Prepared By:

County of Grey Bridge No. 900-272 Orchardville

Schedule 'B' EA Project File (Version 1)

GMBP File: 217103

September 12, 2019

GUELPH | OWEN SOUND | LISTOWEL | KITCHENER | LONDON | HAMILTON | GTA

1260-2ND AVE. E., UNIT 1, OWEN SOUND ON N4K 2J3 P: 519-376-1805 WWW.GMBLUEPLAN.CA BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING PROCESS ...... 2 3. BACKGROUND ...... 4 3.1 Bridge Structure and Design ...... 4 3.2 Site Surroundings ...... 5 4. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ...... 5 5. BACKGROUND STUDIES ...... 6 5.1 Social Environment ...... 6 5.1.1 Township of Southgate Official Plan and Zoning ...... 6 5.1.2 County of Grey Official Plan...... 8 5.1.3 Bridge Usage ...... 8 5.2 Natural Environment ...... 8 5.2.1 Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Study...... 8 5.2.2 Regulations and Requirements ...... 9 5.2.3 Source Water Protection and Climate Change ...... 10 5.3 Cultural Environment ...... 10 5.3.1 Archaeological Study ...... 10 5.3.2 Built Heritage Resource and Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation ...... 11 5.4 Technical Environment ...... 12 5.4.1 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access ...... 12 5.4.2 Structural Condition ...... 13 5.4.3 Utilities and Services ...... 13 5.5 Economic Environment ...... 13 6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 14 6.1 Impact and Assessment of Alternatives ...... 14 6.2 Recommended Solution ...... 16 7. CONSULTATION ...... 16 7.1 Notice of Project Initiation ...... 16 7.2 Consultations ...... 16 7.2.1 Public Consultation ...... 16 7.2.2 Agency Consultation ...... 16 8. NEXT STEPS ...... 17

i BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

TABLES TABLE 1 Ranking of Relative Capital and Maintenance Costs TABLE 2 Assessment of Alternatives

FIGURES FIGURE 1 Site Location Plan FIGURE 2 EA Process FIGURE 3 Site Plan

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: NOTICES APPENDIX B: INSPECTION REPORTS AND BRIDGE DRAWINGS APPENDIX C: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION APPENDIX D: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION

ii PEOPLE | ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTS

SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1)

BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE ORCHARDVILLE COUNTY OF GREY

SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

GMBP FILE: 217103

1. INTRODUCTION

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited (GMBP) was retained by the County of Grey to undertake a planning process toward addressing the deteriorated condition of Bridge No.900-272 adjacent to Highway 6 in Orchardville, where shown on Figure 1. The Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), in cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), has developed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process to assist in planning projects of this nature. The EA planning process develops a Project Statement, considers alternative solutions, and documents the public consultation process toward the selection, by Council, of a Preferred Solution to the Project Statement in a Project File. Since the alternative solutions consider alteration of a structure that is over 40 years old, which has been determined to have cultural heritage value, and which would be less than $2.4 million, a Schedule ‘B’ EA process is considered appropriate for this undertaking. This report is prepared as the Schedule ‘B’ EA Project File for Bridge No.900- 272.

The Project Statement is considered as follows: “Inspection Reports for the aging Orchardville Bridge No.900-272 note advanced deterioration of the super structure and sub structure to a point where the bridge can no longer fulfill its intended function as a crossing and, therefore, consideration should be given to addressing a long-term solution.”

The Project File is considered a “living document”. This initial version of the Project File is issued to present the Project Statement; identify the range of Alternative Solutions considered to address the problem or opportunity; evaluate the anticipated ‘environmental’ effects and proposed mitigation; and to provide a preliminary assessment and evaluation of alternative solutions and the rationale for the selection of a Preliminary Recommended Solution.

This version of the Project File is issued to the Public, Agencies, and First Nations for consultation purposes. The Notice of Project Initiation was first advertised on September 12, 2019. The Notice includes an invitation to the public, agencies and First Nations to review and provide comments on the Project File. Comments received through the consultation process will be incorporated into a subsequent revision to this Project File and included in an updated Evaluation of Alternatives, ultimately with a Recommended Preferred Solution presented for consideration and acceptance (or otherwise) by Council.

PAGE 1 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

2. MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING PROCESS

Municipal infrastructure projects are subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) is an approved self-assessment process under the EA Act for a specific group or “class” of projects. Projects are considered approved subject to compliance with an approved Class EA process. The Municipal Class EA (Municipal Engineers Association October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 and 2015) applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, water and wastewater.

The Municipal Class EA outlines a comprehensive planning process (illustrated in Figure 2) that provides a rational approach to consider the environmental and technical advantages and disadvantages of alternatives and their trade-offs in order to determine a Preferred Solution to address an identified problem (or opportunity), as well as consultation with agencies, First Nations, directly affected stakeholders and the public throughout the process. The key principles of successful environmental assessment planning include:  Consultation;  Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives;  Consideration of effects on natural, social, cultural, and economic environments and technical components;  Systematic evaluation;  Clear documentation; and  Traceable decision making.

