C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers
STEPHENSON ROAD I BRIDGE Town of Bracebridge ond Town of H u ntsville
Municipol Closs Environmentol Assessment
Proiect File
prepared by: prepared for
C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. The Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville I Banon Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L 0A1 November 17,2014 Tel: (705) 645-7756 Fax: (705)645-8'159 [email protected] CCTA File 212529-1 Toble of Contents
1 lntroduction and Background 1
1.1 I nhoduction/Backg rou nd I
1.2 Class Environmental Assessment Process 2
1.2.1 Class EA Schedules 2
1.2.2 Class EA Terminology 4
1.2.3 SelectedSchedule 4
2 Need & Justification 6
2.1 Existing Conditions and Background 6
2.1.1 StructuralCondition 7
2.1.2 TrafficConditions 10
2.1.3 Utilities 10
2.1.4 HydraulicAssessment 10
2.1.5 Geometry 11
21.6 BarrierProtection 11
2.2 Problem/Opportun ity Statement 11
3 Gonsultation - Study Commencement 12
3,1 Notification 12
3.2 Public Comments 12
3.3 Agency Comments 13
4 Alternative Solutions '14
4.1 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing 14 4.2 Alternative 2 - Rehabilitate the Bridge
4,3 Alternative 3 - Replace the Bridge
5 Environment lnventory
5.1 Natural Environment
5.2 Social Environment
5.2.1 Archaeological lnvestigation
5.2.2 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
5.2.3 Property Acquisition
5.3 Physical Environment
5.3.1 Existing Bridge Structure
5.3.2 Existing Approaches
5,3,3 Traffic Operations
5,3,4 Utilities
5.3.5 Hydraulics
5.3.6 Barriers
5.3.7 Geotechnical Considerations
5.4 Economic Environment
6 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions
6.1 Evaluation Criteria
6.2 Environment lmpacts
6.2.1 Alternative 1 - Do Nothing
6.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rehabilitate the Bridge
6.2.3 Alternative 3 - Replace the Bridge 6,3 Recommended Solution 26
7 Consultation - Public lnformation Centre 27
7.1 Notification 27
7.2 Public lnformation Centre 27
7.3 Public Comment 28
7.4 Agency Comment 29
8 ldentification of Preferred Solution 29
8.1 Preferred Solution 29
8.2 Confirmation of EA Schedule 29
I Completion of the Class EA Process 30
9.1 Submission to the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville 30
9.2 Submission to Stakeholders 30
9.3 lmplementation 31 Appendices
Appendix A: Consultation - Study Commencement
Appendix B: NHIC Biodiversity Explorer Results
Appendix C: Natural Environment Review Report
Appendix D: Archaeologícal Assessment
Appendix E: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
Appendix F: Consultation - Public lnformation Centre
Appendix G: The Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklis
Appendix H: Structural lnspection Reports (OSIM)
Appendix l: Structural Evaluation Memo
Appendix J: Load Posting Recommendation
Appendix K: General Arrangement Drawing
Appendix L: Town Council Resolutions
Appendix M: Consultation - Notice of Study Completion
list of Tobles
Table 1: NHIC Species at Risk and lnvasive Species Database Search Results 18
Table 2: NHIC NaturalArea Database Search 18
Table 3: Bridge Solution Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 24 List of Figures
Figure 1: Key Map
Figure 2: Class EA Process 3 I lntroduction ond Bockground l.l Inlrodurtion/Bockground
The Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville are considering improvements to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge located on Stephenson Road 1, approximately 1 km east of Highway 11, over the north branch of the Muskoka River. A key map showing the site location can be seen in Figure 1.
C.C, Tatham and Associates Ltd. (CCTA) was retained by the Town of Bracebridge (Town) to undertake a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study (Class EA Study), in accordance with the guidelinest. The objective of the Class EA Study is to confirm the need for improvements and consider the most appropriate manner in which they can be implemented.
Figure 1: Key Map
taarl:tydney (JtlersÞF lrr I q
li4n 1øl HORÍH TO HU¡llTSV|l¡E lj"r |ã 1 Fã*e.sv e
f.-*.= fcl _ STEPI{I RD. T útI t -{'r'af = ,15¡ HUSKOI Fs3kenbúr'g ¡Tiì srton Él€rBh 5lÐt¡aq t Gelf c l¡¡11 I5 '-!1 ; TOiN OF ERACE9R¡DGE 5'r'rrh trnr¡.rtqkR t* GGlf {: hrl, Él ! :rys!.| E6dßr 30urH TO ]each t/,t¡--o- BARRIE t:t-,-,*,o -.¡o * Fd l.+ [a.k oT ¡r rlû¡bair¡qlì *'Þ F¡,ttúÉtt.rì fi4f .,àÉrr^ .\.r Lt,:r Cnr:..,,- B€æbñdqe Gol6en E,apqor (Base Plan from Google Maps 2013) 1 MunicipalClass EnvironmenfalAssessmenf. Municipal Engineers Association, October 2000 as amended in2007 &2011 Stephenson Road I Bridge Page 1 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 1.2 Closs Environmentol Assessmenl Proress The Class Environmental Assessment process is defined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessmenf document, Applying to all municipal road improvement projects, a number of study categories or schedules have been established recognizing the range of expected environmental impacts. These are briefly described below whereas the process corresponding to each is illustrated in Figure 2, 1.2.1 Closs EA Schedules Schedule A Schedule A projects generally include normal or emergency operational and maintenance activities. As the environmental effects of these activities are usually minimal, these projects are pre-approved and may proceed directly to implementation without the need to complete the planning and design process. No reports or study documents need to be prepared. Schedule A* Schedule 4+ pro¡ects are typically limited in size and scope, and thus have minimal associated environmental impacts. While these projects are also pre-approved, they require notification to the public prior to implementation. No reports or study documents need to be prepared outside of the notification. Schedule B Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities. As there is the potential for some adverse environmental impacts, the municipality is required to conduct a screening process whereby members of the public and review agencies are informed of the project and given the opportunity to provide comment. Documentation of the planning and design process is required under a Schedule B Study. As Schedule B projects are generally straightfonruard and do not require detailed technical investigations to arrive at the preferred solution, a formal report is not required. Rather, a Project File is prepared to demonstrate that the appropriate steps have been followed. The Project File is to be submitted for review by the public and review agencies. Schedule C Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities, As they have the potential for environmental impacts, they must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified by the Municipal Class EA document, Schedule C pro¡ects require an Environmental Study Report (ESR) to be prepared and appropriately filed for review by the public and review agencies. Stephenson Road'l Bridge Page 2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Figure 2: Class EA Process Schedule B Phases I ALTERNATIVE DESIGN PROALEM OR ALTERHATTVE EHVIRONMENTAL CONCEPfS FOR IMPLEh'EHfATION OPPORTUNITY SOLUTIONS SfUDY REPORT FREFERREO SOLUTION I 1. I Hl ffii Rpo.t I I Seled J- tl 2€f Srñèdr¡le ----) t-t A ?- ProcÊ€d lo æn*tclid ü I e$mictrÉwffit & I I I I f m qder'. trr¡y I I 3l*ni|ùbr I Older" I I 1 I Sædql I I I I I .f- Édu¿úê aås¡dt€ G I I , -{ I I I -1 I -t- I I I t. S€leq I I MdÊr ---+ lftRÈt$ wfftE I EÈGi Þ -----J l¡rlcates m¡ ænts â Seled I a m*Isbî sdultm ;--2 ¡ I a I I I - - - -> lnd€tes prpùrble ænE t SÊdr¡þ I L-- I I I I I I I ¡ De¡sion pdrüs on dro¡cê of sc+ÊdLde IrnlclÞ.1 RËifl&sñm j I ¡*r¡i* dsffite t- Cng¡rrÉ I t-"s^:--i I BioÈl N l'r¡Cd{r f L I P¡n ll qds Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 3 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 1.2.2 Closs EA Terminology Prior to determining the appropriate Class EA schedule, an understanding of the defining terminology is required as described below: Hydroulic Copocity Means capacity defined in terms of the volume of water that can be conveyed under or through a water crossing structure. Rood Copocily Means capacity defined in terms of the number of travelled lanes and does not differentiate between various lane widths to accommodate differing traffic volumes. Some Purpose, Use, Copucity & locotion Refers to the replacement or upgrading of a structure or facility or its performance, where the objective and application remain unchanged, and the volume, size and capability do not exceed the minimum municipal standard, or the existing rated capacity, and there is no substantial change of location. Works carried out within an existing road allowance such that no land acquisition is required are considered to be in the same location. Conversely, it is thus inferred that should improvements extend beyond the existing road allowance and additional property is required, the location is considered to have changed. Wotercourse Means flowing water, though not necessarily continuous, within a defined channel and with a bed and banks which usually discharges itself into some other watercourse or body of water, 1.2.3 SelectedSchedule As per the Class EA guidelines and in consideration of the improvement works, the following apply: Schedule A for the reconstruction or alteration of a structure or the grading adjacent to it when the structure is over 40 years old which after appropriate evaluation is found not to have cultural heritage value; Schedule A+ for the reconstruction of a water crossing for the same purpose, use, capacity (refers to either hydraulic capacity or road capacity) and at the same location; Schedule B for the reconstruction of a water crossing where the reconstructed facility will not be for the same purpose, use, capacity (refers to either hydraulic capacity or road capacity) or at the same location and provided the cost is less than $2.Zttl; Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 4 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Schedule B for the construction of a new water crossing provided the cost is less than $2.7M; Schedule B for the reconstruction or alteration of a structure or the grading adjacent to it when the structure is over 40 years old, which after appropriate evaluation is found to have cultural heritage value; and Schedule C for the above noted projects which exceed $2.7M ln consideration of the above Class EA guidelines, potential alternative solutions and the associated costs (the reconstruction of the existing bridge with similar or increased capacity can be implemented for less than $2.7M), and to ensure appropriate public consultation throughout the study, the Schedule B Class EA process has been considered. As illustrated in Figure 2, a Schedule B requires completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA planning and design process. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 5 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 2 Need & Juslificotion The purpose of this Class EA Study is to identify the most appropriate improvement shategy to address the needs for the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. ln doing so, it is first necessary to establish and understand the existing conditions from which the needs are determined. Once these existing conditions and needs are identified, the overall problem statement can be defined. These tasks have been completed in accordance with Phase 1 of the Class EA Study process, which culminates with the creation of the problem statement, The main areas of concern are: . identifying, evaluating and selecting long-term cost-effective strategies to address the deteriorated condition of the existing bridge; . providing the necessary improvements to the roadway approaches to suit the bridge and traffic; . minimizing and/or avoiding impacts to adjacent private property; . provision of proven environmental protection and mitigation measures given the proximity of construction activities to the watercourse, and; . ensuring all cultural heritage and archaeology concerns are addressed. 2.1 Exisling Conditions ond Bockground The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is on the town line between and under the jurisdiction of The Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville, The bridge is located at lots 16 and 17, concession 13, Macaulay Ward, Town of Bracebridge, The existing bridge was constructed in aboul1922 and is a two span structure consisting of a 40.8 m structural steel through truss main span, originally fabricated in 1892, and a 5,7 m structural steel girder east approach span. The bridge is constructed normal to the roadway alignment and the existing bridge drawings and historical geotechnical reports (Geotechnical lnvestigation prepared by Trow Ltd., July 30, 1983) indicate that the centre is supported on a piled concrete pier and the west and east concrete abutments are founded on spread footings and timber mats. The approach span consists of six structural steel girders at +/-900 mm centres which support a timber plank deck. The timber plank deck on the main span is supported on six structural steel girders which are in turn supported by transverse structural steelfloor beams at +l 5000 mm centres and connected to the panel points of the trusses, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 6 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 The structural steel trusses are spaced at +15250 mm centres and provide a +/-4500 mm wide deck between timber curbs which accommodates a single lane of vehicular traffic. A double steel pipe handrail is located inside the north and south truss. At the commencement of the study the bridge had a triple load posting of 9 tonnes, 14 tonnes, and 18 tonnes, corresponding to single unitvehicles, two unit vehicles and vehicle trains respectively. ln the 1970's it was reported that significant movement of the abutments was creating compression in the bottom chord of the truss rather than tension. ln 1984, rehabilitation of the bridge was conducted to increase the load carrying capacity of the bridge and allow it to remain in service. The following items were included in this rehabilitation: . The west abutment was tied back with a dead man anchor. . The bearing pads were replaced, . The ballast walls were replaced. ' The timber plank deck was replaced with a transverse laminated timber deck. . The timber stringers were replaced with steel stringers, . The existing steelfloor beams were sandblasted and painted. . The existing timber handrails were replaced with steel handrail, . Load capacity signs were installed. The repairs had an expected service life of 10 years. Since 1984 there has not been any repairs completed. 2.1.1 Structurol Condirion Prior to 1984 Repairs ln June 1979, the bridge was inspected by Mr, R,S. Reel, P.Eng., Evaluation Engineer, Approvals Section, Structural Office, Ministry of Transportation (MTO). ln Mr. Reel's report, he noted the rusting of the structural steel trusses and the bent bottom chord members of the trusses. Mr. Reel recommended that the bridge be posted with a 5 tonne load limit based on his visual inspection and that a more detailed structural evaluation of the bridge be carried out. ln July 1981, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited prepared a visual bridge inspection report. The report included a close up examination of the timber plank deck and stringers, concrete pier and abutments, structural steel trusses, floor beams and, girders. The report indicated that the existing structural steel members were extensively corroded, that several bottom chord members of the trusses were buckled and, that the existing bridge was critically deficient for safe loading. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 7 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 It was recommended that the existing bridge be replaced The report included the following findings The timber deck and curbs, and longitudinal timber stringers are in fair condition. The timber plank deck is not firmly attached to the timber stringers and a high level of vibration of the superstructure was noted when vehicular traffic crossed the bridge. The concrete pier and abutments are in fair to good condition. Extensive spalling of the concrete pier was noted. The concrete pier and the abutments are tilting fonruard towards the river, The structural steel trusses and floor beams of the main span and structural steel stringers of the approach span are in fair condition with extensive overall corrosion and pitting noted. Several bottom chord members of the trusses are buckled and one member was recorded to be up to 375 mm out of alignment. The abutment bearing seats are covered with dirt and debris which is supporting vegetation growth The foundations of the bridge pier and abutments are buried under the river bank and no evidence of structural distress was noted. The remains of two old timber crib pier foundations were noted in the river bed under the existing bridge. The bridge is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about 3 tonnes, based on the capacity of the longitudinal timber stringers. Post 1984 Repairs A site investigation was undertaken on September 23,2008 by McCormick Rankin Corporation. The investigation included a detailed visual inspection (DVl) of the structure, The DVI was conducted in accordance with the Ontario Structure lnspection Manual (OSIM) 2008. The following is a general summary of the findings: A load capacity evaluation should be carried out as soon as possible due to the condition of the bottom chord. The bottom chord should be monitored until repairs are carried out. Remove existing bridge and replace with new due to width deficiency within 1. lf replacement is not practical, repair to be completed immediately and include buckled bottom chord members, bracings and, steelcoating. Timber deck is severely worn with depressions along the wheel tracks. Concrete scaling at the abutments. Railings are bent and corroded. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page I Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17 ,2014 Top main chords and verticals are covered with 100% rust. Light to medium conosion. Minor section loss. Floor beams and stringers have light corrosion on them. Coating work should be carried out immediately, Coating on truss has completely failed. Roller bearings completely rusted and not functioning properly. Steel barrier guardrail does not meet current standards and is not connected to bridge a There is no narrow structure sígn, A DVI was completed on July 19, 2012by CCTA in accordance with the Ontario Structure lnspection Manual (OSIM) 2008. The 2012 Municipal lnspection Forms are provided in Appendix H. Thefollowing is a general summary of the findings: Current load limit 9, 14 and, 18 tonnes, A load capacity evaluation should be completed due to the condition of the bridge. Bottom chord of north truss is buckled likely due to movement of bridge abutments. Timber deck is severely worn with depressions along the wheel tracks and rotting on ends Corrosion on the expansion joint surface. Both ends distorted at wheel ruts and tipped up on bridge síde likely due to abutment movements. Railings are bent and corroded. South east end top rail is a hazard as it protrudes well beyond the bridge. Top main chords and verticals are covered with 100% rust, Coatings on trusses have completely failed, Medium to heavy corrosion. Heavy pitting throughout. Floor beams and stringers have light corrosion. Light scaling and cracking of concrete. West abutment scoured at grade. Roller bearings completely rusted and not functioning, Erosion along gabion baskets, Wood posts of steel banier guard rail showing minor rot. Not connected to bridge. Narrow structure sign required, On December 4,2012, CCTA completed a structural evaluation of the existing bridge in accordance with Section 14 of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The evaluation was to determine the current load carrying capacity of the bridge. The structural evaluation memo is provided in Appendix l. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 9 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 On May 23,2013 a load posting recommendation was sent to the Town for the purpose of enacting the Town By-law to reduce the existing load posting to 7, 11 and, 15 tonnes. The Load Posting recommendation is provided in Appendix J. 2.1.2 TrofficConditions The existing bridge is located along a low traffic rural road. There are cottages and homes along the road and entrances just east and west of the approaches. The previous Road Needs Study (RNS) traffic counts report that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes were 50 for 1976, 200 for 2003, 400 for 2008 and,425for 2012. The volume of 425 for 2012 came from the Town of Bracebridge RNS completed by CCTA. This volume was determined using population growth factors based on the 2008 measured volume of 400. The bridge width is unacceptable for a single lane based on speed and AADT from the Ontario Structure Manual (OSM) - Guidelines for the Design of Bridges on Low Volume Roads. The road west of the bridge is steep and has no winter maintenance. Residents directly west of the bridge use the bridge to access their properties in the winter, 2.1 .3 Utilities There are no utilities on the bridge. There are overhead wires crossing the river approxímately 10 metres north of the bridge. The hydro poles are not in close vicinity to the bridge. The area is not serviced by municipal sewer or water. During a review of available planning information, there did not appear to be any plans for new infrastructure in the study area in the immediate future. 2.1.4 HydroulicAssessment ln accordance with Ministry Directive B-100, the design flood criteria for this low traffic rural route is the 50 year design storm. During the review of the background information it was confirmed that there is no recurring historical flooding at the structure and thus, a hydrologic analysis and model was not completed for the upstream watershed. During the spring 2013 melt significant flooding occurred in the District. The underside of the bridge was approximately 0.9 m above the peak flood level. Analysis of the spring 2013 melt in the Muskoka River watershed confirmed the peak flows were approximately equivalent to the 100 year design storm, The existing bridge has a capacity which exceeds the design flood criteria for this low traffic rural route bridge. The recommended design criteria for the repairs or replacement bridge include maintaining or increasing the existing span and the existing bridge soffit elevation. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 10 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 2.1.5 Geometry To the west of the bridge there is a horizontal curve in the road to meet the intersection at River Valley Road and avoid exposed bedrock. There is also a driveway to the south adjacent to the bridge. To the east of the bridge the approach is fairly straight with a driveway to the nofth, The roadway consists of two lanes of east-west traffic up to the bridge, The traffic is one lane over the bridge. 2.1.6 BarrierProlection The existing barriers on the bridge consist of two round steel rails that are substandard and failing They provide a potential hazard as they protrude past the bridge ends, The existing barriers on each side of both approaches consist of approximately 4 metres of steel barrier guard rail (SBGR). These barriers are substandard and do have correct end and bridge terminations. ln addition the approach guide rail lengths are deficient and do not meet the 2002 MTO memorandum on length of protection for water hazards, 2.2 Problem/0pportunily Stotement ln consideration of the existing conditions, the Problem Statement, which sets the framework for the remainder of the study, is as follows: "The Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville have initiated a Municipal C/ass Environmental Assessment to consider options to identify a preferred solution fo address the deficiencies of the Sfephenson Road I Bridge as they relate to public safety, structural condition, performance, capacity and, design standards." Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 11 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 3 Consultolion - Sludy Commencement The Class EA Study process (refer to Figure 2) requires a number of points of stakeholder contact, The first point of contact, as discussed in this chapter, is the Notice of Study Commencement (Notice), which is used to inform the general public and stakeholders of the start of the study. The remaining points of contact are discussed further in the report following the chronological order. 3.1 Notifitution A Notice was issued to all property owners within the study area (as determined by the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville municipal records), appropriate review agencies, stakeholder groups and special interest groups on October 19,2012. The Notice identified the study area, the study methodology and Class EA Study guidelines to be followed. ln addition, it invited public input and comments early in the process such that they could be considered in the overall study design and completíon. A copy of the Notice is provided in Appendix A. The same Notice was also posted on the Town of Bracebridge website and the Town of Huntsville website and published in The Bracebridge Examiner and The Huntsville Forester, local newspapers on October 24,2012. 3.2 Public Commenls Ten public comments were received in response to the Notice. The comments are summarized below whereas the associated conespondence is provided in Appendix A. . Prefers the bridge be repaired unless replacement is required for safety purposes. . Prefers minimal repairs as the bridge and area is beautiful and the bridge is historic. . Prefers single lane bridge to keep traffic volumes and speeds down, . The approach from the west should be reviewed for safety as it is a blind spot. . lf the bridge needs to be replaced due to safety reasons, prefers the new bridge is moved to the south as it will only impact the Town property, . Prefers replacement to be wide enough for snow plough, buses and, garbage truck. . Support whatever measures are necessary to keep the existing bridge in service and would like to see some form of noise reduction. . Supports a two lane bridge with no load restrictions and year round access from highway 11, ' Happy that bridge is being replaced as it poses a very dangerous situation. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 12 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 3.3 Agency Comments Comments were received from a number of review agencies and utility companies in response to the Notice. The comments are summarized below whereas the associated correspondence is provided in Appendix A, The MTO replied to advise that they have future plans to construct a fly-over at the intersection of Highway 11 and Stephenson Road 1. The MTO provided a copy of their plans and requested to be kept informed of the Class EA Study progress. Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd. advised that the property is not in their service area and suggested that we contact Hydro One for their input. A Notice was previously sent to Hydro One. No comments were received from Hydro One. The Chippewas of Rama First Nation (Chief Sharon Stinson Henry) acknowledged receipt of the Notice and requested we provide a copy of the Notice to their lawyer, Karry Sandy-McKenzie, A copy was previously sent. No additional comments were received. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs provided direction about which aboriginal communities should be contacted. The District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM), Planning Department advised that this portion of the Muskoka River is classified as Type 1 Fish Habitat by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and requires completion of a Fisheries Habitat Assessment. Fish Habitat was reviewed and considered in the analysis of project alternatives by RiverStone Environmental Solutions lnc. in the Natural Environment Review Report. The analysis determined that no further studies would be required for Alternative 1: do nothing and Alternative 2: rehabilitate the existing bridge, where there is no/little change to the bridge footprint, However, Alternative 3: replacement of entire bridge that proposes in- water construction may require additional permitting through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and MNR since the level of potential impacts on the natural environment would increase with the level of construction and additional clearing of vegetation. ln addition the DMM advised that the Archaeological Master Plan prepared for the DMM identifies the subject lands as being within a general zone of high to very high archaeological potential and within such areas, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and, Sport (MTCS) has advised that a Cultural Heritage Assessment may be required prior to any site alteration. The DMM recommended we contact the MTCS. We provided the MTCS with a Notice, The ArchaeologicalAssessment and a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report is discussed further below in section 5, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 13 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 4 Alternolive Solutions Further to the identification of the Problem Statement, a number of possible bridge improvement solutions have been developed for consideration and evaluation, The associated tasks have been completed in accordance with Phase2of the Class EA Study process. lt is noted thatthe alternative solutions are focussed on improving the safety of the bridge while addressing the existing deficiencies. A total of three solutions were identified in consideration of the natural environment and topography of the area. The options include the following: . Alternative 1 - Do nothing; . Alternative 2 - Rehabilitate the bridge; . Alternative 3 - Replace the bridge. 4 I Alternolive I - Do Nolhing Under this alternative, no improvements or changes to the bridge would be made to solve the identified problems and as such, the problems would remain. While this would not satisfy the objectives of the Towns to improve the safety, condition, and performance of the bridge, a do nothing option is suggested for consideration within the Class EA Study guidelines. A decision to do nothing would typically be made when the costs and impacts of all other alternatives, either financial and/or environmental, significantly outweigh the benefits, 4.2 Alternoliv e 2 - Rehobilitole lhe Bridge This alternative involves completing the required repairs to maintain the existing structure open to vehicular traffic, improve the structural capacity and safety, extend the remaining life span and, have minimal disturbance to the surrounding lands. The rehabilitation works would be in accordance with the MTO Structure Rehabilitation Manual and the OSM - Design Guidelines for Bridges on Low Volume Roads. The items requiring repair are as follows: The west abutment was moving and settling as described in the Geotechnical lnvestigation completed by Trow Ltd. in July 1981 due to the force of the soil behind the abutment, the decomposing timbers and, the settlement prone alluvian soil below the foundation, During repairwork in 1984, the abutment was tied back into the earth however, since the repair work the west abutment has continued to move as seen in the buckling of the bottom chord of the truss, Two major repair items are the replacement of the west abutment, with the new abutment founding on bedrock and the replacement of the buckled bottom chord such that it will act in tension as it was designed for. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 14 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 During the OSIM investigations in 2008 and2012 it was noted that all bearing pads have seized, that the deck wearing surface is rotted and worn beyond 50 mm, and that the entire steel truss is severely corroded. The resulting major repair items are the replacement of all bearing pads and the deck wearing surface and sand blasting and painting the steel truss within the splash zone to reduce corrosion. It was also determined that the barriers on the approaches and on the deck are inadequate as they are failing and do not satisfy current standards. The resulting repair is to install barriers to current road and bridge codes. The structural items identified to be replaced are past their expected life span. The replacements will extend the remaining life of the bridge by approximately 10 to 15 years, at which time an evaluation would be required to determine whether to further extend the life of the bridge by completing additional repairs or to replace the bridge. lt is likely the rehabilitated bridge will need to be replaced in 15 years. 4.3 Alternotive 3 - Replore lhe Bridge Under this alternative, the entire bridge including superstructure, substructure and barriers would be replaced in its current location. The replacement structure will satisfy the OSM - Design Guidelines for Bridges on Low Volume Roads and will accommodate one lane of traffic, The replacement structure being considered is a pre manufactured bailey bridge as it is the most economical structure available for this span and low volume road. The replacement of the abutments would be completed close to the water, The new abutments would found on bedrock or on deep foundations founded on bedrock. Sufficient mitigation control measures would be installed to avoid any adverse effects to the surrounding natural area, The expected life span of the new bridge would be approximately 75 years. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 15 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 5 Environment lnventory A physical description of the study area has been developed considering the identified alternative solutions and considering the following environments: natural environment social environment physical environment economic environment ln accordance with the Class EA Study guidelines, detailed investigations and analyses with respect to the environment inventories were not required at this point in the study. Rather, data was obtained based on site visits and from a review of secondary information. The purpose of the inventories is to obtain information upon which the assessment of the alternative solutions can be based. Brief descriptions of the various environments investigated are provided below, 5.1 Noturol Environmenl The Natural Heritage lnformation Centre (NHIC) is a joint venture established in 1993 between the MNR, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Nature League. The NHIC maintains and distributes information on natural species, plant communities and areas of conservation concern in Ontario. The NHIC is Ontario's Conservation Date Centre responsible for tracking and location and condition information for species, plant communities, wildlife conservation areas, and natural areas as well as determining conservation status. The NHIC works with other government and non-government organizations to develop and maintain provincial records of observations of these at risk elements. Conservation status listed in the database covers species at risk and considered threatened, endangered, special concern etc. The database also keeps record of invasive species. An element occurrence is an area of land and/or water where a species or plant community is or was present. They represent areas important to the conservation of a species or plan community such as the courtship, nesting, rearing and feeding areas of a bird, The NHIC generates each element occurrence from one or more observations, The NHIC follows international standard element occurrence specifications, developed by the NatureServe network, to combine observations to form element occurrences, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 16 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 The specifications define what does and does not constitute an element occurrence. For example, for a bald eagle, the NHIC considers a record for a nesting site an element occurrence or part of an element occurrence, But it does not consider a record of migrating bald eagle an element occurrence or part of an element occurrence. Element occurrence specifications also show which features, like busy roads and dams, prevent a species from moving or dispersing. This information defines the boundaries of an element occurrence. The specifications also define how far apart observations that are part of the same element occurrence can be, Some specifications are species and others apply to a group of species (e.9., ducks and geese, sticklebacks, or freshwater mussels). To determine the presence or occurrence of any sensitive or at risk environmental features that may be present in the areas, a search of the NHIC database was conducted forthe 1km and 1Okm square areas around the bridge. The search results are described and summarized in Table I and2 below. lnvasive Species There were no invasive species reported within the 1 km square and only 1 specie reported within the 10 km square in which the structure is located. This invasive species was last seen within the 10 km square in which the structure is located in 2004 however, it is very common globally, Wildlife and Plant Communities There were no wildlife or plant communities reported within the 1 km or 10 km square in which the structure is located. NaturalAreas There were no natural areas reported within the 1 km square and only 1 natural area reported within the 10 km square in which the structure is located. Species at Risk There were 3 species at risk reported within the 1 km and the 10 km square in which the structure is located. The species at risk are identified as common in Canada however, vulnerable in Ontario. Both sets of data for the species at risk are considered historical as no sightings have been recorded since the early 1900s, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 17 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Table 1: NHIC Species at Risk and Invasive Species Database Search Results 17P130 (1Okm sq) Spiny Water Flea lnvasive Very Common None 17P130-31(1km sq) Uhle/s Dragon At Risk Very Common Vulnerable 17P130-32(1km sq) Uhler's Dragon At Risk Very Common Vulnerable 17P130 (1Okm sq) Uhler's Dragon At Risk Very Common Vulnerable 17P130-31(1km sq) Round-Leaved 0rchid At Risk Common lmperiled 17PL30-32(1km sq) Round-Leaved Orchid At Risk Common lmperiled 17P130 (1Okm sq) Round-Leaved Orchid At Risk Common lmperiled Table 2: NHIG NaturalArea Database Search 17P130 (1Okm square) Fawn Lake Wetland Candidiate Life Science ANSI 17P130(1Okm square) Fawn Lake Wetland Life Science Site 17P130 (1Okm square) Fawn Lake Wetland Provincial Wetland A copy of the NHIC Biodiversity Explorer search result tables are provided in Appendix C Based on the results of the review, there are no environmentally sensitive species or characteristics that will be impacted by the alternative solutions, and no additional requirements to preserve habitat are required. RiverStone Environmental Solutions lnc. completed a natural environment review. This included a site assessment in June 2012, The site assessment confirmed the project area has typical habitat for the surrounding area and no significant plant or animal communities were noted. The Natural Environmental Review is provide in Appendix C, 5.2 Sociol Environment A review of the social environment focused on the existing residential areas, recreation areas, public institutions and, service facilities that may be impacted. There are no public transit routes to consider. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 1B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 There are residential areas which are accessed from Stephenson Road 1 which could be slightly affected as the route to their closest interchange for Highway 11 would be impacted during any rehabilitation or replacement works. Alternative routes are available and would need to be used. The current traffic volume is a three season 425 AADT due to winter closure of the road west of the bridge. There are currently no improvement plans with the Towns to improve Stephenson Road 1 between Highway 1 1 and the bridge to allow for winter maintenance and operation. During a review of available information, there are no plans for significant developments in the area of the bridge that would use the bridge as a primary route. lt appears as though there will not be a substantial increase in the AADT during the next 10 year or 75 year life span of a rehabilitated or new bridge. Therefore it is reasonable to use the OSM - Guidelines for the Design of bridges on Low Volume Roads as they are applicable for AADT less than 400 AADT or may be employed if the existing roadway has had minimal operational issues, the AADT is a seasonal volume, appropriate traffic signs are installed and, approval is granted. Based on AADT and operating speed the minimum bridge width is 7.0 meters with a maximum 5.0 meter single lane width. Due to the current load posting, school buses and garbage trucks do not cross the bridge and thus, their routes would not be disrupted during the rehabilitation or reconstruction. Also due to the current recommended load posting of 7-11-15 T (single unit - two unit - vehicle train) municipal maintenance and plough trucks and fire trucks cannot cross the bridge. To access the single residence on the south west side of the bridge, the Bracebridge Fire Department would use pick-up trucks and portable pumps. To access the 12 properties (approximately) on River Valley Drive north west of the bridge, the Huntsville Fire Depafiment will also use pick-up trucks and portable pumps and walk in as required. Fire truck access would be limited to light vehicles and on foot during rehabilitation or reconstruction from the west side, down the steep hill from Highway No, 11. 5.2.1 Archoeologicol lnvestigotion An archeological investigation was completed by Amick Consultants Limited to identify any known or potential cultural heritage resources, The investigation included a test pit program (Stage 2 Assessment), The investigation determined no archeological resources of any description were encountered anywhere within the study area and no further studies are required. The archeological investigation is presented in Appendix D. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 19 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 5.2.2 Culturol Heritoge Evoluolion Report A cultural heritage evaluation report was completed by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. to identify the cultural heritage value or interest of the bridge and the study area. The evaluation included collection and review of existing heritage background information on the bridge, assessing to the scoring system outlined in the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges (MTO 2008). The report concluded the bridge does not merit a recommendation for inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List and no further studies are required, The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report is presented in Appendix E. 5.2.3 ProperlyAcquisilion The approaches are currently within travelled road right of ways of varying width To the south of the bridge, approximately 16 meters on the east shore and approximately 1 1 meters on the west shore is the original 20 meter wide original road right of way crossing the river, There is sufficient property to allow a widening or slight realignment of the roads and bridge to improve the approaches. Working easements will likely be required for construction. This would be considered during a replacement, 5.3 Physicol Environment Several elements of the physical environment were presented in Section 2.1, particularly with respect to the structural condition of the bridge. Additional elements of the physical environment are presented below. 5.3.1 Existing Bridge Structure As explained in section 2.1, most of the major bridge elements are in poor condition and past their life expectancy, Due to the unsafe condition, the bridge load posting has been reduced. The load posting will be reduced further due to ongoing deterioration until it is replaced, repaired or, closed. 5.3.2 ExistingApprooches The west approach has a significant horizontal curve to match into the intersection of River Valley Road and avoid exposed bedrock, The vertical alignment exceeds recommended grades and is not maintained in the winter. The east approach has minimal horizontal and vertical curve. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 20 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 The horizontal alignment of the approaches would not be improved if the repair alternative was chosen, lf the replacement alternative is deemed to be most appropriate, the horizontal alignment of the approaches could be slightly improved and this would improve safety. 5.3.3 Troffic 0perolions The previous road traffic counts report that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes were 50 for 1 976, 200 for 2003, 400 for 2008 and, 425 for 2012. The 2012 road traffic count AADT volume of 425 was based off of the measured AADT volume of 400 in 2008 wilh a20/o growth factor applied, Traffic volumes have not increased substantially and are not expected to increase substantially over the expected life of a repaired or replaced bridge and thus, a single lane bridge is acceptable. The width is currently below recommended standard guidelines and would not be improved if the structure were to be repaired, 5.3.4 Utilities As previously mentioned, there are no utilities on the existing bridge. Overhead electrical wires cross approximately 10 metres north of the bridge. The wood poles are not within close vicinity to the bridge. Should the bridge be repaired or replaced or widened, there will be no need to coordinate with any utility companies. 5.3.5 Hydruulics As noted in Section 2,1.4, based on historic information and 1980 MTO Directive B, the bridge is capable of conveying the 50 year storm event. Proposed repairs would not change this condition and replacement options would maintain or increase the existing span and soffit elevation, thereby increasing the hydraulic capacity. 5.3.ó Bqrriers The repair or replacement option will require the upgrade of the bridge barriers as they are failing and do not conform to cunent standards. The minimum required barrier in accordance with OSM - Guidelines for the Design of Bridges on Low Volume Roads is LVPL2 (TL1 designation in AASHTO) designation, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page21 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Approach barriers will be required in accordance with the Road Side Safety Manual (RSSM) installed for the full encroachment length for water body hazards. On two of the four corners there are residential entrances at which the banier will need to turn in to maintain access, The other two corners can accommodate full encroachment length steel barrier guard rail, This work should be completed as part of either a repair or replacement option, 5.3.7 GeolechnicolConsiderotions A Geotechnical lnvestigation was completed by Trow Ltd, And dated July 30, 1983. One borehole was drilled through lhe 1922 west abutment. The borehole shows concrete extending to a depth of approximately 5.2 metres and sand contaminated with wood pieces and organics to a depth of 6,2 metres where sound gneiss bedrock was encountered. The numerous wood fragments suggest that the abutment was poured on a timber mat resting on a very loose alluvial silty sand and this poor founding soil is likely the cause of the observed movement, The rehabilitation of the abutment would involve transferring the load to the bedrock approximately 1 meter below by conventional underpinning, installing caissons or, driving piles. The reconstruction option would be to pour a new abutment on bedrock. 5.4 Economir Environment With respect to the economic environment, the costs associated with each option are considered including construction costs and/or maintenance costs. For the purposes of preliminary assessments, the costs are considered in order of magnitude and are based on previous similar works rather than a detailed estimate of the work to be undertaken. Costs are further examined under section 6, Stephenson Road'l Bridge Page22 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 6 Evoluotion of Alternotive Solutions This section will discuss the evaluation of the alternative solutions as previously described. The results of the evaluation are considered preliminary given the need to solicit agency and public input, The evaluation is descriptive or qualitative in nature allowing for a comparative evaluation of the pros and cons associated with each option. ó.1 Evoluotion Criterio ln completing the evaluation, a number of criteria were considered as outlined below Physical Environment Social Environment . age of the bridge . noise impacts . ability to address structural deficiencies . ease of access for residents . ability to adequately accommodate traffic . overall safety, emergency vehicle access . ability to meet hydraulic requirements . propertyacquisition requirements . ability to adequately stage construction . impact to cultural heritage resources Economic Environment Natural Environment . cost for construction . effects on fish habitat . cost for future maintenance . effects on the water course . land acquisition costs . effects on vegetation . accessibility to local residents . effects on wiblife The key evaluation criteria will focus on issues such as cost (including initial capital costs, and long term life cycle maintenance and operational costs), structural performance, public safety, environ mental impacts, traffic management, and construction duration. 6.2 Environment lmpocls The potential impacts associated with each alternative are noted in Table 3 whereas a summary of the evaluation is also provided for each alternative, Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 23 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Table 3: Bridge Solution Alternatives Evaluation Matrix / no known cultural/ archaeological / no known archaeologicalimpacts / no known archaeologicalimpacts impacts / no heritage impacts / no heritage impacts Social / no new construction and hence no r short{erm impacts to existing r( short-term impacts to existing Environment impacts development development r' nature and character of existing bridge (e,9. noise, lane closure) (e.9. noise, lane closure) remains / no new impacts to natural environment r potential impacts to environment x potential impacts to environment Natural / status quo maintained features/functions but can be features/functions will be slightly Environment minimized with mitigative measures greater but can be minimized with mitigative measures r structural condition of bridge r' potential for improving structural / greatest potential for improving continues to deteriorate condition of bridge structural condition of bridge x ability to safely accommodate traffic x road closure and traffic rerouting r' bridge can accommodate all vehicles will further decrease with time during construction and pedestrians Physical t structural evaluations will need to be : rehabilitated bridge will likely need to / potentialfor road improvements can Environment conducted on a regular basis and be replaced in less than 15 years be completed later load postings will decrease r road closure and traffic re-routing r replacement of bridge will likely be during construction required in less than 5 yearc r' no significant initial construction costs x high initial improvement costs x highest initial improvement costs r highest maintenance costs ($1.12M) ($2.+zttl¡ * high maintenance costs / lowest maintenance costs Economic * multiple construction periods for Environment ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement increases impacts to local businesses & residents OverallRanking . 3'd place ranking - least prefened 2no place ranking 1't place ranking - preferred Stephenson Road I Bridge Page24 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2013 6.2.1 Ahernotive I - Do Nolhing The Do Nothing alternative does not adequately address the problem statement. While costs would be negligible for this alternative in the short term, the remaining useful life is limited and maintenance or closure will be required within the next few years. A benefit to this alternative is that no negative impacts would be endured by the natural environment (although such impacts are expected to be minimal with the alternative solutions and appropriately mitigated), This alternative however does not address public safety, or structural inadequacy issues, and thus does not consider the problem statement and does not achieve the goals of the study. 6.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rehobilitote the Bridge Due to the extent of repairs to the bearing pads, bottom chord, deck, steel truss, barriers and, the replacement of the abutment and since the rehabilitated life span would be less than that of a new structure, this alternative ends up having a higher present value cost than full replacement. However, impacts to the natural environment would be slightly less than alternative 3 since there are less major work items. Access for residents would be disturbed during deck rehabilitation activities. Due to the complexity in repairing the bearing pads and abutment, it is likely that construction periods would be just as long if not longer than for replacement causing similar or worse disruption to local traffic. While structural deficiencies would be addressed with this alternative, in order to significantly extend the lifespan of the bridge, rehabilitation works will need to be extensive, ln addition, the bridge width does not conform to standards based on traffic volume and speed limits, Due to the capacity of the steel trusses, a loaded single rear axle vehicle or tandem axle truck could not cross the rehabilitated bridge, This means that the rehabilitated bridge would be unable to accommodate a snow plough or garbage truck or fire truck. Therefore, this option does not fully consider the problem statement. 6.2.3 Alternutive 3 - Replote the Bridge Replacement of the entire existing structure is the most expensive of all options as it includes the largest scope of work, the need for greater mitigation measures and, includes substructure works. However, it has the lowest net present value of all options as it will have the longest life span and considering the condition of the structure it is considered the most effective method for addressing the issues outlined in the problem statement, including safety, structural condition, performance, and compliance with current design standards. lmpacts to the environment are slightly increased, however, with appropriate mitigation there will be no noted effects on the environment. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 25 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 ó.3 Rerommended Solution ln consideration of the above, Alternatives 1 , & 2 are not acceptable since they do not fully address the problem statement, Alternative 3 will resolve the safety, performance issues, integrity issues related to the structure and, provides the greatest long term cost benefit. Consequently, the following improvements are proposed: . removalof existing bridge, piers and, abutments; . installation of new abutments founding on bedrock; . reconstruction of approaches; . upgrades to the shore slope protection; . installation of steel barrier guard rail to current standards, and; . installation of a new pre-fabricated steel bridge to current width standards for traffic and speed conditions. To complete the work the bridge and road will be temporarily closed. This will increase the speed of construction, minimize costs and, avoid the cost, time and, property acquisition required to install a temporary bridge structure. Residents will have to temporarily use alternative access routes, The work will be completed in the summer and fall to avoid half loads in the spring and to ensure access is available for residents west of the bridge. To preserve the environmentally characteristics at the bridge site, standard environmental controls are recommended as follows: erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS November 2010) are to be installed prior to construction, maintained during construction and removed after construction (i.e. silt fence), and; all equipment maintenance and/or refuelling is to be completed a minimum of 20 m from the watercourse. It is the objective of this study to find a solution that adequately addresses the problem statement. Considering the evaluation of the alternatives, it is apparent that the recommended solution is to replace the existing bridge structure in the same location. lt is noted that the recommended solution is not presented as a decision at this point in the study, but rather as a preliminary recommendation based on a rational evaluation of the available information. This recommendation will be subject to further review and scrutiny at Public lnformation Centre No. 1 following input from the public and stakeholders. Stephenson Road I Bridge Page 26 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 7 Consultolion - Public lnformotion Centre Under a Schedule B Class EA Study, there are two points of mandatory stakeholder contact, The first mandatory point occurs towards the end of Phase 2 when a Notice of Public lnformation Centre (Notice of PIC) is issued inviting stakeholder comment and input. The second mandatory point of contact is upon completion of the planning process at which time a Notice of Completion is provided. ln keeping with the chronological order in documenting events in the order that they occurred, the first mandatory point of contact is discussed in this chapter whereas the second point of contact is discussed further in the report, after the identification of the prefened solution and completion of the Class EA Study requirements. 7.1 Notifirotion ln accordance with the Class EA Study guidelines, a Notice of PIC was issued inviting all property owners within the study area (as determined by the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville municipal records), appropriate review agencies, stakeholder groups and special interest groups for comment and input. The Notice of PIC was mailed on April 30, 2013. The Notice of PIC and letters are provided in Appendix F, The same Notice of PIC was also posted on the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville web site and published in The Bracebridge Examiner, The Huntsville Forester, The Bracebridge Weekender and, The Huntsville Weekender, local newspapers on May 8, 2013. 7.2 Public lnformolion Centre The purpose of the PIC was to provide information to the public and agencies and seek their input with respect to the following: ídentification of the problem; development and evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem; general inventory of the affected environments in order to determine the possible impacts; and identification of the recommended alternatives. The PIC was held on Wednesday May, 15,2013 from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Town of Bracebridge, No formal presentation was made but rather people were welcome to drop in during the above hours to review the materials and ask questions. Representatives from the Town of Bracebridge, Town of Huntsville and CCTA were in attendance to answer any questions and provide assistance as necessary. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page27 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 Various display boards were prepared for viewing by the public (as provided in Appendix G), which addressed the following: . the Municipal Class EA process and those tasks relevant to this study; . existing conditions; . alternative solutions for improvements to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge; . the evaluation of alternative solutions; . identification of the preliminary preferred solution; . the remaining steps to completion, and; . contact details for additional information. A copy of the sign in sheet is not provided to protect personal privacy. 7.3 Public Commenl A total of 1B people attended the PIC and 5 commentsheets were received, Therewere no additional letters received from the public. There were a significant number of questions related to the horizontal and vertical alignment of Stephenson Road 1 west of the bridge. The public were ínterested in flattening and straightening the road to allow year round access which is not part of this Class EA study. The main concerns raised by the public were: ' The existing bridge is unsafe; . The bridge should remain single lane to keep traffic volume and speed down; . The bridge should be wide enough to allow garbage and snow plow access; . The bridge should have a higher load limit; The general comment was to replace the bridge with a new, single lane, wider bridge with proper guard rail and adequate abutments. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 28 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 7.4 Agency Comment There were no additional comments received from Agencies I ldentificafion of Preferred Solution Following the PlC, the preliminary assessment was revisited to consider comments and input received from the various stakeholders, 8.1 Preferred Solution The preferred solution remains Alternative 3 in consideration of the safety, performance, and integrity issues related to the structure which would be resolved while providing the greatest long term cost benefit, A General Arrangement Drawing of the preferred solution is provided in Appendix K. 8.2 Confirmotion of EA Schedule As previously noted, the Schedule B guidelines apply to bridge reconstruction provided the cost to construct is less than $2.7M, not including land acquisition or engineering costs and the bridge has cultural heritage value. When it has been confirmed the bridge has no cultural heritage value the pro¡ect is a Schedule A and preapproved to proceed. The Cultural Heritage Evaluation confirmed the bridge does not have sufficient merit to result in a recommendation for inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List, The Municipal Heritage Bridges, Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist, enclosed in Appendix G, confirms the project is a Schedule A. The reconstruction of the bridge is therefore preapproved to proceed to implementation. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 29 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 I Completion of lhe Closs EA Process This chapter details the steps remaining to complete the Class EA Study process which is to proceed to Phase 5: lmplementation, which entails completion of the engineering, preparing construction drawings and reconstructing the bridge. 9.1 Submission to the Town of Brocebridge ond Town of Huntsville This Phase 1 & 2 Report was submitted to the Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville and the preferred solution endorsed by both Towns. Copies of the two Town Council Resolutions are included in Appendix L. 9.2 Submission fo Stokeholders This Phase 1and2 Reportwas submitted to review agencies, residents and stakeholders. Copies of the letter, notice and agency circulation list are included in Appendix M. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 30 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 9.3 lmplemenlolion It is the intent of the Town of Huntsville and Town of Bracebridge to undertake the works in 2015-2016 subject to funding. As such, engineering drawings detailing the required works, including the need for mitigation measures to address impacts to the natural environment will be completed, Drawings will be submitted to both Towns and the relevant agencies as required, to obtain the necessary approvals prior to construction. There are no further requirements with respect to public consultation during Phase 5. wd//¿t¿//// Authored by: Bill Van Ryn, B.Ëng., P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch @ C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd The information contained in this document is solely for the use of lhe Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. This document may not be used for any purpose other than that provided in the contract between the Owner/Client and the Engineer nor may any section or element of this document be removed, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the express written consent of C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Page 31 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment November 17,2014 APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION - STUDY C0MMENCEMENT B Barron Drive Bracebridge, 0ntario P1 L 041 C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Tel: (705) 645-7756 Consulting Engineers Fax: (705) 645-8159 Email: info@cctatham com Col I i ngwood Bracebridge 0rillia Barrie Web: www.cctatham.com October 19,2012 via Mail CCTA File 212529-1 Re Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road I Bridge Town of Bracebridge Notice of Study Commencement Dear Sir/Madame: 0n behalf of the Town of Bracebridge, C.C, Tatham & Associates Ltd, has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the proposed upgrades to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge located approximately 1.0 km east of Highway No, 1 1, over the Muskoka River in the ïown of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville. The project is being planned under Schedule B of lhe Municipal C/ass Environmental Assessmenf, Public consultation is a key component of the Class EA process and The Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville are interested in your comments. A copy of the published Notice of Study Commencement is attached for reference, Comments and information are being collected at this time to assist the study team, The information will be maintained on file for use during the study and, unless otherwise requested, may be included in the study documentation, which is made available for public review, We welcome any comments or information prior to November 30, 2012 so the project schedule can be maintained. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville intend to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. Yours truly, C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. úLVL(t¿U/ Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng,, P,Eng, Vice-President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch BVR:pt Enclosure copy: A, Stacey, Town of Bracebridge (via email) copy: D. Saunders, Town of Huntsville (via email) Consulting Profcsional Engineers Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of 0ntario to offer Professional engineering services Engineers of Ontario e Ontario WN BRACEBRIDGE J;','l i ' ,'r i rr; iri¡1 -;l';/,, ¡ CTASS ENVI RONI'JIENTAI. ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD I BR¡DGE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVITTE NOTICE OF STUDY COMIUIENCEMENT The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the proposed upgrades to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge located approximately 1,0 kms east of Highway No. 11 in the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville. The study is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal C/ass Env i ronm e ntal A ssessmenf . For further information on this project, or to review a copy of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessmenf document, please contact Bill Van Ryn. Comments and information are being collected at this time to assist the study team. The information will be maintained on file for use during the study and, unless otherwise requested, may be included in the study documentation, which is made available for public review. We welcome any comments or information prior to November 30, 2012 so the project schedule can be maintained. Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville intend to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project, This notice issued October 24,2012. Owner: lnquiries: Town of Bracebridge Mr, BillVan Ryn, B.Eng., P,Eng Public Works Department Vice President, Manager 1000 Taylor Court Bracebridge Branch Bracebridge, ON P1L 1R6 C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Telephone: (705) 645-5264 Consulting Engineers Fax (705) 645-1262 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L 041 Town of Huntsville Telephone: (705) 645-7756 Public Works Department Fax (705) 645-8159 37 Main Street E. Email : bvanryn@cctatham,com Huntsville, ON P1H 1A1 Telephone: (705) 789-1 751 Fax (705) 789-6689 Port l3ydrre¡ UllersDr-ì llt] * l rl,lr rt 3\7 r,lE @ lt LoRTH 10 ltulllsvtLLE 1 'R .;a' t Rtr Pôrliefs vr lls ¡rtJenr';' I &c -_ ç --*_____ST'HEXSOX lltl RD.rE Sl IIIDGE ¡t LOCII|OX tD. I WESÏ .--_____úå t IUSÍOÍ irvEi *r.**rr' I lxoiÏH ¡t tclll E 3Ì10 I E YSYILLE Þ, I - G q Fñ kenburg lr1 SlßßEle,qh ' n.l: '/ Staton t, t lra,:en¡d rìÈ G,rf Êrrh ¡ r E q ,Ð Mrford Boy B* ¡ô.ËÀ . Fras€ròu rg t3!qt! -f TOUX O; qBsù¡l liacE!rlDoE tut -E Sùrth MrElolå Goll ih¡l¡ nt. i) i.f,, 't ¡l '¡,*d Crysral Jeoar ¡outH 10 BÊêch Vrl¡õgè ¡^RilE t Êt¿6o7q Fd Lhnkoo ^u''* '-a,+ Rûrùoilrg1 TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTS/ILLE CCTaü¡am & Assoc¡ilcs Ltd. EA Cqr¡f¡iE¡¡nr3 STEPHENSON RD. 1 TOWNLINE BRIDGE CLASS NOTE: g LOCATION I'AP BASE PLAN PROVDEO BY oår¡aËEn GOOGLE MAPS. SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: NOv/12 DIYG. No. FlG. l.O Legend 500m : looom Travelled Road I Parcels Uilh17NWE StephensonRdl EBridge ffióryd@bùdd'd,d tr46drd Fd'ótu'dúnd¡Èdú 0 60 120 240 360 ,180 ñMeters -_--;;>Þ4. Ðt2 lown ol tulÞ bi{ 1 of7 Stephenson Road 1 l90ct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd Consuhlng Engineers No.: 2125291 BVR Coll¡ngwood BÊæbr¡dge or¡ll¡a Barie Review Agency Notification Summary Notice of Commencement for Comment on Altvs Not¡ce of General Publications Forester Examiner of Website utilit¡es Gas Ltd. Charles Street East, P.O. Box 3040 Bay,0N P1A1E9 lonstruction Proþt Manager 705474-8r'.33 Fax: 70547$7900 Power Dist¡ibution Ltd. Centre Street North, Suite 200 ON P1H 2M2 Manager of Operations One Cent¡e .0. Box 4300 oN L3R5Z5 Real Estate Æsistant, Planning Dept Fax: llydro One Networks lnc. Sargeant Drive, P.0. Box 6700 Banie, ON L4M 5M5 Distribution Engineering Technician Fax: Pipelines Limited Leham & Associates Collier Street Barrie,0N L4M lH2 86G602-0663 Fax:.701727-9217 Filê Naæ: R:12012 - Proþ€bu125291 - Tiln of &æhidge - Sbphaen Roåd 1 Tohl¡re &idge dæ EA\Sp€adst@h\Distrbulion U6b\O6 EA oistùulion üst - Agencies - 091312¡Ls Pnnld Qn:41222013 2ol7 Stephenson Road 1 Project: Date: 190ct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consuhing Eng¡næE File No.: 21252+^1 Designed: BVR Colllngmod Bøæbridq€ orillia Barìe 3ubjecl Review Agency Notification Summary Chæked: Notice of Commencement for Comment on Altvs Notice of Othe¡ Notices lmpedal Oil Limited POBox422 NorftYork,0N M3C2T2 Sir/Madame Cable Fee Street Bay,0N P1BBS4 705472-895 Fax: 705472-7854 Aliant High Street,2nd Floor ON PlH 1P2 . , lmplementation Manager 70$78$1928 Fay.:,701789'6223 Federal Environmental Assessment Agency St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 ON M4T1M2 Project Manager, Ontario Region 4 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Parry Sound District Office 28 Waubeek Street Sound.ON P2A189 Fish Habitat Biologist 70t74È2196 Fax: of lndian and Northem Affairs Canada St. ClairAvenue ON M4T 1M2 , Envioronmental Officer, Environment Un¡t INAC, Ontario Region 41È9736234 Fax:41&954-6329 Fil€ Næ: R\2012 - Pmjs$\2125291 - Îm of &æffigÞ - SlÊphenen Rosd 1 fownline &idg€ Cs EA\SF€ad*æb\Distjbuüon Lisb\qG EA tlisñu6on List - AFncÈs - 0g.1312lds Pinted On'.41222013 3of7 Stephenson Road I )roject: Date: 19-0ct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. :ile Consult¡n9 En9¡neers No.: 212529-1 Designed: BVR Coll¡ngrcod Bra@bridoe or¡¡lia B¿rie Subject: ReviewAgencyNotificationSummary Checked: Notice of Commencement forComment on Altvs Notice of Other Notices Provincial of Abodginal Affairs Department Bloor Street East, 9th Floor ON M7A2E6 Manager, Consultation Unit, Aboriginal Relations and Min¡stry Pârtneßhips Division 41 41È3264017 Affairs and Northem D,evelopment Canada and Aæommodation Unit Sparks Street, Room 205 ON KIAOH4 Regional Subject Expert for Ontario of Agriculture, Food and Ru¡al Affairs Branch Govemment Bldg I Stone Road West, 2nd Floor NE ON NIG4Y2 Director 41G32ê5196 Fax: Min¡stry of Tourism, Culture & Sport Programs and Services B¡anch Culture Srevices Unit Bay Street, 'l7th Floor ON M7AOA7 A/Heritage Planner/Cenkal Region of the Environment Approvals Branch Assessment Services St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 124 ON M4V1L5 , Manager (Acting) el: 416-31+7967 Fax: Fiþ Nile: FL\2012 - Prcl*12125æ-1 - Tiln of &æbridgÊ - Sbphen$n RDåd l ToMl¡ne Bridg€ Oås EA\Spre¿dshæbulisbibuüon Lisbìqæ ÊA Dìstibulion Li*-Agencies - 091312 xls PnîIedOî: {i2212013 4on1 Stephenson Road 'l l90ct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd Consuh¡ng Eng¡neers No.: 2125291 BVR Collingmod B@br¡dge Oe Barde Review Agency Notification Summary Notice of Commencement fo¡ Comment on Altvs Notice of Other Notices M¡n¡stry of the Environment Plaæ Nouveau 5775 Yonge St., th Floor North York, 0N M2M 4J1 Attn: Environmental Resouræ Planner/EA Coordinator ïel: 41G32G4886 Fax 41È3216345 Ministry of the Environment Barie District Offiæ 54 Cedar Pointe Drive, Unit 1201 Banie, ON L4N 5R7 Attn: District Manager Tel: 70s73 6rt36 Fax 70S73$6440 M¡nistry of Natural Resources 1350 High Falls Road Bracebridge,0N P1L 1W9 Attn: Acting Area Manager Tel: 70S64G5519 Fax:70$64$8372 Ministry of Northem Development and M¡nes and Forestry |59 Cedar Street Sudbury,ON P3E6A5 Attn , , Environmental Assessment Coordinator Iel: 70S67tI5918 Fax:70S67G5803 Ministry of TranspoÉation 447 McKeown Avenue, Suite 301 North Bay, ON P1B 9Sg Attn: Tel:701497-523 Fax:705497-5499 I The District Municipality of Muskoka Clerks Office 70 Pine Street Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Attn Chief Administrative Offi cer Tel: 70Ílú52231 Fax: 70$64S5319 Fìþ Nme: Rrì2012 - PIDþß121252S1 - ToM of &æhidg€ - Stphenff Roâd I Tomlire Brid$ Clas EA\Srea&hæbulsibulion Lj*ìCk EA D$ibutón tjd- Agenci* - 0913-12 ILs Prinlú Oî:. U242013 5of7 Stephenson Road 1 l9-0ct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consult¡ng Engineers No.: 212529-1 BVR Col¡¡ngwood BGcebridge 0â Bârìe Review Agency Notification Summary Notice of Comrnencement for Comment on Altvs Notice of Othe¡ Notices District Municipality of ftluskoka and Economoic Development Department Pine Street ON P1L1N3 B A. (Hons), MCIP, RPP, Planner 705-U12231 Fax: of Huntsville Main Street East Huntsville, ON P'lH 141 , Chief Administrative Officer 70$7891751 Fax 70t7896689 F¡rst Nat¡ons Chiefs of Ontario 1 1 1 Peter Street, Suite 804 ON MsV2H1 Sandy-ltlcKenzie Counsel for Chippewas of Rama Fißt Nation) Creswic* Court ON L4M 2J7 705-792-5087 Fax: RAMA Firct Nation Rama Road, Suite 200 ON LOK1TO lenry, Chief 70t325-36,l1 Fax: 70r3210879 Deer Point Firc{ Nation Box 119, 3719 Tuelve Mile Bay Road ,0N Poc 1H0 Chief First Nation ON POG IGO Project Coordinator/Consultation Point Peßon 70136G2526 Fax: 70136È2740 Fle Nme: Rrl2012 - @ì2125æl -'fm of &aækidge - S-tephens Ro¿d I TilnFne &idge Clås EÂ\Spreåd$æb\tldjbülim tisbìON EA Di$jbuúoi L¡st - AWGh - 0$1312f,1s Printed 0n:4/222013 6of7 Stephenson Road 1 lgOct-'|2 Schedule B Class Env¡ronmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consult¡n9 Enginærs No.: 2125291 BVR Collingwood SGcebr¡dqe 0â Bar¡e Review Agency Notification Summary for Comment on Altvs Notice of Other Notices llohawks P.O. Box 260 oN Poc lA0 lommandant, Chief Fax: 705-756-2376 Firs{ Nation P.O. Box 250 ParrySound,ON P2A2X4 I Chief 701746-2531 Fax: 70t74G5984 of Georgian lsland RR#2, P.0. Box N-'13 Sutton West, ON LOE I R0 Chief 701437-1337 Fax: 7054374597 Beausoleil First Nation (Christian lsland) 11 ogemaa Miikaan Christian lsland, ON LgM 0Ag Chief 70u247-2051 Fax: Moon River Métis Council McNþce Cres., Box 386 ON LOK2BO President Métis Nation of Ontario Head Off¡ce Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D Ottawa,ON K1N9G4 Métis C¡nsultation Unit 6117254225 Fax: Fie Næ: FIì2O12 - Èoþb12125291 - Tm of &ækidg€ - s1€phenson Road 1 Toml[æ Bridge Oß EAßpGådshælsìDisbùulion L¡sb\Oß EA Cjisùbulion Ljd- Açncies - 0è1]12is PnrftedOî:4nA2U3 7 oÍ7 Stephenson Road 1 l90ct-12 Schedule B Class Env¡rcnmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consult¡ng EnginæE No.: 2125&1 BVR Collingwood B@bridge 0rlll¡â Ber¡e Review Agency Notification Summary Not¡ce of Commencement for Comment on Altvs Itlotice of Other Notices Services Provincial Police Detachment Revenscliflb Road ON P'IH IL6 I Staff Sergeant, Delachment Commander 70$78S5511 Fax 70t78C7666 P¡ovincial Police Detac-tìment Cedar Lane ON PILOAI Anbulance Communications Service Cedar Lane, PO Box 149 ON P1LIT5 , Manager 70t64S5000 Fax:70S64È9531 EllS Ontario Base (Head Office) 5 Ott Drive ON PlH OA2 Fax:70S787-9301 Other Stakeholders Muskoka Roman Catholic School Boa¡d Alliance Boulevard ON L4M 5K3 Planning Officer 701722-3559 Fay:701727-1451 Lakelands D¡strict School Board Pine Street Brâcebridge, ON PIL 1N4 District Plant Manager 705645-n65 Fax:70$6446605 Fle Næ: Fll2012 - ProÞ*ì2125æ-1 - fm of Bræbidle - SlepheMn Roåd I Tilnline &id$ Cláss EAEpreådshædñöulion ti*\ON EA oisbibuboh List - Arcies - 0gl3l2is PnnleiOn:412212013 B Barron Drive, Bracebridge, 0ntario P1 L 041 C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Tel: (705) 64s-7756 Consulting Engineers Fax: (705) 645-8159 Email: inf [email protected] Collingwood Bracebridge 0rillia Banie Web:www.cctatham,com CONTACT RECORD Project: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge CCTA File:212529-1 Client: Town of Bracebridge Notice of Study October 19,2012 Commencement: Purpose: Class EA Schedule B Contact Record Summary of Discussion / Agency/Resident Contact Method Date Message 1 Lakeland Power Letter Advised that the property is not 2012-10- Distribution Ltd, in their service area and 23 - Brian Elliott suggest that we contact Hydro One for their input, A letter was mailed out to Hydro One. 2 Ministry of Letter Would like us to keep them 2012-10- Transpofiation (MTO) advised of the progress as MTO 24 - Jeffrey Cole has future replacement of the (Received Stephenson Road 1/Highway 11 2012-10- intersection with a fly-over 2e) should and our plans may tie-in to the MTO's future work. MTO enclosed a copv of their plans, 3. Resident Email Would like to see the bridge 2012-10- l' fixed rather than replaced 29 a unless the bridge needs to be 5:11 p.m, replaced for safety purposes, 4 Resident Letter Do not replace but complete 2012-10- minimal modifications as the 26 bridge and area is beautiful, (received More than a single lane bridge 2012-11- will increase traffic volumes and 01) prefers single. The approach to the bridge from the west should be looked at for safety reason, Response attached, Summary of Discussion / Agency/Resident Contact Method Date Message 5, I Resident - Em at Would like a copy of the 2012-11- Municipal Class EA emailed to 01 her. A copy of the Municipal 7:02p.n. Class EA was emailed to Bonnie on 201 2-11-02 uia email, Response attached, 6 Resident - Letter Would like to see the bridge 2012-11- I remain in place for its 07 environmental and historical (received value, lf the bridge needs to be 2012-11- replaced due to safety reasons 07) they would like it moved south for so that it is only impacting Town of Bracebridge property. They would still like it to remain a single lane bridge for traffic and speed reasons. 7 Resident Email: Would like to see the bridge 2012-11- wide enough for a snowplough, 08 Would like to see the rock cut, 1215 just west of the bridge on p,m. Stephenson Road 1 cleaned up as it is a blind spot for anyone turning left on to River Valley Drive. I Chippewas of Rama Letter Acknowledging receipt of our 2012-11- First Nation - Chief letter and would like us to send 05 Sharon Stinson Henry a copy to their lawyer, Karry (received Sandy-McKenzie. A copy had 2012-11- already been sent to Karry 13) Sandy-McKenzie. 9 Ministry of Aboriginal Letter They generally provide direction 2012-10- Affairs - Wendy about which aboriginal 29 Cornet communities should be (Received contacted. 2012-11- 23\ 10 The District Letter Advised that this Portion of the 2012-11- Municipality of Muskoka River is classified as 27 Muskoka, Planning Type 1 Fish Habitat by the MNR (received Department and requires completion of a 2012-11- - Melissa Halford fisheries habitat assessment, 27) The Archaeological Master Plan prepared by Muskoka identifies Class EA Schedule B Page2of 4 Contact Record Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Summary of Discussion / Agency/Resident Contact Method Date Message the subject lands as being a very high archaeological potential, The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has advised that a cultural heritage assessment may be required prior to any site alteration, We must contact the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, 11 Ministry of Northern Email: Requesting a map showing the 2012-11- Development and Jennifer,Lillie- project location, size and scope. 21 Mines [email protected] lnformation provided. 10:06 AM - Jennifer Lillie-Paetz 12, Resident ¡ Email: Would like to know the details of 2012-11- the "proposed upgrades" to the 05 bridge, 10:07 PM Support whatever measures are t necessary to keep the existing 2012-11- bridge in service. Would like to 28 see some type of measure 11:09 PM regarding noise reduction of vehicles. 13 Resident Email: Would like to know more about 2012-11- the project ie. plans, designs 29 and ideas. 11:01 AM Bill spoke to, who is requesting 2lane, no load 2012-11- restriction, year round bridge 29 and road from Highway 11 to 4:02 PM the bridge on behalf of 14 Resident Email: Very happy that the bridge is 2012-11- ( being replaced as it poses a 08 very dangerous situation in 11:13 AM Winter months, Would like to know when construction will begin? Willthe hill be maintained once the bridge is completed? Will River Valley Drive be assumed by the Town of Huntsville? Class EA Schedule B Page 3 of 4 Contact Record Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Summary of Discussion / Agency/Resident Contact Method Date Message 15 Residents - . i Email Would like to see the 2012-11- construction take place during 26 the spring, summer and fall only 7:11 AM as access to River Valley Drive has limited access during the winter, Would like it built for use of a snow plough, school bus and garbage trucks to go across, 16 Resident + Letter Would like clarification on the 2013-01- bridge construction. 08 (received 2013-01- - A response was sent to 10 ' from C.C, Tatham & Associates Ltd. 2013-01- 23 .4 Rl\2012 - Prelsle\212529J - Tm ol Eroc€bdøo - Stophonw Rosd I lMllno Bddgo Clds EA\D@hmts\Cla8o EA\Conlet Rsod. 04{4-13 doc Class EA Schedule B Page 4 of 4 Contact Record Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Cot'(P- B Barron Drive Bracebrìdge, 0ntario P1 L 041 C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Tel: (705) 645-7756 Consulting Engineers Fax: (705) 645 8159 Email: info@cctatham com Collingwood Bracebridge 0rillia Barrie Web: www.cctatham com January 23,2013 via Mail CCTA Fi\e212529-1 ì Re: Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Dea We are writing in response to your letter received January 10, 2013 and wish to respond to your questions in the order presented in your letter. 1. No decision has been made with regards to the upgrades to the bridge. Presently we are considering three alternative solutions. Ð Do nothing, ii) Rehabilitation iii) Replacement. The purpose of the Notice of Study Commencement issued October 24, 2012 was to obtain comments from the public and review agencies. We are reviewing the comments received with regards to the three alternative solutions and will present a summary of comments together with a preliminary recommendation at a Public lnformation Centre to be held in February or March 2013. An invitation to the Public lnformation Centre will be fonrvarded to you. 2. Following the Public lnformation Centre, we will accept further comments from residents and review agencies and consider those prior to making a final recommendation to the Towns. Consulting Engineers of Profssional Engineers Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers of 0ntario to offer Protessional engineering services. Ontuio o Ontario j ' 3. We have reviewed your letter dated October 26,2012 and considered your comments We trust the above is satisfactory. Thank you for your interest and participation in this study. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Yours truly, C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. BillVan Ryn, B.Eng., P.Eng. Vice President, Manager- Bracebridge Branch BVR:pt copy: A. Stacey, Town of Bracebridge (via email [email protected]) D. Saunders, Town of Huntsville (via email [email protected]) Page2of 2 January 23,2013 08-Jan-2013 C.C. Tatham & Associates 8 Barron Drive. RECEIVED JAI¡ t02013 Bracebridge, On P1L OA1 Attn; Mr. Bill Van Ryn B. Eng Re, Notice of Study Commencement Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. Sir's, Being a Balsam Chutes Road resident I receive a newsletter on somewhat of a regular basis, (copy attached), as can be seen the newsletter clearly states the existing bridge is being replaced, is this a misunderstanding by BCRA or is the aforementioned statement correct? Your previous communiqué clearly stated, "proposed upgrades", (copy attached) and makes no mention of NEW. I would wish to receive clarification on three points, they are as follows 1. Your company was responsible enough to collect input from the residents within the vicinity why did you not follow through and advise them of the final decision and the justification behind it? 2. Can you foruvard a copy of the findings which led to the decision to build a new bridge or advise the writer on the location where this document and others relating to this decision may be viewed? 