-lane timber structure. Both are categorized as simple-span bridges or culverts constructed with wooden railings and decks and with what appears to be underwater wooden cribs filled with stone. The Reed Bridge was built in 1950 and the Dutch Line Bridge was constructed in in The Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Checklist (revised April 11, 2014) of the Municipal Engineers Association was used as the screening tool. It was developed to assist with determining the requirements to comply with the MCEA for structures over 40 years old. Questions within the checklist include several that address Regulation 9/06 to the Ontario Heritage Act. Regulation 9/06 prescribes criteria for determining a property s cultural heritage value or interest for the purposes of subsection 29(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The stated purpose of this regulation is to provide an objective base for the determination and evaluation of resources regarding cultural heritage value. The following background information was considered. Review of pictures of each of the two bridges, their decks, railings and underwater structure. Review of pictures of the area surrounding each bridge Investigation by phone with the Municipality s planning administrator and chief administrative officer regarding the status of each bridge with respect to cultural significance, and any listing of the structures on the municipal heritage register of listed or designated properties as enabled under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act

102 Investigation by phone with the Municipality s planning administrator and chief administrative officer regarding any design or physical value, any historic or associative value, or any contextual value regarding cultural heritage for the two bridges Investigation by phone with the Municipality regarding any easements, agreements or covenants with a conservation body or level of government. Completion of the Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Checklist (revised April 11, 2014). Determination of Significance Based on a review of site pictures and on discussions with Municipal staff, neither bridge has been determined to have cultural heritage value or significance when reviewed against the criteria of Regulation 9/06. Neither bridge has been designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act by the Municipality, indicating that the Municipality does not consider the two bridges to have any cultural heritage value or interest. No easements, agreements or covenants are known by the Municipality to exist regarding the bridges. As a result of this review of available background information, no built heritage and cultural heritage value has been identified regarding either the Reed Bridge or the Dutch Line Bridge.

103 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix C: Hydraulic Assessment The Ainley Group

104 Ainley Graham & Associates Limited 45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON K8N 2Y5 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) MEMORANDUM To: From: Ramin Rameshni, Ph.D, P.Eng. Project Manager Deidre Taylor, EIT Engineering Intern Copies to: Reviewed By: Date: April 13, 2015 File No.: File Adam Wilson, P.Eng. Senior Engineer Ref: Reed Bridge Structure No Municipality of Trent Lakes, County of Peterborough Introduction & Background This memorandum has been prepared to summarize the hydrologic and hydraulic assessment completed for Reed Bridge in order to support the replacement/rehabilitation options for this structure. The structure spans Union Creek on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes, in the County of Peterborough as shown below. Existing structure details are provided as follows: Key Map Page 1 of 2

105 Bridge Name Structure No. Road Name Span Length Assumed Top of Deck Elev. Assumed Bridge Soffit Drainage Area Reed Bridge Galway Rd 6.1 m km 2 The hydrology and hydraulic assessments were completed in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation s (MTO) Highway Drainage Design Standards (MTO, 2008), Drainage Management Manual (MTO, 1997), and Drainage Manual (MTO, 1986). Hydrology Assessment A hydrologic analysis was required to evaluate existing conditions and assess the bridge alternatives and their potential impacts. The peak flow rates were determined using the MTO Modified Index Flood Method for the 25 year design event and 100 year flood event. The associate calculations are included in the Attachments. Hydraulic Assessment The HEC-RAS Version model, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was used to perform one-dimensional steady flow hydraulic analysis of the existing and proposed bridge alternatives. The principal model input parameters were chosen based on observations made during Ainley s November 2014 site visit, provided background documents (including bridge appraisals and topographic survey) and County of Peterborough GIS data. The following design event and freeboard criterion for local, low volume, and low vulnerability roads (WC-2, 3.3) were used to conduct the hydraulic assessment (MTO, 2008): No freeboard requirements (checked to verify if existing conditions and alternative solutions would result in overtopping of the deck in the design approx ); Clearance during design event to be greater than 0.0 m (water level below ). The hydraulic analysis concluded that the design criterion was met in the following configurations: Existing Condition Alternatives: - Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge CON CAST Pipe Tri Span S= Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box Bridge AIL SC-20B - Steel Modular Panel Bridge Assumed matching existing opening - Steel Multi-Plate Culvert (Closed Bottom) Twin 3600mm CSPs Supporting documents and summaries of HEC-RAS outputs are included in the Attachments. Conclusion The following analysis determined that the existing structure is sufficient to accommodate design flows and therefore replacement alternatives with a similar structure and size are feasible. Page 2 of 2

106 Attachments

107

108 MTO Modified Index Flood Method Reed Bridge Watershed Characteristics Watershed Area km² Watershed Slope Water Storage Area % Region / Watershed Type Shield Design Chart 1.14¹ Watershed Class Base Watershed Class 6.7 Design Chart 1.15¹ Base Class Adjustment - Detention 0 Evenly Distributed - Section H5.3.1² Net Watershed Class 6.7 Class Coefficient, C 1.16 Design Chart 1.15¹ [QQ 25 = CCAA 0.75 ] 25 Year Flow m³/s Return Peroid (year) Frequency Conservsion Factor (FCF) (Chart H5-9²) Peak Flow (m³/s) [QQ nn = QQ 25 FFFFFF nn ] Notes: 1. MTO Drainage Management Manual (1997) 2. MTO Drainage Manual (1986) Return Peroid Flows V:\ Bridges Peterborough County\ \Drainage\Dutch Line Bridge - Structure No \ MTO Modified Index Flood Method

109

110 RIVER STATION EXISTING CONDITION MODEL * Union Creek Water Surface Elevations 25 Year Event WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (m) PRE CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX BRIDGE STEEL MULTI PLATE CULVERT (CLOSED BOTTOM) CON CAST PIPE TRI SPAN S = 6096 AIL SC 20B UPSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL Twin 3600mm CSP REED BRIDGE (RS 74) DOWNSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL * Steel Modular Panel Bridge Assume design will have same opening as existing condition, therefore HEC RAS modelling results remain unchanged.