The classification of projects and activities under the Municipal Class EA is as follows: Schedule A: Includes normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities, which are limited in scale and have minimal adverse environmental effects. These undertakings are pre-approved and the proponent can proceed without further assessment and approval. Schedule A+: Introduced in 2007, these minor projects are pre-approved. The public is to be advised prior to the implementation of the project. Schedule B: Includes projects which have the potential for adverse environmental effects. This includes improvements to, and minor expansions of, existing facilities. These projects are approved subject to a screening process which includes consulting with stakeholders who may be directly affected and relevant review agencies. Schedule C: Includes the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities. These undertakings have the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed under the planning and documentation procedures outlined in the Municipal Class EA document.

This initial version of the Project File includes documentation of the Schedule ‘B’ EA process, which is in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process and includes Phases 1 and 2, depicted on Figure 2:

 Phase 1 consists of identifying the problem or opportunity, and optional (discretionary) public consultation if deemed suitable.

 Phase 2 involves identifying reasonable alternatives to the problem or opportunity, compiling an inventory of the natural, cultural, social, technical and economic environments, evaluating each alternative and recommending a preferred alternative that will address the problem, and provide any measures necessary to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Public and agency consultation is required at this stage before the preferred solution is selected to ensure all possible impacts are identified, and assessed, as part of the evaluation process.

PAGE 2 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

For Schedule ‘B’ or ‘C’ projects, a Notice of Project Initiation is advertised and the Preferred Solution (and for Schedule ‘C’ projects, the Preferred Design) is developed through the process; to be confirmed by Council. The entire process is documented in a Schedule ‘B’ Project File, or Schedule ‘C’ Environmental Study Report, which is made available for public and agency review during a 30 calendar day period following the issuance of the Notice of Completion. Project Notices are provided in Appendix ‘A’.

For Schedule ‘B’ or ‘C’ projects, if concerns are raised during the 30 calendar day review period, following advertisement of the Notice of Completion, that cannot be resolved through discussions with the County, then members of the public, interested groups or technical agencies may request the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to issue a ‘Part II Order’ for the project. Within the Part II Order request, the Minister may be requested to refer the matter to mediation, impose additional project conditions, and/or request an elevated scope of study. A Part II Order request requires the completion of a ‘Part II Order Request’ Form (i.e. form ID No.012-2206E). The form can be found online on Service Ontario’s Central Forms Repository website (http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/) by searching ‘Part II Order’ or ‘012-2206E’ (i.e. the form number).

The completed form and any supporting information must be submitted to the MECP (formerly the MOECC), prior to the end of the 30 calendar day review period, outlining the unresolved issue and requesting the Minister to review the matter.

Part II Order requests are submitted to: Minister Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ferguson Block, 77 Wellesley Street West, 11th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 Fax: 416-314-8452 [email protected]

Copies of the request must also be sent to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch at the MECP and County of Grey at the addresses below: Director, Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch Pat Hoy, Director of Transportation Services Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks County of Grey 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor 595 9th Avenue East Toronto, ON M4V 1P5 Owen Sound, ON N4K 3E3 [email protected] [email protected]

The decision whether or not a Part II Order is appropriate or necessary rests with the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. If no Part II Order request is outstanding by the end of the 30 calendar day review period, the project is considered to have met the requirements of the Class EA, and the County may proceed to design and construct the project subject to resolving any commitments documented in this Project File during the subsequent design phases and obtaining any other outstanding environmental approvals.

For further information regarding Part II Order requests and process, please refer to: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/class-environmental-assessments-part-ii-order

PAGE 3 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Bridge Structure and Design

Bridge No.900-272 is located in the Hamlet of Orchardville, between Durham and Mount Forest, along the boundary between the Township of Southgate and the Municipality of West Grey, where shown on Figure 1. More specifically, the bridge is located along the boundary between Lot 16, Concession 1 in the former Township of Egremont (Township of Southgate) and Lot 16, Concession 1, in the former Township of Normanby (Municipality of West Grey). While the bridge is reportedly within the County’s jurisdiction, it is our understanding that the right-of-way to the south of the structure (i.e. Parts 1, 2 and 3 Plan 16R-10712) was given by the MTO to the local municipal authority in the early 1960’s, in conjunction with the re-routing of Highway 6. The bridge crosses the Beatty Saugeen River immediately downstream of the confluence between two smaller tributaries, including Norman Reeves Creek, which flow into the Mill Pond and eventually discharge to the Saugeen River.

The subject bridge is also referred to as the “South Orchardville Bridge” since another bridge crosses a second branch of the watercourse approximately 75 metres to the north. It served as part of Provincial Highway No.6 until the early 1960’s at which time the Highway was re-routed to the west. The bridge, which was reportedly built in the 1920’s by the Ontario Department of Highways, formed part of Orchardville Sideroad until 2009. Since that time, the majority of the road allowance to the south has been covered with topsoil and, consistent with the adjacent property at 121 Orchardville Sideroad, is covered with grass. Consequently, public access to the adjacent lands and the bridge is mainly provided from the north via Southgate Road 14.

The existing structure is a single span reinforced concrete bowstring arch bridge with a total deck length of 15.6 metres. Based on Preliminary ‘Existing Condition’ Drawings prepared in 2004 and provided in Appendix ‘B’, the overall deck length is estimated to be 21.1 metres, including a 4.94 metre deck extension to the south. The overall width of the existing structure is approximately 8.2 m with concrete handrails on each side. The available clear roadway width is about 7.1 metres, which would have accommodated two narrow traffic lanes.