3. My original letter to your offices, (copy enclosed), makes mention of traffic volume, winter useage and the surroundings etc; were any of these points considered in the decision process? I trust a response will be forthcoming? Yours trulv copy A.Stacy Town of Bracebridge copy D. Saunders Town of Huntsville 26-0ct-2O12 C.C. Tatham & Associates 8 Barron Drive. Bracebridge, On P1L OA1 Attn; Mr Bill Van Ryn B Eng Re; Notice of Study Commencement Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. Sir's, I applaud the local municipality by allowing a local Engineering Company to undertake the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge study and not calling in some overpriced company out of Toronto. This shows foresight by our municipalityl As may be seen by my address I am locatec 'r and would like to express my vrews. You have probably never seen the bridge and the surrounding settings which can only be described as tranquil; therefore, any modifications, changes and/or upgrades should be undertaken with the environment in mind. The current bridge whilst only single lane does not carry a large volume of traffic, therefore I see no reason why, should any study indicate the requirement for a new bridge, an ugly concrete and steel structure be erected. Look at the current design and work within those parameters. I would remind you that your communiqué does only state, "proposed upgrades", (copy attached) and makes no mention of NEW. Any study should also look at the approach to the bridge from the west. This approach to the bridge consists of a steep incline at the bottom of which is a sharp turn onto the bridge. For safety reasons this area should not be overlooked. lf the study concludes the existing structure is sound, it should at least state the iron railings be replaced, the lronwork be painted and a new roadbed be installed. Let me close by simply stating that I have no justification in seeing the bridge being replaced. t Yours truly, \ Nov 7, 2012 We received your partial payment today with tha¡ks' Since you are usually paid up and therefore have a right to actively participate in the AGM, we suggest you attend the next meeting - in June 20t3 - and put forward your proposal. To ease the lump sum payment issues, perhaps you could consider spreading out the payment or,,", uioogrr period. We do receive payment from some of our members in the form of 10 postdated checks for $20.00 each to cover the fee. RE the bridge: There is an article in the enclosed newsletter about the bridge and its very interesting history. The decision to was made without the input of BCRA. It has been deemed in need ofreplacement by local councils and the surveying \¡/as started this summer much to our surprise. We understand construction of the new bridge will take place sometime in the next few years. you probably received a letter asking for input. Again details about this are in the newsletter. We hope this letter addresses some of your concerns. Hope to see you at the AGM' Thanks for your input. BRACEBRIDCE /VLt"s CTASS ENVI RONfÏIENTAI. ASSESSITIENT STEPHENSON ROAD I BRIDGE TOWN OT BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVIILE NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the pm.poæ'ü'r$pg'ÈåËeÈrto the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge located approximately 1,0 kms east of Highway No. 11 in the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville. The study is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal C/ass Enviro nm e ntal,4ssessmenf. For further information on this project, or to review a copy of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document, please contact Bill Van Ryn, Comments and information are being collected at this time to assist the study team. The information will be maintained on fìle for use during the study and, unless otherwise requested, may be included in the study documentation, which is made available for public review. We welcome any comments or informatiori prior to November 30, 2012 so the project schedule can be maintained, Subject to comments received and the receipt of necessary approvals, the Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville intend to proceed with the planning, design, and construction of this project. This notice issued October 24,2012. Owner: lnquiries: Town of Bracebridge Mr, BillVan Ryn, B.Eng., P.Eng Public Works Department Vice President, Manager 1000 Taylor Court Bracebridge Branch Bracebridge, ON P1L 1R6 C.C, Tatham & Associates Ltd. Telephone: (705) 645-5264 Consulting Engineers Fax: (705) 645-1262 I Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L 041 Town of Huntsville Telephone: (705) 645-7756 Public Works Department Fax (705) 645-8159 37 Main Street E. Email: bvanryn(ôcctatham.com Huntsville, ON P1H 141 Telephone: (705) 789-1751 Fax: (705) 789-6689 Page 7 of2 Paulette Trefry - Fwd: RE: Stephenson I bridge project From: Bill Van Ryn To: File, Bracebridge; Trefry, Paulette Date: ll/3012012 8:16 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Stephenson I bridge project for the record rrt I lll29l20l210:02 PM >>> Thanks very much. From: Bill Van Ryn fmailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-29-L2 3:02 PM To:( . Cc: Bracebridge File; Paulette Trefry Subject: Re: Stephenson 1 bridge project Hello¡ At this point in the study we are looking for general comments from Residents and Agencies. Our work to date is considering 3 alternative solutions 1)-do nothing (which is a requirement of the Class EA process), 2)- rehabilitate/repair the existing bridge, 3)-replace the existing bridge. We have made no recommendations to the Towns. We accept your comments related to timing of construction to allow access to Bonnie Lake Road during the winter. As of now, no schedule has been set. We look fonruard to receiving any additional comments you may have. There will be a public open house in December or January which we will advise you of the date/time well in advance, where we will be presenting preliminary comments on our review of the alternatives. Thank you. B¡ll Van Ryn, B.Eng., P.Eng V¡ce President, Branch Manager C. C TATHAM &ASSOCIATES LTD CONSULTING ENGINEERS I Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON, P1L 041 Ph# (705)-645-77 56 (ext 227 ) Fax# (705)-645-8159 Email : [email protected] This email may contain confìdential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. lf you have received this email in error. Dlease contactthe senderand delete all copies Good morning, We received the notice requesting feedback on the above noted project and wish to offer a small amount of feedback as invited to do so. file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50886872CCT... Ill30l2012 Page2 of 2 We were unaware this project was in development so we are wondering if there is any electronic information that can be shared as to what the actual proposed scope of the project is? Our primary concern is that any work on the bridge take place during the spring, summer and fall only. We live on River Valley Drive and in the winter we have to drive either on Bonnie Lake rd or Deer Lake rd to get to our respectiveworkplaces. lfthebridgeisinaccessiblewehavenochoicebuttogoupthesteephilltoHwyl-L which is, as you know, very dangerous and that section of road is officially closed from November l- onwards to May L. Secondly, our preference is that any upgraded bridge be capable of allowing large vehicles such as snowplows and garbage trucks and school buses to go over it. On River Valley drive we receive no snowplow, garbage or school bus service due mostly to the fact that the bridge is "closed" during the winter. Thank you, ¡L- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www,avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 263415427 - Release Date: 1ll29l12 file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50886872CCT... 1113012012 Page I of I Paulette Trefry - Re: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Replacement From: Bill Van Ryn To: Date: 1112912012 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Stephenson Road I Bridge Replacement CC: File, Bracebridge; Trefry, Paulette Good aftemoon I apologize for not responding sooner. Ourscopeofworkislimitedtothebridge. Wearenotstudyingtheproblernof StephensonRoad lbeingasurnmermaintained road. The results of our study will have no irnpact or.r the condition, operatìon or maintenance of Stephenson Road I or River Valley Drive. We recognize your concerns with respect to the need to cross the bridge to access Bonnie Lake Road front River Valley Drive during the winter. We will address this in our study. The schedule for construction has not been set. We trust this adequately addresses your questions. Please enrail if you require additional information Thank you. Bill Van Ryn, B Eng , P Eng Vice President, Branch Manager C C TATHAM &ASSOCIATESLTD CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON, P1L 041 Ph# (70s)-645-77 s6 (e^ 227) Fax# (705)-64s-81 59 Email: [email protected] This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient Any review or dislribution by others is shictly proh¡bil^¡ lf you have receìved this email in error, please contâct the sender and delete all cop¡es We live at tne þottom ol the hill on Stephenson Rd.1 on River Valley Drive. We are very happy to hear that the bridge is being replaced as it poses a very dangerous situat¡on in the winter. Even though the road is closed in the winter I have personally witnessed many people sliding down the hill,crashing into ditches and a friend was crossing the bridge on foot in the winter and slipped and almost ended up in the water because there was no barrier to prevent herfrom falling in. ln the g years we have lived here we have seen a tremendous ¡ncrease in the volume of traffic using the bridge. We have concerns regarding the work to be done 1. when will the construction begin- summer or winter as this is the only exit from our street 2. will the hill be maintained once the bridge is completed 3. will our road be assumed by Huntsville as we are still private with no garbage p¡ck up in winter Look forward to hearing from you ( lrle://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50B7AA6FCC. 1113012012 Page 1 of I Bracebridge File - Fwd: Re: Stephenson 1 bridge From: Bill Van Ryn To: File, Bracebridge Date: ll/29/2012 4:02Pl¡{ Subject: Fwd: Re: Stephenson 1 bridge For the record. I spoke to r this afternoon, who was calling on behalf o{ will send us a letter next week requesting consideration for 2 lane, no load restriction, year round bridge, and road from Highway t I to the bridge. thank you Bill !! on20l2-ll-29,aÎ l:10 PM, Bill Van Ryn wrote: Hello At this point in the study we are looking for general comments from Residents and Agencies. Our work to date is considering 3 alternative solutions l)-do nothing (which is a requirement of the Class EA process), 2)-rehabilitatehepair the existing bridge, 3)-replace the existing bridge. we have made no recommendations to the Towns. We look forward to receiving any comments you may have. There will be a public open house in December or January which we will advise you of the date/time well in advance, where we will be presenting preliminary comments on our review of the alternatives. Thank you. >)> ¡ ' lll29l20l2 I 1:01 AM >>> Hi Bill, i let you a vocal message a few minutes ago. We are concemed about the study for the Stephenson road lbridge, we need to know more about, plans, designs, ideas in order to have a comment on it, and tomorrow is the dateline !!, please send to us something, best regards file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\508786F4CC.. . lll30l2012 Page I of2 Paulette Trefry - Re: Fw: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge From: B:ll \¡âr1 Rl/n To: Date: lll29l20l2l:52 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge CC: File, Bracebridge; Trefry, Paulette Hello i Thank you for your comments. We will provide details of the options when our work is sufficiently advanced Thank you. ll/2812012 1l:09 PM >>> Dear Mr. Van Ryn; Thank you for your quick response. During the winter we use the bridge to access our home on the west side of the Muskoka River, since the hill between the bridge and Highway 11 is not ploughed. Therefore we would support whatever measures are required to keep the existing bridge in service and, to the extent feasible, reduce the noise of vehicles (particularly those pulling trailers) while crossing the bridge (i.e. rehabilitation/repairs). At this point we have no comments on possible upgrades or replacement options; however, we would like to be informed about the details of any other alternatives when they are identified. We hope to be able to attend the Public Information Centre. Regards From: Bill Van Ryn Sent: Monday, November 26,2012 6:39:07 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Hello I do not recall receiving your email previously We are considering 3 alternatives for the bridge. 1-Do Nothing (a requirement of the Class EA process), 2-Rehabilitatehepair the bridge, 3-Replace the bridge. No recommendation on the preferred solution has been made to the Towns. At this point in the Study we are most interested if you have any specific comments related to the existing bridge or possible upgrades or replacements. A public Information Centre (open house) will be held in Jan or Dec and we will advise you of the date in advance. At that time, we will have completed our review of the options and will be able to present the relative pros & cons. file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\508768A1CC... 1112912012 Page 2 of2 I hope this answers your questions. In the interim, please email or call if you have further questions. Thank you. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng., P Eng Vice President, Branch Manager C C. TATHAM &ASSOCIAÏES LTD. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON, P'lL 041 Ph# (705)-645-7 7 56 (ext 227 ) Fax# (705)-645-81 59 Email: bvanrvn(ôcctatham.com Thisemail maycontainconfidential and/orprivilegedinformationforthesoleuseoftheintendedrecipient. Anyreviewordistributionbyothersis strictly prohibited. lf you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies Dear Mr. Van Ryn; Since we have had no confirmation that you received the email that we sent to you about 3 weeks ago, we are forwarding our email to you again in case you did not receive it. Could you please let us know by return email that you have received this email. Thanks very much. ----- Forwarded Mescanc ----- From: " To: "' Gc: Sent: Monday, November 5,2012 10:07:09 PM Subject:- Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Dear Mr. VanRyn: My wife and located on ths of the road and on the cf the MusKoka lüver right. At this point in thffiáy we would like to know specifically the details of the "proposed upgrades, to the bridge referred to in the Notice of Study Commencement. V/e would appreciate any information that you could send to us either at the above email address or to our mailing address shown below: Thank you. Yours sincerely file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50876841CC.. . lll29l20l2 Page 1 of3 Bracebridge File - RE: Class EA Stephenson Road I Bridge, Bracebridge From: To: B ill Van Ryn Excellent. Thanksl From: Bill Van Ryn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 29, 2012 1:59 PM To: r Cc: Bracebridge File; Paulette Trefry Subject: RE: Class EA Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, Bracebridge Good afternoon. We would appreciate receiving your comments by December 14,2012. Thank you. >>> "ì ll/29/20121:53 PM >>> Thanks for the additional informaton. Can we have an extra week or two to submit comments? I need to circulate this to a few different departments for review. Tel: , Toll F Fax: ( Email From: Bill Van Ryn fmailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 29,2012 12:10 PM To: Cc: Bracebridge File; Paulette Trefry Subject: RE: Class EA Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, Bracebridge Hello t llt ,'¡ file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\TempUGgrpwise\50B7íACDCC... lIl29l20l2 Page 2 of 3 Please hnd attached a site location plan. We look forward to receiving your comments. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng., P Eng Vice President, Branch Manager C. C TATHAM & ASSOCIATES LTD. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I Banon Drive Bracebridge, ON, P1L 041 Ph# (705)-645-77 56 (ext 227 ) Fax# (705)-645-81 59 Email: bvanrvn(ôcctatham.com This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of lhe intended recipient. Any review or diskibution by others is strictlyprohibited. lfyouhavereceivedthisemail inenor,pleasecontactthesenderanddeleteall copies. >>> Bill Van Rvn lll29l20l2 9,08 AM >>> Hello We will send you a site location map later today. We look forward to receiving your comments. Thank you. tv28l20t2l0'03 AM >>> Hetto---againrur. Van Ryn, l'm just following up on my previous email. would like the opportunity to review this proposal. Can you please send us a map that shows the project size and location? I note that input is requested by November 30. Can we please have some additional time to provide comments? Thanks againl Tel: . TollFree:t Faxl Emair.l From: Sent: November 2I,201210:06 AM To: [email protected] Cc:1 Subject: Class EA Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, Bracebridge Hello Mr. Van Ryn, Can you please send me a map showing the project location and scope so we can determine if MNDM has any concerns or information to share regard¡ng this project? Thanksl f,rle://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\50B76ACDCC... lll29l20l2 3 ?012 RECEIV ED tit'i ü Reference: 428 Monday, October 29, 2012 Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng., P.Eng Vice President, Manager Bracebridge Branch C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 041 Re Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Town of Bracebridge Notice of Study Commencement Dear Mr. Van Ryn Thank you for informing the rf your project. Please note that i treats all letters, emails, general notices, etc. about a project as a request for information about which -- may have rights or interests in the project area. As a member of the government review team, the identifies First Nation and Métis communities who may have the following interests in the area of your project: o IeS€fVeSi . land claims or claims in litigation against Ontario; . existing or asseñed Aboriginal or treaty rights, such as harvesting rights; or . an interest in the area of the project. is not the approval or regulatory authority for your project, and receives very limited infoimation about projects in the early stages of their development. ln circumstances where a Crown-approved project may negatively impact a claimed Aboriginal or treaty right, the Crown may have a duty to consult the Aboriginal community advancing the claim. The Crown often delegates procedural aspects of its duty to consult to proponents. Please note that the information in this letter should not be relied on as advice about whether the Crown owes a duty to consult in respect of your project, or what consultation may be appropriate. Should you have any questions about your consultation obligations, please contact the appropriate ministry. 1 You should be aware that many First Nations and/or Métis communities either have or assert rights to hunt and fish in their traditional territories. For First Nations, these territories typically include lands and waters outside of their reserves. ln some instances,.project work may impact aboriginal archaeological resources. lf any Aboriginal archaeological resources could be impãcted by your project, you should contact your regulating or approving Ministry to inquire about wtrétñer áocitiãnal Aboriginat communities should be contacted. Aboriginal communities with"ny an interest in archJeological resources may include communities who are not presently located in the vicinity of the proposed project. With r,espect your project, to and based on the brief materials you have provided, we can advise that project the appears to be located in an area whersFirst Nati'ons may have existing or asserted rights or claims in Ontario's land claims process or litigation, that could be impacted by your project. contact information is berow: Beausoleil First Nation (Christian lsland) Chief Roland Monague 1 O-Gema Street (705) 247-2051 Christian lsland, CEDAR pOlNT, Ontario (Fax) 247-2239 LOK 1C0 [email protected] Chippewas of Georgina lsland Chief Donna Big Canoe R.R. #2, P.O. Box 12 (705) 437-1337 SUTTON WEST, Ontario (Fax) 437-4597 LOE 1RO [email protected] Chippewas of Rama First Nation Chief Sharon Stinson Henry 5BB4 Rama Road, Suite 200 (705) 325-361 1 RAMA, Ontario (Fax) 325-0s79 LOK 1TO ch ief@ram afirstnation.ca For your information aware of Métis communities that have asserted rights near your project. Contact ínrormation is below: Georgian Bay Métis Council Brenda Laurin, President 355 Cranston Crescent (705) 526-633s P.O. Box 4 (Fax): 705-526-7537 Midland, ON L4R 4K6 e-mail: [email protected] website: wvr¡waãõrqEnbãtnì et¡scou n"¡l.co, Moon River Métis Council Larry Duval, President 7678 McNiece Cres., Box 386 Washago, (705) 689-3941 Ontario L0K 280 e-mail: [email protected] website: www. moonriverm etis.com 2 Please copy any correspondence to Georgian Bay Métis Council and Moon River Métis Council to the Métis Nation of Ontario. Contact information is below: Métis Nation of Ontario Head Office Métis Consultation Unit 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D Fax: (613)725-4225 Ottawa, Ontario, KlN 9G4 The information upon which the above comments are based is subject to change. I can make claims at any time, and other developments can occur that could result in additional communities being affected by or interested in your undertaking. Through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AANDC), the Government of Canada sometimes receives claims that Ontario does not receive, or with which Ontario does not become involved. AANDC's Consultation and Accommodation Unit (CAU) established a "single window" to respond to requests for baseline information held by AANDC on established or potential Aboriginal Treaty and rights. To request information from the Ontario Subject Matter Expert send an email to: [email protected] Additional details about your project or changes to it that suggest impacts beyond what you have provided to date may necessitate further consideration of which Aboriginal communities may be affected by or interested in your undertaking. lf you think that further consideration may be required, please bring your inquiry to whatever government body oversees the regulatory process for your project. MAA does not wish to be kept informed of the progress of the project; please be sure to remove MAA from the mailing list. Yours trulv, J Aboriginal Relations and Ministry Partnerships Division 3 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200 Chippa¡tas of ]ZAMA Rama, Ontario L3V 6H6 first Nati¿n r 705.325.3611 F 705.325.0879 A Proud Progressive First Nation Community oFFrcE oF THE cHrEF November 5,2Ot2 RECEIVED t{.tl/ r320t2 C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L OA1 Attention: Bill Van Ryn, P.Eng., Vice-President - Bracebridge Branch Re Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Town of Bracebridge Notice of Study Commencement Dear Mr. Van Ryn: As a member of the Williams Treaties First Nations, Rama First Nation acknowledges receipt of your letter of october 19,2072, which was received on october 23,2012. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Karry Sandy-McKenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, you. Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations for further review and response directly to please direct all future correspondence and inquires, with a copy to Rama First Nation, to Ms' Sandy-McKenzie at 8 Creswick Court, Barrie, ON L4M 2J7 or her email address at k.a.sandv- [email protected]. Her telephone number is (705) 792-5087 ' We appreciate your taking the time to share this important information with us. Sincerely, Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Council, Rama First Nation Jeff Hewitt, General Counsel Karry Sandy-McKenzie, Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations Chief Roland Monague, Portfolio Chief for Williams Treaties First Nations www. ramafi rstnation.ca Page I of I Paulette Trefry - Fwd: Bridge, Stephenson road 1 From: Bill Van Ryn To: Trefry, Paulette Date: lI/29/20122:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Bridge, Stephenson road I Hello Paulette. For file and Project File please. >>> I ll\l2ot2l2.l5 pM >>> Mr. BillVan Ryn: ln response to your letterdated October 19,2012,re'. bridge upgrades on Stephenson road 1, I would request the bridge is built strong and wide enough to accommodate a snowplough, to allow Stephenson 1, west of Muskoka river to be cleared of snow appropriately. Also, thêre is a rock cut just west of the bridge on Stephenson 1 that is a MAJOR BLIND SPOT for anyone turning left on to River Valley drive. lt is impossible to see east, beyond the rock cut, so every turn on to River Valley drive is an accident waiting to happen. Those of us living River Valley drive have discussed our concerns in regards to this matter and would greatly apprec¡ate this being fixed for our safety. Sincerely, file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\TempUGgrpwise\50B77282CCT... lll2gl20l2 RECETVED itilv t?¿otà November 7,2012 Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng., P.Eng. Vice President, Manager Bracebridge Branch C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON PlL OAl Dear Mr. Van Ryn: RE: Class Environmental Assessment - Stephenson Road I Bridge - Town of Bracebridge and Town of Huntsville As residents of the northeast comer of Stephenson Road 1 East and the Muskoka River for 23 years, we will be impacted the most by any changes to the Stephenson Road I Bridge. Over the years, we have seen many people stop and take pictures from the bridge and of the bridge. We would like to see the bridge remain in place for its environmental and historicãl value- The surface of the bridge has deteriorated over the years and is in need of repair. The years have probably taken a toll on the structural soundness of the bridge as well which hopefi.rlly can be corrected. As the closest residents to the bridge, any sound buffers would be appreciated to deaden the sound of traffic flow across the bridge' If a decision is made to replace the bridge, we would like to see the easterly exit from the bridge moved further south. This would impact only on the property owned by Town of Bracebridge on the southeast cofiter of Stephenson Road 1 East and the Muskoka River. The combination of blasting the huge rock on a comer on the west side of the bridge, and moving the easterly exit of the bridge south, would shaighten out the road making it much safer. In addition, we would like to see the bridge ¡e¡¡ain a one-lane bridge. This is a residential neighbourhood and a one-lane bridge would slow down the ftafüc. The comer of Balsam Chutes Road and Stephenson Road I East is a dropoffand pick-up area for students, the school bus and the waiting parents. It is imperative to keep the speed of traffic low. We will be out of the countrl and would appreciate being notified of any firrther developments in this assessment. Yours very qily" \ [email protected] l\ov,2l.')01') l:4iPM No,64l2 P, 1 THE ISTRICT UNICIPALITY OF USKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 70 PINE STRÊET, BRACEERIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone Q05)945-2231 OR 1.A00-461-4210 (705 area code) Fax (705) ø46-2207 www.muskoka.on.ca November 27,2012 Mr. BlllVan Ryn, B.Eng., P. Eng VIce Presldent, Manager - Bracebridge Branch C.C. Tatham B Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L 0Al VIA fAX Dear Mr. Van Ryn, Re: Notlce of Studv Commencement Jhank you for your corespondence dated October 19,2012 regarding the proposed upgrades to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge located approximately 1.0 km eaet of Highway 1 1, ovei the Muskoka Rlver ln the Town of B¡acebridge and the Town of Huntsville. Please acoept this letter as our fonnal response to your notlce. The District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department wishas to advise the project of the Muskoka River has been identified as Typa 1 Fish Habitat by the Mìn rces. ln these lnstancea, the Ministry recommends the completíon of a fìsherie to eneure that any fish habitat is protected in accordance wilh provlncial and federal requlrements. ln addition, the Archaeologlcal Master Plan prepared for tha District of Muskoka identifies the subject lands as being w¡thin a general zone of high to very high archaeological potential, Within such areas, the Mlnfstry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has advisad that a cultural heritage assessment may be requlred prior to any site alteration. ln this regard, we would reoommend that the Ministry of Tourism, Çulture and Sport^ Should you requ¡re any add¡tional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned, Yours truly, M (Hons), MCIP, RPP Flanner Mønøgiyrg Our Legacy Together Page 1 of3 Bracebridge File - FW:212529-1 - Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Class EA Letters to Residents re: Notice of Study Commencement _?j- , j j:1 ig4'r'! 9: 1r:rr ¡ _:: I - -+f -,ir" , r:::*ii 't7 From: Paulette Trefry To: Date: 111712012 1:58 PM Subject: FW.212529-1- Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Class EA Letters to Residents re Notice of Study Commencement cc File, Bracebridge; Stacey, Andrew; Van Ryn, Bill I will send the three as noted below Paulette Trefry C.C. TATHAM & ASSOCIATES LTD Consulting Engineers B Barron Drive Bracebridge, 0N P1L 041 Tel: (705) 645-7756 (ext221) Fax: (705) 645-8159 Email : [email protected] This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the so/e use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. lf you have received this email in error, p/ease contact the sender and delete allcopies. Hi Paulette. I have checked with our tax department and they have confirmed that the addresses we had originallyprovidedwerecorrectwiththeexceptionof addingtheUnit#'sasnotedbelowinred. Threeofthe addresses have been returned to our tax department as undeliverable and we do not have any further address info at this time. From: Sent: Ñovember 6,201211:15 AM To: Subject: F\N:272529-1 - Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Class EA Letters to Residents re: Notice of Study Commencement would we have forwardíng address information? From : Pa u lette Trefry [ma i lto : ptrefry@cctatha m.com] file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\509468F3CCT... lI17l2012 Page 2 of 3 Sent: November 6, 2012 lI:I4 AM To:r Cc: Bill Van Ryn; Bracebridge File Subject: 212529-1- Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Class EA Letters to Residents re: Notice of Study Commencement Good Morninç I had some letters returned from our mailing of the Notice of Study Commencement regarding the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Class EA. I was wondering if you had fonrrarding addresses for the following residents so I can resend the Ngtices: Returned to our Tax Department as undeliverable as well Returned to our Tax Department as undeliverable as well Returned to our Tax Department as undeliverable as wef I '¡f Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you. Paulette Trefry C.C. TATHAM & ASSOCIATES LTD Consulting Engineers file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\509468F3CCT... lUl12012 Page 3 of3 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON P1L0A1 Tel: (705) 645-7756 (ext221) Fax: (705) 645-8159 Em ail : [email protected] Thís email may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the so/e use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. lf you have received this email in error, p/ease contact the sender and delete allcopies. lrle:i/C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\TempUGgrpwise\509468F3CCT... l117l20l2 Page 1 of I Bracebridge File - RE: MEA Document ? t2-ç2q-l From: To: B ill Van Ryn Thanl<- you t-ol your quick response. I h¿rve the' lÌles and r¡,ill Leview From: Bill Van Ryn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-O2-12 3:46 PM To, Cc: Andrew Stacey; Bracebridge File; Jesse Woolnough; Paulette Trefry; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: MEA Document >>> Paulette Trefry 11121201210'05 AM >>> second half file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5093ED1OCCT... 1ll5l20l2 Page I of I Bracebridge File - Fwd: MEA Document From: Bill Van Ryn To: Date: lll2/2012 3:46 PM Subject: Fwd: MEA Document CC: File, Bracebridge; Stacey, Andrew; Trefry, Paulette; Woolnough, Jesse. Attachments: MEA Class EA Document- Part 2.Pdf >>> Paulette Trefry I ll2l20l210:05 AM >>> second half file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5093EACECCT... lll512012 Page 1 of I Bracebridge File - Fwd: MEA Document From: Bill Van Ryn To: Grant, Bonnie Date: lll2l20l2 3:43 PM Subject: Fwd: MEA Document CC: File, Bracebridge; Stacey, Andrew; Trefry, Paulette, Woolnough, Jesse. Attachments: MEA Class EA Document - Part l.Pdf >>> Paulette Trefry I ll2l20l2 l0:05 AM >>> First half file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5093F,A32CCT... lll5l20l2 Page 1 of I Bracebridge File - Re: Class environmental Assessment Stephenson 1 Bridge From: BillVan Ryn To: Date: lll2/2012 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Class environmental Assessment Stephenson I Bridge CC: '[email protected]'; File, Bracebridge, Stacey, Andrew; T.. Hell We will forward to you under separate cover a copy of the Municipal Class EA, in 2 ernails due to file size. Please note the Municipal Class EA is generic and relates to all municipal infrastructure projects. Vy'e are simply looking for your general coûlments and any available background information at this stage in the planning process. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. 'lllll20l2 7:02 PM >>> Dear Mr Van Kyn, I would like to review a copy of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document, for the proposed upgrades to the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Please forward the document to me immediately a1 or at Please note your document is dated as of October 19tt',2012, and I have received this via Canada Post on November ft 2012, which has eliminaied two weeks of tir¡e in which to review your proposal. I wor-¡ld like the document immediately to allow me time to review and to provide comments prior to November 30 2012, however I would request that you extend the deadline to allow comments back to you for consideration until Dec. 14th 2012. Sincerely file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5093E95CCCT... lV5D012 26-0cI-2O12 C.C. Tatham & Associates I Barron Drive. RECEIVED î:ilr,r rj I Z0lz Bracebridge, On P1L OA1 Attn; Mr. Bill Van Ryn B. Eng Re; Notice of Study Commencement Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. Sir's, I applaud the local municipality by allowing a local Engineering Company to undertake the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge study and not calling in some overpriced company out of Toronto. This shows foresight by our municipalityl As may be seen by my address I am located less than from said bridge and would like to express my views. You have probably never seen the bridge and the surrounding settings which can only be described as tranquil; therefore, any modifications, changes and/or upgrades should be undertaken with the environment in mind. The current bridge whilst only single lane does not carry a large volume of traffic, therefore I see no reason why, should any study indicate the requirement for a new bridge, an ugly concrete and steel structure be erected. Look at the current design and work within those parameters. I would remind you that your communiqué does only state, "proposed upgrades", (copy attached) and makes no mention of NEW. Any study should also look at the approach to the bridge from the west. This approach to the bridge consists of a steep incline at the bottom of which is a sharp turn onto the bridge. For safety reasons this area should not be overlooked. lf the study concludes the existing structure is sound, it should at least state the iron railings be replaced, the lronwork be painted and a new roadbed be installed Let me close by simply stating that I have no justification in seeing the bridge being replaced, Yours truly, Page I of 1 Paulette Trefry - Re: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge From: Bill Van Ryn To: Date: 1013012012 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Stephenson Road I Bridge CC: File, Bracebridge; Stacey, Andrew; Trefry, Paulette; Woolnough, Jesse Good afternoont Thank you for your comments. We will consider and incorporate into our study documentation Bill Van Ryn, B Eng., P.Eng Vice President, Branch Manager C. C TATHAM &ASSOCIATES LTD. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I Banon Drive Bracebridge, ON, P1L 0Al Ph# (705)-645-77 56 (ext 227 ) Fax# (705)-645-81 59 Email: [email protected] Thisemail maycontainconfìdential and/orprivilegedinformat¡onforthesoleuseoftheintendedrecipient Anyreviewordistributionbyothersis slr¡ctly proh¡hil^À lr,'^" hâ,,^ .ô^ôi,¡ô.1 lhic om¡il in orrnr nloaco ennlacJ lhe sender and delete all copies. October )9,2012 Dear Mr. van Ryn: Thank you very much for your letter dated October 19,2012, regarding the Class Environmental Assessment to the Stephenson Road I Bridge. As cottage owners on , we depend on that bridge as a means of getting to our propefy. To that extent, let me say the obvious, that the safety of this bridge must always be our primary concern. When we first arrived in this area to view properties for sale, the act of travelling over this bridge and seeing the sights from the bridge made up our minds for us in fact before we had even viewed any cottages! We wanted to become a part of this beautiful community. This handsome bridge brings such character to our little neighbourhood - it truly is a relic from the past that we feel very connected to. Aesthetically, it fits right into the rest of the scenery and rather compliments it, instead òf Ueing in oppositión to it, as I fear a .o.. rodr.n structure would be. As it is old and rustic, and visuálly becomes a part of the very landscape that has made the Muskokas are so beautiful. There is something very homey and comforting about this structure that would so greatly missed if it were altered or replaced by a new bridge. I realise that I am uttering sentimentalities. However, our area is truly unique and I feel we have a strong obligation to uphold the past and the treasures it left behind for us to look after. I believe that it was National Geographic this year which claimed that Muskoka was the number one vacation destination in the entire world! It is elements such as this which has helped us to achieve and maintain world-wide respect for how we view and protect our natural beauty. We don't need a wider bridge - local residents all share the road politely and with safety. We don't need a "prettier" bridge - we already have that! If our little bridge needs to be a safer, well, so be it, but please j ust hx it up - don't change it or replace itl We are very grateful for this forum in which to express our opinions! I wish you success with this project - and I wish that you will ultimately determine that it is possible to repair and not replace! Sincerely, file://C:\Documents and Settings\ptrefry\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\508FE49ECCT... 1013012012 't J Min istry of Transportation Ministère des Transports Provincial Highways Management Gestion des routes provinciales Northeastem Region Région du Nord-Est Conidor Management Section Ontar¡o Section de gestion des couloirs 447 McKeown Avenue routiers North Bay, ON PIB 9S9 447, avenue [VlcKeown Tel: (70s) 497-5223 North Bay, ON PIB 9S9 Fax: (705) 497-6926 Tél : (705) 497-5223 RECEIVED OCT 2g 2012 Téléc : (705) 497-6926 October 24,2012 C. C. Tatham & Assoc¡ates LtO B Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON p1L OA1 A n: BillVan Rvn. Vice nt. Manaqer RE Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road I Bridge Town of Bracebridge Thank-you for your notice of the above study commencement. Please keep the Ministry of rransportation advised of the progress of the study. Enclosed your for information are the Ministry's plans for future replacement of the stephenson Road 1/Highway '11 at-grade intersection wit-h a fly-over. This work is not currenfly scheduled, but if your.qtudy eÏtends as far as Highway 11, it ihould include plans to tie-in to the Ministry,s future work. ' Sincerely ole, Corridor Management planner c. Jim Bucci, sr. Project Engineer, MTo pranning & Design section 17056454667 11:32:45a,m. 10-23-2012 1 t1 I akeland Power oistriøit¡on Ltd. 395 Centre St. North, Suite 200, Huntsville, ON. P1H 2M2 Toll Free: 1 -888-282-77 1 1 L Phone: 705-789-5442 Fax: 705-789-31 1 0 Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng.,P.Eng. C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. I Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON PIL 0Al (7os) 645-8r 59 October 23,2012 Dear Sir: Re Class Environmental Assessment Stephenson Road I Bridge Town of Bracebridge Notice of Study Completion Lakeland Power wishes to advise that the property is not in our service area ¡nd suggest that you contact Hydro One for their inPut. Sincerely, ,ó Brian Elliott Manager ol Oper:ations APPENDIX B: NHIC BIODIVERSITY EXPLORER RESUTTS Stephenson Road 1 B¡¡dge lnvas¡vesp*ies @verageofl*m squares Bythotrephes 1 !43!2 17Ptæ G5 5NA NotAppliGble longimanus atlass¡nsprcjeô sp*i6 at R¡sk DraSonfliês and Hdoóduliå Uhler's 1 1811æ 1KM Squares 17PBO_31 cordul¡idae G5 s3 11 UhlÊr'stondragon sundGgon DßEonfi¡es.nd Helocorduliâ Uhler's 181153 1(M 5quåres 17P@ 32 Corduli¡dae G5 53 Historical 11 Uhle¿ssundraaon uhleri 5undraton øvêrågê ollokm squãrês Drågonflis ând Helocordulia Uhler's 181153 uæd moloften for 17PLæ G5 Histodel Anihalia donàtã 11 Uhle/ssundGgo¡ 5undrãgon åtlassins Þroi* coverage ofloh squarês chimaphila 5æfred cÍGlly spoted 1335æ 17PBO Dicotyledons G5 s1 END €ND lmFrild Ericales atlåssing prcjeds tårge Round- Larye Round- 1 39112 1KM Squâres 17PW 31 I lmFr¡led qchidèles 1 39112 !7PLæ-32 @ Hktorical lmpedled oró¡daler Coveràgê ollokm squâ.es þrge Round- LaAe Round- 1 39112 17PLæ @ H¡storiel NaEral Areas coverãge of1&m squåres used hol often for candidate ttre 17P130 !76,365,115,@1,724 636511 wr124 NÐ83 45.1557 -79 2632 åtassingprojeds Wf,UND &ience ANSI Coveråge ollokm squåres used most oftên for Lhgence 17PBO €1& 776.365,175.@1,424 535511 5æ1424 NAD83 45 153 -79.2633 ãtlâss¡ngprojeG WruND Sfte A Prcv¡ncially signiñent wetland, composed offour wetlañd types Côverâge ollokm squares used mostofren tor 17PEO 1æ88 L75,365,L15,@L,924 66511 5æ1924 NADA3 45 1575 -79 2631 l1o4%hoso3*ien,62% sw¿mp and 31% maßh)(Pollad etal, alassingproj€G WflUND 1992) APPENDIX C: NATURAT ENVIRONMENT REVIEW REPORT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 TOWNLINE BRIDGE CLAS S ENVIRONME,NTAL AS SES SMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT REVIEW August 2013 RrvsnSroNE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC August 16,2013 RS#2010-008 BillVan Ryn Vice President, Branch Office Operations, Branch Manager Bracebridge C.C. Tatham & Associates 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON PIL OAl SUBJECT: Stephenson Road I Townline Bridge Class Environmental Assessment -Natural Environment Review. Dear Mr. Van Ryn: RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. is pleased to provide you with the attached report. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding the report, or if further information is required. Best regards, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. Report prepared by: Laura Alward-Gilmour Dipl. E.T Glenn Cunnington Ecologist, ISA Ceftified Arborist Senior Terrestrial Ecologist Species at Risk Specialist Report reviewed by: Al Shaw, M.Sc. Senior Aquatic Ecologist :ìi.:l ltc¡r:¡,) I Iiri;r] I iryrli,¡¡l¡¡rr' l:iritlt¡;: {-ll¿,ri; l-:¡ì i\l;ttrlr li L:.ttvirL,rt¡'rl¡:tri ir-l¡,1'.r1¡¡,,1-7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY Type of Study Date Natural Environment Review August 16,2013 Project Manager Project Location Development Proposed Al Shaw Stephenson Road l, Geographic Munici pal Class Environmental Township of Stephenson, Town Assessment of Huntsville Planning Authorities Owner/Agent Town of Huntsville and Town Town of Huntsville and Town of of Bracebridge Bracebridge ICC T atham &, Associates LTD. ReDort Summary The purpose of this study was to review the natural environment at the Stephenson Road I Townline Bridge, to document the natural features present in the area and evaluate the potential impacts to the natural environment based on various project alternatives. Natural features reviewed included fìsh habitat, ecological communities, significant wildlife habitat, and Species at Risk. Our analysis determined that the level of potential impacts on the natural environment would increase with the level of construction required to rehabilitate the bridge. For example, the alternative that proposes the complete replacement of bridge may result in some clearing of vegetation and potential impacts to the riparian habitat along the Muskoka River. It is our opinion that the alternative with the lowest environmental impact is Alternative l: Do Nothing. Alternative 2: Rehabilitate existing bridge, and Alternative 3: replacement of entire bridge above high water mark, willboth have a low risk to impacts on the natural environment where there is no/little change to the bridge footprint. As all alternatives propose no in-water work, no additional studies would be required to support any of the alternatives. Table of Contents 1. BACKGROU¡ID I 2. APPROACH AI\D METHODS I 2.1. Guiding Environmental Legislation and Policy 1 2.2. Information Sources Used to Assess Site Conditions...... I z.J. Ecological Land Classifi cation 2 2.4. Natural Features and Functions of Conservation Interest...... 2 2.4.1. Habitat-based Approach ...... 2 2.4.2. Fish Habitat 3 2.4.3. Species of Conservation Interest J 2.4.3.t NHIC Databases J 2.5. Environmental Assessment Project Alternatives..... 7 2.6. Site Investigations...... 7 3.1. TerrainandDrainage...... 9 3.2. EcologicalLandClassification 9 3.2.1. Terrestrial System 9 3.2.1.1 ForestCommunities 9 3.2.2. Wetland System ...... I 0 3.2.2.1 Swamp Communities...... l0 3.3. Natural Features and Functions of Conservation Interest...... l1 3.3.1 Fish Habitat...... ll 3.3.2. Species of Conservation Interest ...... ,.12 4. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES...... 15 4.1 Do Nothing l5 4.2 Alternative l: Rehabilitate Existing Bridge t5 4.3 Alternative 2: Replacement of Entire Bridge l5 List of Tables Table L Classification of Fish Habitat Types (OMNR 2010). J Rt\/tr.R,.j l()t'.lE F-Ni/lFlofitvlL:N I AL ÞoLl.J t löN$ li\t(ì Table2. Results of desktop screening for species of conservation interest. Shaded rows indicate species that have been determined to have potential habitat within the project area, or on the adjoining lands based on desktop screening alone. 