1. business and industrial
2. construction

45 South Front Street
Belleville, Ontario
K8N 2Y5
Tel: (613) 966-4243
Fax: (613) 966-1168
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
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
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Table of Contents
Page
1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background and Purpose ............................................................................................. 1
1.2
Study Area ................................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Class EA Process ........................................................................................................ 2
2.0
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 4
3.0
Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 5
3.1
Structural...................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Natural Environment..................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1
Topography / Vegetation ....................................................................................... 6
3.2.2
Surface Water and Drainage ................................................................................. 7
3.2.3
Species at Risk ..................................................................................................... 8
3.3
Socio-Economic ........................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1
Socio-Economic Structure ..................................................................................... 8
3.3.2
Community, Traffic, and Emergency Services ....................................................... 9
3.3.3
Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........................................................................... 9
3.3.4
Noise ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.5
Adjacent Lane Use ................................................................................................ 9
3.3.6
Commercial Properties .......................................................................................... 9
3.4
4.0
Cultural, Heritage, and Archaeological Impacts .......................................................... 10
Evaluation of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 10
4.1
Alternative Solutions................................................................................................... 10
4.1.1
“Do Nothing” Alternative ...................................................................................... 10
4.1.2
Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge Alternative .................................................. 10
4.1.3
Replacement of the Bridge Alternative ................................................................ 10
4.2
Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................... 11
4.3
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions - Summary ........................................................... 16
4.4
Traffic Requirements .................................................................................................. 16
5.0
Preferred Alternative Solution ................................................................................... 18
6.0
Consultation ................................................................................................................ 18
6.1
7.0
Public Information Centre ........................................................................................... 19
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 20
7.1
Biophysical Environment ............................................................................................ 20
7.1.1
Erosion and Sediment Control............................................................................. 20
7.1.2
Surface Water Contamination and Debris Accumulation ..................................... 21
7.1.3
Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 21
7.1.4
Wildlife and Bird Migration ................................................................................... 22
7.1.5
Environmentally Sensitive Areas ......................................................................... 22
The Ainley Group
Page ii
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
7.1.6
7.1.7
Fisheries and Associated Habitat ........................................................................ 23
Species At Risk (SAR) ........................................................................................ 24
7.2
Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................................... 25
7.2.1
Cultural and Heritage Resources......................................................................... 25
7.2.2
Noise ................................................................................................................... 25
7.2.3
Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 26
7.2.4
Adjacent Lands and Traffic Disruption ................................................................. 26
7.2.5
Emergency Spill Response ................................................................................. 27
8.0
Approvals Schedule ................................................................................................... 27
9.0
Closure ........................................................................................................................ 28
10.0
References .................................................................................................................. 29
The Ainley Group
Page iii
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
List of Figures
Figure 1
Key Map
Figure 2
MCEA Process Flow Chart
Figure 3
Traffic Detours – Staged Construction
Figure 4
Traffic Detours – Concurrent Construction
List of Tables
Table 1
Information Request - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)
Table 2
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
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 1000. 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 1950.
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 2014. 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
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 2015.
1.2 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 1.
Figure 1 – Key Map
1.3 Class EA Process
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
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
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
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 1950. 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
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 1950.
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, 2014.
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
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, 2014.
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.
3.2.1 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
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).
3.2.2 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
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 Histori
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
689677
4957522
Warmwater
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Low
work from
March 15 to
July 15
Source: MNRF, 2014
The Ainley Group
Page 7
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
3.2.3 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.
3.3.1 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
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
3.3.2 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.
3.3.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas
There are no designated environmentally sensitive areas within the Reed Bridge study
area.
3.3.4 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.
3.3.5 Adjacent Lane Use
Adjacent land use consists primarily of forested areas, lakes, low-lying wetlands, and
residential properties.
3.3.6 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
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 1950. 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.
4.1.1 “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.
4.1.2 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.
4.1.3 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
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 4.3.
4.2 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
Table 2 - Alternative Solutions Evaluation
Alternative Solutions
Evaluation Criteria
Do Nothing
Rehabilitation
Replacement with new bridge
Steel Modular Panel
Super Cor structural steel plate
Pre-cast concrete rigid frame box
Replacement with
1
culvert
Physical / Structural Environment
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.
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.
Safety
X
X
Natural Environment
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.
Fish & Fish
Habitat & Aquatic
SAR
Socio-Economic / Cultural Environment
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.
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.
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.
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.
Property Impacts
Disruption to Local
Businesses /
Residents
Impacts to
Archaeological /
Cultural
Resources
2
Cost / Structural Environment
Construction
Costs (excl HST)
Structure Service
Life
No cost.
Significant costs would be
incurred to rehabilitate the
structure to CHBDC
standards.
~$700,000
~$675,000
~$675,000
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
50-75 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.
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 5.0.
4.4 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
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
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, 2015.
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
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 30-40
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 email. 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
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
7.1.1 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
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
7.1.2 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.
7.1.3 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
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 30.
7.1.4 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 7.1.7.
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.
7.1.5 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 7.1.6.
The Ainley Group
Page 22
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
7.1.6 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
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.
7.1.7 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
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
7.2.1 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 GC3.07.05, 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)-326-8392, 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.
7.2.2 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
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.
7.2.3 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 GC7.07.03. 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.
7.2.4 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
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.
7.2.5 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 (1-800-288-6060).
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, 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2T5
Fax: (416) 314-8452
The Ainley Group
Page 27
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:
9.0

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.
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
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
10.0
References
HP Engineering Inc., 2015. Final Preliminary Design Memorandum – Structural
Component, Reed Bridge Replacement, The County of Peterborough. March
2015.
Ministry of Natural Resources, 2009. 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 2011.
The Ainley Group
Page 29
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix A:
Structural and Geotechnical Reports
The Ainley Group
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:
Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager of Technical Services
RE:
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge
County Structure No. 099065
Our File No. 130-3545
Dear Sir:
MAIN OFFICE
71 Millennium Parkway
Unit 1
Belleville, ON
K8N 4Z5
Tel: 613-969-1111
Fax: 613-969-8988
TOLL FREE:
1-800-966-4338
E-mail:
[email protected]
As requested, I completed a site inspection of the Reed Bridge along with Mrs.
Kendra Reid from the County of Peterborough on June 2nd, 2014. 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:
MISSISSAUGA OFFICE
2155 Leanne Blvd.
Suite 200A
Mississauga, ON
L5K 2K8
Tel: 905-855-1592
Fax: 905-855-5428



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.
KINGSTON OFFICE
1040 Gardiners Rd.
Unit D
Kingston, ON
K7P 1R7
Tel: 613-389-7250
Fax: 613-389-2754
We recommend that the bridge remain on an inspection frequency of once
every six (6) months until it is rehabilitated or replaced.
(Cont…)
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
3
Photo No.1 – View of Bridge Looking West
Photo No.2 – View of North Side of Structure
4
Photo No.3 – Misaligned/Damaged North Railing
Photo No.4 – Settlement of West Timber Crib
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
2.0
PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...............................................................................................1
3.0
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES ...........................................................2
4.0
SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION .........................................................................3
5.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................4
5.1
GENERAL .........................................................................................................4
5.2
SURFACE TREATMENT ................................................................................4
5.3
FILL ...................................................................................................................4
5.4
SILTY SAND / SANDY SILT ..........................................................................5
5.5
SAND.................................................................................................................5
5.6
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING ..............................................5
5.7
PRACTICAL REFUSAL (BEDROCK) ............................................................5
5.8
GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................6
6.0
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................6
6.1
GENERAL .........................................................................................................6
6.2
EXCAVATION, DEWATERING, AND BACKFILL .....................................7
6.3
FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................................7
6.4
ABUTMENTS ...................................................................................................8
6.5
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION (APPROACHES) ....................................9
6.6
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................9
6.6.1 Test Pits During Tendering ....................................................................9
6.6.2 Sensitivity of Subsoil ...........................................................................10
6.6.3 Winter Construction .............................................................................10
6.7
DESIGN REVIEW & INSPECTION ..............................................................10
7.0
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS .............................................................................10
TABLES
TABLE 1:
TABLE 2:
Page
H-PILE LOAD CAPACITIES* .............................................................................. 8
GRANULAR STRUCTURE .................................................................................. 9
ENCLOSURES
PLATE 1
TESTHOLE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE LOGS
LABORATORY
DATA
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, 2014.
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).
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, 2014. 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
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
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Reed Bridge Replacement
Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario
5.0
5.1
Geo-Logic
Project No. G030318A1
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
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.
5.3
The surface treatment was
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
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Reed Bridge Replacement
Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario
5.4
Geo-Logic
Project No. G030318A1
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 BH101.
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
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.
6.0
6.1
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
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
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Reed Bridge Replacement
Galway Road, Trent Lakes, Ontario
6.2
Geo-Logic
Project No. G030318A1
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
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:
Pile Size
310 HP 79
310 HP 110
*
H-Pile Load Capacities*
Factored Capacity at ULS
1150 kN (260 kips)
1600 kN (360 kips)
Capacity at SLS (Type II)
825 kN (185 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
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 (Ka) = 0.33
• Coefficient Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko) = 0.50
• Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure including compaction (Kb) = 0.41
• Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest including compaction (Koc) = 0.57
• Assumed unit weight 21 kN/m3
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 803.030 or 803.031). For design purposes,
the reconstructed roadway may consist of a surface treated road surface with the following
minimum granular structure:
Table 2:
Profile
Granular Base
Granular Subbase
Granular Structure
Material
Granular “A”
Granular “B” Type I
Thickness (mm)
150
300
Conforming to OPSS Form
1010
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
6.6.1
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
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 GeoLogic 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
ENCLOSURES
APPENDIX A
BOREHOLE LOGS
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
2
0.6
4
1.0
5
6
7
2.0
1.8
2.4
8
9
10
3.0 3.0
11
Existing Grade
DATE:
SS
AS
ST
CS
November 13, 2014
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
GROUND SURFACE
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
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
%
%
SS-1
44
23
2
2
2
4
SS-2
67
39
5
2
3
5
SS-3
78
25
4
5
5
10
SS-4
78
21
3
2
3
5
SS-5
100
22
3
4
5
9
SS-6
100
23
3
5
5
10
SS-7
100
26
3
4
5
9
SS-8
100
26
4
7
7
7
14
12
13
Page:
1
of
2
LEGEND
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
1
0.0
0.0
0.2
3
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-101
A-1
N
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
p
Field
Lab
COMMENTS
l
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
RQD
CONE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WL - 1.8 m
11/13/2014
SS-3:
0% Gravel,
28% Sand,
72% Silt and Clay
4.0
14
15
16
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
17
5.0
18
19
20
6.0 6.1
21
Compact
22
23
7.0
24
7.6
25
26
Loose
8.0
27
28
29
30
9.0
31
9.6
32
33
10.0
34
11.0
37
UNDETEMINED
OVERBURDEN - Dynamic
Cone Penetration Testing
8
22
22
22
22
38
39
Compact
22
35
36
9.1
22
12.0
25
SS-5:
0% Gravel,
13% Sand,
87% Silt and Clay
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
0.0
12.2
41
42
43
GROUND SURFACE
UNDETEMINED
OVERBURDEN - Dynamic
Cone Penetration Testing
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
23
25
36
17.0
24
25
24
18.0
36
38
37
19.0
35
38
46
67
20.0
65
60
68
81
21.0
90
70
113
71
22.0
73
74
23.0
77
78
79
RQD
CONE
36
67
76
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
29
64
75
l
31
61
72
N
COMMENTS
32
16.0
60
69
%
p
Field
Lab
35
58
66
%
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
32
57
65
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
26
15.0
55
63
November 13, 2014
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
32
54
62
SS
AS
ST
CS
32
51
59
2
35
14.0
50
56
of
30
48
53
2
29
47
52
Page:
28
13.0
45
49
DATE:
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
44
46
Existing Grade
LEGEND
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-101
A-1
24.0
>>
100
22.2
100
END OF BOREHOLE
130
>>
130 blows for 250
mm (10")
Practical refusal
to further cone
advancement
encountered
(presence of
bedrock inferred but not confirmed)
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
1
2
3
4
1.0
1.5
5
6
7
2.0
8
2.6
9
10
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
3.0
11
Existing Grade
DATE:
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
GROUND SURFACE
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
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
%
%
N
SS-1
56
21
5
2
3
5
SS-2
100
40
2
1
2
3
SS-3
61
26
3
5
6
11
SS-4
44
26
3
3
5
8
SS-5
0
0
0
2
2
SS-6
100
23
1
4
8
12
SS-7
100
23
2
4
7
11
SS-8
100
24
0
4
8
12
4.0
14
4.6
15
16
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
17
5.0
Grey Sandy Silt, trace Clay,
wet, loose
18
19
20
6.0 6.1
21
Very loose
22
23
7.0
24
7.6
25
26
8.0
Compact
27
28
29
30
9.0
31
32
33
10.0
34
35
36
11.0
37
38
39
12.0
SS
AS
ST
CS
December 30, 2014
12
13
Page:
1
of
2
LEGEND
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-102
A-2
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
p
Field
Lab
COMMENTS
l
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
RQD
CONE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WL - 1.5 m
12/30/2014
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
0.0
12.2
41
42
43
Existing Grade
Page:
2
of
2
LEGEND
DATE:
SS
AS
ST
CS
December 30, 2014
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-102
A-2
%
%
100
34
3
4
5
9
SS-10 100
11
6
5
5
10
GROUND SURFACE
Loose
N
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
p
Field
Lab
COMMENTS
l
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
RQD
CONE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
13.0
44
45
46
14.0
47
48
49
15.0
50
SS-9
51
52
53
16.0
54
55
56
17.0
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
57
58
59
18.0
60
18.3
61
18.6
62
63
19.0
19.3
64
65
66
20.0 20.1
67
68
69
21.0
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
CS-11
RQD = 83 %
TCR = 90 %
FI = 1, 1
CS-13
CS-12
70
21.6
71
72
22.0
73
22.3
74
75
76
23.0
77
78
79
24.0
END OF BOREHOLE
Practical refusal
to further auger
advancement
encountered
(presence of
bedrock
confirmed by
diamond coring)
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
0.0
0.0
1
2
3
4
0.8
1.0
1.2
5
6
7
Existing Grade
DATE:
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
GROUND SURFACE
SURFACE TREATMENT
(25 mm)
FILL - Brown Gravelly
Sand, moist
Brown Sand, with Gravel,
moist, compact
SANDY SILT - Brown
Sandy Silt, wet, loose
2.0
%
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
9
%
AS-1
5
AS-2
12
AS-3
19
AS-4
24
3.0
AS-5
19
AS-6
22
AS-7
22
AS-8
22
11
12
13
4.0 4.0
14
Grey
15
16
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
17
5.0
18
19
20
6.0
21
22
23
7.0
24
25
26
8.0
27
28
29
30
9.0
31
32
33
10.0
34
35
36
11.0
37
38
39
12.0
SS
AS
ST
CS
November 27, 2014
8
10
Page:
1
of
1
LEGEND
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-103
A-3
9.1
END OF BOREHOLE
N
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
p
Field
Lab
COMMENTS
l
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
RQD
CONE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WL - 1.2 m
11/27/2014
REFERENCE No.:
ENCLOSURE No.:
G030318A1
www.geo-logic.ca
BOREHOLE No.:
ELEVATION:
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT:
Peterborough County Bridges
LOGGED BY:
P. Hynes
DRILLING COMPANY: Eastern Soil Investigation
0.0
0.0
1
2
3
4
0.8
1.0
5
6
7
1.2
1.7
2.0
8
DATE:
GROUND SURFACE
SURFACE TREATMENT
(25 mm)
FILL - Brown Gravelly
Sand, moist
Brown Sand, with Gravel,
moist, compact
Brown Silt with Sand, with
ORGANICS, moist, loose
SANDY SILT - Brown
Sandy Silt, wet, loose
3.0
%
Moisture
Content
Blows per
6 in. / 15 cm
Penetration
Index
%
AS-1
3
AS-2
7
AS-3
34
AS-4
25
AS-5
26
AS-6
19
AS-7
21
AS-8
22
4.0
14
16
BOREHOLE LOG GEOTECH G030318A1, 14-12-02, BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ GEOLOGIC.GDT 1/16/15
17
4.6
Grey
5.0
18
19
20
6.0
21
22
23
7.0
24
25
26
8.0
27
28
29
30
9.0
31
32
33
10.0
34
35
36
11.0
37
38
39
12.0
1
of
1
- SPLIT SPOON
- AUGER SAMPLE
- SHELBY TUBE
- CORE SAMPLE
- WATER LEVEL
9.1
END OF BOREHOLE
N
Shear test (Cu)
Sensitivity (S)
Water content (%)
Atterberg limits (%)
w w
p
Field
Lab
COMMENTS
l
"N" Value
(blows / 0.3 m)
RQD
CONE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
WL - 1.7 m
11/27/2014
12
15
SS
AS
ST
CS
November 27, 2014
11
13
Page:
METHOD: Truck/Track mount Drill Rig
Recovery
DESCRIPTION OF
SOIL AND BEDROCK
9
10
Existing Grade
LEGEND
Type and
Number
Stratigraphy
m Below
Existing Grade
Depth
m
BOREHOLE REPORT
Reed Bridge
NOTES:
ft
BH-104
A-4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY DATA
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS (GEOTECHNICAL)
(USCS) (LS 702)
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT/ SITE:
Bridges
BH101
Borehole No.:
2.3 to 2.7 mbeg
Depth:
LAB No.:
SS-14-107
PROJECT No.:
G030318A1
Sample No.:
SS3
Enclosure:
B-1
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
0.001
0.01
CLAY & SILT
0.1
1
DIAMETER (mm)
10
100
SAND
FINE
MEDIUM
PERCENT RETAINED
PERCENT PASSING
100
100
GRAVEL
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Description
Gravel
Sand
Clay & Silt
BH101 SS3
0
28
72
PERFORMED BY:
DATE:
December 1, 2014
VERIFIED BY:
DATE:
December 1, 2014
REMARKS:
FO-930.103c/ GA / 11-13
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS (GEOTECHNICAL)
(USCS) (LS 702)
CLIENT:
Peterborough County
PROJECT/ SITE:
Bridges
BH101
Borehole No.:
4.6 to 5.0 mbeg
Depth:
LAB No.:
SS-14-107
PROJECT No.:
G030318A1
Sample No.:
SS5
Enclosure:
B-2
PERCENT PASSING
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
0.001
0.01
CLAY & SILT
0.1
1
DIAMETER (mm)
10
100
SAND
FINE
MEDIUM
PERCENT RETAINED
0
100
100
GRAVEL
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Description
Gravel
Sand
Clay & Silt
BH101 SS5
0
13
87
PERFORMED BY:
DATE:
December 1, 2014
VERIFIED BY:
DATE:
December 1, 2014
REMARKS:
FO-930.103c/ GA / 11-13
January 21, 2014
Peterborough County
470 Water Street
Peterborough, Ontario
K9H 3M3
Attention:
Mr. Peter Nielsen
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, 2014.
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 CaCO3 (hardness).
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 (A23.1-09) for Class S-3 concrete.
The pH level within the water samples ranged from approximately 7.24 to 7.43. 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.
Garnet Brenchley, P.Eng.
Enclosures:
Caduceon Environmental Laboratories Certificate of Analysis (3 pages)
2
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Final Report
REPORT No. B14-30217
C.O.C.: G49030
Report To:
Caduceon Environmental Laboratories
110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14
Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9
Tel: 289-475-5442
Fax: 289-562-1963
Geologic Inc. (Peterborough)
347 Pido Road, Unit 29
Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada
Attention: Jeff Van Egmond
DATE RECEIVED:
20-Nov-14
JOB/PROJECT NO.: Peterborough County/G030318A1
DATE REPORTED: 26-Nov-14
P.O. NUMBER:
SAMPLE MATRIX:
WATERWORKS NO.
Soil
23528
Client I.D.
BH-101-SS-2
BH-201-SS-1
BH-303-SS-3
Sample I.D.
B14-30217-1
B14-30217-2
B14-30217-3
13-Nov-14
13-Nov-14
14-Nov-14
Date Collected
Parameter
Units
M.D.L.
Reference
Method
Sulphate
µg/g
10
SM4110C
Date/Site
Analyzed
25-Nov-14/O
M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit
Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill
50
30
< 10
Christine Burke
Lab Supervisor
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.
Page 1 of 1.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Final Report
REPORT No. B14-30212
C.O.C.: G49030
Report To:
Caduceon Environmental Laboratories
110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14
Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9
Tel: 289-475-5442
Fax: 289-562-1963
Geologic Inc. (Peterborough)
347 Pido Road, Unit 29
Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada
Attention: Jeff Van Egmond
DATE RECEIVED:
20-Nov-14
JOB/PROJECT NO.: Peterborough County/G030318A1
DATE REPORTED: 26-Nov-14
P.O. NUMBER:
SAMPLE MATRIX:
WATERWORKS NO.
Surface Water
Client I.D.
Sample I.D.
Date Collected
Parameter
pH @25°C
Resistivity
Total Organic Carbon
Units
M.D.L.
Reference
Method
pH Units
ohms·cm
mg/L
1
0.2
SM 4500
SM 2510
EPA 415.1
Date/Site
Analyzed
21-Nov-14/R
21-Nov-14/R
24-Nov-14/O
M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit
Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill
23528
SW - 100
SW - 200
SW - 300
B14-30212-1
B14-30212-2
B14-30212-3
13-Nov-14
13-Nov-14
14-Nov-14
7.43
8850
11.6
7.24
9430
12.3
7.34
9170
6.0
Christine Burke
Lab Supervisor
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.
Page 1 of 1.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Final Report
REPORT No. B15-01105
C.O.C.: G49221
Report To:
Caduceon Environmental Laboratories
110 West Beaver Creek Rd Unit 14
Richmond Hill ON L4B 1J9
Tel: 289-475-5442
Fax: 289-562-1963
Geologic Inc. (Peterborough)
347 Pido Road, Unit 29
Peterborough ON K9J 6X7 Canada
Attention: Pete Hynes
DATE RECEIVED:
19-Jan-15
JOB/PROJECT NO.: Peterborough County/G030318A1
DATE REPORTED: 20-Jan-15
P.O. NUMBER:
SAMPLE MATRIX:
WATERWORKS NO.
Surface Water
Client I.D.
SW - 100 B
SW - 200 B
SW - 300 B
Sample I.D.
B15-01105-1
B15-01105-2
B15-01105-3
16-Jan-15
16-Jan-15
16-Jan-15
Date Collected
Parameter
Units
M.D.L.
Reference
Method
Hardness (as CaCO3)
mg/L
1
SM 3120
Date/Site
Analyzed
20-Jan-15/O
M.D.L. = Method Detection Limit
Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill
96
86
27
Christine Burke
Lab Supervisor
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.
Page 1 of 1.
1-50 Grant Timmins Drive
Kingston, Ontario
K7M 8N2
Tel: (343) 266-0002
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Reed Bridge Replacement
Preliminary Design Memorandum
Galway Road, County of Peterborough,
Ontario
Structure No. 099065
MTO Site No. 26-02
County of Peterborough
Agreement No. P-10-2014
AG File No. 14562-1
March 2015
Submitted To:
County of Peterborough
County Court House
470 Water Street
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 3M3
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. 099065, MTO Site No. 26-02),
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.
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Bridge ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Waterway ................................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Detouring and Staging / Dewatering during Construction....................................................... 4 4.0 Foundation Alternatives................................................................................................................ 4 5.0 Bridge Replacement Alternatives ............................................................................................... 5 5.1 Alternative 1 – Pre-Cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge ................................................... 5 5.2 Alternative 2 – Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box ....................................................... 6 5.3 Alternative 3 – Steel Modular Panel Bridge ....................................................................... 6 5.4 Construction of Wingwalls / Retaining Walls...................................................................... 7 6.0 Existing Cross Section and Alignment ....................................................................................... 7 7.0 Estimates of Expected Construction Costs ............................................................................... 7 8.0 Discussion and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
HP Engineering Inc.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
1.0
14121
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 1950.
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
2.1
INSPECTION
Bridge
A site inspection was carried out on December 01, 2014.
As per RFP P-10-2014 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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 3 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement




14121
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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 4 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
5.0
14121
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 10-12 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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 5 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
5.2
14121
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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 6 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 7 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH
REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 1: PRE-CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
2
3
Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization
Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing
Dewatering
Environmental Protection /
4
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring
5
Protection of Existing Utilities / Services
6
Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal
Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and
7
Associated Dewatering
8
Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure
9
150mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway
10 300mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile
11 2-40mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt
12 Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts)
Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During
13
Construction
Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas
14
Disturbed During Construction
15 Unwatering Structure Excavation
16 Remove Existing Structure including Abutments
17 Mobilize and Install New Piles
18 Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing
19 Supply and Install New Pre-Cast Rigid Frame Structure
Supply and Install Welded Wire Retaining Wall including
20
Geotextile
21 Reinforcing Steel
22 Concrete in 150 Thick Distribution Slab
23 Waterproofing
Subtotal Construction Estimate
Contingency on Construction (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST)
HP Engineering Inc.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
QUANTITY
LS
LS
LS
$ 30,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 50,000.00
1
1
1
$
$
$
30,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
LS
$
5,000.00
1
$
5,000.00
LS
LS
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
1
1
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
m³
$
10.00
950
$
9,500.00
tonne
tonne
m²
tonne
m
$
$
$
$
$
15.00
25.00
25.00
350.00
500.00
3500
140
200
60
15
$
$
$
$
$
52,500.00
3,500.00
5,000.00
21,000.00
7,500.00
LS
$
2,000.00
1
$
2,000.00
LS
$
1,000.00
1
$
1,000.00
LS
LS
LS
m³
LS
$
$
$
$
$
10,000.00
30,000.00
100,000.00
1,000.00
110,000.00
1
1
1
15
1
$
$
$
$
$
10,000.00
30,000.00
100,000.00
15,000.00
110,000.00
LS
$ 20,000.00
1
$
20,000.00
$
$
$
2
10
1
$
$
$
8,000.00
10,000.00
4,000.00
$511,500.00
$102,300.00
$613,800.00
tonne
m³
LS
4,000.00
1,000.00
4,000.00
ESTIMATED
COST
Page 8 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH
REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 2: SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
DESCRIPTION
15
16
17
18
19
Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization
Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing
Dewatering
Environmental Protection /
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring
Protection of Existing Utilities / Services
Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal
Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and
Associated Dewatering
Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure
150mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway
300mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile
2-40mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt
Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts)
Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During
Construction
Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas
Disturbed During Construction
Unwatering Structure Excavation
Remove Existing Structure including Abutments
Mobilize and Install New Piles
Reinforcing Steel
Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing
20
Supply and Install New Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Supply and Install Welded Wire Retaining Wall including
Geotextime
Subtotal Construction Estimate
Contingency on Construction (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST)
21
HP Engineering Inc.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
QUANTITY
LS
LS
LS
$ 30,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 50,000.00
1
1
1
$
$
$
30,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
LS
$
5,000.00
1
$
5,000.00
LS
LS
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
1
1
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
m³
$
10.00
950
$
9,500.00
tonne
tonne
m²
tonne
m
$
$
$
$
$
15.00
25.00
25.00
350.00
500.00
3500
140
200
60
15
$
$
$
$
$
52,500.00
3,500.00
5,000.00
21,000.00
7,500.00
LS
$
2,000.00
1
$
2,000.00
LS
$
1,000.00
1
$
1,000.00
LS
LS
LS
tonne
m³
$ 10,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 1,000.00
1
1
1
3
25
$
$
$
$
$
10,000.00
30,000.00
100,000.00
12,000.00
25,000.00
LS
$ 100,000.00
1
$
100,000.00
LS
$ 30,000.00
1
$
30,000.00
ESTIMATED
COST
$511,500.00
$102,300.00
$613,800.00
Page 9 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH
REED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 3: BAILEY BRIDGE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
DESCRIPTION
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sitework including Mobilization / Demobilization
Traffic Control including Detour Route Signing
Dewatering
Environmental Protection /
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Monitoring
Protection of Existing Utilities / Services
Clearing and Grubbing / Tree Removal
Earth Excavation, Grading Including All Removals and
Associated Dewatering
Granular 'B' Type II Backfill to Structure
150mm Thick Granular 'A' Roadway
300mm Thick Rip-Rap (150 nominal size) over Geotextile
2-40mm lifts of HL-4 Asphalt
Thrie Beam Traffic Barrier Over Structure (Steel Posts)
Topsoil (100mm Thick), all Areas Disturbed During
Construction
Seed (Standard Roadside Mix) and Hydraulic Mulch, all Areas
Disturbed During Construction
Unwatering Structure Excavation
Remove Existing Structure including Abutments
Mobilize and Install New Piles
Reinforcing Steel
Concrete in Pile Cap / Footing
Concrete in New Abutment Walls and Wingwalls
21
Supply and Install New Bailey Bridge Including Steel Deck
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Subtotal Construction Estimate
Contingency on Construction (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATE (EXCLUDING HST)
8.0
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
QUANTITY
LS
LS
LS
$ 30,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 50,000.00
1
1
1
$
$
$
30,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
LS
$
5,000.00
1
$
5,000.00
LS
LS
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
1
1
$
$
5,000.00
2,500.00
m³
$
10.00
950
$
9,500.00
tonne
tonne
m²
tonne
m
$
$
$
$
$
15.00
25.00
25.00
350.00
500.00
3500
140
200
60
15
$
$
$
$
$
52,500.00
3,500.00
5,000.00
21,000.00
7,500.00
LS
$
2,000.00
1
$
2,000.00
LS
$
1,000.00
1
$
1,000.00
ESTIMATED
COST
LS
LS
LS
tonne
m³
m³
$ 10,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,200.00
1
1
1
5
25
100
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000.00
30,000.00
100,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
120,000.00
LS
$ 75,000.00
1
$
75,000.00
$584,500.00
$116,900.00
$701,400.00
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.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
Page 10 of 11
March 2015
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Replacement
14121
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, 2015
8/04/2015
Tova Govia, B. Eng.
Structural Designer
Luc Monette, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Principal
HP Engineering Inc.,
400 – 2039 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8R2
Office: 613-695-3737 ~ Fax: 613-680-3636
8/04/2015
Tashi Dwivedi, P.Eng.
Principal
Page 11 of 11
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix B:
Cultural Heritage Checklists
The Ainley Group
MEMORANDUM
Ainley Graham & Associates Limited
45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON K8N 2Y5
Tel: (613) 966-4243
?
Fax: (613) 966-1168
e-mail: [email protected]
To:
Ramin Rameshni Ph.D, P.Eng., Project Manager
Copies To:
Scott Reynolds
From:
Heather Rielly MCIP, RPP, CAHP
File No.:
14562-1
Date:
February 6th, 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 1960.
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



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.
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix C:
Hydraulic Assessment
The Ainley Group
Ainley Graham & Associates Limited
45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON K8N 2Y5
Tel: (613) 966-4243 · Fax: (613) 966-1168
E-mail: [email protected]
MEMORANDUM
To:
Ramin Rameshni, Ph.D, P.Eng.
Project Manager
Copies to:
File
From:
Deidre Taylor, EIT
Engineering Intern
Reviewed By:
Adam Wilson, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer
Date:
April 13, 2015
File No.:
14562-1
Ref:
Reed Bridge – Structure No. 099065
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.
Key Map
Existing structure details are provided as follows:
Page 1 of 2
Bridge
Name
Structure
No.
Road
Name
Span
Length
Reed Bridge
099065
Galway Rd
6.1 m
Assumed
Top of
Deck Elev.
250.06
Assumed
Bridge Soffit
Drainage
Area
249.61
55 km2
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 4.1.0 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 events @ approx. 250.06);
 Clearance during design event to be greater than ≥ 0.0 m (water level below 249.61).
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=6096
- 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
Attachments
Watershed Area
Watershed Slope
Water Storage Area
MTO Modified Index Flood Method
Reed Bridge
Watershed Characteristics
54.81
0.003
4.2%
Region / Watershed Type
Shield
Watershed Class
6.7
0
6.7
1.16
Base Watershed Class
Base Class Adjustment - Detention
Net Watershed Class
Class Coefficient, C
[𝑄𝑄25 = 𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴0.75 ]
25 Year Flow
23.37
km²
Design Chart 1.14¹
Design Chart 1.15¹
Evenly Distributed - Section H5.3.1²
Design Chart 1.15¹
m³/s
Return Peroid Flows
Return Peroid
(year)
Frequency Conservsion Factor (FCF)
(Chart H5-9²)
2
5
10
25
50
100
0.54
0.70
0.84
1.00
1.12
1.25
Peak Flow
(m³/s)
[𝑄𝑄𝑛𝑛 = 𝑄𝑄25 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 ]
12.62
16.36
19.63
23.37
26.17
29.21
Notes:
1. MTO Drainage Management Manual (1997)
2. MTO Drainage Manual (1986)
V:\14562-1 3 Bridges Peterborough County\14562-1\Drainage\Dutch Line Bridge - Structure No. 099086\14562-1 MTO
Modified Index Flood Method
0
0+1
0
0+080
0+070
0+060
0+050
0+040
0+030
0+0
02
0
00
0+010
0+
0+1
0
3
0+090
Union Creek ‐ Water Surface Elevations ‐ 25 Year Event
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (m)
RIVER STATION
EXISTING CONDITION MODEL *
103
94
88
82
78
249.178
249.157
249.067
249.112
249.032
70
66
45
30
15
0
249.005
249.034
248.944
248.446
248.608
248.062
PRE‐CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE
CON CAST PIPE ‐ TRI‐SPAN S = 6096
UPSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL
249.178
249.157
249.067
249.113
249.032
REED BRIDGE (RS 74)
249.005
249.034
248.944
248.446
248.608
248.062
DOWNSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL
SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX BRIDGE
STEEL MULTI‐PLATE CULVERT (CLOSED BOTTOM)
AIL SC‐20B
Twin 3600mm CSP
249.191
249.17
249.083
249.131
249.049
249.205
249.185
249.101
249.148
249.125
249.005
249.034
248.944
248.446
248.608
248.062
249.048
249.034
248.944
248.445
248.607
248.066
* Steel Modular Panel Bridge ‐ Assume design will have same opening as existing condition, therefore HEC‐RAS modelling results remain unchanged.
Union Creek ‐ Water Surface Elevations ‐ 100 Year Event
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (m)
RIVER STATION
EXISTING CONDITION MODEL *
103
94
88
82
78
249.336
249.309
249.199
249.285
249.133
70
66
45
30
15
0
249.092
249.165
249.122
248.73
248.838
248.234
PRE‐CAST CONCRETE RIGID FRAME BRIDGE
CON CAST PIPE ‐ TRI‐SPAN S = 6096
UPSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL
249.336
249.309
249.199
249.285
249.133
REED BRIDGE (RS 74)
249.092
249.165
249.122
248.73
248.838
248.234
DOWNSTREAM LIMIT OF MODEL
SUPER COR STRUCTURAL STEEL PLATE BOX BRIDGE
STEEL MULTI‐PLATE CULVERT (CLOSED BOTTOM)
AIL SC‐20B
Twin 3600mm CSP
249.357
249.332
249.227
249.312
249.161
249.376
249.351
249.252
249.335
249.269
249.092
249.165
249.122
248.73
248.838
248.234
249.152
249.165
249.122
248.727
248.835
248.245
* Steel Modular Panel Bridge ‐ Assume design will have same opening as existing condition, therefore HEC‐RAS modelling results remain unchanged.
L
MIN 610
MAX 2438
LIFTING DEVICE
FOR INSTALLATION
PLAN VIEW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
X
3658
3658
3658
3658
3658
3658
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4267
4572
4572
4572
4572
4572
4572
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
914
1219
1524
1829
2134
914
1219
1524
1829
2134
2438
1219
1524
1829
2134
2438
2743
3048
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2.438
2148
2455
2762
3069
3376
2454
2761
3068
3376
3683
3989
4024
4408
4793
5177
5560
5944
6328
5236
5985
6733
7482
8231
5984
6732
7481
8230
8978
9725
9811
10748
11684
12621
13555
14492
15428
SPAN (S) = 3658, 4267, 4572
MASS
R ST WT HC L
kg/m kg/pc
1524 305 254 305 2.438 5302 12926
1829 305 254 305 2.438 5686 13863
2134 305 254 305 2.438 6070 14800
2438 305 254 305 2.438 6453 15733
2743 305 254 305 2.438 6838 16670
3048 305 254 305 2.438 7222 17607
1524 305 254 305 2.438 5763 14049
1829 305 254 305 2.438 6147 14986
2134 305 254 305 2.438 6531 15923
2438 305 254 305 2.438 6914 16856
2743 305 254 305 2.438 7298 17793
3048 305 254 305 2.438 7683 18730
1524 305 254 305 2.438 5993 14611
1829 305 254 305 2.438 6377 15548
2134 305 254 305 2.438 6762 16485
2438 305 254 305 2.438 7145 17419
2743 305 254 305 2.438 7529 18356
3048 305 254 305 2.438 7913 19292
R
MAX 3048
1829
1829
1829
1829
1829
2438
2438
2438
2438
2438
2438
3048
3048
3048
3048
3048
3048
3048
HC
SPAN (S) = 1829, 2438, 3048
MASS
X R ST WT HC L
kg/m kg/pc
WT
S
MAX 10973
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") 406 (14")
3
(2) MASS IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON 2480 kg/m 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
S
X
4878
4878
4878
4878
4878
4878
5181
5181
5181
5181
5181
5181
5486
5486
5486
5486
5486
5486
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SPAN (S) = 4878, 5181, 5486
MASS
R ST WT HC L
kg/m kg/pc
1524 305 254 305 2.438 6225 15176
1829 305 254 305 2.438 6609 16113
2134 305 254 305 2.438 6993 17049
2438 305 254 305 2.438 7376 17983
2743 305 254 305 2.438 7760 18920
3048 305 254 305 2.438 8145 19857
1524 305 254 305 2.438 6454 15735
1829 305 254 305 2.438 6838 16671
2134 305 254 305 2.438 7222 17608
2438 305 254 305 2.438 7605 18542
2743 305 254 305 2.438 7990 19479
3048 305 254 305 2.438 8374 20415
1524 356 254 305 2.438 7443 18145
1829 356 254 305 2.438 7827 19082
2134 356 254 305 2.438 8211 20019
2438 356 254 305 2.438 8594 20953
2743 356 254 305 2.438 8978 21889
3048 356 254 305 2.438 9363 22826
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm UNLESS SPECIFIED TOLERANCES TO CSA A23.4-09
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE
1
INITIAL RELEASE
SW
19/OCT/2011
REV.
DESCRIPTION
ENG.
DATE
RR 3 Guelph, ON N1H 6H9
S
X
5791
5791
5791
5791
5791
5791
6096
6096
6096
6096
6096
6096
6401
6401
6401
6401
6401
6401
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SPAN (S) = 5791, 6096, 6401
MASS
R ST WT HC L
kg/m kg/pc
1524 356 254 305 2.438 7712 18802
1829 356 254 305 2.438 8096 19739
2134 356 254 305 2.438 8480 20675
2438 356 254 305 2.438 8863 21609
2743 356 254 305 2.438 9248 22546
3048 356 254 305 2.438 9632 23483
1524 406 305 305 2.438 9288 22645
1829 406 305 305 2.438 9750 23770
2134 406 305 305 2.438 10211 24895
2438 406 305 305 2.438 10671 26016
2743 406 305 305 2.438 11132 27141
3048 406 305 305 2.438 11594 28266
1524 406 305 305 2.438 9595 23394
1829 406 305 305 2.438 10057 24519
2134 406 305 305 2.438 10518 25644
2438 406 305 305 2.438 10978 26765
2743 406 305 305 2.438 11440 27890
3048 406 305 305 2.438 11901 29015
CON CAST PIPE (CCP) STANDARD DRAWING
STD.
CCP
PART
ENG GUIDE B 10.1
TITLE
CON CAST PIPE
LIFTING DEVICE
FOR STRIPPING
AND HANDLING
HC
S
ST
ISOMETRIC VIEW
TS-SIZEGUIDE
TRI-SPAN
SIZE GUIDE
DRAWN BY
SW
CHECKED BY
AP
Fax: (519) 763-1956
DATE
PAGE
FILE
19/OCT/2011
Trispan Size Guide.SLDDRW
1-800-668-7473
1 OF 1
www.concastpipe.com
G:\Engineering\Library\Solidworks\Tri Span\Tri Span Size Guide\
Super•Cor® Box
Finished Grade
Structural Cross Section
Recommended Height of Cover
Limits: Minimum – 450 mm (17.7")
Maximum – 1500 mm (59")
Box Details
No.
Span Rise End Area
(mm) (ft.-in.)(mm)(ft.-in.)(m2)(ft.2)
No.
SC-1B
S C-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
317010-511823-113.13 34
355211-81421 4-8 4.34 47
383912-714644-104.94 53
396213-02212 7-3 7.35 79
386412-81263 4-2 4.18 45
410413-61861 6-1 6.57 71
420913-101309 4-4 4.76 51
473615-61962 6-5 8.16 88
455114-111359 4-6 5.37 58
488816-01614 5-4 6.98 75
485915-112363 7-9 10.09 109
515316-112421 7-1111.07 119
521617-11672 5-6 7.73 83
535717-720776-109.90 107
532217-61444 4-9 6.63 71
544417-102481 8-2 12.08 130
565818-715074-117.35 79
595419-62645 8-814.24153
589419-41598 5-3 8.17 88
616420-31903 6-310.33111
623520-527158-1115.37165
632020-91644 5-5 8.91 96
647921-31975 6-611.26121
649621-423817-1013.89150
664721-101718 5-8 9.77 105
696922-101796 5-1110.67 115
699722-112202 7-3 13.51 145
702523-12608 8-716.35176
728923-111878 6-2 11.62 125
729823-112284 7-6 14.59 157
730824-026908-1017.56189
731724-0309710-220.53221
SC-33B 740524-41681 5-610.21110
S C-34B 780025-71967 6-512.72137
SC-35B 794226-12367 7-915.87171
SC-36B 857428-21920 6-413.90150
SC-37B 860428-32326 7-817.39187
SC-38B 863428-42732 9-020.89225
SC-39B 914330-01940 6-414.64158
SC-40B 922730-32344 7-818.36198
SC-41B 931130-72749 9-022.10238
SC-42B 980832-221086-1116.93182
SC-43B 986332-42513 8-320.91225
SC-44B 991932-62918 9-724.93268
SC-45B 1046134-4 2287 7-6 19.44 209
SC-46B 1048734-526938-1023.69255
SC-47B 1051434-6309910-227.96301
SC-48B 1089335-9 2357 7-9 20.62 222
SC-49B 1093935-11 2763 9-1 25.05 270
SC-50B 1098436-0316910-529.50318
SC-51B 1164638-2 2532 8-4 23.32 251
SC-52B 1169838-5 2937 9-8 28.05 302
SC-53B 1175138-7334311-032.81353
SC-54B 1226740-3 2743 9-0 26.47 285
SC-55B 1229140-4314910-431.45339
SC-56B 1231540-5355511-836.45392
SC-57B 1302642-9 2831 9-3 30.73 331
SC-58B 1304742-10 3237 10-7 36.03 388
SC-59B 1409246-3307110-135.62383
SC-60B 1411046-4347811-541.35445
SC-61B 1502049-3316810-538.38413
SC-62B 1503749-4357411-944.49479
SC-63B 1557951-1384512-749.46532
SC-64B 1574851-8399513-152.13561
Span Rise End Area
(mm) (ft.-in.)(mm)(ft.-in.)(m2)(ft.2)
All dimensions are to inside of crest of steel. Other sizes and plate configurations are available upon request.
9
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix D:
Preferred Solution General Arrangement Drawings
The Ainley Group
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix E:
Consultation
The Ainley Group
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) 266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager, Engineering & Design
County of Peterborough
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6
Phone: (705) 775-2737 x 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
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) 266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager, Engineering & Design
County of Peterborough
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6
Phone: (705) 775-2737 x 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
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, 2015. 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 www.county.peterborough.on.ca.
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, 2015. 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) 775-2737 Ext. 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
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, 2015. 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, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2T5
Fax: (416) 314-8452
Ainley Graham & Associates Limited
45 South Front Street, Belleville, ON, K8N 2Y5
Tel: (613) 966-4243 ▪ Fax: (613) 966-1168
E-mail [email protected]
November 26, 2014
File No. 14562-1
Ministry of Natural Resources
106 Monck Street, P.O. Box 500
Bancroft, Ontario
K0L 1C0
Attn:
Jesse Van Allen, District Planner
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ref:
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
(http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LUEPS/index.html). 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
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
APPENDIX
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
NATURAL HERITAGE / FISHERIES
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)
1
Reed Bridge – Union
Creek
17T
689677
4957522
2
Dutch Line Bridge –
Union Creek
17T
689412
4959589
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
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)
Potential Species
1
Reed Bridge
17T
689677
4957522
Milksnake, Eastern
Meadowlark
2
Dutch Line Bridge
17T
689412
4959589
None Identified on
MNR Make-A-Map.
Possible Mitigation Measures
Figure 1: Reed Bridge and Dutch Line Bridge Locations
County of Peterborough
Reed Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Project File Report
Appendix F:
Public Information Centre Summary Report
The Ainley Group
Public Information Centre Summary Report
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and
Reed Bridge
March 2015
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
Consultant Environmental Planner
The Ainley Group
Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P.Eng.
Consultant Project Manager
The Ainley Group
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
Table of Contents
1.0 The Study ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 The Process ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Public and External Agency Notification........................................................................ 3 2.2 Purpose of the Public Information Centre ..................................................................... 3 2.3 Project Staff Attendance at the PIC ............................................................................... 3 2.4 Public / Agency Attendance at the PIC ......................................................................... 4 2.5 Summary of Comments Received at the PIC ................................................................ 4 2.6 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
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
1.0
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
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
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
2.1
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
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 email, fax, or mail, with comments being requested by February
27, 2015. 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
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge





2.4
Public Information Centre Summary Report
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
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 e-mail.
2.5
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
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
Appendix A
Notices of Public Information Centre
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) 266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager, Engineering & Design
County of Peterborough
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6
Phone: (705) 775-2737 x 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
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) 266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager, Engineering & Design
County of Peterborough
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, ON K9H 1Y6
Phone: (705) 775-2737 x 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
Appendix B
Public Information Centre Display Boards
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
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Welcome
Study Area/Comments
Bridge Location Plan
Welcome to the Public Information Centre
regarding the Dutch Line and Reed Bridges.
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 email comments to the address on the
form prior to February 27, 2015.
WE ARE HERE
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Methods of Communication
Request for Background Information
z
–
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
z
–
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
z
–
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.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
The Study Purpose and Background
Study Purpose
z
–
z
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.
Dutch Line Bridge
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.
Reed Bridge
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.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Structural Assessment Criteria
Dutch Line Bridge
Reed Bridge
Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CHBDC)
Low Volume Road
< 400 AADT
Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CHBDC)
Rural Arterial
1,000 AADT
Drainage Basin (catchment
area; hectares)
Approx. 4,910 ha
Approx. 5,480 ha
Design Flow Return Period
10 Years
25 Years
Existing – 5.6 m
Proposed – 5.8 m
Existing – 6.1 m
Proposed – 6.1 m
Existing - Submerged
Existing – 0.61 m
Structure Design Code
Road Design Standard
Structure Span
Soffit Clearance (Inlet)
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Existing Conditions – Dutch Line Bridge
Medium corrosion and localized severe
corrosion of girders, girders partially
submerged at time of inspection
Girder deflection at
west end of south
girder
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
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Problem and Opportunity Statement
Dutch Line Bridge
z
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.
z
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.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Alternative Solutions
Dutch Line Bridge
z
Do Nothing
–
This alternative has been included as a basis for comparison to other alternative solutions.
z
Rehabilitation
–
Rehabilitation of the structure to a functioning state in accordance with current design
standards.
z
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:
z
z
z
z
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).
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Summary of Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
Dutch Line Bridge
z
Do Nothing
–
This alternative does not address the existing road closure due to the failure of the structure.
z
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.
z
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).
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:
z
Replacement design to similar dimensions and opening of the existing bridge thereby
minimizing extent of impacts during construction.
z
Existing roadway width (single lane traffic configuration) to be maintained given the
low average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on Dutch Line Road.
z
Existing roadway profile of Dutch Line is proposed to be raised to accommodate
existing drainage concerns.
z
Longest structural service life (estimated to be 75 years) of structural alternatives.
z
Reasonable construction duration (6-8 weeks).
z
Reasonable construction cost ($725,000; Addendum: For a single lane replacement
structure: $530,000).
z
Culvert design not feasible due to poor subsoil founding conditions.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Preliminary General Arrangement – Dutch Line Bridge
Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge
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
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Problem and Opportunity Statement
Reed Bridge
z
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).
z
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.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Alternative Solutions
Reed Bridge
z
Do Nothing
–
This alternative has been included as a basis for comparison to other alternative solutions.
z
Rehabilitation
–
Rehabilitation of the structure to a functioning state in accordance with current design
standards.
z
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:
z
z
z
z
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).
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Summary of Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
Reed Bridge
z
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.
z
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.
z
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.
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:
z
Replacement design to similar dimensions and opening of the existing bridge thereby
minimizing extent of impacts during construction.
z
Existing roadway profile (two lane traffic configuration) to be maintained given the
low average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on Galway Road.
z
Longest structural service life (estimated to be 75 years) of structural alternatives.
z
Reasonable construction duration (6-8 weeks).
z
Optimum construction cost ($675,000).
z
Culvert design not feasible due to poor subsoil founding conditions.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Preliminary General Arrangement – Reed Bridge
Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Examples of Replacement Alternatives
Pre-cast Concrete Rigid Frame Bridge
with Mesh Retaining Walls
Steel Modular Panel Bridge
Super Cor Structural Steel Plate Box Bridge
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Detour Routes During Construction
Option 1
Option 2
Staged Replacement of Dutch Line and
Reed Bridges
Concurrent Replacement of Dutch
Line and Reed Bridges
Stage 1
Stage 2 - Detour
Detour
Dutch Line Bridge is being
replaced.
Reed Bridge is being replaced. Local
traffic will be detoured through Dutch
Line Road and Dutch Line Bridge
constructed in Stage 1.
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.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Summary
Conclusions:
z
z
z
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.
Next Steps
Upon completion of the Public Information Centre, the
following steps will be taken:
z
Review comments received from the Public/Agencies
for consideration in finalizing the preliminary design.
z
Review the preferred alternative design concept in
consideration of public / agency comments.
z
Further review the preferred alternative design concept
in consideration of natural, socio-economic, cultural,
and transportation environments.
z
Confirm the preferred alternative.
Thank you for your attendance and
participation in this public meeting.
Please provide comments by
February 27th, 2015.
Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Please Fill Out A Comment Sheet
z
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.
z
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, 2015.
Dr. Ramin Rameshni, P. Eng
Consultant Project Manager
Ainley Group
1-50 Grant Timmins Drive
Kingston, Ontario, K7M 8N2
Mr. Peter Nielsen, C.E.T.
Manager, Engineering & Design
County of Peterborough
310 Armour Road
Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1Y6
Phone: (343)-266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343)-266-0028
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (705)-775-2737 ext. 300
Fax: (705)-749-2551
E-mail: [email protected]
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
Appendix C
Public Information Centre Comment Sheets
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Dutch Line Bridge and Reed Bridge
Public Information Centre Summary Report
March 2015
Appendix D
Comments Received after Public Information Centre
David Davison
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Reid, Kendra <[email protected]>
March-03-15 4:11 PM
'Ramin Rameshni (Ainley Group)' ([email protected])
'Scott Reynolds (Ainley Group)' ([email protected])
FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge
From: Nielsen, Peter
Sent: March-02-15 4:38 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? 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 Thank you Peter Nielsen 1
From: Don Mitchell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 10:41 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) 738-3800 ext. 222
Fax: (705) 738-5539
******************************************************************************************************
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 email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, fax or
email and permanently delete this email from your computer, including any attachments, without making a
copy. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. Thank you.
2
David Davison
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Reid, Kendra <[email protected]>
March-03-15 4:11 PM
'Ramin Rameshni (Ainley Group)' ([email protected])
'Scott Reynolds (Ainley Group)' ([email protected])
FW: Reed Bridge & Dutch Line Bridge
From: Nielsen, Peter
Sent: February-13-15 12:36 PM
To: Ramin Rameshni; Reid, Kendra
Cc: Lois O'Neill ([email protected]); [email protected]; 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 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:30 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
I have copied Don Mitchell on this e-mail 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) 738-3800 ex 235
Fax: (705) 738-3801
E-mail: [email protected]
2
David Davison
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ramin Rameshni <[email protected]>
February-23-15 8:54 PM
[email protected]
'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, 2015. 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 midMay.
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) 775-2737 x 322
Fax: (705) 749-2551
Email: [email protected]
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) 266-0002 ext. 207
Fax: (343) 266-0028
Cell: (647) 236-4791
[email protected]
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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February‐21‐15 1:18 PM 1
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 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
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
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