It is not known how the existing structure is founded (i.e. piles or spread footings), although the 1928 design drawings sourced in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicate spread footings were anticipated in the design phase (see Appendix ‘C’). According to the available bridge inspection reports, provided in Appendix ‘B’, the abutments are mass cast-in-place reinforced concrete, which appear to have been previously repaired. Wingwalls extend from the northerly abutment corners to contain backfill to the bridge. These too appear to have received previous repairs. The concrete railings and portions of the truss have severe section loss. The bridge has been closed to traffic since 2009.

Bridge inspections have been conducted on a routine basis, with the most recent having been completed in 2017. The inspection reports for 2015 and 2017 are provided in Appendix ‘B’. As shown in Photo 1, the structure is visibly in poor condition, and it has been recommended that the County address the deteriorated condition to avoid a collapse.

PAGE 4 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Photo 1: Image showing the deteriorated condition of the bridge, with the privately-owned former grist mill and dam in the background.

3.2 Site Surroundings

Land use in the general area is agricultural, rural, and rural residential with lands immediately adjacent to the bridge being river valley hazard lands, regulated by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA). Immediately upstream from the bridge is a dam, which contains a former mill pond (Photo 1). The former grist mill building, which is privately owned, also remains on an adjacent property to the east-northeast of the bridge, making the immediately adjacent area picturesque.

The topography generally consists of gently rolling hills through which the Beatty Saugeen River meanders. The bridge approaches are relatively flat, however the riverbanks adjacent to the structure are relatively steep. The main channel of the Beatty Saugeen River runs relatively straight through the bridge, and varies in width from 8.5 m to 9.5 m. The bed of the river consists of gravel and stone. Normal water levels are approximately 3.5m below the soffit.

4. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Alternative solutions considered to address the Project Statement are summarized as follows:

Alternative 1: Do Nothing The “Do Nothing” alternative maintains existing conditions. It does not address the issues identified in the Project Statement, but is considered as a base-line against which to compare other alternative solutions. The bridge is already closed to vehicular traffic. Ultimately, a Do Nothing approach would lead to a catastrophic failure, which is considered inappropriate and, therefore, consideration and a decision for action will be necessary moving forward.

Alternative 2: Rehabilitate the Existing Structure As noted previously, the existing structure displays considerable deterioration with missing concrete sections and exposed reinforcing steel in many areas of the bridge. It is anticipated that major repairs would be necessary to restore the bridge as a visual element only, with even more major repairs necessary to restore the structures functionality as a safe pedestrian crossing. It is unlikely that any degree of repair would be cost effective in restoring the bridge to functionality as a vehicular bridge since the road is no longer used for through traffic and Orchardville Sideroad only services a limited number of properties along its ±550 meter length.

PAGE 5 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Alternative 3: Replace the Existing Structure This alternative, to replace the existing bridge, considers that since Orchardville Sideroad only provides access to Highway 6 and, given its limited length of less than 600 meters, bridge closure does not significantly affect the distance of travel to the local residents, there is no apparent reason to replace this bridge with a structure that could support vehicular traffic. However, there may be an opportunity to install a pedestrian only bridge, which would replicate the physical geometry of the structure, achieve pedestrian functionality, and maintain the landscape character of the area.

Alternative 4: Remove the Existing Structure This alternative considers that the existing two-lane bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic, the road allowance to the south, which has been covered with topsoil and seeded to grass, is owned by the local municipal authority, and that the relative costs of significant repairs or replacement could outweigh the relative benefits. Under this alternative, the bridge would be removed, the road would be closed, and the river banks restored to a more natural condition.

5. BACKGROUND STUDIES

The following background studies were prepared to inventory the natural, social, technical, economic and cultural ‘environments’, and to inform the impacts of alternative solutions. Copies of these background study reports are provided in Appendix ‘C’ and Appendix ‘D’. i) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – Proposed Bridge Replacement or Upgrade: South Orchardville Bridge. Prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (December 3, 2017). ii) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report and Preliminary Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for South Orchardville Bridge. Prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (Revised September 12, 2018). iii) Bridge No.900272 (Orchardville) EA, Township of Southgate. Scoped Environmental Impact Study. Prepared by Aboud & Associates Inc. (July 6, 2018).

A summary discussion of background information, including the findings for each study is provided in the following sections.

5.1 Social Environment

5.1.1 Township of Southgate Official Plan and Zoning Zoning By-Law (6-2009) The Study area is zoned as Environmental Protection (EP) under the Township of Southgate Zoning By-Law. Section 29.2(a) states that ‘Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-Law to the contrary, no buildings or structures shall be erected within the Environmental Protection Zone other than those required for conservation purposes and those permitted by By-Law Section 5.20’.

Section 5.20(d) permits ‘Restoration to a Safe Condition’ which allows the strengthening or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure or part thereof, provided that the strengthening or restoration does not increase the height, size or volume or change the use. Section 5.20(e) permits ‘Reconstruction of Damaged Buildings or Structures’ which facilitates the reconstruction of any building or structure that is damaged.

PAGE 6 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Municipal Zoning denotes the lands to the north as Residential Type 6 (R6), with the majority of the land in the surrounding area zoned as Agricultural. The Residential Type 6 zoning permits the development of single detached dwellings on a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres.