5 Table 3. Results of field investigations to evaluate habitat potential for species of conservation interest in the project area and adjoining lands. Shaded rows indicate those species for which potential or confirmed habitat was documented. l3 List of Fiqures Figure L Location of Project Area. l8 Figure 2. Biophysical Features and Functions. l9 Stepltel:;rt¡ Fìo¡rj I [,-)wrìlr'ìtì tsrirlilr (]l¡r¡s ËS lrialitr,,rl Ertr;irr.t¡ilre¡l fì;¡v¡,9r,v I. BACKGROT]I\D Stephenson Road I East is a seasonally rnaintained road that extends from Highway I I to Fawn Lake Along this road is a single truss bridge that dates back to 1890, known as tlre Stephenson Road I Townline Bridge. This bridge has a 46.5 m span over the Muskoka River and an overall width of 4.8 m. Based on engineering studies regarding the blidge structure, improvements are required to bring the bridge into compliance with current standards. These improvements have triggered a Schedule "8" Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The Town of Bracebridge has retained C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltcl. to undertake this assessment. As part of the Class EA process, it is our understanding that the alternatives under consideration are: ( I ) do nothing, (2) structural repair solutions, and (3) full bridge removal and replacement. Given the potential for adverse environmental effects, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. (hereafter, RiverStone) was retained by C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. to provide expertise relating to the natural environment surrounding the project area. This report details our evaluation of the environmental conditions surrounding the project area, and assesses each of the alternatives in terms of their potential negative impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial environments. 2. APPROACH AND METHODS 2.1. Guidine Environmental Leeislation and Policv The environmental requirements detailed in the following documents guided the investigations for this report: o Federal Fisheries Act o Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 ¡ Provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 o Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and supporting documents (i.e., Significant Wilcllife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the ProvincialPolicy Statement,2005 (OMNR 2010) o District of Muskoka Official Plan (2010 Office Consolidation) 2.2, Information Sources U fo Assess Sife Condifions Information peltaining to the natural features of the property and the surrounding lands was obtained fi'om several sources including the following: o Species at Risk range maps http://www.mnr.gov.on.calenlBusiness/Species/2Col umnS ubPagel246809.htm I and o Online databases of the Natural Heritage Information Centre NHfC) regarding information on occurrences ofspecies ofconservation interest on or adjacent to the project area, as well as sign ificant natural areas (http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.caAvlNR/nhic/quelies/geographic.cfm; accessed Jtne 2012 o Online databases of the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) project (http://'www.birdsontario.org/atlas/squareinfojsp) and the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005 (Cadman et al.2007) regarding information on birds that were documented breeding in the vicinity of the project area during the 2001-2005 period (atlas square numbers: l7PL30, 17PL39, t7PL40, 17PL41) o Phung Tran, Landscape Planning Biologist, Ministry of Natural Resources (Bracebridge Office) regarding species of conservation interest, Significant Wildlife Habitat, fish habitat, and areas of conservation interest o DigitalOntario Base Maps (OBMs; l:10,000) o Colour aerial photography of the property (digital orthophotos: leaËoff; spring 2008) ¡ RiverStone's in-house databases and reference collections o On-site investigations by RiverStone staff (see Section 2.6. ) 2.3. EcolosicalLand Classification The ecological communities within the project area were characterized in accordance with Ontario's Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system. The ELC system defines ecological units or communities based on bedrock, climate (temperature, precipitation). physiography (soils, slope, aspect), and corresponding vegetation. Use of the system permits biologists and other land managers to use a common language to describe ecological communities, which in turn facilitates the identification of communities likely to support features or functions of conseryation interest. The ELC system is an organizational framework, designed to be used at different scales. The ecological units most useful for site-specifrc evaluations are ecosite and vegetation type, the latter unit nested within the former. The description and definition of ecological communities with the ELC system is continually evolving as provincial working groups strive to improve the classification to cover the full breadth of community diversity in Ontario. Consequently, there are now ELC designations for marry communities not covered in Lee et al. (1998), and existing codes have been modified to convey additional information. For reporting purposes, we present the new community description and code, followed by the old code from Lee et al. (1998) in brackets. Forest communities were classified according to Chambers et al. (1997). 2.4. Natural Features and Functions of Conservation Interest 2.4.1. Habitat-based Approach Properly assessing whether an area is likely to contain species of conservation interest (this includes Species at Risk, Regional Species of Interest, Local Species of Interest, and deer wintering areas), for the purposes of determining whether a proposed development is likely to have a negative irnpact is becoming more difficult as the number of listed species increases. Approaches that depend solely on documenting presence/absence are often poorly done because of the difficulty of observing species that are usually rare and well camouflaged. Given these diffìculties, and the importance of protecting habitats of Species at Risk (SAR), fish, and other species of conservation interest, RiverStone's primary approach to site assessment is habitat-based. This means that our field investigations focus on evaluating the potential for features within an area of interest to function as habitat for species considered potentially present, rather than searchingfor live specimens. An area is considered potential habitat if it satisfìes a nurnber of criteria, usually specifìc to a species, but occasionally characteristic ofa broader group (e.g., several turtles ofconservation interest use sandy shoreliues for nesting, numerous fish species use areas of aquatic vegetation for nursery habitat). Physical attributes of a site that can be used as indicators of its potential to function as habitat for a species include structural characteristics (e.g., physical dimensions of rock fragments or trees, water depth), ecological community (e.g., meadow marsh, rock barren, coldwater stream), and structural connectivity to other habitat features required by the species. Species-specific habitat preferences andlor affinities ate determined from status reports produced by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Cadman et al. (2007), published and unpublished documents. and direct experience. 2.4.2. Fish Habitat The shoreline adjacent to the project area and adjoining lands was evaluated for its potential to function as fish habitat. The evaluation was completed using the most recent classification criteria established by the MNR as per the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010). The three key habitat types are described in Table I and differ based on their sensitivity to development and overall productive capacity for fish. Table 1. Classification of Fish Habitat Types (OMI{R 2010). Classification Type Description Type I Flabitats have high productive capacily, are ral'e, in space and/or tinre, are highly sensitive to development, or have a critical t'ole in sustaining fìsheries (e.g., spawning and nursery areas for some species, and ground water discharge areas for summer and/or wintet thermal refuges). Type2 Habitats are moderately sensitive to development and, although impottant to the fish population, are not considet'ed critical (e.g., feeding areas and open watel habitats of lakes). Type 3 Habitats have low ploductive capacity or are highly degraded, and do not curlently contribute directly to fish productivity. They often have the potential to be improved significantly (e.9., a portion of a waterbody, a channelized stream that has been highly altered physically). Fish habitat documented during site investigations included direct frsh habitat (spawning, rearing, feeding, and cover habitat), and indirect fìsh habitat, which includes intermittent watercourses that contribute food, water, or nutrients for fish, but which fish do not use directly. 2.4.3. Species of Conservation Interest 2.4.3.1 NHIC Databases When assessing the likelihood that a particular species or feature occurs on a property, one of the most commonly used sources of infolmation is the online databases of the MNR's NHIC (accessed through a geographic webquery or shapefile download). Although the information contained in the NHIC databases is a valuable resource, the limitations of this data source must be recognized when screening a property for the presence of SAR or other species of conservation interest (i.e., species determined to have provincial, regional, or local conservation value but not designated a SAR). The following factors were considered in the evaluation completed forthis assessment: (l)the observation records inthe NHIC databases do not provide complete geographic representation for any species; that is, there are many sites where a species is known to occur that are not represented by records in the datab ase; (2) many species have only recently been recognized as SAR or of conservation interest and, therefore, have distributions that are poorly represented in the database; and (3) the method used by the NHIC to f ìi\i l-ilij l()i\li-i ir\t \/lRür\lù4t:¡l l Al :jol-i j l l{)t\l:j li\l(ì geographically represent species' occurrences does not reflect the way the species being represented moves or uses space. The Project Area was defined as the area located within 30 m of the bridge footprint. For each project alternative being considered here, the adjoining lands extents were measured out from the Project Area. Adjoining lands extents are ecologically based and thus feature/species specific, for example, the appropriate distance within which to consider impacts for a plant species is much less than that for an Eastem Hog-nosed Snake. Because of the variability between species, each species of conservation interest determined to be relevant to this project is evaluated separately in the desktop evaluation provided in Table 2. The project area was also evaluated for their potential to contain specialized features and functions that would qualiff as Significant Wildlife Habitat (e.g., seasonal concentrations of animals, rare vegetation communities, specialized habitats) as per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (OMNR 2010). fì1,.:1rlretl,;cr¡ lìl-.t,j I I ,r,¡r'rliirr,- l:-ìirt.l,,l¡r i ìl;r-¡s [::l\ i'],riLl¡ ll i::rìritr r-:trt,lt:ill irle,ilew I Table 2. Results of desktop screening for species of conservation interest. Shaded rows indicate species that have been determined to have potential habitat within the project area or on the adjoining lands based on desktop screening alone. Rationale for considering species as potentially Do site-specific attributes (e.g., ecological communities and Common Scientific occurring within project landscape configuration) assessed from aerial photography name name area or on adjoining and digital OBM data indicate that potential habitaf might lands be present within project area or on adjoining lands? Endangered & Threatened (MNR)I Blanding's Ernydoidea SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area: yes, aquatic communities (Muskoka River) Turtle blandingii provided by Parry Sound present irr project area. District MNR; species ¡ Lands: yes, large lacusû'ine present on range map; NHIC Ädjoining wetland lands to the east. databases Eastern Sternotherus Species range map ¡ Project Area: yes, aquatic communities (Muskoka River) Musk Turtle odoratus present in project area. o Adjoining Lands: yes, latge lacustrine wetland present on lands to the east. Massasauga Sistntrus SAR by To'*'nship tool ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: no, area not likely to catenatus provided by Par'ry Sound support Massasauga population(s) because properfy surrounded District MNR; species by intermediate- and high-use roads that have been in place for range map; NHIC >10 yrs limiting movement of species; surrounding levels of databases disturbance high. Eastern Heterodon SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area: no, potential habitat is absent from the project Hog-nosed platirhinos provided by Parry Sound area as it is very unlikely that the species would move through Snake District MNR; species the project area to access areas ofmore suitable habitat. range map ¡ Adjoining Lands: yes, a mosaic of open communities. mixed forest, and wetland communities is present. Peregrine Falco SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: no, areas ofsteep slopes Falcon peregrtnus provided by Parry Sound or open vel'tical rock faces suitable for r.resting present within District MNR; species project area or on adjoining lands. range map Bobolink Dolichonyx SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area or Adjoining Lands: no. suitable gtassland or oryzivonts provided by Parry Sound agricultural communities not pl'esent. District MNR; Breeding evidence in OBBA squares encompassing or adjoining site; species range map Chimney Chaetura SAR by To'r.,r'nship tool . Project Area: no, man-made structures or areas of old growth Swift pelagica provided by Parry Sound forest suitable for nesting are not present. District MNR; Breeding ¡ Adjoining no, man-made structures suitable fot evidence in OBBA squares Lands: while nesting nray be present, do not within a distance that encompassing or adjoining they occul would be impacted by the proposed development activities. site: species range map Rationale for considering species as potentiâlly Do site-specific attr¡butes (e.g,, ecological communities and Common Scientific occurring within project landscape configuration) assessed from aerial photography name name area or on adjoining and digital OBM data indicate that potential habitat might lands be present within project area or on adjoining lands? Barn Hírundo SAR by Township tool . Project Area: yes, man-made stt'uctures suitable ttrr nesting Srvallorv rustica provided by Parry Sound may be present. District MNR; Breeding ¡ Adjoining Lands: yes, structures suitable t'or nesting may be evidence in OBBA squares present. encompassing or adjoinirrg site: species range map Easteln Sturnella Breeding evidence in o Project Area and Adjoining Lands: no, suitable grassland or Meadowlark magna OBBA squares agricultulal communities not present. encompassing or adjoining site; species range map Spotted Chimaphila NHIC databases; species o Project area and Adjoining Lands: no, although there is a Wintelgleen maculata range map; 1904 historical lecord for this species in the genelal area, it is no longel believed to occut in the District of Muskoka (extirpated fi'om legion). Special Concern (MNR) Eastern Thamnophis SAR by Tor;r'nship tool o Project Area: yes, aquatic and wetland communities present Ribbonsnake sauritus provided by Parry Sound on property. District MNR; species ¡ yes, lacustl'ine wetland present on fange map Adjoining Lands: latge lands to the east. Milksnake Lampropelti SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area: no, majority ol project area is fbrested with s triangulum provided by Parry Sound openings in canopy limited to the residential and aquatic District MNR; species fèatures. range maP o Adjoining Lands: yes, open-canopy communities are present. Snapping Chelydra SAR by Township tool ¡ Project Area: yes, aqr,ratic communities (Muskoka River) Turtle serpentina provided by Parry Sound present in project area. District MNR; species ¡ yes, lacustrine present on range map Adjoining Lands; large wetland lands to the east. Golden- Vermivora Breeding evidence in ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: possible. early winged chrysoptera OBBA squares successional vegetation communities w¡th adequate structure Warbler? encompassing or adjoining f'or nesting could be present. site; species range map Olive-sided Contopus Breeding evidence in ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands; yes, suitably sized 2 Flycatcher coopen OBBA squares openings in forest canopy, including cleared areas and natural encompassing or adjoining wetlands pt'eseut. site Eastern Canis lycaon Species range map o Project Area and Adjoining Lands: no, level of distulbance Wolf (i.e., roads and residences) on adjoining lands likely too high to permit use of area by species. Monarch Danatts Species range map ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: yes, both natural and plexipptts anthropogenic openings in canopy could provide suitable Rationale for considering species as potentially Do site-specific attributes (e.g., ecological communities and Common Scientific occurring within project landscape configuration) assessed from aerial pltotography name name area or on adjoining and digital OBM data indicate that potential habitat might lands be present within project area or on adjoining lands? breeding and foraging areas for this species. Regional Conserva tion Interest Red- Buteo Breeding evidence in ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: yes, suitable ftrrested shouldered lineatus OBBA squales habitat may be present. Harvk encompassing or adj oining site Little Brolyn Myotis Species range map o Project Area and Adjoining Lands: yes, dalk sheltered Myotis3 lucifugus hollow vertical stfuctul'es (e.g., large trees lvith cavities or t'ock crevices) suitable for nesting or roosting may be present. Northern Myotis Species range map ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: yes, dat'k sheltered Myotis3 septentrional hollorv vertical structures (e.g., large trees with cavities or rock ¿s crevices) suitable f'or nesting or roosting may be present. lProvincial conservation status of Species at Risk (Endangered, Thleatened, and Special Coucern designations) from MNR list updated Jarruary 2012 aI http://r,llr"r.v.mnr.gov.otr.calen/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.htm| 2Species designated Threatened nationally by the Committce on the Status of Endangeled Wildlile in Canada 3Species designated Endangered nationally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada but cttrtently holds no provincial designation. 2.5. Environmental Assessment Proiect Alternatives As required by the Class Environmental Assessment process for municipal road projects, each project alternative must be assessed for impacts on the natural environment. Several alternatives were devised for upgrading the bridge to address visual deficiencies and the age of the structure. Three project altel'natives were selected to be evaluated. The following alternatives were evaluated as forwarded by Bill Van Ryn (CC Tatham & Associates Lrd.); Alternative I Do nothing - Alternative 2 - Rehabilitate existing bridge of entire bridge. Alternative 3 - Replacement 2.6. Sitelnvestieations As part of the initial desktop evaluation, areas of potential consewation interest (e.g., potential habitat for species of conseruation interest and fish habitat) were identified and targeted during the site investigation. A single site assessment was completed on June 13,2012 by Laara Alward-Gilmour (Terrestrial Ecologist). The level of field effort expended was deemed adequate to document the features and functions with recognized conservation status occurring within the project area, keeping in mind the habitat-based approach described in Section 2.4.1. Whereas specific surveys were conducted to evaluate habitat potential for fish and species of conservation interest, targeted surveys were not completed for other taxonomic groups as explained below. Specific surveys for breeding birds were not conducted because of the habitat-based approach being used to assess potential use of the areaby birds of conservation interest. Salamander and frog call surveys were not completed because any wetland communities would be protected from development and site alteration due to species of conservation interest and fish habitat issues regardless of use by amphibians. Reptile surveys were not completed because habitat-based approaches are far more effective at ensuring adequate protection for this taxon (i.e., only intensive surveys conducted over several seasons, or years depending on species, would adequately assess the likelihood of species' presence or absence). Mammal surveys were not conducted because (l) there were no SAR mammals found to be potentially occurring on the proposed lot or adjoining lands; (2) signs of large and intermediate-sized mammals are often documented during the course of other field investigations (e.g., scat and browse); and (3) the remainder of the mammalian species assemblage that typically occurs in this type of system can be presumed to occur without sampling. Surveys for odonates (damselflies and dragonflies) were not conducted because features likely to function as habitat for this taxonomic group (e.g., wetlands and watercourses) will already receive protection for their wetland and fish habitat values. Finally, surveys for lepidopterans (moths and butterflies) were not conducted because the only species in this region with SAR status is the Monarch, and suitable habitat would be identified during typical field investigations. Although observations of fauna of interest were recorded, they are not repofted herein unless the observation was important for the determination of (l) habitat potential for species of conservation interest or (2) potential Significant ìWildlife Habitat. Evidence for the presence of a species or use of an area was determined from visual andlor auditory observation (e.g., song, call) and observation of nests, tracks, burrows, browse, skins and scats. Plant nomenclature is generally consistent with the Southern Ontario Vascular Plant Species List compiled by D. Bradley of the NHIC (revised edition, 2009; based on the Ontario Plant List by Newmaster et al. [1998]). Natural features of interest (e.g., SAR habitat, ecological community boundaries) were delineated in the field with a survey-grade GPS (SXBlue II) capable of 2 m accuracy. Features of interest were photographed and all information collected was catalogued for future reference. 3. BIOPHYSICALFEATURESIEXISTINGCOI\DITIONS) 3.1. Terrain and l)rainase The area around the bridge has a mainly level topography with the exception being the steep slopes surrounding the banks of the Muskoka River. The roadway area and surrounding lands lies within the Central Gneiss Belt of the Grenville Province in the Canadian Shield Physiographic Region. The bedrock throughout this region has extensive outcroppings, which are primarily the result of glaciation and post-glacial events. Prominent bedrock knobs and ridges are common in the region and dominant features in some areas. It was noted during the site visit that the bedrock within the property is largely overlain with a moderate cover of glacial drift. The Precambrian landform expression strongly influences the topographic patterns of the region as well as the local overland drainage characteristics. The overland drainage pattern is generally towards the Muskoka River, which runs north to south through the project area. The Muskoka River is consistent in size and measures approximately 40 m in width, with permanent flow, and is considered to be coldwater in some reaches based on inflowing tributaries and localized groundwater upwellings, One small intermittent watercourse was identified in the project area on the north side of Stephenson Road along the western bank of the Muskoka River. This watercourse originates from the west travelling adjacent to Stephenson Road (X'igure 2), where it collects overland drainage and crosses under the road through a steel 30 cm diameter culvert. The flow of this watercourse appears to be limited to periods of rainfall and spring snowmelt. 3.2. Ecolosical Land Classification The project area is located at roughly the centre of Ecodistrict 5E-8. This Ecodistrict is dominated by moderately rolling bedrock uplands covered by a thin mantle of stony-sandy till with localized pockets of glaciofluvial sand and gravel deposits (Noble 1983). The ELC methodology was applied using a combination of air-photo analysis and field investigations. The ecological communities are mapped in Figure 2 and are described in the ensuing sections 3.2.1. Terrestrial System 3. 2. I. I Forest Communities Sugar Maple-lt'hite Birch-Poplar-Wite Pine, fresh to moist (8527.2) A dense, mature mixed forest community is situated along the banks of the Muskoka River and upland areas on coarse mineral soils (Photograph 1). Dominant species tree species in the canopy of this community are White Pine (Pinus strobus), White Spruce (Picea glauca), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and White Birch (Betula papyrifera). Hardwoods regeneration including Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) was moderately dense in the understorey along with dense Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea). Herbaceous species common in the ground layer included Common Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Rough Goldenrod (Solidago rugosa ), Early Meadow Rue (Thalictrum dioicum), Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens) and St. John's-wort (Hypericum perforatum) amon g others. Photograph 1. Dense mixed forest ES 27.2 of Muskoka River (June 13,2012). 3.2.2. Wetland System 3. 2. 2. 1 Swamp Communities Speckled Alder Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type (SI4tTMl-1) Along the banks of the Muskoka River, there are several pockets of thicket swamp depicted in Photograph 2. Speckled Alder (Alnus incana) is the dominant species in this community with some Narrow-leaved Meadowsweet (Spirea alba), Winterberry Holly (Ilex verticillata) and Sweet Gale (Myrica gale). Herbaceous species included Early Meadow Rue (Thalictrum dioicum), Blue Skullcap (Scutellaria laterfolia), Fraser's St. John's Wort(Triadenumfraseri), Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus), and Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis) on wet mineral soils. Photograph 2. Speckled Alder swamp SWTM l-l along Muskoka River adjacent to bridge (June 1 3,2012). 3.3. Natural Features and Functions of Conservation Interest 3.3.1. Fish Habitat Fish habitat mapping provided by the MNR recognizes the frontage of the Muskoka River in the project area as Type I Habitat for brown trout, brook trout, smallmouth bass and minnows/small fìsh. More specific information indicates that this stretch likely has northern pike, rock bass, pearl dace, yellow perch, smallmouth bass and white sucker. The shoreline frontage the project area is consistent on both sides of the river. Within 1.5 m from shoreline the banks of the river drop sharply into water deeper than2 m (Photograph 3 and Photograph 4). Nearshore substrates consist of silt and sand with some moderate sized granite cobble. Aquatic vegetation is very limited through the project area. Overhanging vegetation in the form of woody shrubs is present in areas associated with the SWTMI -l community type. ln the immediate footprint of the bridge there are old crib structures in the nearshore area, these structures were filled in with sand and silt, and did not appear to be contributing to fish habitat along the Muskoka River. Based on our assessment, it is our opinion that the majority of the shoreline does function as general habitat for a variety of species and we agree with the assessment of Type I fish habitat as assigned by MNR. Photograph 3. Typicalview of nearshore area along River in project area (June 13,2012). Photograph 4. Old cribs in footprint of bridge (June 13, 2012). 3.3.2. Species of Conservation Interest Table 3 presents the results of the field investigations that evaluated the property for habitat of species of conservation interest. Note that Table 3 only presents the evaluation of species that were determined to have potential habitat on the proposed lot or adjoining lands based on the desktop screening presented in Table 2. Table 3. Results of field investigations to evaluate habitat potential for species of conservation interest in the project area and adjoining lands. Shaded rows indicate those species for which potential or confirmed habitat was documented. Common Potential and/or confirmed habitat documented name Endangered & Threatened (MNR)t Blanding's ¡ Project Area and Adjoining lands: yes, the project area includes aquatic communilies; however, the Turtle in water structure and surrounding riparian communities lacks characteristics that would render them suitable to tirnction as habitat t'ol this species. lt is possible that the Muskoka River lunctions as a movement con'idol fbr this species. Eastern Musk o Project Area and Adjoining lantls: no, u'hile the project alea does include aquatic communities, the Turtle in water structure and surrounding riparian communities lacks characteristics that would t'ender them suitable to function as habitat for this species. It is unlikely that the Muskoka River functions as a movemel.ìt corridot f-or this species. Eastern Hog- ¡ Adjoining lands: no, while potential f'oraging, nesting and hibelnation habitat may be present; nosed Snake holvever, it lvas not documented within a distance that would be impacted by the proposed developrnent activities. Barn Swallow ¡ Project Area: no, evidence ofspecies bleeding in project area was not obsewed, and no nest cups were observed on or under the bridge. ¡ Adjoining lands: no, suitable habitat was not identified within an area that would be affected by the ploposed development. Special Concern (MNR)l Ribbonsnake ¡ Project Area: no, riparian communities within the project area lack charactelistics that lvould render' the area suitable to function as habitat for this species. o Adjoining lands: no, suitable habitat was not identifìed lvithin an area that would be af'tècted by the ploposed development. Snapping ¡ Project Area and Adjoining lands: yes, while the project area does include aquatic communities, the Turtle in r.vater structure and surrounding riparian communities lacks characteristics that rvould render them suitable to tunction as habitat for this species. It is hower.er, likely that the Muskoka River functions as a movement coridor fol this species. Golden- ¡ Project Areâ: no, eally successional vegetation cornmunities with adequate structure fìrr nesting rvere ll.inged not pl'esent. Warbler ¡ Adjoining Lands: no, suitable habitat fol nesting was not identifred lvithin an area that vyould be affected by the proposed development. Olive-sicled r Project Area and Atljoining Lands: yes, trees suitable to function as nestlng habitat adjacent to Flycatcher2 Muskoka River. Monarch ¡ Project Area and Adjoining Lands: yes, Milkweed(Asclepias syriaca) present at edges of Stephenson Road and likely present on private properties on adjoining lands. Regional Conservation Interest Red- ¡ Project Area: no, nests ofspecies not observed. shouldered o nesting an area that be Harvk Adjoining Lands: no, suitable habitat t'or was not identifìed within would affected by the proposed development. Filir[:]J:15lr ;i'li: i::¡1','¡,r(,.)l'li\/l::i\l ì,,:\i iì(li {jT'lr.)irl;;ì lirj, Common Potential and/or confirmed habitat documented name Little Brown ¡ Project Area: no, structures or cavities suitable for roosting are not present. Myotis2 ¡ Adjoining Lands: no, dark shelteted hollow vertical structures suitable fol roosting not documented within a distance that would be impacted by the proposed development. Northern o Project Area: no, structures or cavities suitable for roosting are not present. Myotis2 ¡ Adjoining Lands: no, dark sheltered hollow vertical structures suitable for loosting not documented within a distance that u'ould be impacted by the proposed development. lProvincial conservation status of Species at Risk (Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern designations) from MNR list updated January 2012 at http://www.mnr'.gov.on.calen/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.himl 2Species designated Endangered nationally by the Commíttee on the Status of Endangered.Wildlife in Canada but cun'ently holds no provincial designation. ;r1,.:¡rl'rr,lì:;(jfl :ìr)¿lri I f,rt¡¡iilliro. [ìrlr]l-l¡.: i.l¡:;; í,/i I'l.rir,ii¡l [-rl,rirrtrl]ìe¡ti l'ìt.l,,rt¡)'¡i lrl 4, ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATTVES The followingparagraphs detail the pros and cons of each alternative based only on how each would potentially affect the natural features and functions of conservation interest. The primary feafures of conselation interest assessed along the project route include fish habitat and habitat for SAR. 4.1. Alternative l: Do Nothine The Do Nothing decision requires little assessment from a biological perspective. Clearly if there is no construction work associated with this alternative, there can be no environmental impact related to construction activities, clearing of vegetation or disturbance of aquatichabitat features. 4.2. Alternative 2: Rehabilitate Existine Bridee Alternative 2 involves the repair or complete replacement of the asphalt bridge decks, repairs to the pier, abutments, expansion joints, and/or railings. It would not be a complete replacement as in Alternative 3, but several component of the bridge would be upgraded or reconstructed. Assessment of Impacts to the Natural Environment Pursuing Alfernative 2 would be limited to the area immediately associated with the bridge. There would be the loss of some vegetation along the edge of Stephenson Road I to accommodate heavy equipment and storage of materials. We would expect the river bank to remain undisturbed with no loss of vegetation in the nearshore area. The intermittent watercourse crossing Stephenson Road offers indirect fish habitat through the contribution of clean water and nutrient to the Muskoka River, Vegetation removal and materials storage should be excluded from the intermittent watercourse (Figure 2) on the west side of the Muskoka River. Based on our assessment there would be no interaction between fish habitat in the Muskoka River and the expected construction activities associated with Alternative2. Our assessment of SAR habitat suggests that two species of turtle (Blanding's Turtle and Snapping Turtle), Olive-sided Flycatcher, and Monarch Butterfly may be impacted by pursuing this project alternative. Turtle habitat would not be negatively impacted at this location if construction activities are limited to terrestrial habitats. Should the project necessitate in-water works, additional studies and mitigation may be required to address impacts to turtles and their associated aquatic habitat. Habitat for Olive-sided Flycatcher may be lost by construction activities in forested areas through the removal of conifer trees adjacent to the Muskoka River, depending on the extent of clearing required. To minimize impacts to avian species, including the Olive-Sided Flycatcher and to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1995), construction activities should be conducted outside of the peak nesting season (May I 5 to July 3l ). Habitat for the Monarch may be lost due to necessary clearing of vegetation such as milkweed, which is the primary plant host for butterfly larvae. It would be expected that a similar roadside vegetation community would re-establish following construction and the impacts would therefore be temporary and acceptable based on the requirements for this species. In addition to SAR, bird nesting on the bridge by several non-SAR species would be impacted by the bridge rehabilitation if conducted within the nesting season for breeding birds (May l5 to July 3l). Overall, the predicted impacts of Alternative2 are expected to be low. Should the rehabilitation items be such that structures within the water would not need to be replaced, we expect that no permits, letters of advice or project reviews would be required by the MNR or DFO. 4.3. This alternative would involve removing both abutments and pier that are above the high water rnark, and installing new abutments in the same location on bedrock also the above the high water mark. The proposed replacement bailey bridge would span the river. Assessment of Impacts to the Natural Environment Based on our assessment there would be no interaction between fish habitat in the Muskoka River and the expected consttuction activities associated with Alternative 3. Construction of Alternative 3 would result in the loss of limited vegetation along the roadside of Stephenson Road I and some loss of vegetation in the nearshore area of the Muskoka River. No in-water works are proposed and therefore no additional permitting would be required through the MNR or DFO. Nesting on the bridge by several non-SAR avian species would be impacted by the rehabilitation if conducted within the nesting season for breeding birds (May l5 to July 3l). The SAR that may be negatively impacted by this Alternative are two species of turtle (Blanding's Turtle and Snapping Turtle), Olive-sided Flycatcher, and Monarch. Turtle habitat would not be negatively impacted at this location if construction activities are limited to terrestrial habitats that are not suitable for tuftles leaving the water. Habitat for Olive-sided Flycatcher may be lost by construction activities in forested areas through the removal of conifer trees adjacent to the Muskoka River. To minimize impacts to avian species, including the Olive-Sided Flycatcher and to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act,1995, construction activities should be conducted outside of the peak nesting season (May I 5 to July 3l ). Habitat for the Monarch may be lost due to necessary clearing of roadside vegetation, which includes milkweed, the primary plant host for butterfly larvae.It would be expected that a similar roadside vegetation community would re-establish following construction and the therefore any impacts would therefore be minimal and temporary. Vegetation removal and materials storage should be excluded from the intermittent watercourse nofth of Stephenson Road (Figure 2) on the west side of the Muskoka River. Removal and replacement of abutments may result in some debris entering the water with a low risk of disturbing frsh habitat. Overall, the expected risk of negative impacts of Alternative 3 is expected to be low and can be minimized through mitigation. Since no structures within the water are proposed to be altered in any way, we expect that no permits, letters of advice or project reviews would be required by the MNR or DFO. 5. CONCLUSTONS Based upon the assessment provided herein, the potential impacts of the project altematives range from no impacts (do nothing alternative) to predicted moderate impacts associated with the replacement of both the bridge and footings. Our evaluation indicates that potential impacts on the natural environment will increase as the degree to which the aspects of the bridge require replacement. As the more of the bridge is removed and replaced, more equipment will be required resulting in increased impacts to the Project Area and Adjoining Lands. It is our determination that the alternative with the least immediate environmental impact is Alternative 1: Do nothing, where there is no work completed on the bridge. However, leaving the bridge to deteriorate may result in environmental impacts in the long term. Alternative 2: Rehabilitate existing bridge, will result in minor impacts as the rehabilitation of the bridge will result in the loss of some roadside vegetation. Lastly, Alternative 3: Replacement of entire bridge above high water mark, will result in the loss roadside and riparian vegetation with a minimal risk of debris entering the water. RiverStone is of the opinion that Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 have a low risk of negative impacts to the natural environment and no further pelmitting will be required. 6, REFERENCES Bergmann,8., K. Irwin, and J. Boos. 2005. The Stream Permanency Handbook. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Cadman, M.D., D. A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A. R. Couturier editors.2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005, Bird Studies Canada, EnvironmentCanada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto. Chambers, B. 4., B. J. Naylor, J. Nieppola, B. Merchant, and P. Uhlig. 1997. Field Guide to Forest Ecosystems of Central Ontario. Lee, H. T., W. D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998 Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. Newmaster, S. G., A. Lehela, M. J. Oldham, P. W. C. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998 Ontario Plant List. Ontario Forest Research Institute Sault Ste. Marie. OMNR. 2000. Signifìcant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and V/¡ldlife Branch (Wildlife Section) and Science Development and Transfer Branch (Southcentral Sciences Section). OMNR. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second edition. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Stanfield, L. (editor), 2005. Ontario Stream Assessment ProtocolVersion 7 (updated May 2007). Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministty of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. Townline N Legend Planning Boundar¡es f'-f ero¡ectnrea Ontar¡o Base Mapping (OBM) 5-m Contours Orthorect¡fed aerial photo - spr¡ng 2008 RS Project Date Last Scale By 1:1,000 2012-038 Oc¡ 10, 2012 LA 0 15 30 [retres h Figure 1 Locat¡on of subject property. Stephenson , 1 of of subject property Prepared for C C Talham &Associãtes Note: this should not be used ¡n place of a suryey. Legend Plann¡ng Boundil¡es PrejdAEa + Man-made Fætures Ex¡sl¡ng at Tire of Site Vis¡t (Jure 13,2012) Primry ù¡eüng Tennis CM Accesory Bdkiing Roåd ftriv4ay Bridge Cdvff - l-!'dm L¡re Fish Hab¡tat Mapped by tfp MNR Typo 1 Biophys'r=l Features and Functions - RiverStone Watercoffi - + - IntsmôeñfwásæursDekEaþdFMAqiâl PholoSÞphy ðd Vsif€d On Sile E@log¡øl Commuúties Sugs i/tâplèWhaê Búch-Poplãr{t t¡¡te P¡æ, ÊËh b (ES27.2) I SpætC¿ ¡lOer MiæÉl lÞcíd@us Thkket Swarp Type (swrM1-1) Ortlûætified âsial spring 2008 RS Prcjecl Date Läst Scale By I ln.lâlÊrl 1:400 2012434 Oct 10, 2012 LA 0 5 'rom ttr F€ure 2. Elioph)E¡cal feablres ard frrE{i(ms. Steptenson Ræd 1, ftluskoka Rivs, Geogaph¡c fo$/ßhþ of Stephenson, Town of l-hÍtsvi{e. Prepared for C.C. Talham & Assæ¡ates l,lae: this ñgwe shottld mt be used ¡n daæ of a profess¡onal survey, APPENDIX D: ARCHAE0IOGICAt ASSESSMENT Page 1 of 1 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministre du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport Culture Programs Unit Unit des programmes culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des serv¡ces Culture Division Division de culture 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 047 Toronto ON M7A 047 Archaeology Reports@ontario. ca [email protected] Oct 16, 2013 Kayleigh MacKinnon (P384) AMICK Consultants Limited 96 Burke Barrie ON L4N 7H9 RE RE: Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Stage 1 -2 Archaeolog¡cal Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East cross¡ng the Muskoka River (Geograph¡c Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka", Dated Oct 16, 2013, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on N/4, MTCS Project Information Form Number P384-0073-2013, MTCS File Number 0000344 Dear Ms. MacKinnon The above-ment¡oned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part Vl of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18 has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports without technical review.l Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quallty of reports in the register. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to send your inquiry to ArchaeoloqyReports(AOntario. ca. cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer Jesse Woolnough,C.C. Tatham &Associates Sharron Taylor ,Town of Bracebridge t ln no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the ¡ssuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent. October 4,2013 Administrative Coordinator Culture Programs Unit Programs and Services Branch Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 401 Bay St., Suite 1700, Toronto, ON M7A 0.4'7 RE: PROJECT REPORT COVER LETTER Please find enclosed the project report package for the project detailed below. This package consists of three components in accordance with the 201I Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists : 1) Project Report Cover Letter (this document) 2) One (1) digital copy of the Project Report (enclosed) 3) One (1) digital copy of the Property Plan (enclosed) Licensee Information: Licensee: Kayleigh MacKinnon MA Archaeology Licence: P384 Contact Information: AMICK Consultants Limited Lakelands District 380 Talbot Street, PO Box 29 Port McNicoll, ON LOK lRO Phone: 7 05-534-1546 Fax: 7 05 -534-7 855 Email : kmackinno [email protected] www.amick.ca Project fnformation: MTCS Project Number: P384-0073-2013 Investigation Type: Stage l-2 Archaeological Assessment Project Name: Stephenson Road I Bridge Project Location: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay) Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka Regulatory Process: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Proponent fnformation: Project Proponent: C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Designated Contact: Mr. James Woolnough Contact Information: 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON PlL 0,{1 Phone: 7 05 -645-7756 Fax: 7 05 -645-8159 Email: [email protected] Approval Authority Information : Project Designation Number: N/A Approval Authority: Town of Bracebridge Designated Contact: Sharron Taylor Contact Information: 1000 Taylor Court Bracebridge, ON PlL 1R6 Phone: 705-645-6319 Ext. 235 Email: [email protected] Reporting Information : Site RecordÂJpdate Forms : N/A Type of Report: Original Related Reports: N/A Company: N/A MTCS Project Number: N/A Outstanding Final Reports: N/A Date of Report Filing: October 4,2013 I the undersigned hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this report and submitted in support of this report is complete and accurate in every way, and I am aware of the penalties against providing false information under section 69 of the Ontario Heritage AcL 1.0 Pno¡Bcr Rnponr Covnn Plcn Lrcnxsan lNronulrrou: Licensee: Kayleigh MacKinnon Archaeology Licence: P384 Contact Information: Lakelands District OfFrce 380 Talbot Street, P.O. Box 29 Port McNicoll, ON LOK 1R0 Phone: (705)534-1546 Fax: (705) 534-7855 Email : kmackinnon@amick. ca www.amick.ca PRo¡pcr IunoRvrlrrox: AMICK ProjectNumber: t3272-K MTC Project Number: P384-0073 -2013 Investigation Type: Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment Project Name: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Project Location: Stephenson Road 1 East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka AppRov.rr, Autromry INFoRMATToN : File Designation Number: N/A RnponrrNc INFoRMATToN: Site Record/Update Forms: N/A Date of Report Filing: October 4 2013 Type of Report: ORIGINAL 2013 Strye 1-2 Archaeologìcal Assessment of Stephenson Rotd 1 Bridge, Stephenson Roød I Eøst crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic T-ownship of Macaulay), Town of ßracebrídge, District Municipølit¡t of Muskokø ØM rCK File #1 3272-IAMTC File #P384-0073-2013) 2.0 Exncurrvn SUMMARY This report describes the results of the 2013 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Consulting License #P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule B for the Town of Bracebridge for improvement strategies of the Stephenson Townline Bridge. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Guidelines for Consult¿nt (MTC 20ll), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005). AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake aStage l-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological work on 23 July 2013. Those portions of the study area, which did not consist of previous disturbance or existing structures, were subject to reconnaissance, photographic documentation and physical assessment on 30 July 2013, consisting of high-intensity test pit survey at an interval of five metres between individual test pits. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and frndings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offrces of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. As a result of the physical assessment of the study area, no archaeological resources were encotrntered. It is recommended no fi.rther archaeological assessment of the study area is required. It is recommended that the proposed undertaking be considered clear of any archaeological concerns. AM ICK Consultants Linilted Page 2 2013 Slage l-2 Archneologicøl Assessmenl ofStephenson Rosd I Bridge, Stephenson Rosd I East crossing the Muskokq River (Geogropltic Township of Møcauløy), Town of Bracebridge, District MunìcipaliÍy of Muskokl (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC Fìle #P384-0073-2013) 3.0 Tlnr,n oF CoNTENTS 1.0 Pno¡rcr Rnponr Covnn Plcn...... 1 2.0 ExncurrvnSuMMARy...... 2 3.0 Tlsl,noFCoNrENrs...... 3 4.0 PRo¡BcrPnnsoNunl,...... 5 5.0 Pno¡ncrBncxcRouND...... 6 5.1 DnvuopvrENTCoNTEXT...... 6 5.2 HrsronrclI, CoNrExr 6 5.2.1 CunnnNrCoNoluons...... 8 5.2.2 Gnxnur, Hrsronrcnl OurLrNE I 5.2.3 Suvru.lny oF HrsroRrcAl CoNrEXr...... 9 5.3 Ancnlnolocrc¡LCoNrnxr. 9 5.3.1 Frnsr Nlrroxs Rncrsrnnno Srrrs..... 9 5.3.2 Euno-CaNADTAN RrcrsrnnnD Srrps... 11 5.3.3 Loc¡.rroN lxo Cunnnxr CoNunroNS...... 1l 5.3.4 PnvsrocR lpHrc REGToN ...... 11 5.3.5 SuRr,rcnWlrnn.... 11 5.3.6 CuRRnurPnopnRryCoNorrroNsCoNTExr...... t2 5.3.6.1 BurlorNcsAND STRUcTURAL FoorpRrNrs...... 12 5.3.6.2 Drsrunnrncn...... t2 5.3.6.3 Low-LyrxcAND\ilrr4nn1s...... 13 5.3.6.4 Srnnp Slopn 13 5.3.6.5 WooonoAnpts...... 13 5.3.6.6 Pr,oucn¡nr,s AcRTcULTURAL L.lrrrus ...... 13 5.3.6.7 LlwN, Plsrunn, Mn¡,oow L4 6.1 PuoroRncoNNarssANCE 15 6.2 Tnsr Pn Sunvny...... 15 6.3 Frnlu Wom WnlrnnR ColrorrroNs...... 17 7.0 Rncono or FrNus ...... 17 7.1 ARcnmor,ocrclt, Rrsouncps...... 18 7.2 ARcn¿.nor,ocrcAl FrplowoRr DocunrnNTATIoN...... 18 8.0 ANu,vsrs lxo CoNcLUSroNS...... 18 8.1 CnlucrnRrsrrcs lNorc.luxc ARcrnnol,ocrcAL Pornurr.lr, ...... 19 8.2 Crnn¡.cr¿Rrsrrcs lxorcrrnc Rnvrov,lr, or ARcnAEor,ocrclI, PornNrw, ....21 8.3 Sr¡.cB l Rnsulrs ...... 24 8.4 Sucn 2 Au¡lysrs AND RncovrurnNDATroNS...... 24 9.0 RBcovrunNDArroNS...... 24 9.1 Sucn l RncovrwrENDATroNS ...... 24 9.2 Srlcp 2 RncourwrENDATroNS ...... 25 AM IC K Cottsultanls L¡nt¡ted Page 3 2013 Slage I-2 Archaeologicsl Assessmenl of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Roøtl I Eøst crossing lhe Muskoks River (Geogruphic TownshÍp of Macaulry), Town of Brrcebridge, Districl Municipølity of Muskoku (AMICK File #l 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-201 3) 10.0 AovIcr oN Courpr,rANCE \ryrrH Lncrsr,lrroN ...... 26 11.0 Brnr,rocnaPuY AND souRCEs... 12.0 Mrps...... 28 13.0 Iu¡.cns 32 Lrsr oF TABLES Tnsr,n I Cur,ruRAL CHRoNoLocy FoR SourH-CnNrnar, ONrnRro 10 Tlnln 2 Ev.lr.u¿,rroN oF ARcrunor,ocrcll PorrNrr,rl 23 Lrsr oF MAPs FrcuRr I Loc¿,uoN oF THE SruDy Anr¡. (Goocln Mnps 2013) 28 Ftcunn 2 Hrsronrc Arl¡,s Mtp TowNSHrp oF MacAULAy 28 FIcunr 3 Srrn Pur¡l (C.C. Tlrrrlu & Assocr,lrns LrD. 2012) 29 Frcunn 4 Auruel PHoro oF rHE Sruoy Annl (Goocln EtnrH 2011) 30 Frcunn 5 Dnr¿.rr,nu Pr,lN oF THE Sruoy Annl 31 Lrsr oF PLATES Purr 1 Tnsr Prr Co¡urrroNs 32 Pr,lrn 2 Sr,opn 32 Pu,rr 3 SrnpunNsoN RoAD l Elsr lNt BRrucn 32 Purrp 4 Tnsr Pm CoxtrrroNs 32 Pu,rn 5 Tnsr Prr CoNorrroNs 32 Pr,lrp 6 Sr.opn 32 A M I CK C ons u ltants Lìmiled Page 4 2013 Slage I-2 Archøeologicul Assessment ofSîephenson Road 1 Brìdge, Stephenson Roud I Eøst crossing the Muskoks River (Geographic Township of Macøuløy), Town of Brøcebrídge, Dístrict Municipality of Muskoka (AMICK Fíle #I 3272-K/MTC Fìle #P384-0073-201 3) 4.0 Pno¡ncr PnnsoNunr, Coxsur.rrNc ARcHAEoLocrsr Kayleigh MacKinnon (MTC S Professional Archaeologist Licence#P3 84) Pno¡ncr Ancn¡,nor,ocrsr Kayleigh MacKinnon (MTC S Professional Archaeolo gist Licence#P3 84) PRo¡ncr ArurNrsrurroN Melissa Milne Frcr,t AssrsuNrs Daniel Ventresca Jake Campbell Edward Zuber Rnponr Pnnp.ln¿.rrox Kristina Kostuk Michael Henry (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P058) Dn¡.ucnrrNc Kristina Kostuk Pnorocru.pny Kayleigh MacKinnon (MTC S Professional Archaeologist Licence#P3 84) l t AMICK Consultqnts Limlted Pøge 5 2013 Stage I-2 Archrcological Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Roú I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geogrtpltic Township of Møcttulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-IAMTC Í-ìle #P384-0073-2013) 5.0 Pno¡ncr B,tcrcnouxt 5.1 Dnvnr,opunNr CoNTEXT This report describes the results of the 2013 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Consulting License #P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule B for the Town of Bracebridge for improvement strategies of the Stephenson Townline Bridge. All work was conducted in conformrty with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeoloeists (MTC 20ll), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005). AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially aflected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological work on 23 July 2013. Those portions of the study area, which did not consist of previous disturbance or existing structures, were subject to reconnaissance, photographic documentation and physical assessment on 30 July 2013, consisting of high-intensþ test pit survey at an interval of five metres between individual test pits. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. 5.2 HrsroRrclI, CoNTExr As part of the present study, background research was conducted in order to determine the archaeological potential ofthe proposed project area. "A Stage I background study provides the consulting archaeologist and Ministry report reviewer with information about the lcnown and potential cultural heritage resources within a particular study area, prior to the start of the field assessment. " (OMCzCR I 993) The evaluation of potential is further elaborated Section 1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologist (2011) prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture: " The Stage I background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to an evaluation of the propertlt's archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment." (MTC 20ll: 17) AMIC K Cottsu ltønts Linúted Page 6 2013 Stage 1-2 Archaeologicsl Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Brøcebridge, Dìstrict Munícipnlity of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) Features or characteristics that indicate archaeological potential where found anywhere on the property include: " - previously identffied archaeological sites - water sources (It is important to distinguish types ofwater qnd shoreline, and to distinguish natural from artificial water sources, as these features affect site locations and types to varying degrees.): o primary water sources (alæs, rivers, streams, creel6) o secondory wqter sources (intermittent streams and creelæ, spríngs, marsheg swamps) o features indicating past water sources (e.g., glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence ofraised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swqle in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, cobble beaches) o accessible or inaccessible shoreline (e.g., high blffi, swamp or marshfields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh) - elevated topography (".g., eskers, drumlins, large knolls, plateaux) - pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocþ ground - distinctive landþrmations that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfolls, rock outcrops, coverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offirings, rock paintings or carvings, - resource areas, including: o food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spøvvning areqs, prairie) o scarce røw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) o early Euro-Canadiqn industry @.g., ír, trade, logging, prospecting, mining) - qreas of early Euro-Canadian settlement. These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, orfederal monuments or heritage parks. - Early historical transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) - property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Actor that is afederal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site - property that local histories or inþrmants have identifiedwith possible archaeological stie s, historical events, activitie s, or occupations " (MTC 20ll:17-18) The evaluation of potential does not indicate that sites are present within areas affected by proposed development. Evaluation of potential considers the possibility for as yet undocumented sites to be found in areas that have not been subject to systematic A M IC K Consu llønts Li mired Page 7 t. 2013 Slnge I-2 Archøeologicel Assessntenl ofStephenson Road I Bridge, Slephenson Rosd I East crossìng lhe Muskoku River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracehridge, Distrìcr Munícipality of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) archaeological investigation in the past. Potential for archaeological resources is used to determine if physical assessment of a properly or portions of a property is required. "Archaeological resources not previously documented may also be present in the fficted area. If the alternative qreos being considered, or the prefewed alternative selected, exhibit either high or medium potentialþr the discovery of archaeological remains qn archqeological qssessment will be required." (MCC & MOE 1992:6-7) "The Stage I background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leqds to an evaluation of the property's archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment. " (MTC 20ll: 17) In addition, the collected data is also used to determine if any archaeological resources had been formerly documented within or in close proximity to the study area and if these same resources might be subject to impacts from the proposed undertaking. This data was also collected in order to establish the significance of any resources that might be encountered during the conduct of the present study. The requisite archaeological sites data was collected from the Programs and Services Branch, Culture Programs Unit, MTCS and the corporate research library of AMICK Consultants Limited 5.2.1 CunnrNrCoNorrroxs The present use of the study area is an existing roadway, bridge and surrounding landscape. The study area is roughly I hectare in size consists of mostþ a paved roadway with wooded areas along side the road and an existing bridge over the Muskoka River, which flows north to south. The study area also consists of areas of steep slope, which are located along the river and beside the bridge. The study area is bounded on the north and south by woodlot areas, on the east by existing residential development, and on the west by the intersection of Stephenson Road 1 East and River Valley Drive. The study area is approximately 850 metres to the west of the intersection of the Stephenson Road I East and Highway I l. A plan of the study area is included within this report as Figure 3. 5.2.2 GnNnn¡.r, Hrsronrc¡,L OurLrNE Figure 2 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1879. The study area is shown on this map to cross an unnamed river between the WM. Isbister property on the west and J.M". Comus on the east; no structures are shown near the study area. However, Stephenson Road 1 East is the Townline Road on the edge of MacCauley Township and an early settlement Road for the District of Muskoka. Accordingly, it has been determined that there is potential for archaeological deposits related to eatly Euro-Canadian settlement within the study area. AMICK Consulto nls Li núled Page I 2013 Sløge I-2 Archaeologìcql Assessmenl of Slephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossittg lhe Muskoka River (Geographìc Township of Mncauløy), Tovtn of Bracehridge, District Municipality of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-I(/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) 5.2.3 Suruunny oF HrsroRrcAl CoNTEXT The brief overview of documentary evidence readily available indicates that the study area is situated within arr areathat was close to the historic transportation routes and in an area well populated during the nineteenth century and as such has potential for sites relating to early Euro-Canadian settlement in the region. Background research indicates the property has potential for significant archaeological resources of Native origins based on proximity to a natural source of water. 5.3 AncnlnoI,ocrcAr, CoNrnxr The Archaeological Sites Database administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) indicates that there are no previously documented sites within the study area or within I kilometre of the study area. However, it must be noted that this is based on the assumption of the accuracy of information compiled from numerous researchers using different methodologies over many years. AMICK Consultants Limited assumes no responsibiltty for the accuracy of site descriptions, interpretations such as cultural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that a lack of formerly documented sites does not indicate that there are no sites present as the documentation of any archaeological site is contingent upon prior research having been conducted within the study area. To our current knowledge no archaeological assessments have been conducted within 50 metres of the study area. AMICK Consultants Limited assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of previous assessments, interpretations such as culfural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that the lack of formerly documented previous assessments does not indicate that no assessments have been conducted. 5.3.1 Frnsr Nlrrons RncrsrrRpD SrrES A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a l-kilometre radius of the study atea was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. As a result it was determined thatzerc (0) archaeological sites relating directly to First Nations habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of the study area. However, the lack of formally documented archaeological sites does not mean that First Nations people did not use the area; it more likely reflects a lack of systematic archaeological research in the immediate vicinity. The distance to water criteria used to establish potential for archaeological sites suggests potential for First Nations occupation and land use in the area in the past. This consideration establishes archaeological potential within the study area. AM IC K Co ns u ltants Lint¡led Pnge 9 2013 Sluge 1-2 Archaeologicul Assessntenl of Stepltenson Road I Britlge, Stephenson Routl I Eust crossirtg the Muskoka River (Geogt'upltic l'ownship of Maarulay), Totutt oJ'ßracebridge, DisÍricr Munici¡tality of M us ko ka (A M I C !{ Fi le tt I -1 2 7 2 -K/M TC þ-i I e # P3 lJ 4-00 7 3 -2 0 I 3) T¡.nr,n 1 CUT,TURAL Cunoxor,ocy FoRSourH-CnNTRAL ONunro Period Group Date Range Traits Palaeo-Indian Fluted Point 9500-8500 B.C. Big game hunters. Hi-Lo 8500-7500 B.C. Small nomadic groups. Archaic 8000-6000 B.C Hunter-gatherers. Laurentian 6000-2000 B.C. Territorial divisions arise. Lamoka 2500-1700 B.C. Ground stone tools appean Broadpoint 1800-1400 B.C. Crawford Knoll 1500-500 B.C. Glacial Kame c.a. 1000 B.C. Elaborate burial practices V/oodland Meadowood 1000-400 B.C. Introduction of pottery. Red Ochre 1000-500 B.c. Point Peninsula 400 B.C.-500 A.D. Long distance trade. Princess Point 500-800 A.D Horticulture. Pickering 800-1300 A.D. Villages and agriculture. Uren 1300-1350 A.D. Larger villages. Middleport 1300-1400 A.D 'Warfare Huron 1400-1650 A.D. Historic Early Odawa, Ojibwa 1700-1875 A.D. Social displacement. Late Euro-Canadian 17854.D.+ European settlement. ¡IMICK Consultanls Limìtct! Page I0 2013 Sloge 1-2 Archrcological Assessment of Stephenson Rosd 1 Bridge, Stephenson Road I Eosl crossing the Muskokø Rìver (Geographic Township of Maculay), Town of Brøcebridge, Districl Munícipality of Muskoka (AMICK File #I 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-201 3) 5.3.2 Euno-CINADTAN RncrsrnnnD Srrns A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a l-kilometre radius of the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. As a result it was determined thatzerc (0) archaeological sites relating directþ to Euro- Canadian habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of the study area. 5.3.3 LoclrroNANDCuRRENTCoNDrrroNs This report describes the results of the 2013 Stage l-2 Archaeological Assessment of Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipality of Muskoka, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Consulting License #P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule B for the Town of Bracebridge for improvement strategies of the Stephenson Townline Bridge. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeolosists (MTC 2}Il),the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005) The present use of the study area is an existing roadway, bridge and surrounding landscape. The study area is roughly I hectare in size consists of mostþ a paved roadway with wooded areas along side the road and an existing bridge over the Muskoka River, which flows north to south. The study area also consists of areas of steep slope, which are located along the river and beside the bridge. The study area is bounded on the north and south by woodlot areas, on the east by existing residential development, and on the west by the intersection of Stephenson Road I East and River Valley Drive. The study area is approximately 850 metres to the west of the intersection of the Stephenson Road I East and Highway 11. A plan of the study area is included within this report as Figure 3. 5.3.4 Pnysrocn¡.PHrcREGroN The study area is situated within the Number 11 Strip, a narrow strip in which sand and silt and clay deposits occupy the hollows. This area was just below the shoreline of Lake Algonquin. This area is characterised by deep soils that support farming settlements in sharp contrast to the bare rock ridges and poor shallow soil of the adjacent high ground. This area constitutes most of the farmland in Parry Sound and Muskoka (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 2rs). 5.3.5 Sunrlcn Wlrnn Sources of potable water, access to waterborne transportation routes, and resources associated with watersheds are each considered, both individually and collectively to be the AM ICK Consultanls Limited Page 1 I 2013 Støge 1-2 Archøeologicøl Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Rosd I Ettst crossing the Muskoka Ríver (Geographic Townshíp ol Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District MutticipølÍty of Muskoka (AMICK File #I 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-201 3) highest criteria for determination of the potential of any location to support extended human activity, land use, or occupation. Accordingly, proximity to water is regarded as the primary indicator of archaeological site potential. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists stipulates that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a water source are considered to have archaeological potential (MTC 20ll:21). Muskoka River is located centrally within the study area, flowing north to south. 5.3.6 CunnrNr PRoppnry CoNorrroNs Coxrnxr Current characteristics encountered within an archaeological research study area determine if physical assessment of specific portions of the study area will be necessary and in what manner a Stage 2 Property Assessment should be conducted, if necessary. Conventional assessment methodologies include pedestrian survey on ploughable lands and test pit methodology within areas that cannot be ploughed. For the purpose of determining where physical assessment is necessary and feasible, general categories ofcurrent landscape conditions have been established as archaeological conventions. These include: 5.3.6.1 Buu-orNcs ¡r'qo SrRucruRAL FoorpRrNrs A building, in archaeological terms, is a structure that exists currently or has existed in the past in a given location. The footprint of a building is the area of the building formed by the perimeter of the foundation. Although the interior area of building foundations would often be subject to physical assessment when the foundation may represent a potentially significant historic archaeological site, the footprints of existing structures are not typically assessed. Existing strucfures commonly encountered during archaeological assessments are often residential-associated buildings (houses, garages, sheds), and./or component buildings of farm complexes (bams, silos, greenhouses). In many cases, even though the disturbance to the land may be relatively shallow and archaeological resources may be situated below the disturbed layer (e.g. a concrete garage pad), there is no practical means of assessing the area beneath the disturbed layer. However, if there were evidence to suggest that there are likely archaeological resources situated beneath the disturbance, alternative methodologies may be recommended to study such areas. The study area contains the existing bridge crossing the Muskoka River which includes footing and wing walls on each bank. 5.3.6.2 DrsruRnnNcr Areas that have been subjected to extensive and deep land alteration that has severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources are known as land disturbances. Examples of land disturbances are areas of 'þast quarrying, major landscaping, recent built and industrial uses, sewage and infrastructure development, etc." (MCL 2005:15), as well as driveways made of either gravel or concrete, in-ground pools, and wells or cisterns. Utility A M I CK Co ns ultanls I. imiled Pøge 12 2013 Stage I-2 Archaeological Assessmenl ofStephenson Rouil I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing lhe Muskoku River (Geographic Township of Macøulay), Town of Bmcehrìdge, Districl Municipalíly of Muskokn (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) lines are conduits that provide services such as water, natural gas, hydro, communications, sewage, and others. Areas containing below ground utilities are considered areas of disturbance, and are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment. Disturbed areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment due to no or low archaeological potential or because they are not assessable using conventional methodology. In addition to the existing bridge, the study area also contains existing disturbances in the form ofthe paved surface ofStephenson Road I east and the associated gravel shoulders, roadway embankments and drainage ditches. The asphalt surface and gravel shoulders are not viable to assess. The embankments are artificial and are steep slopes, and as such there is no requirement to assess these areas. The roadside drainage ditches are not of sufficient depth to have removed archaeological potential from these areas and they can be assessed using test pit methodology. 5.3.6.3 Low-LyrNG AND'Wnr Annls Landscape features that are covered by permanently wet areas, such as marshes, swamps, or bodies of water like streams or lakes, are known as lowJying and wet areas. LowJying and wet areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment due to inaccessibility. The study area does contain a low-lying and wet area, the Muskoka River. 5.3.6.4 Srpnp Slopn Landscape which slopes at a greater than (>) 20 degree change in elevation, is known as steep slope. Areas of steep slope are considered uninhabitable, and are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment, The study area does contain areas of steep slope, along the river banks and the artificial embankments of the existing Stephenson Road 1 East. 5.3.6.5 Wooonn Anpns Areas of the properly that cannot be ploughed, such as natural forest or woodlot, are known as wooded areas. These wooded areas qualiff for Stage 2 Physical Assessment, and are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology. The study area contains wooded area. The study area other than the existing structure and other disturbances consists of wooded lands. 5.3.6.6 PlouculnLE AcRTcULTURAL LnNos Areas of current or former agricultural lands that have been ploughed in the past are considered ploughable agricultural lands. Ploughing these lands regularly moves the soil A M IC K Cons ultuts L ¡nr¡ted Page 13 2013 Slage I-2 Archaeologicsl Assessment ofSlephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing tlte Muskoko River (Geogruphìc Township of Macauløy), Town of Bracebridge, Dislrict Municipølily of Muskoka (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) aÍound, which brings covered artifacts to the surface, easily identifiable during visual inspection. Furthermore, by allowing the ploughed area to weather sufficiently through rainfall washing soil off any artifacts, the visibility of artifacts at the surface of recently worked field areas increases significantly. Pedestrian survey ofploughed agricultural lands is the preferred method of physical assessment because of the greater potential for finding evidence of archaeological resources if present. The study area does not contain ploughable lands 5.3.6.7 Llwn, P.nsruno, Mnnoow Landscape features consisting of former agricultural land covered in low growth, such as lawns, pastures, meadows, shrubbery, and immature trees. These are areas that may be considered too small to warrant ploughing, (i.e. less than one hectare in area), such as yard areas sturounding existing structures, and land-locked open areas that are technically workable by a plough but inaccessible to agricultural machinery. These areas may also include open area within urban contexts that do not allow agricultural tillage within municipal or city limits or the use of urban roadways by agricultural machinery. These areas are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology. The study area does not contain any areas of lawn, pasture or meadow. 5.3.7 Suruu¡.Ry Archaeological potential does not indicate that there are necessarily sites present, but that environmental and historical factors suggest that there may be as yet undocumented archaeological sites within lands that have not been subject to systematic archaeological research in the past. Areas of the existing bridge, existing roadway, gravel shoulders, artificial embankments, and steep slopes along the riverbank are all areas of no potential or which cannot be viably assessed. The remainder of the study area exhibits archaeological potential and can be assessed. 6.0 Fmr,n MnrHons This report confirms that the entirety of the study area was subject to visual inspection, and that the fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and guidelines, including weather and lighting conditions. The property reconnaissance and assessment were completed under partly cloudy skies on 30 July 2013. The temperature at the time of the reconnaissance and assessment was 23oC. The locations from which photographs were taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are illustrated in Figures 4 & 5 of this report. Upon completion of the field A MIC K Co ns ulta nts L imited Page 14 2013 Slage I-2 Archaeologicsl Assessment of Stephenson Road I ßridge, Stephenson Road I Eøst crossing ttrc Muskokq *''"''*o,r'oloT)#i;;Fn:{{;"#i:i,l#H,:{'r;i;:i'r:irr-?i:;lri, Municipatitv or reconnaissance of the study area, it was determined that select areas would require Stage 2 archaeological assessment consisting of test pit survey methodology. 6.1 Pnoro RrcoNN¡.rssANCE A detailed examination and photo documentation was carried out on the study area in order to document the existing conditions of the study area to facilitate Stage 2 assessment. All areas of the study area were visually inspected and photographed. The locations from which photographs \¡/ere taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are illustrated in Figures 4 & 5 of this report. 6.2 Tnsr Prr Sunvny In accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, test pit survey is required to be undertaken for those portions of the study area where deep prior disturbance had not occurred prior to assessment or which were accessible to survey. Test pit survey is only used in areas that cannot be subject to ploughing or cultivation. This report confirms that the conduct of test pit survey within the study area conformed to the following standards: l. Test pit survey only on terrain where ploughing is not possible or viable, as in the following examples: a. wooded areqs [All wooded areas were test pit at an interval of 5 m between individual test pitsl b. pasture with high rock content [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any pastures with high rock content] c. abandonedfarmlandwith heavy brush andweed growth [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any abandoned farmland with heavy brush and weed growthl d. orchards and vineyards that cannot be strip ploughed (planted in rows 5 m apart or less), gardens, parkland or lawns, any of which will remain in use for several years after the survey [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any of the above- mentioned circumstances] e. properties where existing landscaping or infrastructure would be damaged. The presence of such obstacles must be documented in sfficient detail to demonstrate that ploughing or cultivation is not viable. fNot Applicable - The study area does not contain the above-mentioned circumstances] AMICK Consultsnls Limited Page I5 2013 Stage I-2 Archaeologìcul Assessment ofStephenson Road I Bridge, Slephenson Road I East crossing lhe Muskokø River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipølifit of Muskoka (AMICK Fìle #13272-K/MTC Fìle #P384-0073-2013) f. narrow (10 m or less) linear survey corridors (e.g., water or gos pipelines, roadwidening). This includes situations where there are planned impacts 10 m or less beyond the previously impacted limits on both sides of an existing linear corridor (e.g., two linear survey cowidors on either side of an existing roadwqy). Were at the time offieldwork the lqnds within the linear corridor meet the standards as stated under the above section on pedestrian survey land preparation, pedestrian survey must be carried out. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areas less than 300 m from anyfeature of archaeological potential. fNot Applicable - The study area does not contain any linear corridors] 2. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areqs less than 300 mfrom any feature of archaeological potential. [All test pits were spaced at an interval of 5m between individual test pits] 3. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 10 m (100 test pits per hectare) in areas more than 300 mfrom anyfeature of archaeological potential. [The entirety of the test pitted areas of the study area were assessed using high intensity test pit methodologyl 4. Test pit to within I m of built structures (both intact and ruins), or until test pits show ev idence of recent ground disturbance. [It was not possible to place test pits within 1 metre of the existing structure given other impediments such as steep slopes and surface treafnent, such as pavement and compacted gravel] 5. Ensure that test píts are at least 30 cm in diameter. [All test pits were at least 30 cm in diameter] 6. Excavate each test pit, by hand, into thefirst 5 cm of subsoil and examine the pitfor s tr at i grap hy, c ultural fe ahtr e s, o r ev i de nc e of rtil. [All test pits were excavated by hand into the hrst 5 cm of subsoil and examined for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence offrll] 7. Screen soil through mesh no greater than 6 mm. [All soil was screened through mesh no greater than 6 mm] 8. Collect all artìfacts according to theír associated test pit. [Not Applicable - No archaeological resources were encountered] 9. Bacffill all test pits unless instructed not to by the landowner. [All test pits were backfilled] (MTC 20ll:31-32) AMICK Consultønls Lìmited Page 16 201 3 Stage I -2 Arcltøeologicøl Assessnrcnt of Stephenson Ro&d I Bridge, Stephenson Road 1 East crossing lhe Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macøulay), Town of Bracebridge, Dislrict Munícipølily of Muskoka (AMICK File #I 3272-IAMTC File #P384-0073-201 3) "A combination of property inspection and test pitting may be usedwhen initial Stage 2 results determine that all or part of the project area moy infact be disturbed. The Stage 2 survey may then consists of a detailed inspection (equivalent to Stage I), combined with test pitting. " L If it was not done as part of Stage I, inspect and document the disturbed areas according to the standards describedfor Stage I property inspections. [The disturbed areas of the study area were inspected and documented as per the standards described for Stage I properly inspections] 2. Place Stage 2 test pits throughout the disturbed areas according to professional judgment (and where physically viable) as to confirm that these areqs have been completely disturbed. [The disturbed areas associated with the study area consisted of areas not viable to assess] (MTC 2011:38) The project lands could not be ploughed due to existing landscaping and infrastructure as well as the presence of disturbance so these areas were subject to a test pit survey at an interval of 5 metres between individual test pits. Approximately 45Yo of the study area consisted of wooded areathatwas test pit at an interval of 5 metres between individual test pits. Approximately 55Yo of the study area was not assessable due to the presence of the existing bridge, paved roadway (Stephenson Road 1 East) and steep slope. 6.3 Frnlo Wom Wn¡,rnnR CoNDrrroNs The conduct of the Stage l-2 Archaeological Assessment of the study area was completed in accordance with the above noted standards on 30 July 2013. The temperature was around 23"C. The work was completed under cloudy skies. Weather conditions were appropriate for the conduct of archaeological fieldwork. 7.0 Rnconn oF FrNDs Section 7.8.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011 137-138) outlines the requirements of the Record of Finds component of a Stage 2 report 1. For all archaeological resources snd sìtes that are identffied in Stage 2, provide the following: a. a general description of the types of artifucts andfeatures that were identffied b. a general description of the area within which artifacts and features were identiJìed, including the spatial extent of the area and any relative variations in density A M ICK Co ns u lta n ts Limited Page 17 2013 Slage 1-2 Archneologicql Assessmenl of Stephenson Roqd I Bridge, Stephenson Rosd I East crossing the Muskoka River (GeographÍc Township of Møcauløy), Town of Bracebridge, DistrÍct Municipality of Muskokø (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC Fìle #P384-0073-2013) c. a catalogue and description of all artífacts retained d. a desuiption of the artifacts andfeatures left in the field (nature of material, frequency, other notable traits). 2. Provide an inventory of the documentary record generqted in the /ìeld (e.g. photographs, maps, field notes). 3. Submit information detailing exact site locations on the property separatelyfrom the project report, as specified in section 7.6. Information on exact site locations inc lude s the fo ll ow ing : o. table of GPS readings for locations of all archaeological sites b. maps showing detailed site location information. 7.1 Ancrunot,ocrcAr,Rnsouncns No archaeological resources of any description \Mere encountered anywhere within the study area. 7.2 Ancn.lnolocrcAlFrnr,owoRKDocuMENTATroN The documentation produced during the field investigation conducted in support of this report includes: one sketch map, one page of photo log, one page of field notes, and 30 digital photographs. 8.0 AN¡,r,ysrs AND CoNcr,usIoNS AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological work on 23 July 2013. Those portions of the property, which did not consist of previous disturbance or existing structures, were subject to reconnaissance, photographic documentation and physical assessment on 30 July 2013, consisting of high-intensity test pit survey at an interval of five metres between individual test pits. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and altifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offrces of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. Section 7 .7 .3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 20ll: 132) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage I Background Study. 1) "Identify and describe areos of archaeological potential within the project area. 2) Identify and describe qreas that have been subject to extensive and deep land alterations. Describe the nature of alterations (e.g., development or other activity) A M IC K Co ns ultunts Li mited Page I8 2013 Stage I-2 Archøeological Assessment of Slephenson Rootl I Bridge, Slephenson Rostl I East crossing the Muskoko River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebrìclge, Dìsfrict Municipolify of Muskoks (AMICK File #I 3272-K/MTC F-ile #P384-0073-20 I 3) that have severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources and have re move d ar chae ol o gic al p otent ial. " 8.1 CrHn¡crpRrsrrcsIxutc.lrrNcARcHAEoLocrcALPorENTrAL Section 1.3.1 of the Guidelines for Consultant specifies the propefry characteristics that indicate archaeological potential (MTC 20ll:17-18). Factors that indicate archaeological potential are features of the local landscape and environment that may have attracted people to either occupy the land or to conduct activities within the study area. One or more of these characteristics found to apply to a study area would necessitate a Stage 2Prcperty Assessment to determine if archaeological resources are present. These characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study. I) Previously ldentifìed Archqeolosical Sites No previously documented archaeological sites related to First Nations activity and occupations have been documented in the vicinity of the study area. 2) Water Sources Primary water sources are described as including lakes, rivers streams and creeks. Close proximity to primary water sources (300 metres) indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water and routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. The Muskoka River is a primary water source within 300 metres of the study area. Secondary water sources are described as including intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, and swamps. Close proximity (300 metres) to secondary water sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. There are no identified secondary water sources within 300 metres of the study area. 3) Features Indicating Past Water Sources Features indicating past water resources are described as including glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence ofraised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, and cobble beaches. Close proximity (300 metres) to features indicating past water sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. AMICK Consullants Limiled Pnge 19 2013 Stnge 1-2 Archneological Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I Ettst crossing tlte Muskoktt River (Geogrophic Township of Møcauhy), Town of Bracebridge, Districl Municiptrlity of Muskoka (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) There are no identiflred features indicating past water sources within 300 metres of the study area. 4) Accessible or Inaccessible Shoreline This form of landscape feature would include high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh, etc. There are shorelines within 300 metres of the study area. 5) Elevated Topographlt Features ofelevated topography that indicate archaeological potential include eskers, drumlins, large knolls, and plateaux. The banks of the Muskoka River are well elevated above the level of water on both banks and constitute elevated topography relative to the Muskoka River. 6) Pockpts of \l¡ell-drained Sandv Soil Pockets of sandy soil are considered to be especially important near areas of heavy soil or rocky gound. The soil throughout the study area is dark brown sandy loam 7) Distinctive Land Formations These are landscape features that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings. There are no identified distinctive land formations within the study area. 8) Resource Areas Resource areas that indicate archaeological potential include food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, and prairie), scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) and resources of importance to early Euro- Canadian industry (e. g., logging, prospecting, and mining). There are no identified resource areas within the study area. 9) Areas of Early Euro-Canadian Settlement These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be conìmemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. There are no nearby historic settlements. A M IC K Cotts u llsnts Limited Prye 20 2013 Slage I-2 Archaeological Assessment ofStephenson Road I Bridge, Slephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Townshìp of Macoulay), Town of Bracebildge, Dislrict Municipalily of Muskoka (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) I0) EarlJt Historical Transportation Routes This includes evidence of trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes. The study area includes a segment of an early settlement road (Stephenson Road I East) that appears on the Historic Atlas Map of 1879. I l) Heritage Propert.v Property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site. There are no listed or designated heritage buildings or properties that form a part of the study area. 12) Documented Historical or Archaeological Sites This includes property that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations. These are properties which have not necessarily been formally recognized or for which there is additional evidence identiffing possible archaeological resources associated with historic properties in addition to the rationale for formal recognition. There are no documented heritage feafures, or historic sites, or archaeological sites within the study area. 8.2 Cmn¡.crnRrsrrcslNnrcnrrNcREMovAL oF'AncrHnor.ocrcar, PornNrnr, Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the property characteristics which indicate no archaeological potential or for which archaeological potential has been removed (MTC 20ll: l8-19). These characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study. The introduction of Section 1.3.2 (MTC 20ll: l8) notes that "Archøeological potential can be determined not to be present for either the entire property or a part(s) of it when the area under consideration has been subject to extensive and deep land qlterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly refened to qs 'disturbed'or 'disturbance', andmay include:" 1) Ouarrying There is no evidence to suggest that quarrying operations were ever carried out within the study area. 2) Major Landscaping Involving Grading Below Topsoil Unless there is evidence to suggest the presence of buried archaeological deposits, such deeply disturbed areas are considered to have lost their archaeological potential. A M I C K Co tts ultunts L i nited Page 2I 2013 Stage I-2 Archaeological Assessment ofStephenson Road I Brídge, Stephenson Roqd 1 Eøst crossing lhe Muskoka River (Geogrøphic Township of Macuulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municípølity of M us ko ka (A M I C K File # I 3 2 7 2 - K/M TC F ile # P3 I 4 -00 7 3- 2 0 I 3) Properties that do not have a long history of Euro-Canadian occupation can have archaeological potential removed through extensive landscape alterations that penetrate below the topsoil layer. This is because most archaeological sites originate at grade with relatively shallow associated excavations into the soil. First Nations sites and early historic sites are vulnerable to extensive damage and complete removal due to landscape modification activities. In urban contexts where a lengtþ history of occupation has occurred, properties may have deeply buried archaeological deposits covered over and sealed through redevelopment activities that do not include the deep excavation of the entire property for subsequent uses. Buildings are often erected directly over older foundations preserving archaeological deposits associated with the earlier occupation. There is no evidence to suggest that major landscaping operations involving grading below topsoil were ever carried out within the study area. Ð Buílding Footprints Typically, the construction of buildings involves the deep excavation of foundations, footings and cellars that often obliterate archaeological deposits situated close to the surface. The existing bridge constitutes a substantial structure with a significant footprint on both banks of the Muskoka River. 4) Sewage and Infrastructure Development Inst¿llation of sewer lines and other below ground services associated with infrastructure development often involves deep excavation that can remove archaeolo gical potential. There is no evidence to suggest that below ground services of any kind have resulted in impacts to any portion of the study area. "Archaeological potential is not removedwhere there is documented potentialfor deeply buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alteratìons, or where it cannot be clearly demonstrated through background reseqrch and property inspection that there has been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. l(here complete disturbance cannot be demonstrated in Stage I, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 ossessment. " (MTC 2011: l8) Table 2 below summarizes the evaluation criteria of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture together with the results of the Stage I Background Study for the proposed undertaking. Based on the criteria, the property is deemed to have archaeological potential on the basis of proximity to water, the presence of sandy soils, elevated topography and the location of an early historic settlement road within the study area. AMIC K Consullqnîs Limlted Page 22 2013 Stuge l-2 Arcltaeological Assessment of Stephenson RoøtI I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskokn River (Geogrtpltic Towtrshìp of Macaulay), Town of Brtcebridge, Dìstrict Municipøliþ of Muskoka (AMICK File #I 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-201 3) TAsr,n 2 Evll,urrroN oF ARcu¿.nor,ocrcAl Pornxrnr, FEATU RE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAT YES NO N/A COMMENT lf Yes, potential 1 Known archaeological sites within 300m N determined PHYSICAL FEATURES 2 ls there water on or near the property? Y lf Yes, what kind of water? Primary water source within 300 m. (lakeshore, lf Yes, potential 2a river, large creek, etc.) Y determined Secondary water source within 300 m. (stream, lf Yes, potential 2b spring, marsh, swamp, etc.) N determined Past water source within 300 m. (beach ridge, lf Yes, potential 2c river bed, relic creek, etc.) N determined Accessible or lnaccessible shoreline within 300 m lf Yes, potential 2d (high bluffs, marsh, swamp, sand bar, etc.) N determined Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, lf Yes, and Yes for any of 4- 3 plateaus, etc.) Y 9, potential determined lfYes and Yes for any of 3, 4 Pockets of sandy soil in a clay or rocky area Y 5-9, potential determined lf Yes and Yes for any of 3- Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, 4,6-9, potential 5 waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.) N determined H rsToRrc/PREHTSTORTC USE FEATURES Associated with food or scarce resource harvest lf Yes, and Yes for any of 3- areas (traditional fishing locations, 5,7-9, potential 6 agriculturaUberry extraction areas, etc.) N determined. lfYes, and Yes for any of 3- Early Euro-Canadian settlement area within 300 5, 8-9, potent¡al 7 m. N determined Historic Transportation route within 100 m. lf Yes, and Yes for any 3-7 8 (historic road, trail, portage, rail corridors, etc.) Y or 9, potential determined Contains property designated and/or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act (municipal heritage lf Yes and, Yes to any of 3- 9 committee, municipal register, etc.) N 8, potential determined APPLICATION-SPECI FIC I N FORMATION Local knowledge (local heritage organizat¡ons, lf Yes, potential L0 First Nations, etc.) N determined Recent disturbance not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960-confirmed extensive and lf Yes, no potential or low intensive including industrial sites, aggregate potential in affected part 11 areas, etc.) N (s) ofthe study area. lf YES to any of 7,2a-c, or 10 Archaeological Potential is confirmed lf YES to 2 or more of 3-9, Archaeological Potential is confirmed lf YES to lL or No to 1-L0 Low Archaeological Potential is confirmed for at least a portion of the study area. A M I C K Consultunts Li mited Page 23 2013 Stage I-2 Archaeologicsl Assessmenl ofStephenson Roød 1 Bridge, Stephenson Roød I Eost crossing the Muskoka Rìver (Geographlc Township of Macøuløy), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipølíty of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-IAMTC File #P384-0073-2013) 8.3 Sr¡.cn l Rnsur,rs As a result of the Stage I portion of the study it was determined that the study area has archaeological potential on the basis of proximity to water, the presence of sandy soils, elevated topography and the location of an early historic settlement road within the study area. 8.4 Sucn 2 ANII vsrs AND RncouprENDATroNS Section 7.8.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 20ll: 138-139) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage 2 Physical Assessment. 1. Summarize all finding from the Stage 2 survey, or state that no archaeological sites were identified. 2. For each archaeological site, provide the following analysis qnd conclusions: a. A preliminary determination, to the degree possible, of the age and cultural ffiliation of any archaeological sites identified. b. A comparison against the criteria in 2 Stage 2: Property Assessment to determine whether further sssessment is required c. A preliminary determination regardingwhether any archaeological sites identffied in Stage 2 show evidence of a high level cultural heritage value or interest andwill thus require Stage 4 mitigation. No archaeological sites or resources were found during the Stage 2 survey of the study area. 9.0 RnconnnnENDATroNs 9.1 Srlcn l RncovrMENDATroNS Under Section 7.7.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 20ll:133) the recommendations to be made as a result of a Stage I Background Study are described. 1) Make recommendations regarding the potentialfor the property, asþllows: a. if some or all of the property has archaeological potential, identifi areas recommendedþr further assessment (Stage 2) and areas not r e c o mme nde d þr fur ther os s e s s m e nt. Any ex e mp t i on s fr om fur ther assessment must be consistent with the archaeological fieldwork standards and guidelines. b. if no part of the property has archaeological potential, recommend that the property does not require further archaeological assessment. 2) Recommend appropriate Stage 2 assessment strategies. AMICK Consullanls Limited Prye 24 2013 Stage l-2 Archaeological Assessment ofSlephenson Ro&d I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Townshìp of Macaulay), Town of Brucehridge, District Municipaliþ of Muskokø (AMICK File #I 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) The study area has been identified as an area of archaeological potential. The study area is roughly I hectare in size consists of mostly a paved roadway with wooded areas along side the road and a bridge over Muskoka River, which flows north to south. The study area also consists of areas of steep slope, which are located along the river and beside the bridge. The bridge, paved roadway were determined to have low or no potential and therefore it is recommended that there is no filrther archaeological concern for these areas. The areas not consisting of the bridge, paved roadway, steep slope, or low-lying and wet areas were determined to have potential and Stage 2 assessment was therefore conducted using test pit survey methodologies in accordance with the Standards governing the use. Any areas that could not be ploughed were subject to assessment using the test pit methodology. Test pits were dug at a fixed interval of 5 metres across the surface area. Test pits measured a minimum of 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug at least 5 centimeters into the subsoil beneath the topsoil layer. All excavated earth was screened through 6 mm wire mesh to ensure that any artifacts contained within the soil matrix ate recovered. All test pits were back filled and restored as much as was reasonably possible to the level of the surrounding grade. 9.2 Sr¿.cn 2 RncovlMENDATroNs Under Section 7.8.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 20ll: 139) the recommendations to be made as a result o f a Stage 2 Physical Assessment are described. 1) For each archaeological site, provide a statement of the following: a. Borden number or other identifying number b. Whether or not it ìs offurther cultural heritage value or interest c. llhere it is offurther cultural heritage value or interest, appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies 2) Mqke r e c omm e ndat i o ns only r e gar din g ar c hae ol o gi c al mat t e r s. Recommendations regarding built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes should not be included. 3) If the Stage 2 survey did not identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts, recommend that nofurther archaeological assessment of the property be required. As a result of the physical assessment of the study area, no archaeological resources were encountered. It is recommended no further archaeological assessment of the study area is required. It is recommended that the proposed undertaking be considered clear of any archaeological concerns. A M I CK Co ns ullants Linúled Page 25 2013 Slage I-2 Archøeological Assessntent ofStephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I Easl crossing tlte Muskoka River (Geogrnphic Township of Macruloy), Towtt of Brucebridge, Dislricr Municipality of Muskoka (AMICK File #13272-IUMTC FÍle #P384-0073-2013) 10.0 Anvrcn oN CoMpLTANcE wrrn Lncrsr,trrox While not prut of the archaeological record, this report must include the following standard advisory statements for the benefit of the proponent and the approval authority in the land use planning and development process: a. This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture as o condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complíes with the standards and guidelines issued by the Minister, and that the orchaeological fielúuork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. b. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontarío Heritage Actfor any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has nofurther cultural heritage value or ìnterest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. c. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and thereþre subject to Section 48 (I) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed archaeologist to corry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (I) of the Ontario Heritage Act. d. The Cemeteries Act,.¡R.,S.O. 1990, c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed inforce) require that any person discovering humqn remains must notifi the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. e. Archaeological sites recommendedfor further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (I) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifocts removedfrom them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence. A M ICK Cottsullunls Linúted Page 26 2013 Slage I-2 Archaeologícal Assessment ofStephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskoka River (Geographic Township of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Municipølity of Muskoku (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) 11.0 Brnr,rocn¡,PHY aND souRcES C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. (2012). Site Plan. Bracebridge, Ontario Chapman, L.1.8. D.F. Putnam. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario Qhird Edition). Ontario Geological Survey, Special Report #2. Ontaio Ministry ofNatural Resources, Toronto. Google Earth (Version 6.0.3.2197) [Software]. (2009). Available from htþ ://www. google.com/earth/index.html. Goo gle Maps. (2 0 I 3 ). Available from : htþ : //maps. google. cal?utm_campai gn :en&utm source:en-ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_ medium:ha&utm term :googleVo20maps. H.R. Page & Co. (1879). Guide Book & Atlas of Muskokn and Parry Sound Districfs. H.R. Page: Toronto Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990a, Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, SO 2005, Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (OMCzCR). (1993). Archaeological Assessment Technicql Guidelines, Stages 1-3 and Reporting Format. (Queen's Printer for Ontario 1993) Ontario Ministry of Culture (MCL). (2005). Conserving a Futurefor Our Post: Archaeologt, Land Use Planning & Development in Ontario (An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guideþr Non-Specialists). (Heritage & Libraries Branch, Heritage Operations Unit: Toronto). Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) & Ministry of Environment (MOE). (1992). Guideline þr Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments. (Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning: Toronto). Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). (2011). Standards and Guidelines þr Consultant Archaeologlsf. (Programs and Services Branch: Culture Programs Unit, Toronto). Ontario Planning Act, RSO 1990b, Govemment of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto) AMICK Consullanls Limited Page 27 2013 Slage 1-2 Archaeologicttl Assessment of Slephenson Roøtl I Bridge, Stephenson Road 1 Easl crossing lhe Muskoks River (Geographic Township of Møcaulay), Town of BracebrÍdge, Distrìct Municipalìty of Muskokt (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) 12.0 M¡,ps ,:n'6 ffi {¡ .,.* r¡ 't a:. \ç, t¡ : ,l 5 ! ( I 2_ u* \ù Study Area \ [.Ll Scale 3 z Frcunn I LocATroN oF THE Sruuy Ann¡. Goocr,n Mlps 20 I ,!t ¡ s0 \ T t9 \ tr ì.¡ t'i a ,l 't ! F I c". .$ Ì!. 'ù-ù )rsi' t It t'¡ 7!ì ¡:.ç, ott t4 P a l) 13 q Ct ti r¡ q Ìt 7l a q- q t \¡ a 'a a (\ |J i Þ ñ ,al È' Study Area tl ìe o I, t. '1 lâ ô:: .¡- \''b r¡ T s é.t Þ. b èl ir la \ $ \{ \ e \. ù¡ å \ o 4 ìf, \J .t u e a \ l-l Map is Not to Scale a \q a Frcunn 2 Hrstonrc Ar¡,ls Mlp TowNSHrp oF Mrclur,¡y (H.R.Page & Co. 1879) AMICK Consultants Límìted Pøge 28 2013 Stage I-2 Archøeologìcul Assessmenl of Stephenson Rosd I Bridge, Sîephenson Road I Eost crossing the Muskoka Ríver (Geographìc Township of Macauløy), Town of Bracebridge, Districl Municipality of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-IUMTC Fíle #P384-0073-2013) d ¡ 3 I ¡ I ci @ ¿ I = Ë¡ ! EÉ Eå UI Þ n z dñ Ed ù Ë P ; t s ãu @ J FIcunp 3 Srrr Prax (C.C. T¡,rn¡,ur & Assocu.rEs LrD. 2012) AMICK Consultunts Limited Pøge 29 2013 Stage I-2 Archaeologicsl Assessment of Slephenson Road I Bridge, Sîephenson Roud 1 East crossing the Muskokø River (Geogrøphic Townshìp of Macaulay), Town of Bracebridge, District Munìcipality of Mus ko ka (AMI C K Fi le # I 3 2 72 -IAM TC File #P3 I 4-0 0 73-2 0 I 3 ) J{! 0) o ô- J G a o :J o E = G \ o J øØ c o) o Ò õ< U' o >o Er¡) o .g; t- art Ø o.q .9 oto o (¡)!-:i o o DØ=E o =89Ë (u 2 o (ú sfrt o E :fiúoo &. J >Zftue o Ë e-åg€ = .ño< 3 rÈ.='D P 9i5 0) = o fL ÈkÊ44Ë tt, ur tu fL I ltltt trtrtr@tr FIcunn 4 Annr¿,1Pnoro oF THE Sruoy Annt (Goocln Elnrn 20ll) AMICK Consulttnts Limited Pøge 30 2013 Srage l-2 Archneologicsl Assessntent rd Stephenson Roød I ßridge, SÍephenson Roctd I East crossittg lhe Muskokl River (Geographic Townshìp of Macøuluy), Ton:n of ßracehridge, Dìstrict Municipalist of Muskoka (AMICK Fìle #I 3272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-201 3) c0) o o EØ c \ .Jo Gû (¡) o ø ø of õ<>o o g; cØ o e^g g g o 6-tnz-EEi! -(¡)f (s .:8ãz o E :Íõo=(! &. v o ovÈoã ¿oÀPÈaOØLO = õo< Fõ PanOOE c [è.=.= 0) o fL ÈU'UJtrjÀk.844Ë I lrttt trEItrtri P I j ã¡ )r i'i ¡i Ø f¡l F f¡l À t ! i l i Þi c Fl t' ù 1 tt) I .l' .1 \ I Frcunn 5 Drurr,no Pr,nN oF THE Sruoy Annl A MICK Consultarrts Litnited Page 3 I 2013 Støge I-2 Archaeologicøl Assessment of Stephenson Road I Bridge, Stephenson Road I East crossing the Muskokø River (Geographic Township of Macøulay), Town of Bracehridge, District Munícipality of Muskoks (AMICK File #13272-K/MTC File #P384-0073-2013) 13.0 lu¡.cns Pr,lrp 1 Tnsr Pn CoxorrroNs Pl,lrn 2 Srnnp Slopn :.1 Pr,rrn 3 SrnpHp¡soN RoAD I Pu,rn 4 Tnsr Prr CoNurrroNs Bnrocn Pu,rn 5 Tnsr Prr CoNorrroNs Pl¡,rn 6 Srnnp Sr,opn AMIC K Consultants Limited Page 32 APPENDIX E: CULTURAt HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT t- 154 Otonabee Drive, Kitchener, ON N2C 117 Tel: (519) 804-229'1 Fax: (519) 286-0493 Archaeological 248 Ruby Sl,, Midland, ON L4B 214 Research Tel: (705) 526-9518 Associates Lld. Fax; (705) 526-4541 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report Stephenson Road I Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Lots 15-16, Con. 13, Geo. Township of Macaulay Lots 1l-16, Con. 1, Geo. Township of Stephenson Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville Muskoka District, Ontario Prepared for C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge, ON PIL 0Al TeL (705) 64s-7756 8. The Town of Bracebridge &, The Town of Huntsville By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 154 Otonabee Drive Kitchener, ON N2C 1L7 Tel (519) 804-2291Far (519) 286-0493 Heritage Evaluation by Kayla Jonas Galvin, B.E.S Project #HR-050-2013 I 21/10t2013 i Original Report Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge TABLE OF'CONTENTS GLOS SARY OF ABBREVIATIONS III PERSONNEL III 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY 6 2.1 Key Concepts 6 2.2 Approach 7 3.0 NATURAL CONTEXT 9 4.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 10 4.r European Contact 11 4.2 British Colonialism 13 4.3 Muskoka District t6 4.4 Township ofMacaulay 20 4.5 Township of Stephenson 2t 5.0 STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTATION 22 5.1 General Overview 22 5.2 Detailed Description 22 5.3 Maintenance and Current Condition 30 6.0 HERITAGE CONTEXT 37 7.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 39 7.1 Previously Documented Heritage Significance 39 7.2 Description o f Property 42 7.3 Heritage Bridge Evaluation 42 7.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 44 7.5 Description o f Heritage Attributes 44 8.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 45 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: General View of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge 5 Image 2: GeneralView ofthe Stephenson Road 1 Bridge 5 Image 3: View of Structural Steel Girders and Structural Steel Floor Beams 23 Image 4: View of Pier 24 Image 5: View of Eastern Abutment and Pier 25 Image 6: View of Eastern Abutment and Steel Girders 26 Image 7: View ofWesternAbutment 26 October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge Image 8: View of Wing Walls on Western Abutment 27 Image 9: View of Wooden Deck 28 Image 10: View of Truss Construction 29 Image 11: View of Truss Member and Handrails 29 Image 12: View of Pin-connected Construction 30 Image 13: View of Light Rust on Joints JJ Image 14: View of Scaling and Cracking on WesternAbutment 34 Image 15: View of Corrosion on Truss Members and Rust on Handrail 35 Image 16: View of Bent Bottom Cord on the North Truss 36 Image 1 7: View of the Approach from the West 3l Image 18: View of the Approach from the East 38 Image l9: View looking North from the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge 38 Image 20: View looking South from the Stephenson Road I Bridge 39 Image 21: Historic Photo of the McCamus' Bridge 40 Image 22: Evidence of Wooden Abutment 40 Image 23: Historic Photo of the Bird's Bridge (now Stephenson Road 1 Bridge) 42 LIST OF MAPS Map l: Location of the StudyArea in the Province of Ontario 2 }i4ap 2: General View of the StudyArea in Town of Bracebridge J Map 3: Detail View of the StudyArea in the Town of Bracebridge 4 lr/rap 4: Detail from S. de Champlain's Carte de la Nouvelle France (1632) l1 Map 5: Detail from G. Del'Isle's Carte du Canqda ou de la Nouvelle France (1708) t2 Map 6: Detail from D.W Smyth's A Map of the Province of Upper Canada (1800) 15 ll4ap 7: Detail from J. Purdy's A Map of Cabotia (1814) 15 Map 8: Detail from J. Arrowsmith's Upper Canada (1837) t7 Map 9: Detail from J.L. Morris' Map of the Province of Ontario (1930) t7 Map 10: Detail from W.J.S. Holwell's Map of Part of the Province of Ontario (1871), Showing Shaded Areas of Free Grant Lands I9 Map I 1 : Detail from A.J. Johnson's Ontario of the Dominion of Canada (I87 4) 19 li/;ap 12: Detail of Macaulay and Stephenson from H.R. Page & Co.'s Guidebook &Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts (1879), Showing the Study Area 4t LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Evaluation of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge 43 October 2013 Archaeological Research As sociates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 111 LIST OF'APPENDICES Appendix A: Plan and Elevation of Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Sketch 1 (July 1981) 50 Appendix B: Plan and Elevation of Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Sketch 2 (July 1981) 51 Appendix C: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Cover (September 1983) 52 Appendix D: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing I (September 1983) 53 Appendix E: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 2 (September 1983) 54 Appendix F: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 3 (September 1983) 55 Appendix G: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 4 (September 1983) 56 Appendix H: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 5 (September 1983) 57 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ARA - Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. BH - Built Heritage CHER - Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report CHL - Cultural Heritage Landscape CHVI - Cultural Heritage Value or Interest CN - Canadian National CP - Canadian Pacific MTC - Ministry of Tourism and Culture MTCS - Ministry of Tourisrn, Culture and Sport MTO - Ministry of Transportation N&PJ - Northern and Pacific Junction OHBG - Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges PERSONNEL Project Dírector: P.J. Racher, M.A., CAHP Operations Manager: C.E. Gohm Delíverøbles Mønager: C.J. Gohrq M.A. Assístant Project Manøger.' V. Cafik Background Reseørch.'K. Jonas Galvin, M. Davies Graphícs: K. Brightwell, P.G. (GIS) Photography: M. Davies Report Prepøratíon: K. Jonas Galvin, M. Davies, C.J. Gohm Herínge Evaluøtion' K. Jonas Galvin October 2013 Archaeological Res earch Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge I 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under a contract awarded by C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. (CCTA) in September 2013, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) conducted a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge in the Town of Bracebridge, Muskoka District, Ontario. The Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville are considering improvements to address deficiencies with the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge as part of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study. Given that the structure is located within the section of the boundary road that Bracebridge is responsible for maintaining, Bracebridge is taking the lead on the Environmental Assessment project. This Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) documents the background research, on-site inspection and heritage evaluation involved in the investigation of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the structure ('the study area'). The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is located approximately 1 km east of Highway 11, and it serves as a boundary road bridge between the Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville (see Map l-Map 3). The structure is oriented on an east-west axis and carries Stephenson Road I across the North Branch of the Muskoka River (see Image l-Image 2). As it is the only bridge that crosses this river between High Falls and Port Sydney, its rehabilitation/replacement has been identified as a high priority in the Town's current Road and Bridge Needs Study. In legal terms, the structure falls on the townline between Lots 15-16, Concession 13 in the Geographic Township of Macaulay and Lots 15-16, Concession I in the Geographic Township of Stephenson. In accordance with the principles and directions set out in the Municipal Class Environmentql Assessmenl (MEA 2000), the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 issued under Section 3 of the Planning lcl, R.S.O. 1990 (MMAH 2005), and the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges (OHBG) (MTO 2008), this CHER was conducted to determine the potential cultural heritage significance of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. Specif,rcally, the study was carried out in order to: o Collect and review existing heritage background information on the structure; o Assess the heritage value of the structure according to the scoring system outlined in the OHBG (MTO 2008); and o Recommend strategies for the conservation of the heritage values of the structure andlor the mitigation of impacts to the structure, if heritage value is identified. The photographs, plans and documentation supplied by CCTA and the Town of Bracebridge that are included in this report are used with permission. All notes, photographs and other records related to the background researcl¡ on-site inspection and heritage evaluation are currently housed in ARA's processing facility located at 154 Otonabee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Subsequent long-term storage will occur at ARA's head office, located at 97 Gatewood Road, Kitchener, Ontario. October 2013 Archaeo lo gical Res earc h As s o ciates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 2 Hudson Bay Baie d'Hudson James Bay )- BaÌe James Ít ll R/Rdes a¿rtaouais Huron O Study Area -I 0 150 300 km lì. Map 1: Location of the StudyArea in the Province of Ontario (NRC 2004) October 2013 Archaeological Res earch Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge J^ ¡ ¡ a a lt l I a r a il t. ì \ \ i \' i a I -,. a 3 \ t a t t t a \ a 1 I 'çt r- a I a a .th \ c a I ì\ :\ J 2$ .. ,\'- I t + ,:l- ]\ a ï t I a .:- \ a a I I .t l1 I a I ! 't*'\ ! ¡, N ,\ (-) study Area tI 0 0.5 1 n,"A Map 2: General View of the Study Area in Town of Bracebridge (NRC 2010b) October 2013 Archaeo lo gical Re s earch As s o c iates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 4 N O study Area 0 Map 3: DetailView of the StudyArea in the Town of Bracebridge (Google Maps 2013) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Torw of Bracebridge 5 Image 1: GeneralView of the Stephenson Road I Bridge (Photo Taken on September ll,20131' Facing Southeast) Image 2: General View of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge (Photo Taken on September ll,2013: Facing West) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 6 2.0 METHODOLOGY This study \Mas designed to examine the heritage elements of the subject structure, along with its relationship to the surrounding cultural landscape, in accordance with the principles and directions set out in the Municipal Class Environmentql Assessmenl (MEA 2000), the Provincial Policy Statement,2O05 issued under Section 3 of the Planninglcl, R.S.O. 1990 (MMAH 2005), and the OHBG (MTO 2008), These documents outline the appropriate methods and standards that must be observed when a project has the potential to impact local heritage resources. The following methodology consists of a discussion of the key concepts essential to any heritage assessment, arrd a detailed overview of the methods used in the cultural heritage evaluation of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge. 2.1 Key Concepts Heritage assessments are methodologically rooted in the proper identification of Built Heritage (BH) resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHLs), and in the evaluation of their CHVI. These pivotal terms play a significant role in all types of heritage assessments, including CHERs, and therefore require clear definition and consistent usage: a Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: "the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present and future generations. The heritage value of an historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings" (Parks Canada 2010:5). a Built Heritage Resource: "one or more signif,rcant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions" (MMAH 2005:29). a Cultural Heritage Landscape: "a defined geographical arca of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage forrr! distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. Examples may include but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways and industrial complexes of cultural heritage value" (MMAH 2005:29). The term "cultural landscape" was first coined in 1908 by noted German geographer Otto Schluter in his formulation of the distinction between natural and cultural landscapes (James and Martin 1981:177). The concept was expanded and further developed by American geographer Carl Sauer in his 1925 paper The Morphology of Landscape, in which he declared: October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 7 The cultural landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape is the result ... The natural landscape is of course of fundamental importance for it supplies the materials out of which the cultural landscape is formed. The shaping force, however lies in the culture itself (citation from Mitchell 2003:27). The method and theory of cultural landscape studies were further debated and refined in academic circles in a process which culminated in UNESCO's World Heritage Convention of 1992. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the lltorld Heritage Convention defines several types of cultural landscapes (e.g. designed landscapes, evolved landscapes and associative landscapes), lists the criteria for determining their significance, and suggests methods for their conservation (UNESCO 2008). While any landscapes that have been altered by humans constitute a cultural landscape, those with demonstrable heritage value, or cultural heritage landscapes, have been marked for special consideration. Whereas the identification of a BH resource is fairly straightforward, CHLs manifest in a much wider variety of forms and styles. As a consequence, CHLs often possess heritage values which arise from a number of different criteria. Accordingly, the identification, evaluation and conservation of cultural landscapes can be extremely complex. CHLs can stretch across multiple properties or even multiple municipalities. Defining their extents requires careful consideration of the components of the landscape and an understanding of the historical processes that led to its creation. In many cases, input from community heritage organizations is crucial to the process. It has been recogntzedlhat the heritage value of a CHL is often derived from its association with historical themes that charact erize the development of human settlement in an area (MNR 197 5; Scheinman 2006). In Ontario, typical themes which may caffy heritage value within the community include (but are not limited to) Pre-Contact habitation; early European exploration; early European and First Nations contacts; pioneer settlement; the development of transportation networks; agriculture and rural life; early industry and commerce; and/or urban development. Individual CHLs may touch on a number of these themes simultaneously. The heritage value of a CHL can also originate from non-historical and non-associative values. Just like BH resources, CHLs can be defined by physical values, design values, and/or contextual values. Although significant measures of design or physical value are relatively rare in the case of CHLs (i.e. few have a high degree of craftsmanship, few display scientific merit, etc.), contextual value is quite coÍrmon due to their frequent links to the surroundings and importance in defining the character of any given area. The proper identification of CHLs is integral to the Cultural Heritage Evaluation process, particularly with respect to measuring the contextual value and historical value of a given structure. 2.2 Approach In order to effectively evaluate a given structure in a meaningful and objective format, Appendix C of the OHBG (MTO 2008:3940) provides specific requirements for CHERs concerning provincially-owned bridges; these requirements can be effectively applied to municipally-owned structures as well. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 8 following principal components: 1) historical research, site analysis and evaluation (including a f,reld assessment); 2) abridge form with scoring and evaluation; 3) a description of the property, statement of cultural heritage value and a description of heritage attributes, if any; and 4) images and supporting documentation. As reflected by these requirements, the combination of background research and a field survey is an essential first step in achieving an objective evaluation of a potential heritage structure. Background information is obtained from aerial photographs, historical maps (e.g., illustrated atlases), archival sources (e.g., historical publications and records), published secondary sources (online and print), and local historical organizations. Where possible, further information should be sought from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). The freld survey component involves the collection of primary data through the systematic photographic documentation of the subject structure and its surroundings. Photographs are taken in order to capture the current condition of the structure, all potential architectural elements of CHVI, and any local features that could contribute to the understanding of structure's heritage context (e.g., known or potential BH resources and CHLs in the immediate area). In order to objectively identi$r heritage resources, O. Reg. 9106 made under the Ontario Heritage Act sets out three principal criteria for determining CHVI. These criteria include D es ign/Phys ical Value, HistoricaVAsso ciative Value and Cont extual Value : a Design or Physical Value manifests when a feature is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; when it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value; or when it displays a high degree of technical or scientific achievement; Historical or Associative Value appears when a resource has direct associations with a theme, event, belief person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to the community; yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to the understanding of a community or culture; or demonstrates or reflects work or ideas of an architect, builder, artist, designer or theorist who is significant to the community; a Contextual Value is implied when a feature is important in def,rning, maintaining or supporting the character of aî area; is physically, firnctionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or is a landmark. As several of these criteria would almost automatically result in the assignation of CHVI during the evaluation of a bridge or bridge-like structure, an alternate heritage evaluation approach was needed for the determination of historically-significant bridges in Ontario. In response to this need, MTO and the former Ministry of Culture (MCL) established a Heritage Road Bridges Policy and the first Ontarío Heritage Bridge Guídelines in 1983. In 2008, MTO updated the original evaluation criteria and released a new OHBG. Section 3.0 of this new OHBG outlines an approach where "a bridge must meet a number of criteria in combination in order to have cultural heritage value of provincial importance" (MTO 2008:10, italics added). The revision to the original OHBG resulted in an updated and simplified scoring system for evaluating bridges for potential inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List. The system was derived from O. Reg. 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act,but since this regulation was October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 9 conceived primarily with'buildings' in mind, the heritage evaluation process was adapted for use with bridge structures. The three main criteria for determining CHVI (Design/Physical Value, Contextual Value and Historic/Associative Value) were retained as scoring divisions, under which new individually-scored criteria were developed (MTO 2008:14). In the resulting system, a minimum score of 60 or greater is required for a bridge to be considered a significant cultural heritage resource of provincial importance, and thus worthy of inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List (MTO 2008:Appendix B). Since a score of 60 or greater can only be achieved by receiving points in each of the three criteria areas, this new system ensured that any recognition of historical significance would be rooted in all three categories recognizedby O.Reg. 9/06 (MTO 2008:14). If abridge is found to be of provincial importance, the conservation options outlined in Section 4.3 of the OHBG are to be considered in all future management, planning and EnvironmentalAssessment processes (MTO 2008:19-20). In response to the above-mentioned requirements, this CHER was designed with six component parts: 1) a discussion of the local natural environment;2) a summary of historical background research pertaining to the Townships of Stephenson and Macaulay; 3) a presentation of field assessment results, photographic documentation and structural background research; 4) anassessment of the heritage context of the study area; 5) an evaluation of the heritage value of the subject structure by means of the OHBG scoring system (MTO 2OO8:Appendix B); and 6) recommendations based on the results of the evaluation. This approach is supported by the guidelines and policies provided by the following: o The Heritage Bridges: Identification and Assessment Guide, Ontario 1945-1965 (HRC 2oo5); o The Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Ass es s ments (MCL 1992); o The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessmenls (MCL 1 980); o Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition (Parks Canada 2010); and o The Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties (Mrc 2010). 3.0 NATURAL CONTEXT Although a given potential heritage structure's 'natural' setting does not directly factor into the evaluation of its CHVI, it is widely accepted that local environmental factors played an important role in shaping all early land-use processes. In essence, these factors set out the initial conditions from which all cultural landscapes form and develop, across the entire historical and cultural spectrum of Ontario. Since the relationship between a potential heritage structure and its position in the cultural landscape figures prominently in the evaluation process, particularly with respect to gauging contextual value, a brief consideration of such 'natural' factors is warranted. In order to fully comprehend the heritage context of the study area, the following three features October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Proiect #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 10 of the local natural environment must be considered 1) forests; 2) dranage systems; and 3) physiography. The study area lies within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest, which is a transitional zone between the southern deciduous forest and the northern boreal forest covering approximately 20,000,000 ha. Vegetation here consists of a mixture of coniferous trees and deciduous trees, as well as many species of ferns, fungi, shrubs and mosses. The most prominent conifers are eastern white pine, red pine, eastern hemlock and white cedar, while deciduous trees are best represented by yellow birch, sugil and red maple, basswood and red oak. Other species more commonly occurring in the north are also present, including white and black spruce, jack pine, aspen and white birch (MNR 2013). Only part of the original forest cover remains standing today, however, as early Euro-Canadian agriculturalists conducted large-scale clearing operations to prepare the land for cultivation. In terms of local drainage systems, the study area falls entirely within the North Branch Muskoka River subwatershed, which comprises part of the Muskoka River watershed. The headwaters of the river arise on the western slopes of Algonquin Park, and flow southwesterly for a distance of approximately 210 km to discharge into the southeast corner of Georgian Bay (MWC 2013). Specifically, the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge spans the North Branch of the Muskoka River and is located 3.3 km northwest of Bonnie Lake and 1.8 km northwest of the Fawn Lake Wetland. Physiographically, the structure lies within the region known as the Number 11 Strip, which consists of a narrow belt of land (extending from Gravenhurst to North Bay) that was once just below the shoreline of proglacial Lake Algonquin. Deep soils developed in this strip from the fine sand, silt and clay deposited by ancient streams and deltas, which are ideal for farming and contrast sharply with the bare rock ridges of the adjacent high ground (Chapman and Putnam 1984:214-215). In terms of bedrock geology, this physiographic region falls within the Grenville Province of the Precambrian Canadian Shield (Davidson 1989:37). In sun¡ the study area possesses several characteristics which would have made it attractive to early Euro-Canadians. The North Branch of the Muskoka River would have served as an exceiient water source and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest would have attracted early industry. Taken collectively, these factors would have positively influenced the development of local heritage resources. 4,0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT Although many CHLs have strong associations with Aboriginal communities, the structure considered in this report is associated with Post-Contact (rather than Pre-Contact) cultural developments. Accordingly, the history of the initial settlement and growth of Euro-Canadian communities in the Muskoka District is of direct relevance to the present study, as opposed to that of the lengthy Pre-Contact period. What follows is a historical sunìmary of the region from the time of European contact through to the 'modern era'of the 20th century. This overview is not intended to be exhaustive, but is rather meant to effectively place the study area in its appropriate historical context and to better inform the heritage evaluation process. October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 11 4.L European Contact The first European to venture into what would become Ontario was Étienne Brû1é, who was sent by Samuel de Champlain in the summer of 1610 to accomplish three goals: 1) to consolidate an emerging friendship between the French and the First Nations, 2) to learn their languages, and 3) to better understand their unfamiliar customs. Other Europeans would subsequently be sent by the French to train as interpreters. These men became coureurs de bois, "living Indian-style ... on the margins of French society'' (Gervais 2004:182). Such 'woodsmen'played an essential role in all later communications with the First Nations. Champlain himself made two trips to Ontario: in 1613, he journeyed up the Ottawa River searching for the North Sea, and in 1615, he travelled up the Mattawa River and descended to Lake Nipissing and Lake Huron to explore Huronia (Gervais 2004:182-185). He learned about many First Nations groups during his travels, including prominent Iroquoian-speaking peoples such as the Wendat (Huron), Petun (Tobacco) and'la nation neutre'(the Neutrals), and a variety of Algonkian-speaking Anishinabeg bands. Champlain's map of Nouvelle France from 1632 encapsulates his accumulated knowledge of the area (see Map 4). Lake Nipisstng (Lac des Biserenis) and the French River are identified, and several Aboriginal camps are shown in the vicinity. t i BI * m9 å å, *[t ¡l s frl { t ! *' t ô l¿ ? lauts - { l rlÐ L;st a {r ç dr.8. Map 4: Detail from S. de Champlain's Cørte de la Nouvelle France (1632) (Gentilcore and Head 1984:Map 1.2) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge l2 Less than four decades after Champlain, a series of major events dramatically altered the cultural landscape of southern Ontario. These include the Five Nations invasion ca. 1650, the demise of the Huron, Petun and Neutral Nations, and the establishment of a vast Iroquoian hunting territory in the second half of the 17ú century (Hunt 1940). Northern Ontario, on th" other hand, *u, not adversely affected by the events of the 17ú century and local Anishinabeg groups continued on with their nomadic and low-impact existence. Due to their mutually violent history the Haudenosaunee did not permit French explorers and missionaries to travel directly into southern Ontario for much of the 17ft century. Instead, the French had to journey up the Ottawa River to Lake Nipissing and then paddle down the French River into Georgian Bay (Lajeunesse 1960:xxix). This resulted in an increased number of contacts between the French and the Anishinabeg in what would become the Sudbury, Nipissing, Parry Sound and Muskoka Districts. The late 17ú and early lSth centuries bore witness to the continued growth and spread of the fur trade across all of what would become the Province of Ontario. The French, for example, established and maintained trading posts along the Upper Great Lakes, offering enticements to attract fur traders from the First Nations. Even further north, Britain's Hudson's Bay Company dominated the fur trade. Violence was common between the two parties, and peace was only achieved with the Treaty of Utrecht n Il13 (Ray 2013). Developments such as these resulted in an ever-increasing level of contact between European traders and local Aboriginal communities, including the Algonquins inthe vicinity of study area (see Map 5). at qu t sono- I tvb 4 f ; n*l' 1ù n'O N orr , !t{¡rÈ Map 5: Detail from G Del'Isle's Carte du Cønadø ou de la Nouvelle Frønce (170S) (Cartography Associates 2009) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Totw of Bracebridge 13 As the number of European men living in Ontario increased, so too did the frequency of their relations with Aboriginal women. Male employees and former employees of French and British companies began to establish families with these women, a process which resulted in the ethnogenesis of a distinct Aboriginal people: the Métis. Comprised of the descendants of those bom from such relations (and subsequent intermarriage), the Métis emerged as a distinct Aboriginal people during the 1700s (MNO 20ll). Métis settlements developed along freighting waterways and watersheds, and were tightly linked to the spread and growth of the fur trade. These settlements were part of larger regional communities, connected by "the highly mobile lifestyle of the Métis, the fur trade network, seasonal rounds, extensive kinship connections and a shared collective history and identity" (MNO 20rt). In 1754, hostilities over trade and the territorial ambitions of the French and the British led to the Seven Years' War (often called the French and Indian War in North America), in which many Anishinabeg bands fought on behalf of the French. After the French surrender in 1760, these bands adapted their trading relationships accordingly, and formed a new alliance with the British (Smith 1987:22). In addition to cementing British control over the Province of Quebec, the Crown's victory over the French also proved pivotal tn catalyzrng the Euro-Canadian settlement process. The resulting population influx caused the demographics of many areas to change considerably. 4.2 British Colonialism With the establishment of absolute British control came a new era of land acquisition and organtzed settlement. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which followed the Treaty of Paris, the British government recognized the title of the First Nations to the land they occupied. In essence, the 'right of soil' had to be purchased by the Crown prior to European settlement (Lajeunesse 1960:cix). Numerous treaties and land surrenders were accordingly arranged by the Crown, and great swaths of territory were acquired from the Ojibway and other First Nations. These first purchases established a pattern "for the subsequent extinction of Indian title" (Gentilcore and Head 1984:78). The first land purchases in Ontario took place along the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, as well as in the immediate 'back country'. Such acquisitions began in August 1764, when a strip of land along the Niagara River was surrendered by Six Nations, Chippewa and Mississauga chiefs (NRC 20I0a). Although many similar territories were purchased by the Crown in subsequent years, it was only with the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War (I775-1783) that the British began to feel a pressing need for additional land. In the aftermath of the conflict, waves of United Empire Loyalists came to settle in the Province of Quebec, driving the Crown to seek out property for those who had been displaced. This influx had the devastating side effect of sparking the slow death of the fur trade, which was a primary source of income for many First Nations groups. By the mid-l780s, the British recognized the need to 1) secure a military communication route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron other than the vulnerable passage through Niagara, Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair; 2) acquire additional land for the United Empire Loyalists; and 3) modiSr the October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge T4 administrative structure of the Province of Quebec to accommodate future gror,,vth. The first two concerns were addressed through the negotiation of numerous 'land surrenders' with Anishinabeg groups north and west of Lake Ontario, and the third concern was mitigated by the establishment of the first administrative districts in the Province of Quebec. On July 24, 1788, Sir Guy Carleton, Baron of Dorchester and Governor-General of British North America, divided the Province of Quebec into the administrative districts of Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area fell within the Nassau District at this time, which consisted of a massive tract of land extending due north from the head of Bay of Quinte in the east and the tip of Long Point on Lake Erie in the west. According to early historians, "this division was purely conventional and nominal, as the country was sparsely inhabited ... the necessity for minute and accurate boundary lines had not become pressing" (Mulvany et al. 1885:13). Further change came in December 1791, when the Parliament of Great Britain's Constítutional Act created the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada from the former Province of Quebec. Colonel John Graves Simcoe was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and he became responsible for governing the new province, directing its settlement and establishing a constitutional government modelled after that of Britain (Coyne 1895:33). Simcoe initiated several schemes to populate and protect the newly-created province, employing a settlement strategy that relied on the creation of shoreline communities with effective transportation links between them. These communities, inevitably, would be composed of lands obtained from the First Nations, and many more purchases were subsequently arranged. In Ju,ly 1792, Simcoe divided the province into 19 counties consisting of previously-settled lands, new lands open for settlement and lands not yet acquired by the Crown. These new counties stretched from Essex in the west to Glengarry in the east. Three months later, in October 1792, an Act of Parliament was passed whereby the four districts established by Lord Dorchester were renamed as the Western, Home, Midland and Eastern Districts (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area nominally fell within the boundaries of Kent County in the Home District at this time, which comprised all of the territory of Upper Canada that was not included in the other 18 counties (Archives of Ontario 2009). In essence, Kent was the largest county ever created, stretching from Lake Erie to Hudson's Bay (McGeorge 1939:36). This arrangement would not last, however, and the 'northern' parts of Kent County would soon be sectioned offto form separate counties. D.W. Smyth's A Map of the Province of Upper Canada (1300) shows that the vicinity of the study area remained in the possession of the First Nations at this time, forming part of the 'Chippewa Hunting Country'. This map demonstrates that the lands that would become the Muskoka District remained largely untouched by early British colonialism (see Map 6). October 2013 Archaeological Res earch Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 15 f,ù 4t)il( lt /, I Ìj, 7' I ì û (, & ( ,l ? i I tù I io çt t J I \ ô I I -* I f¿l c ì :4ìtt l,flDJ.^r N t) I l' r' ,tl t; ili il tl ,f Map 6: Detail from D.W. Smyth's A Møp of the Province of Upper Canada (1800) (Cartography Associates 2009) ( @ Ð t I I -t rE ¿I I lt & ,l 4 ¿Þ ! ? \ 1 9 j Cr I 2! 4 I q* I l B¡y Th 0 'à rfJ I a t l v^ \ l U) ,t,^ s al a I t*^ ¿ ,l rn --';4r ô o ,r, È 4^ Y ^ Map 7: Detail from J. Purdy's A Map of Cabotìa (1814) (Cartography Associates 2009) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge t6 4.3 Muskoka District Shortly after the creation of Upper Canada, the original arrangement of the province's districts and counties was deemed inadequate. As population levels increased, smaller administrative bodies became desirable, resulting in the division of the largest units into more 'manageable' component parts.The first major changes tookplace in 1798, when anAct of Parliament called for the realignment of the Western, Home, Midland and Eastern Districts and the formation of the London, Niagara and Johnstown Districts. Many new counties and townships were subsequently created in southern Ontario, but northern Ontario remained in the possession of the First Nations (Archives of Ontario 2009). The vicinity of the study area nominally remained part of the Home District until 1802, at which time it became part of the newly-formed Newcastle District. Settlement in the Newcastle District was limited to the surveyed townships in Durham and Northumberland Counties, however, and for many years northern Ontario was unaffected by the Euro-Canadian settlement process (see Map 7). Between 1815 and 1824,heavy immigration from the Old World resulted in the doubling of the non-Aboriginal population of Upper Canada from 75,000 to 150,000. This dramatic increase was a result of the outcome of the War of 1812 and the Crown's efforts to populate the province's interior. A total of six major land-cession agreements were then pursued, which would yield nearly 3,000,000 ha of lands for Euro-Canadian settlement (Surtees I994:I12). These agreements were concerned with lands located well beyond the original waterfront settlements of Upper Canada, and included the Lake Simcoe-Nottawasaga, Ajetance, Rice Lake, Rideau, Long'Woods and Huron Tract Purchases (Surtees 1994:113-119). The lands along the eastern and northern Georgian Bay littorals, however, would remain in the hands of the First Nations until 1850. According to historical sources, the First Nations man 'Mesqua Ukee'was the namesake for the Muskoka District. Mesqua Ukee was the Chief of the Rama First Nation, and the South Branch of the Muskoka River was known as his patrimony (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:15). In the -War of i8i2, Ìviesqua Ukee fought side-by-si Charles Rankin of Owen Sound carried out the division of the Muskoka District in the early 19ft century. During his survey, a reported 23 ,g45 acres out of a total 32,540 acres were divided into lots for Euro-Canadian settlement (Boyer 1979).In Summer and Fall 1835, parties ledby Lieutenant John Carthew and Lieutenant F.H. Baddeley of the Royal Navy and Royal Engineers, respectively, ran the 77-mile long Base Line, parts of which would eventually comprise the shared Townlines of over a dozen different townships (Coombe 1976:ll). J. Arrowsmith's Upper Canada (1837) shows the location of the Base Line, and reveals the extensive nature of the undocumented areas of the Muskoka District at that time (see Map 8). October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge l7 a) *' 'À. "à, /. (t tl' .! ar\' Sr¡ uul it I ,k\ç "rZ 1_ ta Map 8: Detail from J. Arrowsmith's Upper Canada (1837) (C artography Associates 2009) ,^' . ),. 'Jr- : ¡ a¡c .,.'t 'Û fr J Map 9: Detail from J.L. Morris' Map of the Provínce of Ontarìo (1930) (Archives of Ontario 2013) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Tovwt of Bracebridge 18 On September 9, 1850, William Robinson negotiated the Robinson-Huron Treaty (Crown Treaty No. 61) with Chief Shinguacouse and nearly three dozen other chieß of the Lake Huron Chþewa (see Map 9). The Lake Huron shoreline, the islands and "inland as far as the height of the land" subsequently passed into the hands of the British (AANDC 2010;NRC 2010b). Atotal of 21 reserves were set aside by this agreement, and each chief agreed not to interfere with mining operations or prospecting in the ceded lands but retained the right to hunt and fish. As was the case with the Robinson-Superior Treaty of the same year, the Aboriginal groups received a payrnent of 7,500 pounds currency and an annuity of 500 pounds (NRC 2010b). In 1852, a resolution was introduced urging the implementation of a free land grant policy to encourage northern expansion in Canada V/est. Despite opposition and claims that the land was largely unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the Townships of Macaulay and Muskoka were surveyed in 1857. In 1858, the Muskoka Road was surveyed from Washago to Muskoka Falls, but settlement was slow prior to the passing of the Free Grants and Homesteads Ad of 1868 (MPSGG 1e8s). Beginning in 1858, large districts (Algoma and Nipissing) were created in northern Ontario for the purpose of delivering judicial and government services to the newly-arriving Euro-Canadian settlers (Archives of Ontario 2009). As population levels in northern Ontario subsequently increased, the original districts were reorganized and new districts \Mere created. The MuskokaDistrict was incorporated by the Provincial Parliament in 1868, and the Parry Sound District was created in 1870. The Parry Sound District was enlarged through the addition of the Townships of Humphrey and Conger in 1873 and 1876, respectively, and the Muskoka District gained the Townships of Freeman, Gibson and Baxter in 1876 (Archives of Ontario 2009). Prior to the ofücial decision to open up the Muskoka District for settlement, the area was initially set to become "one vast Indian reservation" (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:16). This idea did not last, however, and the land was instead offered to settlers by way of the Free Grants and Homesteads Act of 1868. The Act provided for the distribution of many northern properties to settlers, and those over 18 years of age \ryere peffnitted to select 100 acres of land, with heads of families allowed to select a total of 200 acres. In addition to the Free Grant, heads of families could also purchase an additional 100 acres at a price of 50 cents an acre (McMurray 187l:126). All applications were made to Charles W. Lount, Crown Land Agent in Bracebridge (MPSGG 1985). Settlement would involve clearing extensively forested areas and dealing with limited-to-no infrastructure, but the price was certainly enticing to those of limited means (McMurray l87l:126). McMurray paints the following picture for prospective settlers: "the man who comes to take up wild land, having no means to start with, has a poor chance ... a married man cannot expect to succeed unless he possess at least two hundred dollars at the commencement ... some persons have entered the settlement without means and have succeeded well, but at first they experienced many hardships" (1871:133). Regardless, the population of Muskoka reached 6,000 by 1871 and 13,000 by 1881 (MPScc 1985). October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge T9 Ì À /ì{ J ç ß ¿? 'ti o nu*Ét Àv /t + lr . o*Ñ* h; ,l\ I.) fiI{f .*t' )' þ; I' \ç ) û'{s}È( Map 10: Detail from W.J.S. Holwell's Map of Pørt of the Province of Ontario (1871), Showing Shaded Areas of Free Grant Lands (McMurray 1871:Map) Map 11: Detail from A.J. Johnson's Ontarío of the Dominion of Canadø (1874) (Cartography Associates 2009) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 20 Major roads utilized by the first settlers in the western parts of the Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts included the 'North Shore Road', which ran northerly towards Sault St. Marie, the 'Parry Sound Road', which linked the shore with the Muskoka Road, and the 'Nipissing Road', which was located approximately 35 km east of Parry Sound (McMurray 1871:130). The accessibility provided by these roads and the success of the Free Grants and Homesteads Act led to the creation of many additional townships in the late 1860s and 1870s. Ìt/.J.S. Holwell's Map of Part of the Province of Ontario (1871) provides a sense of this 'township-formation' process (see Map 10). A.J. Johnson's Ontario of the Dominion of Canada (1874) shows the earliest planned townships in the Muskoka District (see Map 1l). Access to the interior parts of the district was provided by the Muskoka Road and the Nipissing Road. The Muskoka Road was gradually expanded between 1859 and 1875, becoming a203 km long thoroughfare stretching from Severn Bridge to North Bay (this became part of Highway ll in the mid-1930s). TheNipissing Road, built between 1866 and 1875, corurected Rosseau to Nipissing. More than20 such colonization roads were established by the government between the Ottawa River and Georgian Bay, which were designed to "link the southern portions of the province with the new frontier of the Canadian Shield" (MTO 1984:17-20). The rate of settlement in the Muskoka District increased substantially with the arrival of the Northern and Pacific Junction Railway (N&PJ) in 1886, which linked Gravenhurst to the new Canadian Pacif,rc (CP) Railway in the north at the Nipissing Junction. Many Euro-Canadian communities developed along this route (the N&PJ Railway later became part of the CN Railway). The lands along the eastern Georgian Bay littoral were again subjected to legal exchange with the V/illiams Treaty, entered into agreement on October 1, 1923. At the time of this treaty much of the land in question was already being used by the government, either for settlement or for the exploitation of natural resources, and many of the lands had been acquired in earlier, less binding treaties (see Map 9). An immense area of approximately 5,242,482 ha (12,954,173 acres) was involved, and numerous considerations were included to correct incidents, errors and crises that occurred in the eariier treaties tiom 1783-1923 (AANDC 2010). 4.4 Township of Macaulay In historic times, the Township of Macaulay was bordered by the Township of Stephenson to the north, the Township of Mclean to the east, the Township of Draper to the south, and the Township of Monck to the west. The North Branch of the Muskoka River traverses the western part of the township, and Sage Creek and Sharpe Creek traverse the eastern parts. Numerous small lakes are also scattered throughout the township, including Fawn Lake, Gilleach Lake, Bonnie Lake, Halfivay Lake, Stoneleigh Lake and Healy Lake. The Township of Macaulay, named after Chief Justice John B. Macaulay, is situated at the intersection of the first survey lines to be established in area: Base Line (1835) being the township's western boundary and Bell's Line (1847) being its southern boundary. Macaulay was centrally located in the historic Muskoka District, and served as a junction for several important colonization roads (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:20). October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Tovw of Bracebridge 2l Macaulay was unrivalled in terms of its manufacturing facilities, and "the number of water privileges has been computed at 200 ... a number of most excellent water privileges exists in Macaulay, Bracebridge Falls, Halstead's water privilege in the village (at present unutilized), Willson's Falls, the various branches of the High Falls, South Falls, Tretheway's Falls, etc." (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:20). The most prominent historic settlements that developed in the Township of Macaulay included Bracebridge in the southwest and Falkenburg in the northwest. Aside from these larger settlements, the township also contained numerous small communities that developed around local post offices, including Stoneleigh and Mansell. Falkenburg, located on the main road to Huntsville at the junction of the Parry Sound Road, contained two hotels, an Anglican church, a saw & shingle mill and a blacksmith shop by 1879 (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:20). 4.5 Township of Stephenson In historic times, the Township of Stephenson was bordered by the Township of Stisted to the north, the Township of Brunel to the east, the Township of Macaulay to the south, and the Township of Watt to the west. The North Branch of the Muskoka River traverses the southeastern part of the township, and the western and eastern boundaries are dominated by Skeleton Lake and Mary Lake, respectively. Chain Lake, Rose Lake, Longs Lake and Siding Lake charactenze the interior. The Township of Stephenson was named for Robert Stephenson, the British engineer responsible for the Victoria Bridge over the St. Lawrence River at Montreal (Boyer 1979:50). As mentioned above, the earliest road in the area was the Muskoka Road, which ran west of and roughly parallel to Highway 11, traversing the Township of Stephenson in a north-easterly direction. This thoroughfare reached the northern boundary of the township in 1863, and settlers came as the road opened (Paterson 1987). According to historical records, the land of Stephenson was "generally of a good quality south of the Seventh Concession" (H.R. Page &, Co. 1879:26). By 1879, the majority of the lots had been taken up, and in 1886 the railway was extended from Bracebridge to Utterson and Huntsville (Paterson 1987). The most prominent historic settlements that developed in the Township of Stephenson included Utterson and Port Sydney. Utterson, situated along the Muskoka Road between Bracebridge and Huntsville in the central part of the township, contained a store, a blacksmith shop, a large hotel and a town hall by 1879. The settlement also boasted daily mail and stage to Bracebridge (H.R. Page & Co. 1879.26). Port Sydney, a village on Mary Lake, was already a well-known tourist destination in the late 19ú century. The community contained a public school, an Anglican church, a large public hall, a grist mill, an oatmeal mill, a saw mill and several stores by 1879 (H.R. Page & Co. 1879:26). October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Pro.iect #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 22 5.0 STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTATION 5.1 General Overview The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge currently carries one lane of trafüc over the North Branch of the Muskoka River along the border between the Geographic Townships of Stephenson and Macaulay. The current truss structure replaced an earlier wooden bridge over the river in the same location (construction date unknown). The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge was erected in its current location tn 1922, but it comprises a structure originally built in 1892 that was previously located in Bracebridge. In terms of structural materials and type, the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is a two span, steel pin-connected, through truss (MTO 1986:7). The abutments and wing walls are concrete and the deck is wood. "Timber bridges were still extremely popular in Ontario until the 1890s when steel became a more affordable bridge material" (HRC 2013 6). Steel bridges had several advantages over wooden bridges; most notably, these bridges were able to carry heavier loads and were able to cross larger spans (HRC 2013:6). 5.2 Detailed Description A field survey was conducted on September ll,2013 in order to photograph and document the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge in its present condition, as well as to record any local features that could enhance the understanding of the local cultural landscape (see Section 7.0). The results of the structural documentation have been incorporated into the following description of the structure (see Image 3-lmage l2). According to the schematics from 1981 and 1983 completed by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge comprises two spans. The main span carries the truss structure and extends 40.2 m over the North Branch of the Muskoka River. The second span is 6.4 m and carries the bridge over the remaining gap on the east side. The span on the east side consists of six structural steel girders at +l- 900 mm centres. The main span consists of six structural steel girders, whioh are supported by transverse siruciurai sreei Íìoor beams at +l- 50û0 mm centres and are connected to the panel points of the trusses. (CCTA 2013:2). These steel girders support a timber plank deck. "The structural steel trusses are spaced at +l- 5250 mm centre and provide a 1-l- 4500 mm wide deck between timber curbs. A double steel pipe handrail is located inside the north and south trusses" (CCCTA 2013:2). Evidence of earlier wooden handrails still remains in the form of holes in the members. The trusses themselves are 6.90 m tall and 5.18 m apart. The top cord is continuous, but the truss members are all pin-connected (MTO 198ó:8). Pin-connected construction is becoming increasingly rare, as it is an early steel-construction technique that went out of style in the 1890s. Later, as technology improved, bridges were riveted together on-site (Cumming I95l:42). October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 I Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 23 The abutments and wing walls are concrete. At their highest points, the west abutment is 13.5 m high and the east abutment is 12.5 m. The west abutment has distinct wing walls. The concrete pier is pointed to allow for the breaking of ice. All of the concrete components of the bridge feature markings of the wood board finish. The bridge has a triple load posting of 7, 71 and 15 tonnes. Image 3: View of Structural Steel Girders and Structural Steel Floor Beams (Photo Taken on September ll,2013; Facing East) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Towt of Bracebridge 24 Image 4: View of Pier (Pltuto Taken on September 11,2013; Faclng East) October 2013 Archaeolo gical Res earch As s ociates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 25 Image 5: View of EasternAbutment and Pier (Photo Taken on September 9,2013; Facing West) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 26 Image 6: View of Eastern Abutment and Steel Girders (Photo Taken on September 11; Facing East) Image 7: View of Western Abutment (Photo Taken on September 11,2013; Facing West) October 2013 Archaeological Res earch Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 27 Image 8: View of Wing Walls on Western Abutment (Photo Taken on September ll,2013; Facing Southwest) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritoge Evolttcttion Report, Stephens'on Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 2B itr 's" l. rfr ç. t'i <¡> -- - : l:i'*.** ç Image 9: View of Wooden Deck (Pfroto Tahen on September ll,2013; Facing West) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltcl. Project #HR-}50-2013 I i Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 29 Image 10: View of Truss Construction (Photo Taken on September ll,2013; Facing Southeast) Image 11: View of Truss Member and Handrails (Photo Taken on September ll,2013; Facing North) October 2013 Arc haeo lo gic al Re s e arc h As s o ciate s L td. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 30 Image 12: View of Pin-connected Construction (Photo Taken on September ll,20l3; Facing Southeast) 5.3 Maintenance and Current Condition Over its lifetime on Stephenson Road 1, the structure has undergone several inspections, repairs and rehabilitations (see Appendix A-Appendix H). According to records provided by CCTA, however, there have not been any repairs since 1984 (CCTA 2013:2). The following is a record of the inspection work that occurred prior to 1984: In June 1979, thc bridge was inspected by Mr. R.S. Reel, P.Eng., Evaluatiott Engineeri Approvals Section, Structural Office, Ministry of Transportation Mfq. In Mr Reel's report, he noted the rustíng of the structural steel trusses and the bent bottom chord members of the trusses. Mr Reel recommended that the bridge be posted with a 5 tonne load limit based on his visual inspection and that a more detailed structural evaluation of the bridge be carried out. In July 1981, Totten Sims Hubicki Associqtes Limited prepared a visual bridge inspection report. The report included a close up examination of the tímber plank deck and stringers, concrete pier and abutments, structural steel trusses, floor beams and, girders. The report indicated that the existing structural steel members were extensively corroded, that several bottom chord members of the trusses were buckled and, that the existing bridge was critically deficient þr safe loading. It was recommended that the existing bridge be replaced. October 2013 Archaeo Io gical Res earch As s ociates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 31 The report íncluded the following findings The timber deck qnd curbs, and longitudinal timber stringers qre in fair condition. The timber plank deck is not firmly attached to the timber stringers and q high level of vibratíon of the superstructure was noted when vehícular trffic crossed the brídge. I The concrete pier and abutments are ín fair to good condition. Extensive spalling of the concrete pier was noted. The concrete pier and the qbutments are tiltingforward towards the river. The structural steel trusses and floor beams of the main span and structural steel stringers of the approach spqn are in fair condítion with extensive overall corrosion and pitting noted. Several bottom chord members of the trusses are buckled and one member was recorded to be up to 375 mm out of alignment. I The abutment bearing seats are covered with dirt and debris which is s upp o rting vegetation growt h. ¡ The foundations of the bridge pier and abutments are buried under the river bank and no evidence of structural distress was noted. The remains of two old timber crib pier foundations were noted in the ríver bed under the existing bridge. t The bridge is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about 3 tonnes, based on the capacity of the longitudinal timber stríngers. In 1984, rehabilitation of the structure \ryas conducted to increase the load carrying capacity of the bridge and allow it to remain in service (CCTA 2013:2). This rehabilitation included the following: . The west abutment wqs tied back with a dead man anchor. . The bearing pads were replaced. t The ballast walls were replaced. . The timber plank deck was replaced with a transverse laminated timber deck. . The timber stringers were replaced with steel stringers. . The existing steelfloor beams were sandblasted and painted. . The existing timber hqndraíls were replaced with steel hqndrail. . Load capacity signs were instelled. The following is a list of recent investigations of the structure (CCTA 2013:4-5): A site investigation was undertaken on September 23, 2008 by McCormick Rqnkin Corporation. The investigation included a detailed visual inspection (D.t/D of the structure. The DVI was conducted in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) 2008. The following ís a general summary of thefindings: October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 32 . A load capacity evaluation should be carried out as soon as possible due to the condition of the bottom chord. The bottom chord should be monitored until repairs are carried ouL . Remove existing bridge and replace with new due to width deficiency within l. . If replacement is not practical, repair to be completed immediately and include buckled bottom chord members, bracings and, steel coating. . Timber deck is severely worn with depressions along the wheel track. . Concrete scalíng at the abutments. . Railings are bent and coruoded. . Light to medium coruosion. Minor section loss. Floor beams and stringers have light corrosion on them. Coating work should be cqrried out immediately. . Coating on truss has completely failed. . Roller bearings completely rusted and notfunctioning properly. . Steel barrier guardrail does not meet current standqrds and is not connected to bridge. . There is no narcow structure sign. A DVI was completed on July 19, 2012 by CCTA in accordance with the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) 2008. The following is a summary of the findings: . Current load limit 9, 14 and, 18 tonnes. t The deck is showing extensive wear. Bottom chord of north truss is buckled likely due to movement of bridge abutments. Trusses heavily corroded. Bearings failed. . Timber deck is severely worn with depressions along the wheel tracl{s and rotting on ends. . Light corrosion on the expansion joint surface. Both ends distorted at wheei ruis and iipped up on bridge side iikeiy riue to abutment movements. ' Railings are bent and conoded. Southeast end top rail is a hazard as it protrudes well beyond the bridge. . Top main chords and verticals are covered with 100% rust. Light to medium corrosion. Heavy pitting throughout. Floor beams and stringers have light corcosion. Bottom chord of the truss at the northeast end is buckled indícating abutment movement. . Coatíngs on trusses have completely failed. . Light scaling and cracking of concrete. West abutment scoured at grade. Roller bearings completed rusted and not functioning properly. t Erosion along gabíon baskets. . Wood posts of steel barrier guard rail showing minor rot. Not connected to bridge. Nawow structure sign requíred. October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 t- Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Torw of Bracebridge JJ During the field survey undertaken by ARA on September 11, 2013, many of these areas of concern were photo-documented. Areas of light cracking of concrete, corrosion on the truss structure, areas of light rust on joints, and buckling of the northeast end of the bottom cord of the truss were noted (see Image 13-Image 16). I I Image 13: View of Light Rust on Joints (Photo Taken on September 13,2013; Facing North) I i t October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 I LI Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 34 l---. aA-lfl^--- ô--l!--- -1,.-- lrt / Lt ulrage l.r; vtcw ul-f ùçarrrrB alru----t LfacKlng^--- on weslern A'Dutment' (Photo Taken on September 13, 2013; X'acing West) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 I { Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 35 Image L5: View of Corrosion on Truss Members and Rust on Handrail (Photo Taken on September ll,20131' Facing North) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 36 Image 16: View of Bent Bottom Cord on the North Truss (Photo Taken on September l1.,20131' Facing West) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 37 6.0 HERITAGE CONTEXT In addition to documenting the current condition of the Stephenson Road Bridge, the field survey conducted on September 11, 2013 also examined the local area in order to document any features that could enhance the understanding of the structure's heritage context. Given the importance of contextual value and historical value in the heritage bridge scoring process described in Section 3.2, the relationship between the structure and its cultural landscape is of significant value, particularly if it is a potential CHL. Proximity to and association with potential BH resources also plays a key role in this evaluation process. The cultural landscape in the vicinity ofthe Stephenson Road I Bridge is characterizedby a hilly decent to the Muskoka River and the structure itself (see Image l7-lmage 20). Due to the topography, the bridge only becomes visible when one gets close to the structure, making it visually striking. The hills and curves on the road leading to the bridge are such that the road is closed in the winter. The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is a landmark in the local cultural landscape. This part ofthe Town of Bracebridge, located outside of the developed areas, has a relatively low population density and comprises mostly cottages. No properties with potential heritage resources were identified in the vicinity of the study areathat could assist in understanding the structure's heritage context. In summary although the bridge is a landmark in the local area, it does not form part of any identifiable CHL. Image 17: View of theApproach from the West (Photo Taken on September ll,2013; Facing East) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 38 Image 18: View of the Approach from the East (Photo Taken on Septernber 11, 2013; Facing West) Image 19: View looking North from the Stephenson Road l Bridge (Photo Taken on September ll,20l3; Facing North) October 2013 Archaeolo gical Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 39 Image 20: View looking South from the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge (Photo Taken on September 11, 2013; Facing South) 7.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION 7.1 PreviouslyDocumentedHeritageSignificance The Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is not listed on the current Ontario Heritage Bridge List (September 2013).In order to gain a better understanding of the potential heritage significance of the subject structure, the Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville were engaged in September 2013 (the Muskoka District was also contacted). Requests were made for any relevant archival data associated with the structure, any local heritage insights/perspectives, and any other details that could help in ascertaining the CHVI of the structure. Both Towns indicated that the bridge was not formally recognized through designation under the Ontarío Heritage Act. Additional research at the Town of Bracebridge's library and archives revealed several unique aspects of the bridge's history: 1) the vicinity of the Stephenson-Macaulay Townline has been an important river crossing for hundreds of years (for both Pre-Contact and Euro-Canadian peoples); 2) the structure is the only bridge that crosses the North Branch of the Muskoka River between High Falls and Port Sydney; 3) the first wooden structure was called the McCamus' Bridge after James McCamus who lived on Lot 16, Concession 1 in the Township of Stephenson (Dennis 197014); and 4) James McCamus settled on the lot in 1870, and although it is not known when the original wooden bridge was constructed, it existed by 1879 (see Map 12). The original bridge on the site was of two span construction, and had wooden crib abutments and piers with squared wooden members (see Image 21). October 2013 Archaeolo gical Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 40 Image 21: Historic Photo of the McCamus'Bridge (Dennis 2012:123) Image 22: Evidence of \üooden Abutment (Photo taken September 11,2013; Facing Southeast) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 4T ¡b rù r'¡ ra .? l\ \ ¿ +. a a o F a- a a l.r b q Ê 3 t t{ ï a ìA È \} a, vì \ Þ o Þ a i '.¡ t t. ù T I à' t¡ ù Þ {a o t I t ) tË. ¡ å I ) I .a J F T L a ¡ t¡ ú c F Ò ¿ b o t¡ ¡ È .¡ ù ¡¡ \ ù ? ¿ > rì I d - e) ¡ i ò¡ ¡¡ I \¡ r¡ q Q\ a ç" È a ç I ¡ ¿4a i a j \T{ a J Ê o { I Þ qa ! Ë ro' -- c F .¡ Ì t .a D \¡ d ù !n ¡l 's a L Þc -¡ e s ì. È.t rA ? \ ì! 1 r¡ a ! q o .l a ?. (+ (. \¡a (ì q lâ s '\ (¡ t{ o o ô { { õ -ì tâ \ Ë L{{ ,r t Ë(è ¿ I o 3 L er -l -a o I \3 b Ë \ ñ o È FA lr\ tâ Ë o 'q o !r -ça t Ë o -t\ c '':do ! N O studyArea u \ I s 0 0.5 Map 12: Detail of Macaulay and Stephenson from H.R. Page & Co.'s Guídebook & Atlas of Muskoka a.nd Party Sound Dístrícts (1879), Showing the Study Area (H.R. Page & Co. 1879) October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 42 In the 1920s, the wooden truss bridge on the site was damaged by water pressure (Dennis 2012:123). Evidence of this wooden bridge is still visible in the water and adjacent to the current bridge's abutments, where the base of the timber crib abutments remain in situ (see Image 22). As discussed in Section 5.1, the wooden bridge was replaced with the current Stephenson Road 1 Bridge n 1922. This truss bridge was constructed in 1892 in the Town of Bracebridge at the top 'Woolen of the falls near the Bird Mills, and it was called 'Bird's Bridge' (see Image 23) (Dennis I970:I4). By the 1920s, this bridge was not large enough to accommodate the increasing amount of trafüc in Bracebridge, so the Town sold it to the Townships of Macaulay and Stephenson for use on their shared Townline. Image 23: Historic Photo of the Bird's Bridge (now Stephenson Road 1 Bridge) (n.d. |Jeivs Article "Save our Btidge') 7.2 Description of Property As described in Section 1.0, the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge is located approximately 1 km east of Highway 11, and it serves as a boundary road bridge between the Town of Bracebridge and the Town of Huntsville. The structure is oriented on an east-west axis and carries Stephenson Road 1 across the North Branch of the Muskoka River. 7.3 Heritage Bridge Evaluation The Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the Stephenson Road I Bridge can be found in Table I October 2013 Archaeologicul Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Totw of Bracebridge 43 Table 1: Evaluation of the Road 1 Max. Assigned Comments/Justifi cation Criteria Details Score Score for theAssigned Score Desien/Physical Value (Total Marks 50) Excellent 20 The width and span of this truss bridge are Very Good 16 unremarkable in comparison to similar Fair 12 structures in the area, but the relocation and Functional Design r6 subsequent reuse of the original structure are (Ma*. score 20) noteworthy. Also noteworthy is the pin- Common 0 connected construction, which is becoming increasingly rare. Excellent 20 The bridge is well-proportioned and is Good t2 appropriate to the landscape. It is located in a Visual Appeal Fair 4 20 valley, so the approaches to the structure are (Max.score 20) visually striking. The truss structure is visually None 0 appealing. Excellent 10 Materials Very Good 8 0 Common materials and combinations. (Max.score l0) Fair 5 Common 0 Contextual Value (Total Marks 25) Excellent 15 Landmark Good 9 The bridge is a familiar structure in this area and J (Max.score 15) Fair 3 serves as a local landmark. Common 0 Character Excellent t0 The bridge contributes to the rural cottage area Contribution Good 6 6 character. (Max. score 10) Common 0 Ilistoric/Associative Value ('Iotal Marks 25) Excellent 15 Designer/ Good 9 The engineer and builder are unknown. Construction Firm 0 Fair 3 (Max.score 15) Unknown 0 Excellent 10 The site of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge has Good 6 been an important crossing point along the North Branch of the Muskoka River for hundreds ofyears. It is the only crossing Association with between High Falls and Port Sydney. Prior to a Historical theme, 10 the current truss bridge, the site was occupied person or event Common 0 by a wooden bridge. The truss structwe was (Max.score 10) originally located in Bracebridge over the falls. It was moved the current location n1922when the Town of Bracebridge sold it to the Townships of Macaulay and Stephenson. Total 55 October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evøluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 44 7.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Although the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge scored less than 60 according to established MTO CHER criteria, it is worth noting that it could have scored as high as 78 under the (no longer current) Ontario Heritage Bridge Program criteria (1991). Simply put, steel truss bridges are becoming increasingly rare and each such structure that is demolished represents a loss to heritage. However, in this case, the bridge has been documented as both structurally deficient andfunctionally obsolete tn reports dating back to the 1980s. These engineering criteria have been identified by the MTO as supersedirg ary heritage concerns. While not of provincial importance, the structure possesses several noteworthy qualities that contribute to its general heritage value. These include: o its historic association with the Town of Bracebridge's early development; . its reuse and relocation to a rural area; o its history as part of an important river crossing on the Stephenson-Macaulay Townline; o its status as a local landmark are the most significant heritage values; and o its pin-connected truss design. Detractors from the heritage value of the Stephenson Road I Bridge include its unknown builder and engineer. 7.5 Description of Heritage Attributes Heritage attributes are the key elements of a property/structure that must be retained to conserve its CHVI, and can include materials, forms, location andlor spatial configurations (MTO 2008:40). Given that the Stephenson Road I Bridge was not found to be of provincial importance, it does not possess any heritage attributes that require conservation. This does not preclude recognition at the municipal level, however, particularly if the bridge is considered to have value to the community. Should a decision be made to recognize the bridge at the municipal level, physical heritage attributes such as the truss (moved from Bracebridge to the current location n 1922), and the pin-connected design, should be conserved. 8.0 REST]LTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on field review, historical research and a score of 55 on the Heritage Bridge Evaluation Forrn, it has been determined that the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge does not merit a recommendation for inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List. October 2013 Archaeological Res earch As s o ciates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 45 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPITYAND SOURCES Aboriginal Affairs and Northem Development Canada (AANDC) 2010 Historical Treaties: Treaty Guides. Accessed online at: http://www.aadnc- 100100028653. Archives of Ontario 2009 Early Districts and Counties, 1788-1899. Accessed online at; 2013 Map of the Province of Ontario: Dominion of Canada, by James L. Morris, Ontario Department of Surveys, 1931. Accessed online at: http://www.archives.gov.on.cal Boyer, R.J. 1979 Early Exploration and Surveying of the Muskoka District. Bracebridge: Herald- Gazette Press. Cartography Associates 2009 David Rumsey Map Collection. Accessed online at: http://www.davidrumse)t.com/. C.C Tatham and Associates (CCTA) 2013 Introduction and Project Background. C.C Tatham and Associates Coombe, G. 1976 Muskoka; Past and Present. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Coyne, J. H. 1895 The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Cumming, D. 1951 Discovering Heritage Bridges on Ontario's Roads. Erin: The Boston Mill Press Davidson, R.J. 1989 Foundations of the Lqnd Bedrock Geologt. In The Natural History of Ontario, edited by J.B. Theberge, pp.3647. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc. Dennis, G. I9l0 Macaulay Township in Days Gone By. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette Press 2012 Historic Route of Bracebridge. Bracebridge: GarDen Press. Gentilcore, R.L. and C.G. Head 1984 Ontario's History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Roqd I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 46 Gervais, G. 2004 Champlain and Ontarío (1603-35). In Champlain: The Birth of French America, edited by R. Litalien and D. Vaugeois, pp. 180-190. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press. Google Earth 2013 Google Earth Version 6.1.0.5001. Accessed online at; earth/index.html. Heritage Resources Centre (HRC) 2005 Heritage Bridges: Identification and Assessment Guide, Ontario, 1945-1965. Waterloo : Heritage Resources Centre. 2013 Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory. Waterloo : Heritage Resources Centre. H.R. Page & Co. 1879 Guide Book & Atlas of Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts. Toronto: H.R. Page & Co. Hunt, G.T. 1940 The Wars of the lroquois: A Study in Intertribal Trade Relations. Madison, 'Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. James P.E. and G. Martin 1981 All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas. Berkley: University of California Press. Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960 The Windsor Border Region: Canada's Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The Champlain Society. McGeorge, Vy'.G. 1939 Early Settlement and Surveys along the River Thqmes in Kent County. In Kentiana: The Story of the Settlement and Development of the County of Kent, pp. 25-36. Chatham: The Kent Historical Society. McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at /default.htm. McMurray, T. 1871 The Free Grant Lands of Canada: From Practical Experience of Bush Farming in the Free Grant Districts of Muskoka and Parry Sound. Bracebridge: Offrce of the 'Northern Advocate'. October 2013 Archaeological Res earch Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 41 Métis Nation of Ontario (lvINO) 20II Culture & Heritage: \ilho are the Métis. Accessed online at htto: ww.metisnation.ore/culture--heritaee/who-are-the-metis. aspx. Ministry of Culture (MCL) 1980 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 1992 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments. Toronto : Ministry of Culture. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2005 Provincial Policy Statement,2005. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Natural Resources (IvtNR) 1915 A Topical Organization of Ontario History. Toronto: Historical Sites Branch, Ministry ofNatural Resources. 2013 About Ontario's Forests. Accessed online at: 63390.html. Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) 2010 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Toronto: Ministry of Tourism and Culture Ministry o f Transportation (MTO) 1984 Footpaths to Freeways: The Story of Ontario's Roads - Ontario's Bicentennial 1784-1984. St. Catharines: Ministry of Transportation. 1986 Testing of TWo Pin-Connected Truss Bridges. Downsview: Ministry ofTransportation. 2008 Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges. Interim. St. Catharines: Ministry of Transportation. Mitchell, D. 2003 Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mulvany, C.P., GM. Adam and C.B. Robinson 1885 History of Toronto and the County of Yorþ Ontario, Volume 1. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson. Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) 2000 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. October 2000 as amended n 2007 &, 20II . Municipal Engineers Association. Muskoka Parry Sound Genealogy Group (MPSGG) 1985 History of Muskoka District. Accessed online at October 2013 Archaeo lo gical Res earch As s o ciates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 48 Muskoka Watershed Council 2013 Muskoka River Watershed. Accessed online at'. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) 2004 The Atlas of Canada: Ontario Relief. Accessed online at: 2010a The Atlas of Canada: Historical Indian Treaties TÍme Line. Accessed online at: 2010b The Atlas of Canada: Toporama - Topographic Maps. Accessed onHnl at'. News Article n.d. Save our Bridge. Parks Canada 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Second Edition. Toronto: Parks Canada. Paterson, B. 1987 History of Stephenson Township, Muskoka District. Accessed online at Ray, A.J. 2013 Hudson's Bay Company. Accessed online at: articles/hud sons -b a)¡- co mpany. Scheinman, A. 2006 Cultural Heritage Landscapes in \üaterloo Region. Draft manuscript commissioned 'Waterloo. by the Region of Smith, D.B. 1987 Sacred Feathers: The Reverend Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) and the Mississauga Indians. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Surtees, R.J. 1994 Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp. 92-l2L Toronto: Dundurn Press. LINESCO 2008 Guídelínes on the Insuìptíon of Specífic Types of Propertíes on the World Herìøge Líst. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3. Accessed online at: October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 Cultural Heritage Evaluqtion Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 49 APPENDICES October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 ô Þe Appendix A: Plan and Elevation of Stephenson Road 1 Bridge - Sketch I (Juty 1981) :" s, "i<\ s s r HUCTUIi ts *x¡ S TRUSS N IRUSS *S 1 !) ç tst ü G'\ òqJ r$ 0a I OF E. ABUT.¡ (\ \) |FACE OF V¿ ABUÎ È: FACE \ \t PIER ì Þr î. I (è s A -j ÈQ I E \ ss E N l\ SO B,/rR õ t. CHÂtN LINK I FENCE U H,1Nt) C STÊTJCTURÉ 4 ña TO HVTY. II \ OECK (À 8"1 , -TIMBFR 3..r lod STRINGERS Sl2 ¡ 40 I FLOOR 8li.:Afìils È SBx l8 4 SfRINGE R 3'rr lo" I 75mrn ¡ 254 mm ) TIMBÊR STI-IINCERS 4 .7. (6tOirm ) a PLAN B ÀT 2,-O,,! S12 r¿tO'B FLOOTì BEAM ^J N.TS ! U S ECTION 'A- A' a N.T.S. s- TRUss sYMM. aaow Ç. spa¡.1 14'-B- mñ ÈU 3" (?5mm) IIMBER PLANK DECK z- tttz" x ltz" ua\ ?- E's 7l/8 "x sze"x 2" 5t 3/4 t3/4 l\ t- e- e."rt/2" \ a5l9"t IJ z- zVz"x 3,/4" z- E's zlt4" 3l cj l/A 4 Sl2r I z- z"t' lr¡ j :'lNI :l o lll 5 c¡) o tD *. - ! @ Êto o U, E I @ N(Dà E c0 tt) Þl @ (Þ Ël *sã ftt 1- T- .] o,' Hes (J L @ el ,7 o hltr_ c/) æ -(q c/, o\ o tt rF- LtJ -a,l r,8'6 )9>: PI õæ. r.-¡-Bi q) l- l-z? o:¡': .Et L¡-l l'- .I I @ r^1 l= +1, Yõ9 cì o qÞ o ñt .tl urz i : \t l¡J t z>9 Ít) I ôl o I E (z q) + Ëtn o an @ l¡J I- l- I (t) -L õ J f- (D q) ü I ø z 0) (, 0 â0 t- e u 9 tr É F Ø d !j 0.u ¡ù 6l o b õ ú U¡l-- - - o ô l8t)i,91 rt) aÊ é) o E ((!u P + q) F (t) I r z o g o X z cË z g o 0 A]/UA VNülSnAl À< ò é) H?NVSS HIAON Ø Ë qt ...* l- r¡ 1407t l- z € e @ EJ G J II Ë E t¿J d ø Êr u É) É t- F x f @ c) t or U si iJ ; ú Iì þl -è:- Þ Èl F 4 October 2013 Archaeolo gical Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 $Þ Appendix C: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Cover (September 1983) :| * ¡., ¡!s (\' ,I- UJ \ S s s ùa I aù a|.) ìr,98 ryta ({ {t s I Ð&&@@@ mææ4&&' s ) ño ?cE¡t o.t Etr[güItaa :+ a^ MACAUI,EY WARD rof rs coN- | àrepnrNsor wARD .cù 4 CT MUN IPALITY o ,- o a " ? ¿".--8- !: S. ¡ ] Èù iq. GoFWRACT NO. 54 I \ It \ riI oo -(\ N t rl ll..ì o' cì i ù ¡ È N i !, (\ t .o o J I \ a E- ,":i Oa s. ^ Ìl c) C) i ! J (\ ': ! ø 101rEN Sr¡iS tiu8rcxr -s- :, oa 1. ):L cs coNsutlaNfs 6:t i IHtût¡sil cj i¡,.i ! Ç)\ U) a c) a F,: (-¡¡ N) t"v Appendix D: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing I (September 1983) o CCTA Þ\ + r.r TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE (\' ËR Dr5nrcf MUNICIPAUIY OÉ MUSKOU òu) LOI t5 sreilMN wÁÐ CON I : í: 0a(\ \)I ï iri üè !: s a Þ \(\ .R .+ \'C^ )) TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE tlsREl MuxlcrPALllt @ wskoKA È 15 ¡eúuY úRo coN xlll LOT G 4 a aI s- \ =.È\ oa(\ \ì À OJ ci < s G .a o a I F! 0'a À. o ô a Þ C\ q Ì!f09n5!t oo^s_ fti cS \ cE¡ñ¡glJL I q4 c@6 mY a o (\ 4 Þ: L¡r È. (/) r"Y Appendix E: StephLenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 2 (September 1983) o :s *x¡r!-l >iÈñ l¡ (\{r uo \ !l- tl Oa I (\ ñ l'¡r ,T[rffi,ùin'âlut,, (¡J f O -¿LA!T Or!þ...É Èi{ g SEfrû B-Ê fNêW) .(\ \o Kry PLÆ sì !E n_ rcES, k il_ Ë14¿q llt ñ (\ 4 @ sEcf0 a-B G¡!ÍL 4 a O s- lr€vAIp¡L \ ñfl E& 9ÀN .\ s \ ts-ì cì ocò .o Þù ô (.J - lrr plr rèard\ ßr I G (\ Ø -s- ß L¡A(\ .j It!ì0:t siÌ $EPÆM tru ææ aearn forl ø m cüôoE t0tten srms oF rrùÉÉ-teiNrsvtu qÀ coNÈULTANI6 4 (INOSTOÉ o coå@¡G wilrsY GETERAL ANRANGEMÛf 2 eJ a -$ F (-¡ì À ñ I'Y Appendix F: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 3 (September 1983) )\ Èi Rx¡ ËR \(\'rt! òu) 0a ! I (\ NJ Ê" Ê" Þl (¡) N tt" o \.(\ ,L J' \a a^ ô ¡h! \ G 4 o a ñ. !: : Tf \ -s_ E oa I $ o'i\ì cì a G l.- 0'a \ sc) (\cl \ 4 DEIAIL.S' .\ ua(\ Cì q,\ 4 (\ q t: (â 3 (,¡ Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Stephenson Road I Bridge, Town of Bracebridge 56 r -l I I ! ;i l9 ¡ E i ! ¡i a. ¡ sl I ãü HI :Ë I t. ¡.) oltrl ll I I ¡ I P I *l 3 I 6 hl 7l .l à9 t ?t r,l :- -'¡I æ I I tr o\ ,.1 t¡ !;:. ¡ L l 0) I "t I -¡ I I q) i 11 ì ;l È 'i- g¡ rri ð é) ì t ¡ (h l il cl t.-l zl.- î, ç ,:l I: ÞD i, lr -l- i: .1 I ¡r ''l f I ¿l Í ¡r ) ¡r cÉ Íl :,¿, I q) ül 'i ri¡ 1 5l :!r ú Él ¿l é) ìJ .i ¡ Þ0 i gl' ! E EI I ! L I c¡ -l EI q) êt I hl l I ! , F ir ãl¡ 3. 5l ill I i; v) t' I .'t 0) ri 5t I 8l íll q) rri T (t) 9- dl' ¡l .t dl Ët Èt X : ii I ÉÍ . ir. t¡ào q) . I ;!3 ¿Ëi ir r-9 :r I i Í !r1 zi ct? (, !, l-3 \[,n d ç - Ji t, t I !:r È '_ l¡ l¡ ç ttlti! 'i l:' r]i Oo Ê Þt .1tlo- , ìri.' I 1; ¿l tr ib z5 i_,*l- r. i ,! 1--Jl -- -," I 8Ë :p Ëi -'' ¡ " +-I' ì, October 2013 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Project #HR-050-2013 ñ l"Y Appendix H: Stephenson Townline Bridge Repair - Drawing 5 (September 1983) ccr s + r.) ËR \ñ òuJ 0a I (\ s\) (}J =. ÎñCA RAIL EÎAL mta \(\ O -+\ C^ / /¡ € G q a --. ;r-+¿:h :*¡lt,Ë- i+. , , a ....;-.i:..:. :. .: .r.'." . !'i i ,: ¡..., 'Ñ. : i . :- \ÈÞ -s- uas \l o' cì (\s o lIMEF æCX L¡V@T l4EÐrr[ wÊÀrñ * sr stu o Þu Oa STEEL ffi 8Æ EΡL s\ a) ì ;r.':--- cl ì C\ 4 ua\ sC\ I¡l:r!lti:r (\ .l totten sims hubicki assocaates fo4 r ÊñaeæmÊ CONE¡ULTANTE¡ q q coåàrrc MÍ6Y l¡N6loN rMo Æ o c) qG f. 9t -l APPENDIX F: CONSULTATION - PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE I Barron Drive, Bracebridge, 0ntario P1 L 041 C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. fel: (705) 645-7756 Consulting Engineers Fax; (705) 645-8159 Enlail: inlo@cctatharn corn Collingwood B raceb ri dge 0rillia Barrie Web: www cctatham com April30, 2013 via Mail CCTA File 212529-1 Re: STEPHENSON ROAD I BRIDGE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOTTCE OF PUBLTC TNFORMATTON CENTRE (prc) Dear Sir/Madame: Further to our letter dated Octobet 19,2012, the Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have completed their review of alternative solutions for the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, Alternate solutions included: doing nothing, repair¡ng the existing bridge, or removing and replacing the existing bridge, Based on the initial evaluation of alternative solutions, the recommended solution is removing and replacing the existing bridge, This alternative is considered the best long term cost effective solution for the Towns with minimal impact to both residents and the environment. lt is noted that the recommended solution is not presented as a decision at this point in the study, but rather a preliminary recommendation based on a rational evaluation of the available information, A PIC has been planned to provide further information regarding the progress of this Environmental Assessment. This is also an opportunity for the public and interested parties to review the preliminary evaluations as well as provide input and comment regarding the project, The attached Notice will be published in the Bracebridge Examiner and the Huntsville Forester on May B, 2013, Following the PlC, further comments are invited, for incorporation into the planning and design of this project and will be received until May 29,2013. For further information please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, C,C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. rutttw(lllf Jesse Woolnough, B.E,Sc,, P,Eng. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng, P,Eng. JAW:pt Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Enclosure copy: A, Stacey, Town of Bracebridge (via email: astacey@bracebridge,ca) M, Gooch, Town of Huntsville (via email: mike,[email protected]) BIìACEBRIDCE .'L4¿¡ TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE NOTTCE OF PUBLTC TNFORMATTON CENTRE (PrC) NO.1 The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville are studying alternatives for repairs or replacement of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge, crossing the Muskoka River. The project is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. A PIC has been arranged to allow members of the public, approval agencies and interested stakeholders the opportunity to review preliminary drawings and the study material prepared to date and to discuss the project with the study team. All those with an interest in the study are urged to attend. Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 Time: 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Location: Town of Bracebridge, Municipal Office Comments and information collected at the PIC will be maintained on file for use during the study, and, unless otherwise requested, may be included in the study documentation which is made available for public review. This notice issued May 8, 2013. Owner: lnquiries: Town of Bracebridge Mr. BillVan Ryn, B.Eng., P. Eng. Andrew Stacey, C.E.T., Project Manager Engineering Technolog ist C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Public Works Department 8 Barron Drive 1000 Taylor Court Bracebridge, ON P1L 041 Bracebridge, Ontario Pl L 1R6 email: [email protected] Telephone: (7 05) 645-5264 Telephone: (705) 645-7756 ext.227 Fax: (705) 645-7525 Fax: (705) 645-8159 Owner: Town of Huntsville Michael Gooch, C.E.T., CBCO Executive Director of Development Services 37 Main Street East Huntsville, Ontario P1H 141 Telephone: (705) 7 89-17 51 Fax: (705) 789-6689 Pr,rt ljyajner l-l tlg r.srJr iri L .'jf r' .441 f: XORTH TO HUIIISYILLE I ':1 "¡¡ Pûtfersvl (Ê r''n'-- { ; I '!------srEPHEllsox l¡l RD. I EAST *-__==_ IB¡DGE ¡ LOC^lrOX STEPHEIISOX RD. I WESÎ a: xusKoxa RtvEn *.t*"tt' , - lxoRlHBR XCHI ElStTO E I BAYSYILLE ': l. F ì lieriÚrq l,;Ì / lloPÊlè gf 9i"ìlo1 5^li Guli Nliúrd BÈy !13 TOWX OF IRACEIBIDGE fúûÊFi I Srìr ñr Mr¡qiítv T-e :-¡ I ir¡s'¡';*lar soulH 10 F carr 'Júl¡qq llnnlE t' e <, RtxoÐi l¡fln TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOÌYN OF HUNTSVILLE CcTatham & Assoc¡atæ Ltd. Cql¡a¡¡Érü..rt STEPHENSON RD. 1 TOWNLINE BRIDGE CI.ASS EA NOTE: LOCATION MAP BASE PLAN PROVIDED BY w oÉF.a Ë ûr¡ h GOOGLE MAPS, SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: NOv/12 DWG. No. FlG. l.O lrn Legend Ë Bridge 500m '1000m I ,t, Travelled Road q) Parcels r H u NtSV nson r1 \ Stephenson Rd 1 E Tow n ot B racebr e 1 . . , ,!*'' Stephenson Rd 1 E Briclge -: lllfi5rl,rlÌ im*# 0 60 120 240 360 480 m[ileters scpr4 2012 lown ol Hùnrlvlb Plrnnng 1of I Road I 19-Oct-12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers No.: 212525-1 BVR C{*tir{MJ Brætrd¡r Ortf| ãrd! Review Agency Notification Summary of Ffi+sler ånd l,ìl€Ektndôr {. Eracebridge Ëxaminsr ¿¡d Weehende¡ Websites Union G¡t Ltd. Charles Street East, P.0. Box 3040 Bay,0N PlA'lE9 Construction Project Manager 1054744433 Fax: Power Dlstribution Ltd, Cenhe Strcet North, Suite 200 ON Plll 2lYl2 Manager of 0perations 705-fa9-rc+t Fax: 1 Onc .0, Éox 4300 0N t3R5z5 ¡, Real Estate Assistant, Planning Dept, One Networks lnc. Saçeant Drive, P.O. Box 6700 ON L4M 5M5 Distribution Engineering Technician Pipelines Limited Lehman & Assoc¡ates Collier Street Barrie, ON L4M 1H2 866-602{ô63 Fax:705-727-9217 ?t',niel Õ\: 5!1 l2il13 2of8 Stephenson Road 1 190d.12 Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineen No.: 21252.9-1 EVR Cr¡¡útwd 8r¡c{ùi30â g¡rth hrrç Review Agency Notifcation Sumrnary of Cablo Fe€ Stàel Bay,0N PlB 8S4 /uJ4/z-ðD4r Fax: 705472-7854 Alianl Hþh gtßel,2nd Flúor ON P1H 1P2 lmplementation Manager 705-789-1 Fax:705-789{223 Envlronmental Assessment Agency St. Cla¡Í Avenue East, Suite 907 ON M4T1M2 r, Project Manager, Ontario Region 1573 of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pany $otrrd oküicl Ofñoe Waubeek Slrcet Sound, ON P2A 189 ì, F¡sh Habitat B¡ologist 705-746-2 t96 Fax: o[ lndian and Northern Affairs Canada $1. $a¡Âreaut ON M4T1M2 Envioronmental Ofñcer, Environment Unit INAC, Ontario Region 416-973S234 Fax:416-954-6329 ?a r.,tiCn: 5l1'2ì13 3o{8 1 '10{ct-12 Scheduie B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. gVR Consulting Eng¡neers 2l?529-1 Cdlj¡risïd â¡*t&,úB: Ôrl{lq ßÃrQ Review Agency Notifìcat¡on Sumrnary of PtC Nöfkô OtbBr llinlatry ol Aboriglnal Af{eirc DêpåfÙn€rd 160 Bloor Street East,9th Floor ON M7A2E6 Manager, Consultation Unit, ADong¡nal Relations and Ministry Partnerships Division 416-314-9455 Fax: Affairs and Northern Development Canada arÉ Açpofiun4dat¡on unit Slreel, Rçom 205 ON K1AOH4 Regional Subject Expert for Ontario 613-943-5488 nistry ofAgriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Branch Govemment Bldg Stone Road West, 2nd Floor NE ON N1G4Y2 i, Dkector Ministry ol Tourism, Culturo & Sport $ewloe$ 8rârirh Srevicss ljnll Bây Street, 17th Floor ON M7A OA7 , A/Heítage Planner/Central Region Fax: oftha Envlronment 8rênch Assesemoot Seruises St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 124 ON M4V 115 i" Managar (Adìng) 416-314-796/ Fax: Pri¡rt€d ûn: ,i1n01il { Gf I Stephenson Road 1 1S.Oct 12 Schedule B Clæs Erwironmenhl Assegsment C,C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Cmsulting Engineen No.: 212525¡ BVR ¿ê!6!È*(, Brê.tvi*Od OrlJ¡Ð $arli Review Agency Notifìcation Summary of PIC ol of the Ettvkonmênt Nowe¿u Yonge St., 9th Floor York, ON M2M4J1 Environrnental Resource Planner/EA Coordlnator ólthe Envkonmgnt Dislriá Otl6e Cedar Pointe Drive, Unit 1201 ON L4N 5R7 Dìstrid Manager r ol t'l¡ùral Resources 1350 Hþh Fdls Road ON P{L.IWg Acting Area Managø illnletry ol Northern Development and Mines and Foreetry 159 CodarStreet Sudbury, ON P3E 645 , Environmental Assessment Coordinator of Transporlation ldcKçoìm Averue. Suite 301 Bay, ON P1B9S9 705497-5223 Fax:70$497-5499 Pdntsd 0n: 511n013 SofB Slephenson Road 1 Projech Date: 19€c1-12 Schedule B Class Env¡ronmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consult¡ng Eng¡neers File No.: 212525-1 oestsned: BVR CDllihpûirid &tit }'i4qr ftrüc 8rt{ Subject Review Agency Notification Summary Checleil: Prc ol Othar !,loiiees Distríct Municipality of iluskoka Office Pine Street oN P1L 1r.r3 Chief Administrative Office¡ Fax: 705{45-531S 0lstriot låunlcþality of itrJrkolra and Economoic Development Depariment Pine Street ON P1L1N3 B A. (Hons), MCIP, RPP, Planner Town of Huntevl{ls Main Slr*êl East ON P1H 141 Chief Administratlve Offìcer 705-789-1751 Fax: Ontarlo 11 I Peter Street, Suite 804 ON MsV 2H1 877-517 41 Sandy.lllclGndo Counsel for Chippewas of Rama Fist Nation) Cresrtr¡'ck Courl ON L4M 2J7 Far: ?iniedi)x 4i'tl¿013 6d8 Road 1 19-0cl-.l2 Schedule B Class Environmental Asssssm€nt C.C,Tatham & Associates Ltd Consltlng Enginærs No.: 212529-1 BVft Cûll|dfit iE0r4àrÉt¿ oriì¡tå 0¡!úf Review Agency Notlfcatíon Summary CornmencBmont Nol¡ ol Othor RA!û F¡ßt Nation Roat $uíle 200 ON LOKITO iteruy, Chiel I Deer Pi¡lnt Fir.st t{¡llon Box 1 19, 3719 Twelve Milo Bay Road o¡l F0c'rHo Ciìiel Fax: Sh¡w¡nagâ Fhst N¡t¡on RR #1 ON PÛG 16û Proþcl Coord{nator/Co*sultation Poiot PerEsn Box 2M Olìl POC 140 Blaine Commandant, Chief 705-756-nil Fâr F¡rât t'lation .0. Êor ?50 Sound,ON P2A 2X4 ,Chief 705-746-2531 FãX: 705-746-5984 tìç¡ìsÉ:Ft,:ú12-P¡¿ierit2125?9-t TMdËf4s5ndèo-Skpà4wtù!1T@¡inrõ.ÍJgati$Ðtìòs€âd¿!&ir'С6ÈibJdùtlebFlôlJC-\xrîle{s:êi}Èl+uiæii¿1-A¡srþs-Ûlf$-13dË PllfiH C{ì: 5t1€0!l ? otb Stephenson Road I 1S-Qcl-12 Schedule B Class Envlronmental AssQssrT¡snl C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consuh¡ng Engtneqs No,: 21?529-1 BVR Ctlßoomø B.F4uøø ÛrlrtÈ &t¡fi Review Agency Notmcstlon Summary |lstice l'lotíce of PIC ofGeorghn lsland P.O. Box N-13 West,0N LoE1R0 Cånae, Ch¡el 705437-1337 Fa\: 7054374597 Fi¡st Nafion t0h¡lsfan ltland) 1 Ogemaa Miikaan lsland, ON L9M0A9 _ . Chief 705-211-2051 Fax; 705-247-2235 Rive¡ il*tle Councfi Mclliece Crcs,. Box 3S6 ON LOK?EO Presitenl Tet: fllótis Natlon of Ontafio Hoad Offce 500 Old St Patrick Skeet, Unit D c}},r Kl¡l 9G4 Unit Td: Éî¿ t åae: l:?C1? - æétH¿1i:¡29-i -i@ o, B@sr¿g+ - Slrç{jsK it6?d i 'rmiire !dd!@Cræ Ê4Kftê?d6ì#ÁÛÊþ¡!'ie LiçeF,t |{e$æti!æ ¡Å Ð1rùþrËq Llel.Àga"d;B -t!4-13-13 4; P.ii,tti Cr: iri-i120 13 I of& Stephenson Road 1 Tt-0rl-12 Schadule B Class Environmental Assessment C.C.Tatham & Assoc¡ates Ltd. Consuldng Eng¡neers 212529.1 8VR C(¡lhqfrfd út¿æ\$t¿â orlllis Ë¡rl¡ Review Agency Notifìcation Summary l l{otics ol Comrns¡çarTren{ of ol ,|, Pro{inc¡¡l Polico Delacllttænt r, Rft,eosÈl¡ffe Roâó Hunlsville, ON PIH 116 Staff Sergeant, Detachment Commander Provhclal Polics tehchmenl C€dar Lane . Bracebridge, ON P1L0A1 Muskoka Ambulanca Gommunications S€rvice I Cedar Lane, PO Box 149 Bracebridge ON PlL 1T5 .\'langer Tel: ¡lodavio G*lS Ontarló Esse (Head OftlceJ 1S Ort orws oru P1H0A2 Muskoka Roman Calholíc School Board Allìance Fôuierard ON L4M 5K3 Planning Ofücer 705-722-3559 Fax:701727-1451 Lalelands Oßlrlct $choal Êo¡rd Pine Slreet ON P1LIN4 District Plant Manager 705-645-7765 Fax:705-645-6605 ,íritt,l), i,t1;2{lt3 STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE SCHEDULE'B' CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLTC TNFORMATTON GENTRE (PrG) May 15,2013 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm wN C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers BRACEBRIDGI /14 BRACEBRIDCE C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. PUBLI Consulting Engineers Collingwood Bracebridge orillia Bar¡e elcome to the Public lnformation Ceñtre for the proposed repairs or replacement of the phenson Road L Bridge that crosses the North branch of the Muskoka River in the owns of Bracebridge and Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka. e purpose of this lnformation Centre is to provide members of the public an opportunity review the Alternatives and provide input towards the proposed repairs or placement. is Public lnformation Centre includes a brief introduction to the Municipal Class nvironmenta I Assessment process. ase discuss any comments, concerns or questions with members of the study team. All mments should be documented on the comment sheets provided. Comment sheets may dropped in the comment box or mailed directly to C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. ll comments and information collected will be in accordance with the Freedom of rmation and Protection of Privacy Act and with the excetion of personal information .e. names, address, etc.), will become part of the public record. _ ':iÍ Welcome e Class Environmental Assessment process was developed in Ontario to apply the quirements of the Environmental Assessment Act to a group or "class" of projects which re similar in nature, recur frequently and have a generally predictable range of potential pacts for which standard mitigation can be used. e Class EA process incorporates the five key principles of successful planning under the Act: a L. Consultation with affected parties; a 2. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives; a 3. ldentification and consideration of the potential impacts of each alternative on all aspects of the environment; a 4. Systematic evaluation of alternatives; and a 5. Provision of clear and complete documentation. Whql is q Closs EA? ç , t e ng on behalf of the Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville. I IDEM'Y ATERUNW 1 COMÉft@MM stmoil to tRoBLtM oR EMFOTMEFANry The Study follows the guidelines & 2 EflUiOTMEIIflDY SELEC v *HTNE R€æiIIC$'PrcEDOT B t ECOilOMrcENUROilMEM requirements for a Schedule Class EA, which includes: 3 roÉmÊrMPdot .N¡OTM€N& MIIGAITG coMffiroì lo Mo€-a * Phase L ÀtER¡AÎW$LtO¡5 MIIGAl¡GMEÆUNCs * Phase 2 +.---t---l / omoill ì ¿ot.aox \- 'o ¿f Upon completion of Phase 2 & |- " I public review of the Environmental ì Project File, the Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville may r -liT:î t- | -----. I r 4lrmruoura¡1 proceed to Phase 5: l----¿ - E lmplementation. I!¡lclFI ç Eng¡Mrr N Às¡l¡oñ Study Frqmework & CIqss EA Process cated on Stephenson Road L approximately L400 m East of Highway tL, the bridge built circa l-890, ith a 4.8 m wide single lane, consists of a 4.2 m wide travel surface over a5.7 m steel girder proach span and a 40.8 m through truss span across the navigable North branch of the Muskoka ver supported by closed concrete abutments and piers. Iti l iLl I ErilttD -l¿. lf,ttrJtlt¡¡ I Eq e major concerns at this bridge are: Þ Reached the end of the useful life; \ ; ---\-fltrúr E-I ¡If Extensive deck wear; r-- North bottom truss chord buckled; L-I s '¡Ér Non code compliant barriers. - mco ._. E I ^;r e Detailed Visual lnspection revealed: t-rt l sronÈle¿qh t ::.' Movement of abutments; ì Severe corrosion of through truss; lìü'|aÜ 'a { s.^'ú Mbhoki a 4-_' Gèr cÍru Failure of all bearings. a, atrrrr rrû .-á" tat¡ I Roxbù!rBl Base Mãp Source: Google Maps "+ Exisling Condilions : ;i!ir¡ì:. ii Site Pholos The Towns of Brocebridge ond Huntsville hove initiated a Municipol Class Environmentol essment to consider options and to identiÍy a preferred solution to oddress the ciencies of the Stephenson Rood L Bridge qs they relote to public safety, structural dition, performance, capacity ond, design standards. The objective of this Study is to document the planning process and to develop, evaluate and recommend the appropriate repairs to, or replacement of, the Stephenson Road L ridge. e contemplated repairs or replacement of the Stephenson Road l Bridge are intended address safety, structural condition, load posting, biology, heritage and, traffic. Problem Slqlemenl Alternative L: Do Nothing . Does not address problem statement Alternative 2: Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge o High life cycle costs Alternative 3: Replace the Bridge . Preliminary preferred solution Alternotive Solutions Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Do Nothing Rehabilitate Bridge Replace Bridge Social Environment /no known culturaV archaeological impacts /no known archaeological impacts y'no known archaeological impacts /no new construction and hence no impacts ¡minimal heritage impacts - can be ¡minimal heritage impacts - can be lnatttre and character of existing bridge mitigated with historical documentation prior mitigated with historical documentation prior remains to rehabilitation to removal *short-term impacts to existing development *short-term impacts to existing development (e.g. noise, lane closure) (e.g. noise, lane closure) Natural /no new impacts to natural environment rpotential impacts to environment features/ xpotential impacts to environment features/ Environment /status quo maintained functions but can be minimized with functions will be slightly greater but can be mitigative measures minimized with mitigative measures Physical tstructural condition of bridge continues to lpotential for improving structural condition /greatest potential for improving structural Environment deteriorate ofbridge condition of bridge ¡cability to safely accommodate traffic will tactive corrosion of reinforcing steel lbndge can accommodate all vehicles and decrease with time continues so that ability to safely pedestrians ta structural evaluation would need to be accommodate traffic will decrease over time /potential for road improvements can be conducted and loadpostings would decrease rreplacement of bridge will likely be can be completed later treplacement of bridge will likely be required in less than 20 years required in less than 5 years rdelays in traffic during construction staging Dconomic /no significant initial construction costs rhigh initial improvement costs thighest initial improvement costs ,Environment ¡highest maintenance costs ¡high maintenance costs y'lowest maintenance costs Selection of Preliminqry Preferred Solution nsider input received from PIC Have your questions been addressed? entify Preferred Solution for Council consideration Have you signed the registry to be repare an Environmental Project File for public informed of the project status? rew Have you completed a comment sheet? ll/ho to Contact? ll Van Ryn, P.Eng. Tel: (705l' 645-7756 x. 227 nch Manager - Bracebridge Office Fax: (705) 645-8159 C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Barron Drive Email : bva n ryn @cctatha m.com cebridge, Ontario ]_L 041 Nexl Sleps wN H¡nrELB BRACEBRIDCE. TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE MUNICIPAL GLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH OF THE MUSKOKA RIVER PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE No. I WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. COMMENT SIIBET Please list below your comments and/or concerns. Comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the noted Solutions. Problem Statement The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have ínitiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to ídentify a preferred solution to øddress the deficiencies of the Stephenson Road I Bridge as they relate to public safety, strttcturøl condition, perþrmance, capacity, and design standards. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Environmentøl Assessment Act, Chap. El\, Section 7, and will be used in the development of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Any personal information (name, address, etc.) will be restricted to internal use only and will not be released as public information. ú ,." ( C r8 55t Á LU Q nUt Do you wish to continue to be informed of the process of the study? #", n No Please drop this sheet in the box or return it to the address below by May 29,2013 - Please Print Mr. Bill Van RYn, B.Eng, P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Name:. C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd- Representino: I Barron Drive Bracebridge Address: ON PlL OA1 Phone No.: T: (705) 64s-77s6 Email: F: (705) 645-8159 d E: bvanryn@cctatham. com Thank you for your comments BRACEBRIDGE ,.i.,rì,:,,,:' i.', jij1.t. 1,.i.¡ TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH OF THE MUSKOKA RIVER PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE No. 1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 15,2013 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. COMMENT SHEET Please list below your comments and/or concerns. Comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the noted Solutions. Problem Statement The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have inítiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to identify a preferred solution to address the deficiencies of the Stephenson Road 1 Bridge as they relate to public safety, structural condition, performance, capacity, and design standards. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Envíronmental Assessment Act, Chap. El9, Section 7, and will be used in the development of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Any personal information (name, address, etc.) will be restricted to internal use only and will not be released as public information. 3*¿16orø> iç z¿æX kgz-¿ ,4â.1 /"12" Ç'¿.<¿-vtvvt¿z "-,r*L /4rrþ- 5^6 52<_ ,{n a- 41cu4ry, z-5 c-¿ a -'-76- ¿,.¿.g.f O'l.rr ^,/,* to of the process of the study? Yes ¡No Please drop this sheet in the box or return it to the address below by May 29,2013 Please Print Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng, P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Name:i --- C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Representing: 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge Address: ON PlL OA1 Phone No.: T: (705) 64s-77s6 Email: ( F: (705) 64s-81s9 E : bvanryn@cctatham. com Thank you for your comments \s BRACEBRIDGE ,' .t, J-;,:,,,,,- . r- 't,rrl.ì/i, .i,l TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE MUN¡GIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH OF THE MUSKOKA RIVER PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE No. 1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 15,2013 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. COMMENT SHEET Please list below your comments andlor concems. Comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the noted Solutions. Problem Statement The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to idenffi a preferred solution to address the defi,ciencies of the Stephenson Road I Bridge as they relate to public safety, structural condition, perþrmance, capacity, and design standards. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act, Chap. EI8, Section 7, and will be used in the development of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Any personal information (name, address, etc.) will be restricted to intemal use only and will not be released as public information. c oQ- n/ Tt flK f j- þ A ( E. ÐJ .ù A Tro ñ-- I \ L--- /'l Do you wish to continue to be informed of the process of the study? s ¡No Please drop this sheet in the box or return it to the address below by May 29,2013 Please Print Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng, P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Name: I C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Represeirtrng: 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge Address:. ON PlL OA1 Phone No.: T: (705) 64s-77s6 Email: - F: (70s) 645-81s9 E : bvanryn@cctatham. com Thank ¡ for your comments \e BRACEBRIDGE '"Jr.: .t,: ,r-t,: :., ''. ¡i i:i . I TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH OF THE MUSKOKA RIVER PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE No. 1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 15,2013 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. COMMENT SIIEET Please list below your comments and/or concerns. Comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the noted Solutions. Problem Statement The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to ídentify a preferred solution to address the deficíencies of the Stephenson Road I Bridge as they relate to public safety, structural condition, performance, capacity, and design standards. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act, Chap. EI\, Section 7, and will be used in the development of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Any personal information (name, address, etc.) will be restricted to internal use only and will not be released as public information. b)coro-ù LtVû- AÐl tr-,¿ù AL l^rÉÐ (a.u,ù € Ð e O(A'" H-¿.-,S á- tËrys +t*¿Aß c4 TÒ 4mø *,\ Do you wish to continue to be informed of the process of the study? -á ¡No Please drop this sheet in the box or return it to the address below by May 29,2013 Please Print Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng, P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Name: C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Representing 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge Address: ON PlL OA1 Phone No T: (70s) 64s-77s6 Email: ^ F: (705) 645-8159 E : bvanryn@cctatham. com Thank you for your comments \s BRACEBRIDGE -r, ¡ r.r'' i-',-'..' t ,l:i¿,-i:r. r! TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE AND TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STEPHENSON ROAD 1 BRIDGE OVER THE NORTH BRANCH OF THE MUSKOKA RIVER PUBLIG INFORMATION CENTRE No. I WEDNESDAY, MAY 15,2013 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. COMMENT SHEET Please list below your comments and/or concerns. Comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the noted Solutions. Problem Statement The Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville have initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to identify a preferced solution to address the deficiencies of the Stephenson Road I Bridge as they relate to public safèty, structural condition, performance, capacity, and design standards. Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act, Chap. El9, Section 7, and will be used in the development of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Any personal information (name, address, etc.) will be restricted to internal use only and will not be released as public information. -.f ìt¿ -lo ì il -V a,reÕ, *J( mait r"l,Ji\/acú ,91r-¡f?-lyLstb 0\ J fnrale YkM Aræ-ç> å lL^r,fr\ Ar-u vEfrß,i 'ì4 -Qr òI¿¡Yvnsb^ På I Þo \? use^b\- c\\ \faÙ-tf d U Do you wish to continue to be informed of the process of the study? s ¡ No Please drop this sheet in the box or return it to the address below by May 29,2013. Please Print Mr. Bill Van Ryn, B.Eng, P.Eng. Vice President, Manager - Bracebridge Branch Name: C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Representing: 8 Barron Drive Bracebridge Address: ON PlL OA1 Phone No.: - T: (70s) 64s-7756 Email: F: (70s) 64s-8159 E : [email protected] Thank you for your comments 115 S¿ndford Fleming Drive, Suite 200 Collingwood, 0ntario LgY 546 C.C.Tatham & Associates Ltd. Tel: (705) 444-2565 Consulting Engineers Fax; (705) 444-2327 E mail: i nlofôcctathanr. co rn Collingwood Bracebridge 0rillia Barrie Web: www,cctâthäm.com ilEil0 Date: May 31 ,2013 Pages: I CCTA File: 212529-1 To: Project File From: Jesse Woolnough, B.E,Sc,, P,Eng, Subject: Stephenson Road 1 Bridge Municipal Class EnvironmentalAssessment (Class EA) Project lnformation Centre A Public lnformation Centre (PlC) was held at the Town of Bracebridge Council Chambers on Wednesday May 15,2013 from 4:00 p,m. to 7:00 p,m, The PIC consisted of 10 oversized (3'x 4') boards providing information related to the Class EA process, the existing bridge condition, the purpose of the study, the alternatives, a review of the inventory and, the preferred solution. The Public were encouraged to review the information at their leisure and ask questions, The PIC also included a sign in sheet and a comments sheet. The main concerns raised by the pubilc were: . existing bridge is unsafe; . wâÍìt bridge to remain single lane to keep traffic volume and speed down; . want bridge wide enough to allow garbage and snow plow access; . wârìt bridge to have higher load limit; . how long is the process and when will a new bridge be built; A total of 1B people attended the PIC and 4 comment sheets were received, There were no additional letters received from the Public or Approval Agencies. There were a significant number of questions related to the horizontaland verticalcurve in Stephenson Road 1. The Public were interested in flattening and straightening the road to allow year round access. These works are not part of this Class EA. The general comment was to replace the bridge with a new, single lane, wider bridge with proper guard rail and adequate abutments, C:\Documents and Settings\jwoolnough\Desktop\Example of PIC\M - PIC - 03-15-13.d0 APPENDIX G: THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE BRIDGES CUTTURA[, HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOTOGICAT RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CHECKTIST Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist