appendix g public consultation

APPENDIX G

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN

COUNTY OF BRUCE

NOTICE OF STUDY INITIATION

The County of Bruce is planning to undertake a Bridge Infrastructure Master Plan which will identify future infrastructure needs associated with a group of bridges located in central Bruce County near the Village of Paisley. All but one of the structures is maintained by the County of Bruce. The bridges are located on former municipal boundary roads which are currently maintained by the local municipalities. Six of the structures are at least 80 years in age and will require significant rehabilitation or replacement in the next 2–5 years. The review will consider a range of factors associated with each bridge including current and anticipated traffic volume, capacity, local and regional transportation linkages, expected replacement cost, and potential heritage value. As an outcome of this process, one or more of the structures being reviewed may be identified for removal and/or permanent retirement from vehicular traffic. The location of the bridges which are being included as part of the Infrastructure Master Plan are illustrated on the key plan and are listed below:

NAME LOCATION 12th of Brant Bridge Concession Road 12, 1.9 km west of C.R. 19 McCurdy Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 2 km east of C.R. 3 Big Irwin Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 0.8 km west of C.R. 3 Little Irwin Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 0.4 km west of C.R. 3 Dudgeon Bridge Greenock-Brant Townline Rd, 3 km north of C.R.15 Gregg Bridge Greenock-Brant Townline Rd, 3.8 km north of C.R. 15 Watson’s Bridge Greenock-Elderslie Rd., 6.3 km north of C.R. 15 Concession 20 of Brockton Bridge Concession Road 20, 0.6 km east of C.R. 1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS: The Infrastructure Master Plan is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act. Master Plan projects incorporate Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process and also include consultation with the general public, government review agencies and affected property owners. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Public consultation is a key component of this study. The proposed consultation plan provides for a public open house to be held in the fall of 2011 to review components of the Infrastructure Master Plan and to give interested parties an opportunity to provide input into the process. Any comments collected in conjunction with this Class EA will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

Details of the Public Open House are as follows:

Date: Wednesday October 19th

, 2011

Time: 6:30 - 8:00 p.m.

Location: Paisley Community Centre, 391 Queen Street North, Paisley For further information on this project, or to review the Master Plan process, please contact the project engineers: B.M. Ross and Associates: 62 North Street, Goderich, Ontario, N7A 2T4. Telephone (Toll Free): (888) 524-2641. Fax: (519) 524-4403. Kelly Vader, Environmental Planner (e-mail: [email protected]).

This Notice Issued October 5th, 2011 Brian Knox, P. Eng. County Engineer

County of Bruce Bridge Infrastructure

Master Plan

Public Information Meeting

October 19th, 2011

Agenda Introduction

Project Scope

Bridge Deficiencies

Master Plan Process

Natural Environment Characterization Report

Bridge Heritage Assessment

Traffic Analysis

Next Steps

Project Study Area

Master Plan Study Scope Examine Group of Related Bridge Structures Located

in Central Bruce County

Most are County Bridges on Local Roads

Six more than 80 Years old and will need Significant Modification or Replacement within 10 years

Cost Benefit Analysis of Structures and Associated Transportation Corridors

Provide Recommendations for Future Bridge Construction, Replacement or Closure

Terminology Vertical Alignment

Spalling

Horizontal Alignment

Existing Bridge Descriptions

Dudgeon Bridge Three Span Circa 1930

Half-Through Truss

Rail Bridge Truss

Deficiencies Concrete Spalling

Single Lane with poor alignment of approaches

North Abutment Failing

Big Irwin Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1900

Deficiencies

Single Lane with Load Limits

Poor Vertical Alignment on West Approach

Abutment Actively Failing

McCurdy Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1913

Deficiencies

Steel Corrosion


Poor Alignment of Approaches

12th of Brant Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1920

Deficiencies

Single Lane

Deterioration of deck

Guiderail deterioration

Watson’s Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1920

Deficiencies Single Lane Bridge

Abutment Deterioration

Poor Vertical Alignment

Concession 20 Warren Pony Truss

Circa 1920

Deficiencies



Little Irwin Concrete Rigid

Frame Bridge

Circa 1953

Gregg Bridge Concrete Rigid Frame

Bridge

Circa 1965

Problem Summary

Eight Primary Structures Part of Master Plan

Majority are Old & Poor Condition

Load Limit Restricted

Deficient Widths

Five Primary Transportation Corridors

Some Deficiencies with Horizontal and Vertical alignments

Bridges Linked by Transportation Corridors

Very Costly to Replace all Structures

Master Plan Process Long Range Plans which Integrate Infrastructure

Requirements with Environmental Assessment Planning Principles

Examines a Group of Related Projects in order to Outline a Framework for Planning for Subsequent Projects and/or Developments

Involves Consultation with the Public, Regulatory Agencies and Adjacent Property Owners

Features of a Master Plan Takes a System Wide Approach to Planning which relates

Infrastructure either Geographically or by Function

Recommends projects to be implemented over an extended period of time

Addresses at minimum the First Two Phases of the Municipal Class EA and can also cover other phases

Recommends an Infrastructure Master Plan which can be Implemented through the completion of separate individual projects

Study Organization

County of Bruce – Project Proponent

BMROSS – Project Engineers and Planners

Project Partners – Brockton, Arran-Elderslie

Steering Committee Members

Arran-Elderslie

Brockton

County of Bruce Highways Department

County of Bruce Highways Committee

Initial Consultation Published in Sun Times, Herald Times, Shoreline

Beacon, Paisley Advocate, Kincardine News

September 28 & October 5, 2011

Consultation with Special Interest Groups

Aboriginal Communities, Mennonite Community

Consultation with Review Agencies

SVCA, MOE, MOC, MNR, MTO, Transport Canada, School Boards, Fire Departments, EMS, OPP

Specialized Assessments

Natural Environment Characterization

Species at Risk, Sensitive Natural Areas

Bridge Heritage Assessment

Historical Significance of Structures

Traffic Analysis

Volume, Routing Options, Capacity

Characterization Report

Undertaken by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI)

Conducted during summer 2011

General Inventory of primary bridge sites and all potential crossing locations

Significant Features

Species at Risk

Terrestrial

Aquatic

Teeswater River u/s of Dudgeon Bridge


Background Review

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA)

Ministry of Natural Resources – Owen Sound

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC)

Field Component

Site Visits Conducted in September 2011

Evaluate Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat


Terrestrial Habitat

Significant Natural Areas

Species at Risk

Significant Vegetation Communities

Aquatic Habitat

Habitat Inventories up/downstream of crossings

Habitat Features Identified Pools, Substrate, Turbidity Conditions

Potential Species at Risk Pugnose Shiner

Photo Credit: John Lyons, Wisconsin DNR

Rainbow Mussel

Photo Credit: St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

Butternut Tree

Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle

Photo Credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Structural Heritage Assessment

Golder Associates Ltd.