Official Plan (2008): A. Land Use The Orchardville Bridge is designated as Hazard Lands under the Township of Southgate Official Plan. The Hazard Lands Designation identifies lands having inherent environmental hazards including, but not limited to, floodplains, steep slopes, organic or instable soils, poorly drained areas, poorly drained areas with seasonal or permanent high groundwater table, and evaluated non-provincially significant wetlands. Section 6.2.2(4) states the following: The replacement or repair of existing buildings or structures, including minor extensions or enlargements, may be permitted subject to the following being met: i. The feasibility of relocating the structure or use outside the hazard area has been assessed, and there are no reasonable alternatives. ii. The replacement structure must be located where it is least susceptible to damage. iii. The replacement structure shall not exceed the original structure in size or extend further into the hazard area. iv. The replacement structure must not result in a more intensive use than that of the original structure. v. Replacement of the existing building or structure may be permitted if the hazard risk does not increase from the original state.

Further, Section 6.2.2(4) states that ‘written permission may be required from the applicable Conservation Authority where development or site grading is proposed within a Regulated Area, as identified on schedules filed with the Conservation Authority, where such mapping exists, or otherwise generally within or near the Wetlands and Hazard Lands Designations, pursuant to the local Conservation Authority regulations that implement Ontario Regulation 97/04 – “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses.”

B. Transportation Planning The Official Plan for the Township designates Orchardville Sideroad as a local road, therefore the bridge is not subject to the requirements and permits of the Ministry of Transportation. Section G of the Official Plan outlines transportation policies concerning the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The OP states that ‘appropriate right-of-way widths should be provided for existing and anticipated traffic volumes, on-going maintenance, and emergency access. The minimum right-of way width for local roads should be 20 meters’.

As previously discussed, the Orchardville bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in 2009. Further, the right-of- way to the south of the bridge is closed to local traffic and has been covered with topsoil and grass. As a result, Orchardville Sideroad to the north of the subject bridge is considered a dead-end road and services a limit number of residents (Figure 3). More specifically, the extension of the road between the Bridge and Southgate Road 14 provides access to the Grist Mill and two residential dwellings. It is noted that with the bridge closure, limited road works were completed to provide a turn-around area. However, approximately 50 meters to the northeast of Orchardville Bridge is Orchardville Park. Given the low traffic volumes along this road and the area provided for vehicular access within Orchardville Park, the parking area within Orchardville Park could be considered to provide an adequate area for vehicular and emergency vehicles to turn-around, when required.

PAGE 7 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

5.1.2 County of Grey Official Plan Schedule A of the Grey County Official Plan designates the Study Area as Hazard Lands and the surrounding area as Hazard Lands and Rural. Section 2.8.2(3) of the Official Plan states that ‘in the Hazard Land designation buildings and structures are generally not permitted. Minor extensions or enlargements of existing buildings or structures may be permitted subject to policies of Section 2.8.’

Appendix B also identities the Beatty Saugeen River as a watercourse. Section 2.8.6(5) of the Official Plan states that ‘no development shall be permitted within 30 meters of the banks of a stream, river, lake or Georgian Bay’.

With respect to the above noted hazard zone and natural feature identified in the area of the Orchardville bridge, the County typically defers to the regulations outlined by the Conservation Authority.

5.1.3 Bridge Usage Typically, considerations of the Social Environment intend to capture the impact project alternatives would have on various bridge uses, such as local traffic, commuter traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, and recreational users. As such, the maintenance of a bridge a given location for a greater number of uses is generally more favourable from a ‘Social Environment’ perspective. However, given the historically low volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic that used this bridge prior to closure and the alternate route provided by Highway 6 situated less than 100 meters to the west, the potential uses for the bridge are limited.

5.2 Natural Environment

5.2.1 Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Study A “Scoped Environmental Impact Study” (EIS) was completed by Aboud and Associates in July 2018 to characterize and document natural heritage features within the study area, assess impacts, and to propose reasonable measures to mitigate potential impacts to natural heritage features. A copy of the EIS Report is provided in Appendix ‘D’. The EIS contains the following conclusions: Site Constraints i. No Species at Risk were detected in the study area. ii. No significant Wildlife Habitat was identified within the study area. iii. The study area includes a cold-water fish habitat (Beatty Saugeen River/Norman Reeves Creek). iv. The study area includes Environmental Protection/Hazard Lands.

Impact Assessment Impacts of each bridge alternative as well as generalized impacts from the construction/rehabilitation of the bridge were assessed to determine their extent and mitigation guidelines. A summary was provided in Table 5 of the EIS (Appendix ‘D’) and can be summarized as follows: i. Impacts primarily involve the removal of trees, naturalized weedy herbaceous vegetation communities, site grading, impact to fish habitat, and wildlife disturbance. ii. Trees close to the bridge location may require an assessment of stability for the retained trees and may include some selective tree removal and pruning. iii. There are opportunities in the study area for edge enhancement, restoration, invasive species management and compensation planting to mitigate and offset potential impacts.