111 RIVER STATION EXISTING CONDITION MODEL * Union Creek Water Surface Elevations 100 Year Event WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (m) PRE CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX BRIDGE STEEL MULTI PLATE CULVERT (CLOSED BOTTOM) CON CAST PIPE TRI SPAN S = 6096 AIL SC 20B UPSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL Twin 3600mm CSP REED BRIDGE (RS 74) DOWNSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL * Steel Modular Panel Bridge Assume design will have same opening as existing condition, therefore HEC RAS modelling results remain unchanged.

112 LIFTING DEVICE FOR INSTALLATION L MIN 610 MAX 2438 ISOMETRIC VIEW SPAN (S) = 1829, 2438, 3048 MASS S X R ST WT HC L kg/m kg/pc 1829 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HC WT HC PLAN VIEW S MAX R MAX 3048 TYPICAL SECTION VIEW GENERAL NOTES: (1) CUSTOM SIZE NOT IN THE TABLE SHOWN IS ALLOWED. S AND R MUST HAVE INTERVAL OF 152 (6"). WT, HC, ST INTERVAL OF 52 (2") BETWEEN 203 (8") (14") (2) MASS IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON 2480 kg/m 3 DENSITY OF CONCRETE. (3) SHIPPING CAPACITY GOVERNS MAXIMUM SIZE AND LAY LENGTH (4) CIP OR PRECAST FOOTING ARE REQUIRED FOR PROPER INSTALLATION. SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONSULTING ENGINEER (5) LIFTING DEVICES ARE DAYTON SWIFT LIFT ANCHOR OR EQUIVALENT (6) LONGER LAY LENGTH (L UPTO 3658) IS AVAILABLE ST LIFTING DEVICE FOR STRIPPING AND HANDLING SPAN (S) = 3658, 4267, 4572 MASS S X R ST WT HC L kg/m kg/pc 3658 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SPAN (S) = 4878, 5181, 5486 MASS S X R ST WT HC L kg/m kg/pc 4878 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SPAN (S) = 5791, 6096, 6401 MASS S X R ST WT HC L kg/m kg/pc 5791 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm UNLESS SPECIFIED TOLERANCES TO CSA A DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE STD. TITLE CON CAST PIPE (CCP) STANDARD DRAWING CCP ENG GUIDE B 10.1 TS-SIZEGUIDE TRI-SPAN SIZE GUIDE PART DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE FILE PAGE 1 INITIAL RELEASE SW 19/OCT/2011 SW AP 19/OCT/2011 Trispan Size Guide.SLDDRW 1 OF 1 REV. DESCRIPTION ENG. DATE CON CAST PIPE RR 3 Guelph, ON N1H 6H9 Fax: (519) G:\Engineering\Library\Solidworks\Tri Span\Tri Span Size Guide\

113 Super Cor Box Structural Cross Section Recommended Height of Cover Limits: Minimum 450 mm (17.7") Maximum 1500 mm (59") Finished Grade Box Details No. Span Rise End Area (mm) (ft.-in.) (mm) (ft.-in.) (m 2 ) (ft. 2 ) SC-1B SC-2B SC-3B SC-4B SC-5B SC-6B SC-7B SC-8B SC-9B SC-10B SC-11B SC-12B SC-13B SC-14B SC-15B SC-16B SC-17B SC-18B SC-19B SC-20B SC-21B SC-22B SC-23B SC-24B SC-25B SC-26B SC-27B SC-28B SC-29B SC-30B SC-31B SC-32B No. Span Rise End Area (mm) (ft.-in.) (mm) (ft.-in.) (m 2 ) (ft. 2 ) SC-33B SC-34B SC-35B SC-36B SC-37B SC-38B SC-39B SC-40B SC-41B SC-42B SC-43B SC-44B SC-45B SC-46B SC-47B SC-48B SC-49B SC-50B SC-51B SC-52B SC-53B SC-54B SC-55B SC-56B SC-57B SC-58B SC-59B SC-60B SC-61B SC-62B SC-63B SC-64B All dimensions are to inside of crest of steel. Other sizes and plate configurations are available upon request. 9

114 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix D: Preferred Solution General Arrangement Drawings The Ainley Group

115

116 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix E: Consultation The Ainley Group

117 Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre County of Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges The County of Peterborough is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.6 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, and the Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road. The project is being initiated as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA, which applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, water, and wastewater projects. The study will include a review of structure replacement alternatives, and associated potential impacts on the study area environment. Public and agency consultation is an important component of the Environmental Assessment process. Public and agency input are invited for incorporation into the planning and design of the project. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held of February 12, 2015 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the Galway Hall, 579 Galway Road, Kinmount, to provide additional information, answer questions regarding the project, identify the nature of the work and solicit feedback and comments. The PIC will consist of a drop-in type format with displays showing alternative solutions. Staff from the County and Project Lead Consultant will be on hand to answer any questions. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the County of Peterborough intends to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. If you are interested in receiving further information on this project, please contact the following individuals: Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8N2 Phone: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) rameshni@ainleygroup.com Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) x 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca

118 Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre County of Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges The County of Peterborough is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.6 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, and the Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road. The project is being initiated as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA, which applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, water, and wastewater projects. The study will include a review of structure replacement alternatives, and associated potential impacts on the study area environment. Public and agency consultation is an important component of the Environmental Assessment process. Public and agency input are invited for incorporation into the planning and design of the project. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held of February 12, 2015 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the Galway Hall, 579 Galway Road, Kinmount, to provide additional information, answer questions regarding the project, identify the nature of the work and solicit feedback and comments. One hour prior (4:00 pm to 5:00 pm) will be available for Council and Agencies. The PIC will consist of a drop-in type format with displays showing alternative solutions. Staff from the County and Project Lead Consultant will be on hand to answer any questions. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the County of Peterborough intends to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. If you are interested in receiving further information on this project, please contact the following individuals: Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8N2 Phone: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) rameshni@ainleygroup.com Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) x 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca

119 Notice of Study Completion County of Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment For the Reed Bridge The County of Peterborough has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the Reed Bridge, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road. The project is proceeding in accordance with a Schedule B undertaking per the MCEA to address the deficiencies with the existing Reed Bridge. As part of the study, alternative solutions such as do nothing, rehabilitation, and replacement were developed and assessed. The alternative solutions were assessed for potential impacts to the natural, cultural, social, and economic environments. Based on the environmental assessment study, the preferred approach for the structure is replacement with a single span, pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge. A Public Information Centre was held for the Reed and Dutch Line Bridges on February 12, The Dutch Line Bridge is also following a Schedule B project in accordance with the MCEA. Environmental assessment documentation for the Dutch Line Bridge will be provided separately. The environmental assessment for this Schedule B project is documented in a Project File Report, which is now available for review. Copies of the Project File Report are available at the following locations, and is available for review on the County of Peterborough website at County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON, K9H 1Y6 Municipality of Trent Lakes 701 County Road 36 Bobcaygeon, ON, K0M 1A0 Kinmount Public Library 3980 County Road 121 Kinmount, ON, K0M 2A0 The 30-day review period begins on April 16, Written comments may be submitted until May 18, 2015 to: Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 470 Water Street Peterborough, ON K9H 3M3 Phone: (705) Ext. 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with the County, a person / party may request that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order). This request must be received by the Minister (at the address noted below) prior to May 18, A copy of the request must also be sent to the County, at the address noted above. If there are no requests received within the 30-day review period, the project will receive clearance, and may proceed to design and construction, dependent on available funding. The Ministry / Minister of Environment and Climate Change 77 Wellesley St. West, 11 th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 Fax: (416)

120 Ainley Graham & Associates Limited 45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON, K8N 2Y5 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) November 26, 2014 File No Ministry of Natural Resources 106 Monck Street, P.O. Box 500 Bancroft, Ontario K0L 1C0 Attn: Ref: Jesse Van Allen, District Planner Ministry of Natural Resources Bridge Rehabilitation North River Bridge, Reed Bridge, Dutch Line Bridge Peterborough County Dear Mr. Van Allen: The Ainley Group has been retained by the County of Peterborough, to complete an existing conditions review for three (3) bridges within the County, two (2) of which fall within the Bancroft MNR boundaries. The Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 5.5 kilometers (km) southeast of the Town of Kinmount (Figure 1). The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road, approximately 4.0 km southeast of the Town of Kinmount (Figure 1). The rehabilitation works at these structures have not been determined at this time; however, it is expected that Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge will require replacement. The project will include a field review and assessment at the above noted structure locations. The study will include an assessment of the potential impacts of the structure rehabilitations on the natural environmental features and functions throughout the study area, including potential SAR and fish and fish habitat. Please find below (and attached) specific information requests pertaining to the natural heritage and aquatic environments. Terrestrial Ecosystems A preliminary investigation into the potential species at risk within the project limits has been conducted using the MNRs Natural Heritage Areas - Make-a-map application ( Based on this preliminary review, two (2) terrestrial species including Eastern Ribbonsnake (SC) and Milksnake (SC), have been identified within proximity to the project limits. It is requested that MNR comment on these species and provide any additional species at risk which have the potential to be in the area of these structure locations. The list of SAR will be regarded during environmental investigations for this project. In addition, please provide any available direction / mitigation measures pertaining to the MNR s position of managing potential impacts to any identified species (i.e. timing windows for potential species, etc.). It is also respectfully requested that the MNR provide any available background information pertaining to environmentally designated areas, vegetation communities, provincially significant

121 wetlands, and wetland and wildlife habitat at these structure locations within the project limits shown in the attached Appendix - Natural Heritage/Fisheries. Provided information will be considered during the completion of our assessment of environmental impacts. Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat The Reed Bridge and Dutch Line Bridge both convey Union Creek and therefore we respectfully request the MNR provide any available background information pertaining to fish and aquatic habitat for Union Creek that should be considered during completion of the existing conditions assessment as part of this assignment. The extent of the potential design requirements for the structure rehabilitations have not been determined at this time, and in consideration of potential requirements beyond the scope of the DFO Operational Statement for Bridge Maintenance, please provide background information for these locations. We request that MNR complete the attached table (Appendix Fisheries) for the identified watercourses, and any other watercourse or wetland habitat that may be deemed necessary. The location of these structures is shown in the figures provided in the attached Appendix. We look forward to MNR s response, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, AINLEY GRAHAM & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Scott Reynolds, B.Sc.(Env.), EP Environmental Planner c.c. Brian Paquin, P.Eng., Ainley Group