Heritage Assessment Design/Physical Value (50 Maximum Score)

Functional Design

Visual Appeal

Materials

Contextual Value (25 Maximum Score)

Landmark

Character Contribution

Historic Associative Value (25 Maximum Score)

Designer/Construction Firm

Associated with Historic Theme/Person/Event

Bridge Key Components Score

McCurdy • Technically Advanced very Rare Design • Locally Significant, Character Defining Structure

75

12th of Brant • Two Truss’s Transported to site from other locations • Technically Advanced and Rare Designs

75

Watson’s • Well Designed, Relatively Rare in Region • Balanced Design, Rare Materials

70

Big Irwin • Relatively Rare in Region, Contributes to Local Character • Well Proportioned in Landscape

65

Dudgeon • Rare Latticework on Former Rail Bridge • Common Design

50

Concession 20 • Relatively Rare Survivor in Region, Rare Materials • Familiar Structure in Family of Truss Bridges

50

Gregg • Typical Bridge Design, Known Builder 20

Little Irwin • Common Design for Area, Known Builder 20

Traffic Analysis

Paradigm Transportation Solutions

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS

Assessment Criteria Traffic Volumes

Routing Opportunities Beyond Study Boundaries

Number and Type of Properties Serviced

Emergency Access

Parallel Redundancies

Road Details Surface Type, Geometry, Connectivity

Engineering Analysis

Analyse Road and Crossing Requirements

Required Span

Alignment Modifications

Identify Preliminary Design Criteria

Bridge Design Alternatives

Cost Analysis

Bridge Construction

Road Modifications

Permit/Approval Requirements

Master Plan - Comparison Criteria

Total Construction Costs for bridges and roads

Width of road allowance, property requirements

Impacts on all aspects of Environment

Structural heritage considerations

North/South Routing Considerations

Maximize utilization

Connection to other roads and bridges

Effect of closures on adjacent routes

Master Plan - Timeline

Master Plan Initiation – August 2011

Agency/Stakeholder Consultation

Individual Studies – Summer/Fall 2011

Environment/Cultural Heritage/Traffic Analysis/Engineering

First Public Meeting – October 2011

Preliminary Recommendations – January 2012

Second Public Meeting – March 2012

Finalize Master Plan Process – Spring 2012

Next Steps

Collect and Review Public Input from Meeting

Complete Preliminary Engineering and Cost Estimates

Identify Potential Impacts Associated with Each Route Considered

Review Advantages and Disadvantages of each

Select Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Next Public Meeting, March 2012

Questions?

Please Submit Comments!

Things to Consider:

What Specific Concerns do you have?

Is there an issue we have not addressed?

Which Transportation Route is the most Important?

If one or more crossings must eventually be retired, which would you prefer, or least prefer to be retired?

BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE

MASTER PLAN

CENTRAL BRUCE COUNTY

COUNTY OF BRUCE

WELCOME

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

October 19th, 2011

MUNICIPAL CLASS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY OF MASTER PLAN PROCESS:

� LONG RANGE PLANS DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING PRINCIPLES

� INCORPORATE AT A MINIMUM, PHASES 1 & 2 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

� RECOMMENDS AN INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF CAN BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS

SCOPE OF THIS STUDY:

� EVALUATE OPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A GROUP OF COUNTY BRIDGES LOCATED ON LOCAL MUNICIPAL ROADS WITHIN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF BRUCE COUNTY

� ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND BRIDGE STRUCTURES (>6 METRE SPAN) LOCATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

� PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORT AND LONG TERM USE OF STRUCTURES AND ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION LINKAGES

� MAY INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CLOSURES OF SOME EXISTING CROSSINGS

MASTER PLAN PROCESSBACKGROUND REVIEW

EVALUATE PROBLEMS AND IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

IDENTIFY IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE

SOLUTIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT,

AND MITIGATING MEASURES

CONSULT WITH THE PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCIES TO

IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH DEFINED

PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:

IDENTIFY RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

PRESENT

ASSESS POTENTIAL NEGATIVE AFFECTS:

DEVELOP MITIGATION AND IMPACT

MANAGEMENT

SUBMIT MASTER PLAN TO COUNTY COUNCIL

FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL

PUBLISH NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF MASTER PLAN

CIRCULATE THE DOCUMENT TO INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS

IDENTIFY CLASS EA STUDIES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE

MASTER PLAN

SELECT PREFERRED LONG-TERM

BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

PREPARE MASTER PLAN TO DOCUMENT

STUDY FINDINGS

CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION

PURPOSE

� TO EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL HERITAGE VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH EIGHT BRIDGES INCLUDED IN MASTER PLAN STUDY

� PROVIDE A HIGH LEVEL EVALUATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OF EACH STRUCTURE

METHODOLOGY

� MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION (MTO) ONTARIO HERITAGE BRIDGE GUIDELINES FOR PROVINCIALLY OWNED BRIDGES, FORMED THE BASIS OF THE EVALUATIONS

� SCORING BASED ON � SCORING BASED ON

� DESIGN/PHYSICAL VALUE (MAX. SCORE 50)

� CONTEXTUAL VALUE (MAX. SCORE 25)

� HISTORIC/ASSOCIATIVE VALUE (MAX. SCORE 25)

TERMINOLOGY

PRATT TRUSS WARREN TRUSS

RIDGID FRAME

PENNSYLVANIA TRUSS

DOUBLE WARREN TRUSS

Bridge PhotoCultural Heritage

CharacteristicsScore*

12th of Brant

• Two truss types; Pratt and the more rare double-

intersection Warren truss

• Technically advanced and rare designs, rare

materials; some modifications

• Balanced and well proportioned

• Prominent structure, contributing factor in character

of the region

75

McCurdy’s

• Pennsylvania truss is a rare design

• Intricately designed, rare materials

• Relatively unmodified for age

• Locally significant

• Character defining structure75

Watsons

• Pratt through truss with lattice railings and concrete

abutments and deck

• Well designed and relatively rare in region; rare

materials

• Regionally significant and contributes to local

character

• Constructed by Hamilton Bridge Works Co. Ltd.,

prolific builder-designer

70

Big Irwin

• Single span Pratt through truss structure has been

modified significantly over the years

• Regionally significant and contributes to local

character

• Well designed and relatively rare in region, rare 65Big Irwin • Well designed and relatively rare in region, rare

materials

• Constructed by Sarnia Bridge Company Ltd., prolific

builder-designer

65

Concession 2

• Warren pony truss with concrete abutments,

modern deck constructed with timber

• Relatively rare survivor in region, rare materials

• Contributes to local character 50

Dudgeon

• Two structure types; concrete and converted steel

truss railway bridge

• Concrete and steel designs rare within region

• Lattice work on steel truss altered but rare

• Known builder-designer50

Little Irwin

• Concrete rigid frame structure

• Typical bridge design of era and region

• Familiar association with neighbouring bridge, Big

Irwin 20

Gregg

• Concrete rigid frame structure with modern steel

guard rails and posts

• Typical bridge design of era and region, known

builder

• Appropriate massing within landscape20

*Out of 100

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

PURPOSE

� TO INVENTORY NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES THAT

MIGHT INFLUENCE SELECTION OF CROSSING LOCATIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS ROUTING ALTERNATIVES

� TO IDENTIFY THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT

SPECIES OR COMMUNITIES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY

CONSTRUCTION AT A GIVEN CROSSING LOCATION

METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY

� ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN BY NATURAL RESOURCE

SOLUTIONS INC. (NRSI) BASED IN WATERLOO

� BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NATURAL FEATURES

WAS GATHERED FROM THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF

NATURAL RESOURCES (OMNR), THE SAUGEEN VALLEY

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (SVCA) AND THE NATURAL

HERITAGE INFORMATION CENTRE (NHIC) DATABASE

� SITE VISITS WERE CONDUCTED AT EACH OF THE BRIDGE

SITES DURING THE SUMMER OF 2011. BOTH AQUATIC

AND TERRESTRIAL HABITATS WERE EXAMINED

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

CHARACTERIZATION REPORTPOSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT SPECIES

� IT WAS DETERMINED THAT TEN SPECIES AT RISK (SAR) COULD POTENTIALLY BE PRESENT WITHIN PROJECT STUDY AREA

� NONE WERE FOUND DURING SITE VISITS IN 2011

HUNGERFORD’S CRAWLING WATER BEETLE

Photo Credit: US Fish & Wildlife Service

EASTERN RIBBON SNAKE

� SPECIES AT RISK ACT, 2002

� FEDERAL LEGISLATION

� ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 2007

� PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

BUTTERNUT TREE

RAINBOW MUSSELPhoto Credit: SCRCA

Photo © Brian Kenney

PUGNOSE SHINER

Photo Credit: John Lyons, Wisconsin DNR Photo © Karren Weisel

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

HUNTS

SOPERS

MONKMAN

CHRISTIE

BIG IRWIN

SIDEROAD 5

SIDEROAD 10

GREGG BRIDGE

LITTLE IRWIN

NAGGS BRIDGE

12TH OF BRANT

DUDGEON BRIDGE

McCURDY BRIDGE

WATSON'S BRIDGE

BROCKTON BRIDGE

STEPHENSON BRIDGE

DEER CREEK BRIDGE

CONCESSION 15 LOT 1

PEARL CREEK CULVERT

CONCESSION 14 LOT 1

CONCESSION 16 LOT 1

BEATON WELLS BRIDGE

CONCESSION 12 LOT 13



CONCESSION 17 LOT 5/6

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

BRUCE ROAD 15

CONCESSION 12

CONCESSION 14

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

9

BRANT ELDERSLIE

SID

ER

OA

D 5

GR

EE

NO

CK

CONCESSION 18

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 2

0

CONCESSION 16

GR

EE

NO

CK

BR

AN

T

CONCESSION 10 BRANT

CONCESSIO

N 10

CONCESSION 2 ELDERSLIE

CONCESSION 14 EAST

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0

BA

SE

LIN

E S

OU

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 5

ELD

ER

SLIE S

IDE

RO

AD

15 S

OU

TH

ELD

ER

SLIE

BA

NT

ING

LIN

E

CONCESSION 22

BA

SE

LIN

E N

OR

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 5

BR

AN

T

SID

ER

OA

D 5

CONCESSION 2A ELDERSLIE

CONCESSION 14 WEST

BR

UC

E G

RE

EN

OC

K S

OU

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0 N

OR

TH

PAISLEY

PINKERTON

��11

��11

�LEGEND

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

OTHER BRIDGES > 6 METRES�

� PRMARY BRIDGES

��19

��1

��15

��3

��19

PP

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

P

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

SID

ER

OA

D 3

0

BRUCE ROAD 15

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

BRUCE ROAD 11

CONCESSION 12

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

9

BRUCE ROAD 20

CONCESSION 8

SID

ER

OA

D 2

0

CONCESSION 14

SID

ER

OA

D 5

GR

EE

NO

CK

CONCESSIO

N 10

CONCESSIO

N 6

SID

ER

OA

D 2

5

CONCESSION 10 BRANT

BRANT ELDERSLIE

CONCESSION 18

CONCESSION 2 ELDERSLIE

CONCESSION 14 EAST

CONCESSION 16

GR

EE

NO

CK

BR

AN

T

CONCESSION 6 EAST

SID

ER

OA

D 2

5 N

OR

TH

CONCESSIO

N 2

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0

SID

ER

OA

D 2

5 E

LD

ER

SLIE

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0 S

OU

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 5

ELD

ER

SLIE

BA

SE

LIN

E S

OU

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5 S

OU

TH

ELD

ER

SLIE

CONCESSION 4 EAST BRANT

CONCESSION 6 WEST

SID

ER

OA

D 2

0 N

OR

TH

GR

EE

NO

CK

CONCESSIO

N 11

CONCESSION 8 EAST

CARGILL ROAD

BA

NT

ING

LIN

E

CONCESSION 22

BA

SE

LIN

E N

OR

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 2

0 N

OR

TH

BR

AN

T

SID

ER

OA

D 2

0 S

OU

TH

ELD

ER

SLIE

SID

ER

OA

D 3

0 N

OR

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 5

CONCESSION 2A ELDERSLIE

CONCESSION 14 WEST

CONCESSIO

N 9

BR

UC

E G

RE

EN

OC

K S

OU

TH

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0 S

OU

TH

ELD

ER

SLIE

CONCESSIO

N 12

SID

ER

OA

D 2

0

GR

EE

NO

CK

BR

AN

T

PAISLEY

PINKERTON

¬«11 ±

¬«19

¬«1

¬«15¬«3

¬«19

GREENOCK SWAMP

GREENOCK SWAMP

¬«20

¬«20

LEGEND

WETLANDS

WOODED AREAS

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

LIFE SCIENCE ANSI

PP OTHER BRIDGES > 6 METRES

PRIMARY BRIDGES

File: 11101 COUNTY OF BRUCE



PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING October 19, 2011

COMMENTS

Name: ________________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

PLEASE HAND IN, MAIL, OR FAX TO:

B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Consulting Engineers

62 North Street

Goderich, Ontario

N7A 2T4

Phone: (519) 524-2641 Fax: (519) 524-4403

Email: [email protected]

Attention: Kelly Vader, Environmental Planner

Comments and Information collected by B.M. Ross & Associates Limited on behalf of the County of Bruce will assist

in decision making pertaining to the Environmental Assessment study. Comments and opinions will be kept on file

but will not be included in study documentation made available for public review. Under the Freedom of

Information and Protection Act (1987) personal information provided to the County of Bruce will remain

confidential unless prior consent is obtained.



COUNTY OF BRUCE

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

The County of Bruce initiated a Bridge Infrastructure Master Plan process in the fall of 2011 in order to address deficiencies associated with a group of primarily county-owned bridges located on local municipal roadways in central Bruce County near the Village of Paisley. The bridges, which span the Saugeen and Teeswater Rivers, will require significant rehabilitation or replacement in the next 2–5 years and, as a group, represent a significant capital commitment to both the county and local municipalities. The location of the bridges which are being included as part of the Infrastructure Master Plan are illustrated on the key plan and are listed below:

NAME LOCATION 12th of Brant Bridge Concession Road 12, 1.9 km west of C.R. 19 McCurdy Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 2 km east of C.R. 3 Big Irwin Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 0.8 km west of C.R. 3 Little Irwin Bridge Brant-Elderslie Boundary, 0.4 km west of C.R. 3 Dudgeon Bridge Greenock-Brant Townline Rd, 3 km north of C.R.15 Gregg Bridge Greenock-Brant Townline Rd, 3.8 km north of C.R. 15 Watson’s Bridge Greenock-Elderslie Rd., 6.3 km north of C.R. 15 Concession 20 (Brockton-owned bridge) Concession Road 20, 0.6 km east of C.R. 1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS: The Infrastructure Master Plan is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act. Master Plan projects incorporate Phases 1 & 2 of the Class EA process and also include consultation with the general public, government review agencies and affected property owners. As part of the public consultation program developed for this project, a draft Master Plan Report has been prepared to allow project stakeholders and members of the general public an opportunity to review the preliminary findings in advance of the second public meeting. The report will be available on-line at www.brucecounty.on.ca and at the following locations as of October 17th, 2012.

Arran-Elderslie Municipal Office, 1925 Bruce Rd 10, Chesley, ONT.

Brockton Municipal Office, 100 Scott Street, Walkerton, ONT.

Bruce County Highways Dept., 30 Park St., Walkerton, ONT.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Public consultation is a key component of this study. A Public Information

Centre has been scheduled to advise residents of the current status of the project and to receive additional input from interested parties.

Details of the Public Information Centre are as follows:

Date: Wednesday November 21st, 2012

Time: 6:30 - 8:00 p.m.

Location: Paisley Community Centre, 391 Queen Street North, Paisley Following the meeting, input into the Master Plan will be accepted until December 7th, 2012. Any comments collected in conjunction with this Class EA Master Plan process will be maintained on file for use during the project and may be included in project documentation. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.

For further information on this project, or to review the Master Plan process, please contact the project engineers: B.M. Ross and Associates: 62 North Street, Goderich, Ontario, N7A 2T4. Telephone (Toll Free): (888) 524-2641. Fax: (519) 524-4403. Kelly Vader, Environmental Planner (e-mail: [email protected]).

This Notice Issued October 17th, 2012 Brian Knox, P. Eng. County Engineer

http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/



WELCOME

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE November 21st, 2012

COUNTY OF BRUCE


SUMMARY OF MASTER PLAN PROCESS:

LONG RANGE PLANS DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING PRINCIPLES

INCORPORATE AT A MINIMUM, PHASES 1 & 2 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

RECOMMENDS AN INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS

SCOPE OF THIS STUDY:

EVALUATE OPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A GROUP OF COUNTY-OWNED BRIDGES LOCATED ON LOCAL MUNICIPAL ROADS WITHIN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF BRUCE COUNTY

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND BRIDGE STRUCTURES (>6 METRE SPAN) LOCATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORT AND LONG TERM USE OF STRUCTURES AND ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION LINKAGES

INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE CLOSURE OF SOME EXISTING CROSSINGS

MASTER PLAN PROCESS BACKGROUND REVIEW

EVALUATE PROBLEMS AND IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

IDENTIFY IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT,

AND MITIGATING MEASURES

CONSULT WITH THE PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH DEFINED

PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: IDENTIFY RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

ASSESS POTENTIAL NEGATIVE AFFECTS: DEVELOP MITIGATION AND IMPACT

MANAGEMENT

SUBMIT MASTER PLAN TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL

PRESENT

PUBLISH NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF MASTER PLAN CIRCULATE THE DOCUMENT TO INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFY

CLASS EA STUDIES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE MASTER PLAN

SELECT PREFERRED LONG-TERM BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

PREPARE MASTER PLAN TO DOCUMENT STUDY FINDINGS

PROJECT TIMELINES

October 2011 – Initial Public Notice Published

November 2011 – First Public Meeting

Summer/Fall 2011 – Specialized Studies Completed

Summer 2012 – Preliminary Preferred Alternative Selected by County Highways Committee

October 2012 – Draft Master Plan Report published for Public Review

October 2012 –Project Information Circulated to Review Agencies for comment

November 2012 – Second Public Meeting

March 2013 – Finalize Class EA Master Plan Process

Kelly Vader ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER [email protected] PHONE: 519-524-2641 Ext 229 TOLL FREE: 1-888-524-2641 FAX: 519-524-4403

Brian Knox, P. Eng COUNTY ENGINEER [email protected] PHONE: 519-881-2400 Ext 263

PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION

62 NORTH STREET GODERICH, ON

N7A 2T4

30 PARK STREET WALKERTON, ON

N0G 2V0

BRIDGE OPTIONS (Options A-D)

BRIDGE OPTIONS (Options E-G)

PRELIMINARY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (REVISED OPTION H) Preliminary Preferred Solution:

Municipal Costs for Revised Option H Year Project Bruce County Arran-

Elderslie Brockton Total

2013 Watson’s Rehab $419,000.00 - - $419,000.00

2013 Repair 12th of Brant & Dudgeon Bridge

$64,000.00 - - $64,000.00

2014 Rebuild Big Irwin $1,617,200.00 $142,900.00 $142,900.00

$1,903,000.00

2015 Rebuild McCurdy

$2,547,000.00 $438,850.00 $438,850.00

$3,424,700.00

? Rehab 20th Conc. - - $416,000.00

$416,000.00

Total $4,647,200.00 $581,750.00 $997,750.00

$6,226,700.00

Class EA Activities & Timeline Proposed Timeline Project Component Class EA

Schedule

2013 - Repairs to 12th of Brant & Dudgeon Bridges - Rehabilitate Watson’s Bridge

A A+

2014 - Construction of new bridge at Big Irwin crossing - Finalize Schedule ‘C’ EA for McCurdy

Replacement B

2015 - Construct new Bridge at McCurdy C

2026-2028

- Close 12th of Brant to vehicular traffic/construct cul-de-sacs

- Close Dudgeon to vehicular traffic/construct cul-de-sacs

A+

? - Rehabilitate 20th Concession Bridge - Remove 12th of Brant trusses - Remove Dudgeon bridge components

A+ B B

SUMMARY OF ROUTING OPTIONS Option Replace Rehab Close $ Costs

Option A Dudgeon/McCurdy Big Irwin/ Watsons/ 20th Concession

12th of Brant 3 $7,177,100.00

Option B Dudgeon/ 12th of Brant

Watsons/20th Concession

McCurdy/Big Irwin 4 $6,731,000.00

Option C Big Irwin/McCurdy/ Dudgeon


12th of Brant 1 $8,550,100.00

Option D Big Irwin/McCurdy Watsons/20th Concession

Dudgeon/12th of Brant

5 $6,362,700.00

Option E Big Irwin/McCurdy

20th Concession Watsons/12th of Brant/ Dudgeon

7 $6,043,700.00

Option F Dudgeon/McCurdy/ Big Irwin

20th Concession Watsons/12th of Brant

2 $8,231,100.00

Option G 12th of Brant/Big Irwin

20th Concession

McCurdy/Watsons/ Dudgeon

8 $6,027,600.00

Option H Revised

McCurdy/Big Irwin 20th Concession/Watsons

Dudgeon/12th of Brant

6 $6,226,700.00

County of Bruce Bridge Infrastructure

Master Plan

Public Information Meeting

November 21st, 2012

Agenda Introduction

Background

Master Plan Process

Specialized Studies

Master Plan Alternatives

Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Next Steps

Project Study Area

Problem Summary Eight Primary Structures Part of Master Plan

Majority are Old & Poor Condition Load Limit Restricted Deficient Widths Chronic Truss Repairs – Every Two Years

Transportation Corridors Bridges Linked by Transportation Corridors Some Deficiencies with Horizontal and Vertical alignments Very low traffic Volumes when compared with County Roads

Very Costly to Replace all Structures

Traffic Counts: 2006 -2012

Terminology Vertical Alignment

Horizontal Alignment

Existing Bridge Descriptions

Dudgeon Bridge Three Span Circa 1930

Half-Through Truss

Rail Bridge Truss

Deficiencies Concrete Spalling

Single Lane with poor alignment of approaches

North Abutment Failing

Big Irwin Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1900

Deficiencies



Abutment Actively Failing

McCurdy Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1913

Deficiencies

Steel Corrosion


Poor Alignment of Approaches

12th of Brant Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1920

Deficiencies

Single Lane

Deterioration of deck

Guiderail deterioration

Steel Corrosion

Watson’s Bridge Steel Truss Bridge

Circa 1920

Deficiencies Single Lane Bridge

Abutment Deterioration

Poor Vertical Alignment

Corrosion

Concession 20 Warren Pony Truss

Circa 1920

Deficiencies



Little Irwin Concrete Rigid Frame

Bridge

Circa 1953

Gregg Bridge Concrete Rigid Frame

Bridge

Circa 1965

Master Plan Process Long Range Plans which Integrate Infrastructure

Requirements with Environmental Assessment Planning Principles

Examines a Group of Related Projects in order to Outline a Framework for Planning Subsequent Projects

Involves Consultation with the Public, Regulatory Agencies and Adjacent Property Owners

Addresses at minimum the First Two Phases of the Municipal Class EA

Bruce County Master Plan Study Scope Examine Group of Related Bridge Structures Located in

Central Bruce County

Most are County Bridges on Local Roads

Six more than 80 Years old and will need Significant Modification or Replacement within 10 years

Engage General Public, Provincial and Federal Review Agencies, and Project Stakeholders in Master Plan Process

Provide Recommendations for Future Bridge Construction, Replacement or Retirement

Study Organization

County of Bruce – Project Proponent

BMROSS – Project Engineers and Planners

Project Partners – Brockton, Arran-Elderslie

Steering Committee Members

Arran-Elderslie

Brockton

County of Bruce Highways Department

County of Bruce Highways Committee

Master Plan - Timeline Master Plan Initiation – August 2011

Agency/Stakeholder Consultation

Individual Studies – Summer/Fall 2011

Environment/Cultural Heritage/Traffic Analysis/Engineering

First Public Meeting – October 2011

Preliminary Preferred Option Identified – September 2012

Second Public Meeting – November 2012

Finalize Master Plan Process – Spring 2013

County of Bruce: Bridge Infrastructure Master Plan

Review of Public Input

CONCERN REASONING

BR

IDG

E SP

ECIF

IC

Removal of Concession 20 Bridge is a concern

Used as a safe alternative winter route when C.R. #1 is inaccessible

McCurdy Bridge removal is a concern

Major travel route for Mennonite Community Replace McCurdy bridge one sideroad north

of the existing crossing Big Irwin bridge should be replaced

Only access for some residents Future access to business operation

Watson’s Bridge removal is a concern

Used as alternate route into Paisley; however bridge should be widened

GEN

ERA

L Winter driving conditions should be considered

Many bridges provide a safe alternate route during winter

Fire/Emergency response is a major concern

Ensure that bridge replacements/retirements do not negatively impact response times


Review of Public/Agency Input

Concern Rationale

AG

ENC

Y R

ESP

ON

SES

EMS response times

Respond from multiple locations so may not be affected by individual closures

Fire Departments

Individual closures may affect response times. McCurdy would have biggest impact Big Irwin & 12th of Brant cannot be crossed with some equipment

School Bus Transportation

Only Big Irwin & McCurdy not on current routes No consideration given to load limits with current routing software

Bruce County Federation of Agriculture

Bridges should be replaced with two lane full capacity structures Transportation study should consider agricultural uses Traffic safety a big concern to farming community

SVCA Bridge sites are regulated and will require SVCA approval Projects should consider impacts on hydrology Impacts to fish habitat may require approval from DFO under the

Federal Fisheries Act


Specialized Studies - Results

Natural Environment Characterization

Additional on-site studies will be required where in-water work is proposed or terrestrial features will be impacted

Cultural Heritage Assessment

Heritage Impact Assessments will be completed prior to project implementation at specific structures

Archaeological Assessment

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment will be completed at bridge sites where previously undisturbed soil will be altered in conjunction with Master Plan Implementation

Engineering Analysis


Engineering Analysis Analysis of Road and Crossing Requirements

Determined Required Span for new Bridge

Identified Alignment Modifications needed for Design Speed of 80 kph or 60 kph

Identified Preliminary Design Criteria

Prepared Preliminary Bridge Design Alternatives

Cost Analysis

Estimated Bridge Construction Costs

Road Modification Requirements (Partners)

Permit/Approval Requirements


Master Plan Options


Bridge Options Structural Options

Related Works

Replacement

• Replace existing structure with new concrete two lane bridge • Reconstruct road approaches as required to address existing approach road deficiencies • Install erosion protection around piers and abutments

Rehabilitation • Replace deteriorated components of structure with sympathetic components in accordance with established standards of the latest edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.

Eventual Closure/ Retirement

• Establish timeline for eventual closure of the crossing. • Close crossing to traffic through installation of barricades and construction of cul-de-sacs. • Consider alternative uses for crossing; pedestrian or recreational. • Remove bridge structure and salvage if possible.


Option # A

Rehabilitate Replace Winter Non-Maintenance Eventual Closure Cul de sac Corridor

Option # B


Option # C


Option # D


Option # E

Rehabilitation Replace Winter Non-Maintenance Eventual Closure Cul de sac Corridor

Option # F


Option # G


Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternative


Preliminary Preferred Alternative Option A & C Initially Selected

Scored Highest Based on Results of Traffic Analysis

Option H identified following County Highways Committee Meeting Concerns Identified with Anticipated Costs and Traffic Volumes

Recorded within Study Area

Revised Option H Ultimately Supported by Study Partners: (County Highways Committee, Brockton & Arran-Elderslie Municipal Councils) Redefine Retirement (Repair/Eventual Closure) Identified Approximate Timeline for Retirement of Dudgeon and

12th of Brant crossings based on Historic Repair Record

Revised Option # H Rehabilitate Replace

Repair /Eventual Closure Winter Non-Maintenance Cul de sac Corridor

Transportation Analysis

Big

big

Summary of Routing Options Options Replace Rehab Close $ Costs

Option A Dudgeon/McCurdy Big Irwin/ Watsons 20th Concession

12th of Brant 3 $7,177,100.00

Option B Dudgeon/ 12th of Brant

Watsons 20th Concession

McCurdy/Big Irwin 4 $6,731,000.00

Option C Big Irwin/McCurdy Dudgeon


12th of Brant 1 $8,550,100.00

Option D Big Irwin/McCurdy Watsons/20th Concession

Dudgeon 12th of Brant

5 $6,362,700.00

Option E Big Irwin/McCurdy

20th Concession Watsons/12th of Brant Dudgeon

7 $6,043,700.00

Option F Dudgeon/McCurdy Big Irwin

20th Concession Watsons/12th of Brant 2 $8,231,100.00

Option G 12th of Brant/Big Irwin

20th Concession

McCurdy/Watsons Dudgeon

8 $6,027,600.00

Option H Revised

McCurdy/Big Irwin 20th Concession/ Watsons

Dudgeon/12th of Brant 6 $6,226,700.00


Preliminary Preferred Solution: Municipal Costs for Revised Option H

Year Project Bruce County Arran-Elderslie Brockton Total

2013 Watson’s Rehab $419,000.00 - - $419,000.00

2013 Repair 12th of Brant & Dudgeon Bridge

$64,000.00 - - $64,000.00

2014 Rebuild Big Irwin $1,617,200.00 $142,900.00 $142,900.00 $1,903,000.00

2015 Rebuild McCurdy $2,547,000.00 $438,850.00 $438,850.00 $3,424,700.00

? Rehab 20th Conc. - - $416,000.00 $416,000.00

Total $4,647,200.00 $581,750.00 $997,750.00 $6,226,700.00


Structure Current Ownership Proposed Modification

Proposed Ownership

Watson’s County Rehabilitation County

Big Irwin County Replace County

Little Irwin County Status Quo County

Dudgeon County Repair/Retire Brockton

Gregg Bridge County Status Quo Brockton

McCurdy County Replace County

12th of Brant County Repair/Retire Brockton

20th Concession Brockton Rehabilitation Brockton

Future Bridge Ownership


Class EA Activities & Timeline Proposed Timeline

Project Component Class EA Schedule

Master Plan

2013 - Repairs to 12th of Brant & Dudgeon Bridges - Rehabilitate Watson’s Bridge

A A+

2014 - Construction of new bridge at Big Irwin crossing - Finalize Schedule C EA for McCurdy Replacement

B

2015 - Construct new Bridge at McCurdy C

2026-2028

- Close 12th of Brant to vehicular traffic/construct cul-de-sacs

- Close Dudgeon to vehicular traffic/construct cul-de-sacs

A+

? - Rehabilitate 20th Concession Bridge - Remove 12th of Brant trusses - Remove Dudgeon bridge components

A+ B B


Next Steps

Collect and Review Public/Agency Input from Meeting

Review Feedback with Steering Committee

Confirm Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Present to County Highways Committee and Municipal Councils for Concurrence

Finalize Master Plan Report

Publish Notice of Master Plan Completion

Also Notice of Study Completion for Schedule B Activities


Questions?


Please Submit Your Comments!

Things to Consider:

What Specific Concerns do you have?

Is there an issue we have not addressed?

What do you think of the Preliminary Preferred Alternative?


1

COUNTY OF BRUCE



PUBLIC MEETING NOTES

Details: November 21, 2012 Paisley Community Centre Open House: 6:15 – 6:50 p.m. Presentation: 6:50 – 8:00 p.m. Questions: 8:00– 8:30 p.m. Open House: 8:30 – 8:45 p.m.

In Attendance: Brian Knox ) Bruce County Engineer Bill Goetz ) County Highways Committee Chairman

Paul Eagleson ) Mayor of Arran-Elderslie Mark Davis ) Deputy Mayor Doug Bell ) Councilor Brian Dudgeon ) Councilor Vernon Weppler ) Works Manager

David Inglis ) Mayor of Brockton

Roland Anstett ) Deputy Mayor John Strader ) Roads Superintendent Anne-Louise Gibbons ) Councilor Andrew Ross ) B.M. Ross and Associates (BMROSS) Kelly Vader Stacey Peel Members of the public: 40

File No. 11101 B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Engineers and Planners

62 North Street, Goderich, ON N7A 2T4

p. (519) 524-2641 f. (519) 524-4403 www.bmross.net

2 County of Bruce – November 21, 2012 Public Meeting Notes 6:15 p.m. – 6:50 p.m. – Open House

Public Arrival o Members of the public signed in upon arrival. o Poster boards were on display for the public to view. o BMROSS and County Staff were available to talk to the public as they arrived.

6:50 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. – Presentation

Power Point Presentation o Brian Knox welcomed those in attendance and introduced Municipal and County

representatives in attendance, including the Mayors of Arran-Elderslie and Brockton.

o Brian then began the presentation by outlining the agenda for the evening. He briefly described each of the primary bridges included in the Master Plan study area, in relation to municipal boundaries and county roads, and then outlined the problem summary. Brian discussed the Bruce County road network and the number of bridges currently owned and maintained by the County. He reviewed current traffic counts on local roads and county roads in the vicinity of each of the bridges and explained how this information related to the study.

o Andrew Ross provided clarification on bridge terminology used in the presentation and then gave a brief description of each bridge site. He outlined the age and history of each structure and reviewed some of the deficiencies associated with each, including deterioration recently identified at the Watson’s, McCurdy and 12th of Brant crossings.

o Kelly Vader then discussed the Class Environmental Assessment process and how the Master Plan process would be utilized to complete the study. She then outlined the study scope of the Master Plan and how the study is organized for the various project partners. Kelly then reviewed the Master Plan timeline. A brief discussion of public and agency input received to date was provided before Kelly outlined the results of each of the specialized studies (natural environment, cultural heritage, and archaeological assessment) completed in conjunction with the Master Plan.

o Andrew outlined the engineering analysis completed for the project and identified preliminary design and cost analysis criteria. He then reviewed each of the Master Plan options (A-G) which were considered by the Steering Committee. Andrew explained the rationale used by the committee during selection of the preliminary preferred alternative and then reviewed revised option H, the preliminary preferred alternative which was ultimately selected.

o Brian and Andrew discussed the results of the transportation analysis and its role in selecting revised option H as the preliminary preferred alternative. They then provided a summary of the municipal costs associated with revised option H and the future ownership plans for each of the study bridges following implementation of the Master Plan.

o Kelly outlined the proposed timeline for implementation of individual projects associated with the Master Plan as well as the corresponding Class EA schedule for each. She concluded the presentation by explaining the next steps which will be undertaken in order to finalize the Master Plan process.

3 County of Bruce – November 21, 2012 Public Meeting Notes 8:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. – Questions

o After concluding the presentation, questions were invited from the public. List of Questions

Q. Why was a 5 tonne limit recently posted on the McCurdy and Watson’s bridges? A. Brian explained that the 5 tonne restriction was recently posted to advise the public of

changes in the condition of the bridges which resulted from new information obtained during recent bridge inspections. He explained that a decision was made to post the new load limit prior to receiving a formal motion from council on December 13th to address immediate safety concerns. Brian noted that it is anticipated that repairs will be completed as soon as possible in order to return the bridges to their previous postings.

Q. In Revised Option H, the eventual closure of Dudgeon and 12th of Brant is being

considered. What does this mean and when will this happen? A. Brian explained that the intention is to undertake minor repairs to the bridges, as required,

until they are no longer feasible and structures have to be closed. Based on the historic repair record, it is anticipated that the bridges will remain in operation for approximately 15 years (2026-2028); however, circumstances may arise that cannot be addressed through minor repairs which may cause the bridges to be closed sooner. At the point of closure Brian explained that cul-de-sacs will be constructed in order to allow for vehicles to turn around.

Q. What is the timing for construction of the cul-de-sacs? A. Brian indicated that timing is an important issue to consider and had not yet been

addressed as part of the project. He added that a discussion about the timing of cul-de-sac construction would occur in conjunction with the local municipalities who are responsible for road maintenance.

Q. Will there still be in-water canoe access in 2015 when McCurdy Bridge is being

replaced? A. Andrew acknowledged that appropriate navigational standards will be followed when

doing in water works and access along the waterway will be maintained during construction. He noted that warning signs will be installed up and downstream of the crossing to alert canoeists of construction ahead. A comment from the public was made suggesting that a proper launch ramp and parking area be considered at McCurdy Bridge in conjunction with the proposed bridge construction.

Q. When the cul-de-sacs are constructed for the sites with proposed bridge closures, will

land need to be acquired in order to build these? A. Andrew explained that the 20 metre (66’) wide municipal road allowance should be

sufficient to construct the cul-de-sacs. He added that the Conservation Authority would be consulted in order to identify a suitable location for construction of the cul-de-sacs for access to the river.

Q. When will repairs be made to McCurdy Bridge so that the new load posting will be

removed? A. Brian indicated that plans will be prepared as soon as possible so that construction can

hopefully be completed before winter.

4 County of Bruce – November 21, 2012 Public Meeting Notes

Q. Is it possible to fix the large pot holes that occur on the bridge approaches? A. Brian explained that the bridges are currently located on roads that are gravel surfaced. If

the approaches were paved, then the use of salt would increase resulting in a significantly reduced life expectancy for the bridge. Following additional discussion, Brian indicated that it may be possible to pave a small area located immediately adjacent to the bridge.

Q. What is the difference between rehabilitation and repair? A. Andrew explained that rehabilitation involves the replacement of many of the steel

structural components of the bridge with sympathetic replacements, whereas repairs only address significantly deteriorated components of the structure.

Q. What is the life expectancy of a rehabilitated bridge? A. Andrew indicated that a rehabilitated bridge has a life expectancy of approximately 30

years.

8:30 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. – Open House Individual Concerns

o Members of the public were given the opportunity to have one-on-one time with BMROSS staff and County staff members, following the question period, to ask any additional question.

Should there be any errors or omissions to these meeting notes, please notify the undersigned. Meeting Notes Prepared by B. M. ROSS AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED Stacey Peel, Environmental Planner KV:hv Distribution Brian Knox, County of Bruce Andy Ross, BMROSS Kelly Vader, BMROSS



COUNTY OF BRUCE

NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION

The County of Bruce initiated a Bridge Infrastructure Master Plan process in the fall of 2011 in order to address deficiencies associated with a group of primarily county-owned bridges located on local municipal roadways in central Bruce County near the Village of Paisley. The bridges, which span the Saugeen and Teeswater Rivers, will require significant rehabilitation or replacement in the next 5 years and, as a group, represent a significant capital commitment to both the county and local municipalities. The Master Plan process has now been completed and a preferred alternative has been selected by the study partners. Individual components of this alternative, and a tentative timeframe for implementation, are described below and are illustrated on the attached key plan:

BRIDGE NAME OUTCOME TENTATIVE TIMEFRAME

Watson’s Bridge Rehabilitation 2013 Big Irwin Bridge Replacement 2014 McCurdy Bridge Replacement 2015 Dudgeon Bridge Repair first, then Retire 2026-2028 12th of Brant Bridge Repair first, then Retire 2026-2028 Concession 20 Rehabilitation Gregg Bridge No Change Little Irwin Bridge No Change

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

The Infrastructure Master Plan was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA), June 2000 (as amended in 2007 & 2011) which is an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act and has been conducted to a level of detail that satisfies the Class EA requirements for Schedule B projects following issuance of this Notice of Completion. Further Class EA studies will be required in order to meet the requirements of Schedule C projects outlined in the Master Plan. The Master Plan has been completed and by way of this Notice is being placed in the public record for final review. Subject to comments received as a result of this Notice, and the receipt of necessary budgetary and other approvals, the County of Bruce may proceed with implementation of the Schedule A, A+ and B projects, as outlined in the Master Plan.

Schedule A & A+ Projects Include:

Rehabilitation of the Watson’s Bridge Rehabilitation of the 20th Concession Bridge Repair then retirement of the 12th of Brant Bridge Repair then retirement of the Dudgeon Bridge

Schedule B Projects Include:

Replacement of the Big Irwin Bridge Removal of the 12th of Brant and Dudgeon Bridges Schedule C Projects Include:

Replacement of the McCurdy Bridge The Master Plan will be available for review on-line at www.brucecounty.on.ca and at the following locations during normal business hours: Arran-Elderslie Municipal Office, 1925 Bruce Rd 10, Chesley, ON., Brockton Municipal Office,100 Scott Street, Walkerton, ON., Bruce County Highways Dept., 30 Park St., Walkerton, ON.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

Please provide written comments to the project engineers: B.M. Ross and Associates: 62 North Street, Goderich, Ontario, N7A 2T4. Telephone (Toll Free): (888) 524-2641. Fax: (519) 524-4403. Kelly Vader, Environmental Planner (e-mail: [email protected]), within 30 days from the date of this Notice. If concerns regarding any individual Schedule B and C project(s) identified in this Master Plan cannot be resolved in discussions with the County of Bruce, a person may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (a Part II Order), which requires a proponent to complete an individual Environmental Assessment. A Part II order request may be made for any individual project(s) within the Master Plan but not the Master Plan itself. Requests must be received by the Minister at the address below within 30 days of the date of this notice. A copy of the request must also be sent to the County of Bruce and the project engineers. If no such request is received by May 24

th,

2013 the project will proceed to implementation as planned.

The Honourable Jim Bradley

Minister of the Environment

77 Wellesley Street West,

11th Floor, Ferguson Block This Notice Issued April 24th

, 2013

Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 Brian Knox, P. Eng., County Engineer

http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/

mailto:[email protected]

appendix g public consultation

Documents