PAGE 8 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Recommendations Recommendations specific to the natural heritage features are provided to ensure protection and maintenance of natural heritage features and function within and adjacent to the proposed bridge. Through the implementation of the proposed mitigation, restoration, and compensation, no negative impacts are expected to the natural heritage system. Recommendations are outlined in Section 7.0 of the EIS (Appendix ‘D’) and can generally be summarized as follows: i. Erosion and Sediment Control planning should be completed as part of the detailed design. Several installation and inspection recommendations are further outlined in the EIS. ii. The area of construction disturbance should be kept to a minimum, with works and the use of heavy equipment minimized and/or removed from sensitive areas and natural feature boundaries. iii. The implementation of comprehensive restoration and compensation measures within areas impacted is recommended. All disturbed areas should be re-vegetated or restored with appropriate indigenous plants. iv. Activities should be timed to avoid wildlife disturbance during critical life stages, as follows: a. No in-water works are permitted from March 15 to June 15 (spring timing restrictions) and October 1 to May 31 (fall timing restrictions), as per DFO fisheries timing windows. b. Avoid removal of trees and vegetation during the generalized breeding bird nesting period from April 1 to August 31. If removal of vegetation is to occur during the general nesting period, a nest search should be carried out by a skilled and experienced biologist. c. Install Barn Swallow exclusion measures (e.g. netting) recommended prior to the beginning of the generalized breeding bird nesting period (April 1).

The report concludes that, through implementing the mitigation measures identified, none of the project alternatives to repair, replace or remove Bridge No.900-272 would result in significant long-term negative impacts to natural heritage features identified within and adjacent to the bridge location. The natural features within the study area will be protected and enhanced through mitigation and restoration recommendations. This will result in long term positive effects on the natural heritage features within the study area.

5.2.2 Regulations and Requirements Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority The Study Area is located within the jurisdiction and Screening Limits of the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) and is regulated under Ontario Regulation 169/06: Regulation and Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Under this regulation a permit will be required for building construction/redesign, site grading, and/or the temporary or permanent placing, dumping, or removal of materials from the Site. A permit would also be required for straightening, changing, diverting or in any way interfering with the river.

The SVCA generally considers that a hydrology assessment is not required for any project alternative that would maintain, or improve upon, the existing hydrologic / hydraulic characteristics provided by the existing structure. A project alternative that would increase fill within the floodplain, or would further restrict flow, would affect site hydraulics. It is anticipated that the removal of the bridge, including the abutments, would result in improved flow. Bridge rehabilitation or replacement would either maintain the existing flow conditions or could provide an opportunity to improve flow hydraulics. As outlined in the EIS, ‘a detailed hydrogeological study and analysis of the functions and anticipated changes to the watercourse has not been completed. However, it is expected that the removal of the existing bridge would have little to no impact on the hydrology of the watercourse or flood risk. Further, rehabilitation or reconstruction outside of the existing bridge location, may require the impacts to the hydrologic function of the watercourse to be assessed’.

PAGE 9 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) A DFO letter of authorization would be required for any project alternative that would result in a permanent alteration to fish habitat. None of the alternatives considered are expected to permanently impact fish habitat within the Beatty Saugeen River.

5.2.3 Source Water Protection and Climate Change As part of the EA process, this project was reviewed with respect to the requirements under the Clean Water Act, 2006. Based on the Saugeen, Grey Sauble and Northern Bruce Peninsula Source Protection Vulnerable Areas Mapping Application, the Study Area is situated within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) with a vulnerability score of 4. The SVCA Risk Management Office has been consulted via the Notice of Project Initiation. SVCA comments specific to Source Water Protection will be included in Appendix ‘D’. Based on previous consultation efforts associated with other projects in the area, it is not anticipated that Source Water Protection will be considered to be a significant issue for this project.

The natural environment also includes potential impacts of the project on Climate Change, and of Climate Change on the project. Provided that this project involves a bridge that is currently closed to vehicular traffic, and the project alternatives being reviewed will involve either bridge removal or bridge repair/replacement with consideration for a pedestrian bridge only, the bridge alternatives being reviewed will have a net neutral effect with respect to climate change. Further, any of the alternatives would, at minimum, maintain existing flow environments.

5.3 Cultural Environment

5.3.1 Archaeological Study In consideration of Section 1.3.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (S&G) administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), which lists criteria that are indicative of archaeological potential, the study area meets the following criteria indicative of archaeological potential:  Water sources (i.e. the Beatty Saugeen River);  Early historic transportation routes; and  Proximity to early settlements.

Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. was retained to complete a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archeological Assessment for the Orchardville Bridge. A copy of the Report (December 2017) is provided in Appendix ‘C’. The assessment was conducted under the S&G.

The Stage 1 work included a review of historical background information and concluded that the study area exhibits archaeological potential based on the proximity to the Beatty Saugeen River, its proximity to the historic transportation route (i.e. Highway 6 – Garafraxa Road), its location within an area of early Euro- Canadian settlement (i.e. the Village of Orchardville), and its proximity to the former grist mill to the east. As a result, Stage 2 investigation work was recommended.

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area was conducted on August 14th, 2017 by visual assessment only due to steep slopes and areas of observed previous disturbance. No potential archaeological sites were located during the Stage 2 assessment.

Based upon the background research of past and present conditions and the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, the following is concluded and recommended:

PAGE 10 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

 No cultural material, feature or archaeological sites were located within the study area, and hence, there is no requirement to conduct a Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the study area.  Compliance legislation must be adhered to in the event of discovery of deeply buried cultural material or features.

In a letter dated January 4, 2018, the MTCS confirmed the entry of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Assessment Report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports (Appendix ‘C’).

5.3.2 Built Heritage Resource and Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation A Cultural Heritage Checklist was prepared for this project and is provided in Appendix ‘C’. This checklist identifies that, since the proposed project involves a bridge constructed before 1956, then a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) are to be completed.

Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. was retained to complete the CHER and a Preliminary HIA for the Orchardville Bridge. A copy of the Report (Revised September 12, 2018) is provided in Appendix ‘C’. Based on a search of the of the municipal, provincial and federal registers, neither the Orchardville Bridge nor the adjacent grist mill are designated as being a property of cultural heritage value or interest. Alternatively, to determine the potential cultural heritage value of the subject bridge the “Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), as amended in 2005, were used. The CHER evaluates the potential of a “property” to be designated under the Heritage Act, if it meets “one or more of the following criteria…”:

1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield , information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark.”

The CHER identified that the bridge met several of the cultural heritage assessment criteria, as follows:

Design or Physical Value: The bridge is representative of a concrete bowstring truss style bridge. Heritage attributes identified, specific to the subject bridge included, but were not limited to, the following: i. Cast-in-place concrete abutments, wingwalls and piers; ii. Concrete bowstring arch design; and iii. Concrete balustrade and parapets.

PAGE 11 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

At this time, the Orchardville Bridge is one of two concrete bowstring truss bridges in Grey County. The other comparable structure is Black Bridge which is located approximately 60 km northeast of Orchardville in Clarksburg (Town of Blue Mountains). Black Bridge has been municipally designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (1980).

Further, within the surrounding area, it is estimated that several other similar concrete bowstring arch bridges remain including one in Simcoe County, five (5) in Dufferin County and twelve (12) in Wellington County. The majority of these structures are situated within between 40 and 65 kilometres of the Orchardville Bridge.

Historical or Associative Value: The bridge demonstrates the work or ideas of a builder (or designer/engineer) that may be significant to the community. It may reflect one of the last bridges developed under A.B. Crealock in his capacity as the Ontario Department of Public Highways Bridge Engineer. Following his 6 to 10-year career with the Province, A.B. Crealock went on to become a consulting engineer.

Contextual Value: The bridge contributes to the landscape character of the area and is visually linked to the surrounding mill and dam property. It is also historically linked as it serves as a reminder of the early highway system in Grey County.

The CHER concluded that “the bridge has been evaluated as having cultural heritage value and interest”. Consultation with the Grey County Historical Society (GCHS) regarding these findings has been initiated via the Notice of Project Initiation.

A preliminary Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was included in the CHER, better to inform the alternatives considered in the EA process. The preliminary HIA identifies where a project alternative may impact on an identified cultural heritage resource, and considers preliminary mitigation measures, which should be considered in context of the overall project planning process. Based on the preliminary HIA, impacts to the Cultural Heritage environment would become greater as alterations to the existing bridge become more pronounced, with the alternatives under consideration. With respect to the structures ‘contextual value’, the scenic views associated with the cultural heritage landscape are linked to the former mill building and dam structure, which are on private property. It is noted that the future maintenance of these structures is beyond the control of the County.

5.4 Technical Environment

5.4.1 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The two-lane bow-string arch structure previously formed part of Orchardville Sideroad. Currently vehicular access is only provided from the north via Southgate Road 14 as the former right-of-way to the south has been transformed into grass (i.e. lawn-scape). Therefore, the subject bridge is currently at the most southerly extent of a dead-end road. As all residents can maintain access to their properties without significantly extending the distance of travel to the main thoroughfare (i.e. Highway 6), there is no apparent need to re-establish a vehicular crossing at this location. Further, maintaining a crossing for pedestrian access also is not considered highly important due to the limited destinations (i.e. Highway 6 on either end), the absence of a trail system for the bridge to be tied into and the limited number of users.

PAGE 12 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

5.4.2 Structural Condition Historical design drawings suggest that the bridge is founded on spread footings. The structure is visibly in poor condition, as is noted in the recent inspection reports for the bridge (Appendix ‘B’). The wingwalls and cast-in-place reinforced concrete abutments appear to have been previously repaired. Further, the concrete railings and portions of the truss have severe section loss. Although the bridge historically serviced relatively low traffic volumes, it has been closed to traffic since 2009 due to safety concerns. The deteriorated condition of the bridge is being addressed by the County to avoid a potential collapse.

5.4.3 Utilities and Services There is no watermain, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer associated with the Orchardville bridge. A hydro corridor has been observed within the Orchardville Sideroad Right-of-Way, crossing the bridge. Other public utilities such as gas may be present in the area. An inventory of the existing utilities that are proximal to, and/or incorporated into, the bridge should be completed. This Project File will be issued to various utility companies for comment.

5.5 Economic Environment

The alternatives considered envision Orchardville Sideroad being maintained as a local dead-end road with the primary vehicular access being achieved from Southgate Road 14. Since Orchardville Sideroad is only approximately 550 meters in length and all residents can maintain access to their properties without significantly extending the distance of travel to the main thoroughfare (i.e. Highway 6), there is no apparent need to re-establish a vehicular crossing at this location. Therefore, the following Table 1 considers relative construction values for the maintenance of a pedestrian crossing.

Based on preliminary cost estimates, it is anticipated that each of the alternatives considered would have a project value in the range of $100,000 to $1.0M. It is noted that cost estimates provided herein were prepared with limited design details and are based on probable conditions affecting the project. Therefore, they are intended to reflect the approximate magnitude of the project costs. A more detailed assessment of overall project costs would be evaluated during the design phase. However, since project costs are anticipated to remain below $2.4M, a Schedule ‘B’ EA approach remains appropriate for this project.

The economic environment considers relative construction costs and longer term operating and maintenance costs. Typically the ‘Do Nothing’ option would be considered to have no capital cost and, therefore, would rank first in terms of the economic environment. However, in this scenario “no cost” would be unrealistic, ultimately, due to deteriorated condition of the bridge which will eventually lead to bridge collapse (i.e. future costs). Based on the preceding discussions, relative construction values are considered in Table 1 as follows:

TABLE 1 – Ranking of Relative Capital and Maintenance Costs Alternative Relative Ranking 1 Do Nothing $$$ 2 Bridge Rehabilitation $$$$ 3 Bridge Replacement $$ 4 Bridge Removal $

PAGE 13 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The background studies were prepared help to inform the impacts each alternative would have on each of the environments. The process toward the selection of a Preliminary Recommended Solution involved the following: i) Identification of the impacts and mitigating measures of an alternative solution on each environment, ii) An assessment of the degree of impact each alternative would have on each environment, and iii) An evaluation based on comparative analysis of the alternative which best addresses the Project Statement.

The following summarizes the impacts and assessment of each of the alternative solutions on each of the environments by providing a relative ranking of the 4 alternatives; numbered between 1 and 4, with 1 being the least favoured and 4 being the most favoured in each case. Ultimately, the alternative with the highest total ranking would be considered as the Recommended Solution.

6.1 Impact and Assessment of Alternatives

The following Table 2 presents a summary of the assessment of alternative solutions.

PAGE 14 OF 17 TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES: ORCHARDVILLE BRIDGE

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environment Do Nothing Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Replacement Bridge Removal SOCIAL 1. Type of Use Similar to the existing conditions, Depending on the level of repairs Pedestrian access would be Similar to existing conditions, a vehicular access would continue to completed, the bridge could be used provided. Due to the limited vehicular crossing would no longer be prohibited. for 'viewing' purposes only or could destinations identified along exist. be used as a pedestrian crossing. Orchardville Sideroad (i.e. trails On-going bridge usage would be systems, low-volume roadways) the subject to future bridge inspection bridge would primarily be used as a results. pedestrian pathway or 'viewing' platform. 2. Safety Deteriorated condition of the bridge Bridge repairs would improve bridge Would improve upon the existing Removal of the structure would would lead to an eventual bridge safety in the short-term. However, condition. Would be subject to on- improve upon the existing condition. collapse. on-going deterioration would lead to going bridge maintenance. future safety concerns. 3. Emergency Access The properties to the south can be accessed directly via Highway 6. Further, access to the properties to the north of the subject bridge is not dependent upon the maintainance of a crossing. Provisions to provide a turn-around area and/or appropriate signage may be considered. Ranking 1 2 4 3 NATURAL 1. Wildlife Disturbance Pending 'collapse' could result in Impacts could be mitigated through the avoidance of construction activities significant disturbance to the fish during critical life stages (i.e. timing windows). habitat. 2. Vegetation Would not require the removal of The implementation of restoration measures (i.e. re-vegetation) would result in long-term trees or vegetation. However, works positive effects on the natural heritage features within the areas impacted. associated with bridge collapse would have a more significant impact than a planned approach. 3. Site Grading Would maintain existing conditions in Would maintain existing conditions. Provides opportunites for improved Provides opportunites for improved the short-term. Potential bridge slope stability (i.e. edge slope stability (i.e. edge collapse could ultimately lead to enhancement). enhancement). compromised slope stability. 4. Hydrology (i.e. flow) Would maintain exisiting conditions. Would maintain existing conditions. Bridge design could consider The removal of the abutments and provisions for improved flow wingwalls, with provisions for hydraulics (decreased constriction at improved slope stability measures, bridge). would provide for better flow hydraulics. Ranking 1 2 3 4 CULTURAL 1. Archaeological The Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment concluded there are no archaeological resources in the vicinity of the bridge that would be impacted by any project alternative. 2. Cultural Heritage No alterations would be made to the Alterations to the existing structure Alterations to the existing structure Removal of the bridge would have existing structure. would be minimal. Bridge restoration would be greatest. However, the the greatest impact to the cultural efforts could consider sympathetic replacement bridge could be heritage attributes and features repairs. 'sympathetically' designed. identified. Ranking 3.5 3.5 2 1 TECHNICAL 1. Access Since Orchardville Sideroad is only approximately 550 meters in length and all residents can maintain access to their properties without significantly extending the distance of travel to the main thoroughfare (i.e. Highway 6), there is no apparent need to re-establish a vehicular crossing at this location. Further, maintaining a crossing for pedestrian access is not considered highly important due to limited destinations (i.e. trail system, pedestrain friendly roads) and few users. 2. Amount of Use Bridge condition currently prevents Since bridge repairs may, at most, Since bridge replacement would be Based on the low volume of vehicular access. Pedestrain access result in the accommodation of a completed to accommodate a pedestrian traffic anticipated, bridge would be maintained for the short- relatively low volume of pedestrain relatively low volume of pedestrian removal is favored. term. traffic, and the lifespan of the bridge traffic, bridge replacement is not would only be temporarily extended, favored. bridge repairs are not technically favored. 3. Structural Condition The deteriorated condition of the It is anticipated that major repairs A pedestrian bridge crossing could Bridge removal would address the bridge is being addressed to avoid would be necessary to restore the be considered. Bridge replacement deteriorating condition of the bridge potential collapse, which would bridge as a visual element only, with would improve pedestrain safety both and avoid the potential for collapsing require the implementation of additional repairs required to restore in the short-term and long-term. into the river. emergency measures. the structures functionality as a pedestrian bridge. Ranking 1.5 1.5 3 4 ECONOMIC 1. Short-term 'capital' Would have limited capital and Cost to repair the various elements of Cost to remove the existing structure Bridge removal would be the least costs maintenance costs in the short term. the bridge including, but not limited and replace with a pedestrian costly of the alternatives. Demolition to, the trusses and concrete railings crossing are estimated to be in the costs are estimated to be in the which both have severe section loss, range of $300 to $600K (excluding range of $100K to $200K. are considered to be in the range of demolition) and could be as high as $600 to $900K. $1M for sympathetic construction. 2. Long-term costs Relative to bridge removal, the costs Costs associated with maintainance Costs associated with on-going No on-going bridge maintenance associated with bridge collapse (i.e. of the structure as a pedestrain bridge maintenance would be low. costs. emergency work) are considered bridge would be ongoing. Eventual high. bridge replacement or removal would only be delayed. Ranking 2 1 3 4 OVERALL RANKING 9 10 15 16 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