122 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: NATURAL HERITAGE / FISHERIES

123 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY FOR STRUCTURE REHABILITATION IN PETERBOROUGH COUNTY 3 Bridges Peterborough County Fish and Fish Habitat Information Request No. Waterbody Name Waterbody location (UTM NAD83) Watercourse classification (i.e. warmwater, coldwater) Habitat information / locations (fish passage barriers, known spawning habitats etc.) Historical data on fish species present, including whether the subject waterbody(s) (specify location) are considered to support any vulnerable, threatened or endangered aquatic species MNR fisheries management objectives, if applicable MNR interpretation of fish and fish habitat sensitivity (scale of high, moderate, low or unknown) as per DFO s Risk Management Framework In-water timing windows for construction 1 2 Reed Bridge Union Creek Dutch Line Bridge Union Creek 17T T

124 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY FOR STRUCTURE REHABILITATION IN PETERBOROUGH COUNTY 3 Bridges Peterborough County Species at Risk Information Request No. Structure Site ID Structure Location (UTM NAD83) 1 Reed Bridge 17T Dutch Line Bridge 17T Potential Species Milksnake, Eastern Meadowlark None Identified on MNR Make-A-Map. Possible Mitigation Measures

125 Figure 1: Reed Bridge and Dutch Line Bridge Locations

126 County of Peterborough Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Project File Report Appendix F: Public Information Centre Summary Report The Ainley Group

127 Public Information Centre Summary Report Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015

128 Public Information Centre Summary Report for Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge County of Peterborough Municipality of Trent Lakes Prepared by the Ainley Group March 2015 Prepared By: Scott Reynolds, EP Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Environmental Planner Consultant Project Manager The Ainley Group The Ainley Group

129 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Table of Contents 1.0 The Study The Process Public and External Agency Notification Purpose of the Public Information Centre Project Staff Attendance at the PIC Public / Agency Attendance at the PIC Summary of Comments Received at the PIC Freedom of Information and Privacy Act... 4 List of Figures Figure 1 Key Map List of Appendices Appendix A - Notice of Public Information Centre Appendix B - Public Information Centre Display Boards Appendix C - Public Information Centre Comment Sheets Appendix D - Comments Received after Public Information Centre Page 1

130 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March The Study The County of Peterborough has retained the Ainley Group to undertake a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.6 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, and the Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road (Figure 1). Figure 1 - Key Map 2.0 The Process The project is proceeding as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA, which applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, water, and wastewater projects. The study will include a review of structure replacement alternatives, and associated potential impacts on the study area environment. In accordance with the Class EA, a Public Information Centre (PIC) was hosted in order to present the detail design to members of the public and agencies, seek input and comment on the key aspects of the detail design, and provide technical and design input in response to any questions brought forward at the PIC and throughout the comment period. A PIC for this project was held at the Galway Hall in Kinmount, Ontario on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at the following time(s): Agency Consultation period - 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Public Consultation period 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Page 2

131 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March Public and External Agency Notification A Notice of Public Information Centre was advertised in local newspapers as well as provided on the Municipality of Trent Lakes and County of Peterborough websites, providing notice of the PIC for this MCEA assignment: In addition to the newspaper and online advertisements, notification was made through letter correspondence to regulatory agencies, First Nation groups, emergency services, student transportation services, and local schoolboards announcing the date and time of the PIC. Notices for the PIC were also prepared and distributed to local residents prior to the PIC. A copy of the Notice of Public Information Centre and example correspondence detailing the PIC information provided to agencies / stakeholders is provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Purpose of the Public Information Centre The Public Information Centre was held to present the preliminary recommended solutions to members of the public, agencies, and stakeholders. Individuals from the County of Peterborough and the Ainley Group were in attendance at the PIC to present information to the public and agencies, and to answer any questions. Members of the public and agencies were invited to review the display boards presenting the preliminary recommended solution for the replacement of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge. The presentation materials at the PIC included the following: Welcome Statement / Project Location Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process Methods of Communication Study Purpose and Background Preliminary Assessment Criteria for Alternative Solutions Preliminary Structural Assessment Criteria Existing Conditions Problem and Opportunity Statement Alternative Solutions Summary of Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Preliminary Recommended Solution Preliminary General Arrangement Drawings Examples of Replacement Alternatives Preliminary Detour Routes During Construction Summary / Next Steps Request for Comments Sign-in forms and comment sheets were provided at the PIC and attendees were encouraged to complete and deposit forms in the comment box. Interested members were also given the option to provide comments by , fax, or mail, with comments being requested by February 27, The display boards provided at the PIC are provided in Appendix B. 2.3 Project Staff Attendance at the PIC The following members of the Study Team were present at the Public Information Centre: Page 3

132 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Chris Bradley, M.P.A. Director of Public Works County of Peterborough Peter Nielson, C.E.T Manager, Engineering and Design County of Peterborough Kendra Reid, C.E.T. Senior Engineering Technician County of Peterborough Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group Scott Reynolds, EP Environmental Planner Ainley Group 2.4 Public / Agency Attendance at the PIC The following interested persons signed in at the PIC: Eight (8) representatives of agencies / stakeholders; Twenty-four (24) members of the public; Of the attendees at the PIC, eight (8) people filled out a comment sheet, and four (4) other attendees provided comments via Summary of Comments Received at the PIC The visitors who attended the PIC were mainly property owners within the vicinity of the proposed works. Twelve (12) attendees provided written comments to project representatives. There was no opposition to the proposed works; however, the following general comments were provided: Concern over Allen s Alley as a potential detour route, due to blind hills and curves Requests for both bridges to be replaced at the same time, rather than staged works. Requests for the Dutch Line bridge to be replaced and opened before commencing work on Reed Bridge (i.e. staged approach). Concern over the emergency response time from the Galway Fire Hall if the Reed Bridge is closed. Concern over the current and proposed detour driving times during bridge closure. Concern over the beaver dam and related ponding in proximity to the Dutch Line bridge. Questions on the structural requirements and associated cost with bridge replacements. Disappointment with the scheduled time of the PIC. With respect to the comment sheets received at the PIC, only one (1) comment requested a response as a follow-up; however, a return address was not provided for addressing the response. Comments received following the PIC were responded to as appropriate. A copy of the comment sheets received at (and following) the PIC, along with respective responses (deemed to be required) are provided in Appendix C. 2.6 Freedom of Information and Privacy Act With the exception of personal information, the above-noted comments will be maintained as a public database and kept on file for use during the study. Unless otherwise requested, the comments may be included in the Study documentation that is made available for public review. Page 4

133 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Appendix A Notices of Public Information Centre

134 Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre County of Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges The County of Peterborough is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.6 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, and the Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road. The project is being initiated as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA, which applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, water, and wastewater projects. The study will include a review of structure replacement alternatives, and associated potential impacts on the study area environment. Public and agency consultation is an important component of the Environmental Assessment process. Public and agency input are invited for incorporation into the planning and design of the project. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held of February 12, 2015 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the Galway Hall, 579 Galway Road, Kinmount, to provide additional information, answer questions regarding the project, identify the nature of the work and solicit feedback and comments. The PIC will consist of a drop-in type format with displays showing alternative solutions. Staff from the County and Project Lead Consultant will be on hand to answer any questions. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the County of Peterborough intends to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. If you are interested in receiving further information on this project, please contact the following individuals: Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8N2 Phone: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) rameshni@ainleygroup.com Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) x 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca

135 Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre County of Peterborough Class Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges The County of Peterborough is undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) for the replacement of the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges, southeast of the Village of Kinmount within the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.6 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, and the Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road, approximately 2.2 km east of the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road. The project is being initiated as a Schedule B undertaking in accordance with the MCEA, which applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, water, and wastewater projects. The study will include a review of structure replacement alternatives, and associated potential impacts on the study area environment. Public and agency consultation is an important component of the Environmental Assessment process. Public and agency input are invited for incorporation into the planning and design of the project. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held of February 12, 2015 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the Galway Hall, 579 Galway Road, Kinmount, to provide additional information, answer questions regarding the project, identify the nature of the work and solicit feedback and comments. One hour prior (4:00 pm to 5:00 pm) will be available for Council and Agencies. The PIC will consist of a drop-in type format with displays showing alternative solutions. Staff from the County and Project Lead Consultant will be on hand to answer any questions. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the County of Peterborough intends to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. If you are interested in receiving further information on this project, please contact the following individuals: Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng. Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8N2 Phone: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) rameshni@ainleygroup.com Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) x 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca

136 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Appendix B Public Information Centre Display Boards

137 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge County of Peterborough Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Public Information Centre Galway Hall, Kinmount Ontario February 12, 2015 Welcome to the Public Information Centre Please Sign In Please feel free to ask questions Please fill out a Comment Form before you leave. Belleville, Ontario

138 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Welcome Study Area/Comments Welcome to the Public Information Centre regarding the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges. Bridge Location Plan The purpose of the Public Information Centre is: To introduce the project and explain the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. To summarize the study area and existing conditions for each structure. To describe the alternative solutions assessed and the Preferred Alternative Solution for each structure. To provide an opportunity for the public to discuss and provide comments. The County of Peterborough, in consultation with the Ainley Group, is working to complete the detail design in accordance with the environmental assessment process. Your comments are important to us. Following your review of the information, please complete one of the comment forms and place it in the box provided or send written or comments to the address on the form prior to February 27, 2015.

139 WE ARE HERE

140 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Methods of Communication Request for Background Information Information request letters were submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Kawartha Region Conservation Authority for natural heritage information. Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre Mailed / submitted electronically to potentially affected First Nations. Mailed directly to regulatory agencies that may have potential interest in the project. Mailed to Emergency Services, local school boards, and Student Transportation Services. Published in local newspapers. Posted on the County of Peterborough and the Municipality of Trent Lakes website. Distributed via mail to Township residents. Notice of Study Completion To be published in local newspapers and on the County of Peterborough and Municipality of Trent Lakes website at the end of the MCEA process.

141 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment The Study Purpose and Background Study Purpose The purpose of this Class Environmental Assessment is to identify the preferred solution to address the deteriorated condition of the Dutch Line Bridge and the Reed Bridge and prepare a preliminary and detail design for the preferred solution. Study Background Dutch Line Bridge The Dutch Line Bridge is located on Dutch Line Road approximately 2.7 km east from the intersection of County Road 121 and Dutch Line Road, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The existing bridge was constructed in 1960 and is a single span structural steel girder bridge with a wooden deck and surface treated wearing surface that spans Union Creek. The bridge is in poor condition and has failed in May 2014 prompting full closure of the bridge. The roadway is a single lane traffic configuration. The failure of the bridge identified the need for replacement. Reed Bridge The Reed Bridge is located on Galway Road approximately 2.2 km east from the intersection of County Road 121 and Galway Road, the Municipality of Trent Lakes. The existing bridge was constructed in 1950 and is a single span, steel girder bridge with a wooden deck and surface treated wearing surface that spans Union Creek. The bridge conveys two-lanes of traffic. A detailed inspection of the structure conducted in 2014 identified settlement in the west abutment; a subsequent evaluation of the structure resulted in an immediate need for the structure to be posted for traffic load restrictions and a need for rehabilitation. Dutch Line Bridge Reed Bridge

142 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary Assessment Criteria for Alternative Solutions Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge During the assessment / evaluation of alternative solutions, consideration has been given to the following factors and criteria: Natural Environment - Fish habitat and watercourse features - Terrestrial ecosystems (vegetation, wildlife, Species at Risk) - Stormwater / hydrology Socio-Economic Environment - Accessibility for local residents during construction - Impacts to municipal / emergency services - Property impacts Cultural Environment - First Nations, Heritage, and Archaeological resources Transportation Environment - Detour routes during construction - Roadway safety - Traffic operations and consideration for AADT volumes.

143 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary Structural Assessment Criteria Structure Design Code Road Design Standard Drainage Basin (catchment area; hectares) Dutch Line Bridge Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) Low Volume Road < 400 AADT Approx. 4,910 ha Reed Bridge Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) Rural Arterial 1,000 AADT Approx. 5,480 ha Design Flow Return Period 10 Years 25 Years Structure Span Existing 5.6 m Proposed 5.8 m Existing 6.1 m Proposed 6.1 m Soffit Clearance (Inlet) Existing - Submerged Existing 0.61 m

144 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Existing Conditions Dutch Line Bridge Girder deflection at west end of south girder Medium corrosion and localized severe corrosion of girders, girders partially submerged at time of inspection Splits, rot, and missing sections on timber barrier Undermining at southwest corner of ballast wall, spalling on top corners of ballast walls Splits, weathering, and localized severe rot and deformation on timber curbs

145 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Problem and Opportunity Statement Dutch Line Bridge Problem Statement The existing bridge does not meet bridge code requirements and has deteriorated to a condition such that full closure of Dutch Line Road was warranted. Opportunity Statement Replacement / rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge would provide improved accessibility for residents on Dutch Line Road, and would also provide an opportunity for a detour route during replacement of the Reed Bridge located in close proximity to the Dutch Line structure.

146 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Dutch Line Bridge Do Nothing This alternative has been included as a basis for comparison to other alternative solutions. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the structure to a functioning state in accordance with current design standards. Replacement Replacement of the structure with a new bridge that complies with current design standards and keeping with the current profile / configuration of the roadway (single-lane). Alternatives include: Replacement of the bridge with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge. Replacement of the bridge with a Super Cor structural steel plate box bridge. Replacement of the bridge with a steel modular panel bridge. Corrugated steel multi-plate culvert (closed bottom).

147 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Summary of Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Dutch Line Bridge Do Nothing This alternative does not address the existing road closure due to the failure of the structure. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the structure would require major alterations to the existing sub-structure and deck to comply with current design standards. This alternative solution is not practical given that the existing structure has already failed. Replacement Replacement of the structure addresses the problem / opportunity statement by reinstating traffic access on Dutch Line Road. Replacement alternatives provide a service life range from 50 to 75 years, construction duration from 4-8 weeks, and construction cost from approximately $675,000 to $810,000. Addendum: For a single lane replacement structure, the replacement construction cost will be approximately $480,000 to $595,000).

148 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary Recommended Solution Dutch Line Bridge Replacement with Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge Criteria / Rationale: Replacement design to similar dimensions and opening of the existing bridge thereby minimizing extent of impacts during construction. Existing roadway width (single lane traffic configuration) to be maintained given the low average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on Dutch Line Road. Existing roadway profile of Dutch Line is proposed to be raised to accommodate existing drainage concerns. Longest structural service life (estimated to be 75 years) of structural alternatives. Reasonable construction duration (6-8 weeks). Reasonable construction cost ($725,000; Addendum: For a single lane replacement structure: $530,000). Culvert design not feasible due to poor subsoil founding conditions.

149 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary General Arrangement Dutch Line Bridge Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge

150 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Existing Conditions Reed Bridge Settlement of west abutment Deformations on both barriers Severe corrosion at ends of girders Localized severe rot on the deck soffit Splits, weathering, and localized severe rot on the timber curbs Rot, excessive rotation, and bulging on both timber cribs

151 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Problem and Opportunity Statement Reed Bridge Problem Statement The existing bridge does not meet bridge code requirements and has deteriorated to poor condition including severe rot of the timber curbs and deck soffit, corrosion of girders, settlement of the west timber crib (abutment) and the need for the structure to be posted for traffic load restrictions and frequent inspection (minimum of 6 month frequency). Opportunity Statement Replacement / rehabilitation of the Reed Bridge will provide improved safety conditions on Galway Road for the crossing of Union Creek given the deteriorated condition of the structure.

152 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Alternative Solutions Reed Bridge Do Nothing This alternative has been included as a basis for comparison to other alternative solutions. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the structure to a functioning state in accordance with current design standards. Replacement Replacement of the structure with a new bridge that complies with current design standards and keeping with the current profile / configuration of the roadway (two-lane). Alternatives include: Replacement of the bridge with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge. Replacement of the bridge with a Super Cor structural steel plate box bridge. Replacement of the bridge with a steel modular panel bridge. Corrugated steel multi-plate culvert (closed bottom).

153 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Summary of Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Reed Bridge Do Nothing This alternative does not address the deteriorated condition of the structure. This alternative will lead to additional deterioration of the structure leading to increased costs for repairs / rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the structure would require major alterations to the existing sub-structure and deck to comply with current design standards. Geotechnical investigation at this site has indicated the need for the structure to be founded on piles driven to bedrock. Significant cost would be incurred to rehabilitate the structure to current design standards. Replacement Replacement of the structure addresses the problem / opportunity statement and would be a cost-effective long term strategy given the current deteriorated state of the structure. Replacement alternatives provide a service life range from 50 to 75 years, construction duration from 4 to 8 weeks, and construction costs from approximately $675,000 to $760,000.

154 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary Recommended Solution Reed Bridge Replacement with Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge Criteria / Rationale: Replacement design to similar dimensions and opening of the existing bridge thereby minimizing extent of impacts during construction. Existing roadway profile (two lane traffic configuration) to be maintained given the low average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on Galway Road. Longest structural service life (estimated to be 75 years) of structural alternatives. Reasonable construction duration (6-8 weeks). Optimum construction cost ($675,000). Culvert design not feasible due to poor subsoil founding conditions.

155 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary General Arrangement Reed Bridge Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge

156 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Examples of Replacement Alternatives Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge with Mesh Retaining Walls Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box Bridge Steel Modular Panel Bridge

157 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Preliminary Detour Routes During Construction Option 1 Staged Replacement of Dutch Line and Reed Bridges Option 2 Concurrent Replacement of Dutch Line and Reed Bridges Stage 1 Dutch Line Bridge is being replaced. Stage 2 - Detour Reed Bridge is being replaced. Local traffic will be detoured through Dutch Line Road and Dutch Line Bridge constructed in Stage 1. Detour Dutch Line and Reed Bridges are being replaced simultaneously and local traffic will be detoured through Allen s Alley, Queens Line and Crystal Lake Road.

158 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Summary Next Steps Conclusions: The existing Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge have deteriorated and do not meet bridge code requirements. The Dutch Line Bridge is currently closed to all traffic. Alternative solutions reviewed for each structure included Do Nothing, Rehabilitation, and Replacement (alternatives pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge, Super Cor structural steel plate box bridge, Steel Modular Panel bridge, and corrugated steel multi-plate culvert). Preliminary recommended solutions for each structure include replacement with a pre-cast concrete rigid frame bridge. This option provides a reasonable construction duration, the optimum / reasonable construction cost, and the longest structural service life of all alternatives. Upon completion of the Public Information Centre, the following steps will be taken: Review comments received from the Public/Agencies for consideration in finalizing the preliminary design. Review the preferred alternative design concept in consideration of public / agency comments. Further review the preferred alternative design concept in consideration of natural, socio-economic, cultural, and transportation environments. Confirm the preferred alternative. Thank you for your attendance and participation in this public meeting. Please provide comments by February 27 th, 2015.

159 Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Please Fill Out A Comment Sheet Comments and information regarding the proposed project are being collected to assist in meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The collection of comments and information will be conducted in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Comments will be maintained on file for use during the Study and may be included in the Study documentation. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. If you wish to comment or have any questions, please fill out a comment sheet or provide written comments to the contacts below no later than February 27, Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P. Eng Consultant Project Manager Ainley Group 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, Ontario, K7M 8N2 Phone: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) rameshni@ainleygroup.com Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) ext. 300 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca

160 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Appendix C Public Information Centre Comment Sheets

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Summary Report Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge March 2015 Appendix D Comments Received after Public Information Centre

170 David Davison From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Reid, Kendra March :11 PM 'Ramin Rameshni (Ainley Group)' 'Scott Reynolds (Ainley Group)' FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge From: Nielsen, Peter Sent: March :38 PM To: Ramin Rameshni Cc: Reid, Kendra Subject: FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge Ramin See the message below from Don Mitchell, Trent Lakes Fire Chief. Don must develop a Fire Service Agreement with the City of Kawartha Lakes and he is asking for a timeline for closure of the Reed Bridge. I have attempted to project some timelines. Are these dates reasonable? Thank you Peter Nielsen Item Approximate submission dates 90% drawings End of March Tender issuance Mid to end of April Tender close 3 weeks from issuance Award by County Council 3 weeks from tender closing Construction start July 1 Construction complete October 15 1

171 From: Don Mitchell Sent: Monday, March 02, :41 AM To: Nielsen, Peter Subject: RE: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge Good morning Peter the Trent Lakes Fire Service understands the Reed Bridge needs to be replaced and with the Dutch Line Bridge also shut down it does create a longer response time for the Fire Service into the Kinmount area. Trent Lakes Fire will have to approach the City of Kawartha Lakes and have an agreement drawn up to help protect those in the Kinmount area for fire coverage. What I really need to know is the time lines the bridge will be closed for dates on an agreement as I will need to start that part soon thanks Fire Chief Don Mitchell. Don Mitchell Trent Lakes Fire Chief Tel: (705) ext. 222 Fax: (705) ****************************************************************************************************** This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information contained in this . If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, fax or and permanently delete this from your computer, including any attachments, without making a copy. Access to this by anyone else is unauthorized. Thank you. 2

172 David Davison From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Reid, Kendra March :11 PM 'Ramin Rameshni (Ainley Group)' 'Scott Reynolds (Ainley Group)' FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge From: Nielsen, Peter Sent: February :36 PM To: Ramin Rameshni; Reid, Kendra Cc: Lois O'Neill Bradley, Chris Subject: FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge Ramin and Kendra Please see the comments below for consideration and documentation through the Environmental Assessment process currently underway for the Reed and Dutch Line bridges. Additional information may be forthcoming from the Township related to this concern. Thank you. Peter Nielsen From: Lois O'Neill-Jackson Sent: Friday, February 13, :30 PM To: Nielsen, Peter Cc: Don Mitchell Subject: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge Peter, A concern has been raised by our Fire Department respecting the effect the closure of the two bridges. With the location of the Fire Hall there will be a detrimental effect on response times to calls even if just the Reed Bridge was closed. 1

173 I have copied Don Mitchell on this in order that he can provide further information on the number of properties effected and the response time concerns. Lois O'Neill-Jackson, M.P.A., CMO CAO/Economic Development Officer Municipality of Trent Lakes 701 County Road 36, Box 820 Bobcaygeon ON K0M 1A0 Phone: (705) ex 235 Fax: (705)

174 David Davison From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ramin Rameshni February :54 PM 'Reid, Kendra'; 'Nielsen, Peter' RE: Request for further information regarding Dutch Line Bridge Dear Janice and Dean, Thanks for your kind note. As stated in the Public Information Centre (PIC), held on Feb. 12, 2015, the public has been provided with an opportunity to provide input until Feb. 27, Preliminary design will be finalized thereafter, within a month, and this project will proceed to the detailed design phase. It is anticipated that the detailed design of this project will be completed by mid- May. For further information with respect to the construction timing, please contact: Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T. Manager, Engineering & Design County of Peterborough 310 Armour Road Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6 Phone: (705) x 322 Fax: (705) pnielsen@county.peterborough.on.ca Please note that the PIC display panels for this project are now posted onto the County of Peterborough s website. Yours very truly, Ramin Rameshni, Ph.D (Civil Eng.), P.Eng. Senior Structural Engineer Ainley Graham & Associates Limited 1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, Ontario, K7M 8N2 Tel: (343) ext. 207 Fax: (343) Cell: (647) rameshni@ainleygroup.com CAUTION: The information contained in and/or attached to this transmission is solely for the use of the intended recipient. Any copying, distribution or use by others, without the express written consent of the Ainley Group, is strictly prohibited. The recipient is responsible for confirming the accuracy and completeness of the information with the originator. Please advise the sender if you believe this message has been received by you in error. From: janicestange@rogers.com [mailto:janicestange@rogers.com] Sent: February :18 PM 1

175 To: Angela... Subject: Request for further information regarding Dutch Line Bridge Hello, Can you please send me any relevant information on the progress of the replacement of the bridge on the Dutch Line Road in Galway Township? Thanks, Janice and Dean Stange 2

176 The Dutch Line and Reid Bridges County of Peterborough Comment Sheet Do you have any questions or comments regarding these projects? Introductory comments - The presentation provided at the Open House held at the Galway Hall on Thursday, February 12, 2015 was well done and provided our residents of the Galway Community with a fine visual over-view of the two projects the Dutch Line Bridge and the Reid Bridge on Galway Road. We counted about 40 residents who came out on a very cold, snowy and winter late afternoon to view the bridge information and to discuss concerns with the consultants (2), all members of the Municipality of Trent Lakes Council and members of the County of Peterborough Public Works Department. C. The timing for the Open House eg. from 5 pm to 7 pm could not have been worse as many of our residents who may have been interested work outside our community during the week and could not return within the limited time. The original information/invitation indicated the Open House schedule to be from 5 to 7 pm and understood to be for public involvement and only later did we find out that 5 pm to 6 pm was for instruction and review by our Trent Lakes Council members. Galway and Area Ratepayers Association Inc. were represented by Matt Dunn Bruce Fleury, Jaci Saunders, and Madeline Pearson. In future, it might be advisable to coordinate such important presentations with the local Ratepayers Association, in this instance the Galway and Area Ratepayers Association Inc. who would have been pleased to assist and in their quarterly newsletters to inform members and residents of like Open Houses and events. Our local news papers Kinmount Gazette, Minden Times, the Haliburton Highlander and the Echo, the Bobcaygeon Promoter and the Lindsay Weekender all provide space for media releases at no charge. C. With regard to the information provided on the two bridges- * there is a serious need to reconsider the scheduling of the bridges. with the collapse of the Dutch Line Bridge, the lack of a through road from Highway 121 to the community of residents, emergency vehicles beyond the Queen s Line concession and only the Reid Road to reach these residents and a half hour + drive in good

177 2. weather remains. The planned (at the moment) for the Summer 2015 construction of the Reid Bridge on Galway Road will seriously impede traffic of full-time residents, Summer cottage residents to the north side of Crystal Lake, to Salmon Lake and to White Lake and again the Emergency Vehicles to these places of residents. These residents make up the largest taxpayer groups in this community and expect the bridge to be safe for their use and available, both road and bridge for their time in the Galway Community and at the Lakes. We have been told by adjacent residents to the north that their is a small lake of water being dammed by beavers that must be dealt with before the re-construction of the Dutch Line Bridge takes place. This is water is on private property. Please note - Is it a requirement to re-construct such grandiose Bridges (assuming code requirements are met) on rural roads in North central-east Ontario. Both designs seem to be excessive for our needs, there size and in dollar costs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, we are The Galway and Area Ratepayers Association

178