6.2 Recommended Solution

Based on the results of the relative ranking presented in Table 2, Alternative 4, to Remove the Existing Bridge, is identified as the Preliminary Recommended Solution. As the Orchardville Bridge is considered to have Cultural Heritage value, and it is anticipated that costs associated with the ‘alterations’ (i.e. bridge removal) will be less than $2.4 million, the removal of the structure is considered to be a Schedule ‘B’ activity under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Roads Project Schedule No.30.

The Preliminary Recommended Solution is circulated with this version of the Project File to the public, agencies, and First Nations groups for review and comment. Comments regarding the Preliminary Recommended Solution will be considered and presented in an updated Project File, which will present a Recommended Preferred Solution, for consideration and acceptance (or otherwise) by Council.

7. CONSULTATION Consultation early in and throughout the process is a key feature of environmental assessment planning. Schedule ‘B’ Municipal Class EA processes have two mandatory points of contact; the Notice of Project Initiation (i.e. Consultation - Phase 2) and the Notice of Completion.

7.1 Notice of Project Initiation

A Notice of Project Initiation was prepared and first issued on September 12th, 2019. A copy of the Notice is provided in Appendix ‘A’. The Notice was advertised in the Mount Forest Confederate on September 12th and September 19th, 2019. The Notice was also mailed to property owners surrounding the Study Area on September 12th, 2019. It is noted that while public notice typically requires that notices be mailed to the owners of all properties within and abutting the Study Area, an extended notification area was endorsed, as outlined on the Figure provided in Appendix ‘A’.

The Notice of Project Initiation invites the public, agencies and First Nations groups to review this version of the Project File (i.e. Version 1), which includes the background technical reports. Comments received will be included in the Project File (Version 2), to be issued at a later date.

7.2 Consultations

7.2.1 Public Consultation With the circulation of this version of the Schedule ‘B’ EA Project File, the public are invited to provide comments regarding the Recommended Preferred Solution. Comments received will be summarized in this section. Upon receipt and review of all comments, the review of alternatives will be re-visited, and any new information will be incorporated into the re-assessment of the Recommended Preferred Solution, for consideration and acceptance (or otherwise) by Council.

7.2.2 Agency Consultation Agencies with a regulatory role that may require future permits/approvals, or may have a direct interest in the study, are to be contacted at each ‘mandatory point of contact’ required as part of the EA process to invite feedback. This version of the Schedule ‘B’ Project File was circulated to select key agencies/groups on September 12th, 2019 to solicit agency comments and feedback, which will be incorporated into further assessment of the Recommended Preferred Solution for consideration and acceptance (or otherwise) by Council. A complete List of Agencies contacted is provided in Appendix ‘A’, but they include the following:

PAGE 16 OF 17 BRIDGE NO. 900-272 ORCHARDVILLE SCHEDULE 'B' EA PROJECT FILE (VERSION 1) GMBP FILE: 217103 SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

. Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) . Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) . Grey County Planning and Transportation Departments . Ministry of Transportation . Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) . First Nations . Utilities

Comments received from the agency groups will be summarized in this section.

8. NEXT STEPS

This version of the Project File is issued under Phase 2 Step 5, as the first mandatory point of public contact under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. Next steps in the process include the following:

i. The Project File will be circulated to directly affected landowners, agency groups, and First Nations. Comments will be received by the Project Team until October 15, 2019. ii. Following the initial consultation period, the County will meet with the public and other interested parties to discuss the study findings to date. iii. Any new information received will be incorporated into the Project File, and the assessment of alternatives and the Recommended Solution will be updated for Council to consider as a Preferred Solution. iv. Upon acceptance (or otherwise) by Council of the Preferred Solution, a Notice of Completion will be advertised, advising participants of the outcome to the Schedule ‘B’ EA process. v. A 30-day Public Review Period will follow the Notice of Completion date to permit the opportunity for any participant to request the Minister to enact Part II of the Act (i.e. a Part II Order), which would require additional study to verify the project direction.

PAGE 17 OF 17

FIGURES: