1311360012-2000-r01-revised jun 29 15 bm ross hia mccurdy ... · heritage impact assessment (hia)...

29 June 2015

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

McCurdy Bridge Spanning the Saugeen River Brant-Elderslie Road 2 km East of County Road 3 Community of Ellengowan Geographic Township of Arran-Elderslie Bruce County, Ontario

REV

ISED

FIN

AL

REP

OR

T

Submitted to:Mr. Brian Knox, P.Eng. County Engineer Bruce County Highways 30 Park Street Walkerton, Ontario N0G 2V0 Tel: (519) 881-2400 ext. 263

Report Number: 13-1136-0012-2000-R01

Distribution:

3 Copies - Bruce County Highways 1 Copy - B.M. Ross and Associates Limited 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT MCCURDY BRIDGE, SAUGEEN RIVER, BRUCE COUNTY

29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 i

Personnel

Project Director Christopher Andreae, Ph.D., Senior Consultant – Built Heritage

Project Manager Christopher Andreae, Ph.D, Senior Consultant – Built Heritage

Historical Research Michael Greguol, M.A., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Report Production Michael Greguol, M.A., Cultural Heritage Specialist

Stacey Carson, Cultural Sciences Group Administrator

Senior Review Christopher Andreae, Ph.D., Senior Consultant – Built Heritage

Carla Parslow, Ph.D., Associate, Senior Archaeologist

Acknowledgements

Proponent Contact Brian Knox, County Engineer, Bruce County Highways

Bruce County Museum Susan Schlorff, Archival Assistant

and Cultural Centre


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 ii

Executive Summary

BM Ross and Associates Limited (BM Ross) was retained by the County of Bruce (Bruce County) to review the

County’s bridge replacement requirements. BM Ross retained Golder Associates Limited (Golder) to conduct a

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the McCurdy Bridge as part of this County study. BM Ross has determined

that the bridge exhibits extensive deficiencies and the Bruce County Highways Committee has confirmed that

the bridge will be replaced. Therefore photographic documentation of this bridge was undertaken as part of the

mitigation recommendations. The bridge has cultural heritage value because of its Pennsylvania Truss spans.

This design was relatively uncommon in rural Ontario.

This HIA makes the following recommendations:

Construction of a New Bridge Immediately Adjacent to the Existing Crossing

In order to minimize the direct or indirect impacts of the bridge replacement or rehabilitation options on the

McCurdy Bridge, Bruce County and BM Ross should construct a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing

crossing. This alternative would result in minimal impact to the existing heritage resource and would ultimately

retain the rare Pennsylvania truss structure in situ. A new structure adjacent to the historic structure should be

designed in a way to not form a visual barrier to the tall McCurdy structure. In addition, by constructing a new

bridge immediately adjacent to the McCurdy Bridge, the road deviation that forms part of the approach to the

existing structure would be retained as a visual characteristic of the cultural landscape at the bridge crossing

site. The retention of the existing bridge, alongside of a new structure would contribute to the historic crossing of

the Saugeen River on Brant-Elderslie Road.

Deposit Copies

Copies of this report should be deposited with:

Bruce County Museum and Cultural Centre Bruce County Public Library – Paisley Location

33 Victoria St. North 274 Queen Street

Southampton, ON Paisley, Ontario

N0H 2L0 N0G 2N0


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 iii

Table of Contents

1.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHOD .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Study Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Method ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Metric Measurements .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Natural Environment ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Historical Context ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Bridge Building Context ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Bridge History ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Approaches ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Abutments ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Truss .................................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.4 Deck .................................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 Cultural Landscape ............................................................................................................................................ 12

4.0 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Cultural Heritage Value ................................................................................................................................ 15

4.1.1.1 Design/Physical Value .............................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.1.2 Historic/Associative Value ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.1.1.3 Contextual Value ...................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value ........................................................................................................... 16

4.1.3 Heritage Attributes ....................................................................................................................................... 16

5.0 ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Proposed Undertaking ....................................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Potential Mitigation Options ............................................................................................................................... 18

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 19


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 iv

6.1 Construction of a New Bridge Immediately Adjacent to the Existing Crossing .................................................. 19

6.2 Deposit Copies .................................................................................................................................................. 19

7.0 PLATES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20

8.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 26

9.0 SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27

9.1 Published Sources ............................................................................................................................................. 27

9.2 Online Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 27

9.3 Map and Drawings ............................................................................................................................................. 27

10.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28

TABLES

Table 1: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation of the McCurdy Bridge ....................................................................................... 14

FIGURES

Figure 1: Study Area Map .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Elderslie Township ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4: Brant Township ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 5: 1,000 Acre Sectional Survey, 1835-1906 .................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 6: Plan elevation for McCurdy’s Bridge ........................................................................................................................ 10

PLATES

Plate 1: Saugeen River, looking south from the McCurdy Bridge ............................................................................................. 20

Plate 2: Saugeen River, looking north from bridge ................................................................................................................... 20

Plate 3: Looking east to bridge, from the top of the steep- sloped valley wall towards the flood plain and distant valley wall. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Plate 4: Looking west towards east end of bridge, indicating sense of height .......................................................................... 21

Plate 5: West abutment, north side showing abutment, wingwall return, and earthworks of approach .................................... 22

Plate 6: The McCurdy Bridge, north side................................................................................................................................. 22

Plate 7: Riveted connection showing inclined end post, top chord, vertical post, portal bracing, and gusset plate .................. 23

Plate 8 West abutment, south side showing large pin connection at bearing ........................................................................... 23

Plate 9: Looking east across the bridge showing verticals, diagonals, and sway bracing ........................................................ 24

Plate 10: Pipe railings showing repairs, inclined end post, and concrete deck with drainage, looking east ............................. 24


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 v

Plate 11: Cross beams, deck, stringers, cross beams and lateral bracing, looking east .......................................................... 25

Plate 12: Riveted connection showing lattice girder, diagonal posts, girder plates, and piers from a previous timber bridge below ............................................................................................................................................................ 25


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 1

1.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHOD

1.1 Study Purpose BM Ross and Associates Limited (BM Ross) was retained by the County of Bruce (Bruce County) to review the

County’s bridge replacement requirements. BM Ross retained Golder Associates Limited (Golder) to conduct a

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the McCurdy Bridge as part of this County study. BM Ross has determined

that the bridge exhibits extensive deficiencies and the Bruce County Highways Committee has confirmed that

the bridge will be replaced. Therefore, photographic documentation of this bridge was undertaken as part of the

mitigation recommendations.

1.2 Study Method This HIA was prepared according to the guidelines set out in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (MTCS)

Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Cultural heritage value and interest of the McCurdy Bridge was previously assessed in

a Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by Golder in January 2012.

An overview history of the structure was prepared to identify the cultural significance of the bridge. A field

assessment was undertaken in July 2013 to identify and photograph potential heritage features of the property.

The significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed rehabilitation on identified heritage

features were evaluated. Mitigation options and recommendations were prepared based on anticipated impacts

of these features. The bridge was evaluated according to the Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario

Heritage Act.

1.3 Metric Measurements Between 1971 and 1984 Canada adopted the metric system. All structural dimensions in the text are given in

Imperial units. In general, the use of Imperial rather than metric is preferred for describing historic structures.

Engineered structures were built to standard Imperial dimensions and distinctive patterns within such structures

can be obscured by converting the original Imperial into metric units. Unless there are historical issues (i.e.

contract specifications), all distances and other common measurements are given in metric units.

ELLENGOWAN

LOVAT

LOCKERBY

GILLIES HILL

BRADLEY

PINKERTON

CARGILL

PAISLEY

VESTA

NARVA

EDEN GROVE

4000m2000SCALE IN METRES

0

1:100,000

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 3

McCURDYBRIDGE

BRANT-ELDERSLIEG

RE

EN

OC

K E

LDE

RS

LIE R

OA

D

STUDY AREA MAP

McCURDY BRIDGE, BRANT-ELDERSLIE ROADMUNICIPALITIES OF ARRAN-ELDERSLIE AND BROCKTON

BRUCE COUNTY, ONTARIO

Dra

win

g f

ile: 1

3113

6001

2-20

00-R

0100

1.dw

g

Ja

n 2

0,

201

4 -

1:4

1pm

13-1136-0012

AS SHOWN 0

LMK Jan. 8/14

1311360012-2000-R01001

FIGURE 1

REFERENCE

PLAN BASED ON CANMAP STREETFILES V.2008.

NOTES

THIS DRAWING IS SCHEMATIC ONLY AND IS TO BEREAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT.

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY.

1:750

0 15 30mSCALE IN METRES

BRANT-ELDERSLIE

SITE PLAN



Dra

win

g f

ile: 1

3113

6001

2-20

00-R

0100

1.dw

g

Ja

n 2

0,

201

4 -

1:4

1pm

13-1136-0012

AS SHOWN 0

LMK Jan. 8/14

1311360012-2000-R01001

FIGURE 2

REFERENCE

PLAN BASED ON 2010 ORTHOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPH BYFIRST BASE SOLUTIONS.

NOTES



McCURDYBRIDGE

ELDERSLIE TOWNSHIP



Dra

win

g f

ile: 1

3113

6001

2-20

00-R

0100

1.dw

g

Ja

n 2

0,

201

4 -

1:4

2pm

13-1136-0012

N.T.S. 0

LMK Jan. 8/14

1311360012-2000-R01001

FIGURE 3

REFERENCE

H. BELDEN AND COMPANY, ILLUSTRATED ATLAS OF THECOUNTY OF BRUCE, 1880.

NOTES



BRANT TOWNSHIP



Dra

win

g f

ile: 1

3113

6001

2-20

00-R

0100

1.dw

g

Ja

n 2

0,

201

4 -

1:4

3pm

13-1136-0012

N.T.S. 0

LMK Jan. 8/14

1311360012-2000-R01001

FIGURE 4

REFERENCE

H. BELDEN AND COMPANY, ILLUSTRATED ATLAS OF THECOUNTY OF BRUCE, 1880.

NOTES




29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 6

2.0 BACKGROUND HISTORY

2.1 Natural Environment The McCurdy Bridge crosses the Saugeen River approximately five kilometres southeast of the Town of Paisley

in Bruce County, Ontario (Figures 1-2).

The Saugeen River is approximately 180 kilometres long and drains some of the highest land in southwestern

Ontario. It rises at Dundalk, Ontario where it flows south to north and empties into Lake Huron at Southampton.

Above the main branch the river is joined by its tributaries, the Rocky Saugeen, the Beatty Saugeen, and the

South Saugeen. At the location of the McCurdy Bridge, the Saugeen River is located in a deep, broad valley,

where the river flows through a well-defined chancel in the flood plain (Plates 1-2 ).1

The bridge is located on the municipal boundary between Brant Township and Arran-Elderslie Township to the

North. Both townships are within the Saugeen Clay Plain physiographic region. This small clay plain is

composed mostly of deep stratified clay and the watershed is comprised of mostly agricultural properties. Most

of the plain was flat; however, the numerous rivers have cut deep valleys in the clay beds.2

The Saugeen River has experienced significant flooding in its history and spring floods have continued to be a

concern today. In 1915 a flood caused substantial damage upstream of the bridge at the Town of Walkerton. 3

2.2 Historical Context The McCurdy Bridge is located on the Brant-Elderslie Road that formed the municipal boundary between Brant

Township on the south and Elderslie Township to the north. Brant Township, surveyed in 1850, and Elderslie

Township, surveyed in 1851 were both laid out with the 1,000 acre sectional survey system, commonly used

between 1835 and 1906 (Figure 5).

Brant Township opened for settlement in 1851 and within a year 620 people were located within the township. In

1864 the township had grown to a level that justified the establishment of a municipal government. In 1999 the

Townships of Brant, Greenock, and Walkerton were reorganized to comprise the Municipality of Brockton. In

2011 Brockton had a population of 9,432.4

1 Lyman J. Chapman and Donald F. Putnam, The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 90.; Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, “Lower Main Saugeen River Watershed Report Card, 2013,” www.saugeenconservation.com (accessed August 2013). 2 Chapman and Putnam, Physiography, 159. 3 Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, “Our History,” www.saugeenconservation.com (accessed August 2013); Bruce County Museum and Cultural Centre, “Historical Photos,” www. brucemuseum.ca (accessed August 2013). 4 Illustrated Atlas of the County of Bruce, 1881; Floreen Ellen Carter, Place Names of Ontario, 139; Statistics Canada, “Census Profile, Municipality of Brockton” www.statscan.gc.ca (accessed August 2013).


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 7

Figure 5: 1,000 Acre Sectional Survey, 1835-1906

Arran Township was surveyed on the north side of Brant Township and also opened to settlement in 1851.

However settlement was far slower than in Brant and contained only 14 settlers in 1852. In 1856, Arran

Township was divided into a smaller Arran Township and a new Elderslie Township. Almost 150 years later the

two townships were recombined to form the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie which had a population of 6, 810 in

2011.5

Ellengowan was the closest rural hamlet to the bridge and was located at the intersection of Brant-Elderslie

Road and Bruce Road 3. A post office was established in 1858 and by 1886, the community had a population of

100. The post office closed in 1910 and the community gradually disappeared.6

5 Illustrated Atlas; Carter, Place Names, 357; Statistics Canada, “Census Profile, Municipality of Arran-Elderslie” www.statscan.gc.ca (accessed August 2013). 6Illustrated Atlas; Carter, Place Names of Ontario, 357; Mary I. MacKay, It Happened in Ellengowan, 1.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 8

2.3 Bridge Building Context Most public highway bridges were built and owned by a municipality such as a county or a township. Much more

rarely, they were owned by the province. Matters pertaining to bridge ownership have been dictated by the

Ontario Municipal Act since 1867. The construction and operation of bridges over watercourses that formed

boundaries between townships were always assumed by the County. Thus the McCurdy bridge crossing has

always been owned by the County of Bruce.

Until the early 20th century most 19th century bridges in southern Ontario were built of timber. Short spans were

beam structures; longer spans employed simple trusses, such as King and Queen Post trusses. A few iron truss

bridges were built in the 1870s-1880s but were generally too costly to be widely used.

The economic value to rural communities of good roads, and by extension good bridges, was becoming evident.

Nineteenth-century wooden bridges could not carry the weight of heavier wagon and farm equipment coming

into use. By the First World War, motor vehicles were becoming increasingly common and the provincial

government began to provide grant programs and technical advice on bridge building. At the same time,

counties began to create county-wide road networks by assuming the ownership of key township roads and

bridges.

Inexpensive steel trusses came into use in the 1890s and the designs were commonly used into the 1930s. The

Pratt truss and the Warren truss dominated the early 20th century, and were typically used for spans of up to 250

feet. 7 Larger designs, like the Pennsylvania truss are characterized by their arched top chords and long spans.

Typically, the Pennsylvania truss design was used for spans of 250 to 600 feet. The McCurdy Bridge is a

particularly unusual bridge as it is built as a Pennsylvania truss design for a short span of only 215 feet.

2.4 Bridge History The 19th century land surveys placed a gridiron road pattern on the landscape. The surveys were undertaken

without regard to topographical features. The location of the McCurdy Bridge illustrates the problems that could

arise.

The original township survey placed the Township line down a very steep slope of the west wall of the Saugeen

River that would have been impossible to use as a road. Therefore the County of Bruce in the 1860s purchased

a portion of land from Mr. McCurdy in order to relocate the road slightly north of the survey land and obtain a

better approach to the river.8

The date of the first bridge over the Saugeen River on Brant-Elderslie Road was not determined. In 1864 a

bridge was reportedly damaged by a log jam. Although plans for a new bridge were initiated in 1868 it was not

completed until 1872. This structure underwent major repairs in 1880, 1883, and 1885 and was replaced with

yet another timber bridge in 1886. Damage caused by a log jam in 1897 resulted in the construction of yet

7 T. Allan Comp and Donald Jackson, “Bridge Truss Types: A Guide to Dating and Identifying,’ in American Association for State and Local History, 1977; National Park Service, “Trusses: A Study by the Historic American Engineering Record, 1976. 8 MacKay, It Happened in Ellengowan, 21; Brant Township Historical Society, The History of the Township of Brant, 206-207.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 9

another bridge in 1898. By 1913 the Bruce County Road and Bridge Committee described the bridge as in a very

dangerous condition and planning commenced on a new bridge.9

The Saugeen River was over 200 feet wide at the bridge crossing. Earlier bridges had short spans and required

intermediate piers placed in the river. These piers were very vulnerable to ice shoves and log jams. The

remains of an earlier timber crib pier are still evident on the south side of the McCurdy Bridge.

As noted above, the Bridge Committee chose a Pennsylvania truss design for the bridge. This enabled the river

to be crossed without intermediate piers. The bridge was 215 feet with a deck width of 15 feet (Figure 6). It was

built two feet higher above the Saugeen than the 1898 bridge in order to reduce the flood risk. 10

In common with bridge building practices of the era, the abutments were built by one company and the bridge

structure by another firm. The County engineer coordinated the work. The contract for the concrete abutments

was awarded to R. Beggs of Port Elgin at a cost of $3,000. The contract for the superstructure was awarded to

the Standard Steel Construction Company of Port Robinson, Ontario at a cost of $11,500.11

As with most of the small bridge building companies in Ontario, little is known about the history of the Standard

Steel Construction Company. It was in existence in 1913. Standard Steel was still in existence in 1934 when

the United Steel Corporation tried to acquire it. The company was eventually acquired by James Steel in 1966

and closed in 1971.12

9 Brant Township Historical Society, The History of the Township of Brant, 206-207; MacKay, It Happened in Ellengowan, 21-23; “First Report of the Road and Bridge Committee,” Minutes, Reports and Bylaws of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Bruce, January Session 1913, 36. 10 Brant Township Historical Society, The History of the Township of Brant, 206-207; MacKay, It Happened in Ellengowan, 21-23; “First Report of the Road and Bridge Committee,” Minutes, Reports and Bylaws of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Bruce, January Session 1913, 36. 11 “Bridge Over Saugeen” Chesley Enterprise, March 28, 1913 in MacKay, Ellengowan, 23. 12 Montreal Gazette, April 18, 1834; Fred Caloren, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Gingrich, Is the Canadian Economy Closing Down?, 1978.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 10

Figure 6: Plan elevation for the McCurdy Bridge


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 11

The bridge was expected to open in August of 1913; however, construction of the superstructure was delayed.

The substructure abutments constructed by Beggs were finished by August, but the truss was not complete until

December. By December 26, 1913, the bridge was complete and reported by the Building Committee for Bruce

County as “one of the finest bridges in the Province of Ontario.”13

The steel trusses were fabricated in Port Robinson and erected on site by the Standard Steel Construction

Company. The trusses were assembled with rivet and pin connections.

13 “The Report of Building Committee re. Saugeen River Bridge,” Minutes, Reports and Bylaws, January Session, 1913, 40; “Report of Building Committee re. Saugeen River Bridge, Brant and Elderslie, Minutes, Reports, and Bylaws, June Session, 1913, 49.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 12

3.0 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Approaches The east approach to the bridge has a curve to the north where it leaves the historic road allowance. It then

curves to the west to align with the bridge at right-angles to the river. The road rises on a very slight grade in

order to provide extra clearance under the bridge. The west approach descends the steep valley wall and then

almost immediate joins the bridge (Plates 3-4).

3.2 Abutments The abutments are constructed of cast-in-place concrete and are built into the low steep sloping embankments.

The abutments were built by R. Beggs as part of the 1913 construction of the bridge. The shoring, or wooden

framework built to cast the concrete in place is still visible on the face of the concrete (Plate 5).

3.3 Truss The McCurdy Bridge is a single-span, steel, Pennsylvania truss structure. The bridge has a span of 215 feet and

a deck width of 15 feet with open railing barriers (Plate 6). Since Pennsylvania trusses were typically used for

spans of 250 to 600 feet, the McCurdy Bridge is a short-span example of this design. The deep spans and

narrow deck combine to create a visually tall structure.

The two trusses consist of five main panels and two half panels at the end posts. The top chords and end posts

were constructed of two steel channels separated with riveted top plates and lattice on the bottom. The vertical

posts were constructed as riveted lattice beams. The bottom chords were assembled from steel channels

separated with plates at intervals along the beam. The diagonals are constructed of sets of angle bars separated

with riveted plates. In addition there are horizontal lattice braces within the three centre panels. The trusses were

assembled with riveted top chord connections and pin connections at the bottom chords. The sway bracing

between the top chords is assembled with riveted lattice struts. (Plates 7-9).

3.4 Deck The deck is supported on cross beams riveted to the bottom chords of the two trusses. The cross beams support

steel I-beam stringers that run the length of the bridge. A concrete deck with drainage holes was built on the

stringers. Pipe railings are fastened to the trusses on either side of the deck (Plates 9-10).

3.5 Cultural Landscape Brant-Elderslie Road is a two-lane gravel road that follows the municipal boundary between the Municipality of

Arran-Elderslie and the Municipality of Brockton. It crosses the Saugeen at right angles. The road deviation that


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 13

was required to obtain a practical grade up the west bank creates a distinctive roadscape feature within the

broader gridiron road network of the region.

The remnants of the timber crib and stone fill in the Saugeen River is a remnant from a previous bridge (Plate

12).

The banks of the Saugeen River are lined with high grass and vegetation as well as heavy woodlots. The

landscape to the west of the bridge is heavily wooded. To the east the landscape is wooded south of the bridge

but north of the bridge is a rolling agricultural pasture. To the east, a barn is visible from the bridge, located

approximately 500 metres from the bridge.

This portion of the Saugeen River is a part of a 102-kilometre canoe route. Signage suspended from the bottom

chord of the bridge indicates that a camping site (MacBeath Camping Area) is located two kilometres

downstream of the McCurdy Bridge.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 14

4.0 EVALUATION

4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. If a property meets

one or more of the following criteria it may be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 are as follows:

1) The property has design value or physical value because it:

Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction

method;

Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or

Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2) The property has historic value or associative value because it:

Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is

significant to a community;

Yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or

culture; or

Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is

significant to a community.

3) The property has contextual value because it:

Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or

Is a landmark.

Table 1: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation of the McCurdy Bridge

Criteria Site Specific Evaluation

1) The property has design value or physical value because it:

i) Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method;

Rare example of Pennsylvania truss from the late 19th/early 20th century in Ontario; very few survive today

ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or None identified


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 15

Criteria Site Specific Evaluation

iii) Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

None identified

2) The property has historic value or associative value because it:

i) Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community;

Standard Steel Construction Company, example of bridge manufacturing company in early-20th century

ii) Yields, or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or

None identified

iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community.

None identified

3) The property has contextual value because it:

i) Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

None identified

ii) Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or

Road deviation, piers below, and bridge raised above flood level. Tall trusses are highly visible

iii) Is a landmark. None identified

4.1.1 Cultural Heritage Value

4.1.1.1 Design/Physical Value

The Pennsylvania truss is an uncommon design that was used in the late 19th/early 20th century. The design was

typically used for long spans of up to 600 feet. The relatively short 215 foot span and the deep trusses of the

McCurdy Bridge that rise dramatically over the road makes the bridge a rare and unusual truss bridge. It is a rare

survivor of this design in Ontario.

4.1.1.2 Historic/Associative Value

The bridge contains design/physical value as the steel truss was fabricated and assembled by the Standard

Steel Construction Company of Port Robinson, Ontario.

4.1.1.3 Contextual Value

The McCurdy Bridge is functionally linked to its surrounding as it is located in the road deviation construction in

the 19th century in order to construct a bridge crossing at this location. The surviving stone and timber piers from

a previous bridge in the Saugeen River are a part of the cultural landscape of the McCurdy Bridge. In addition,


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 16

the bridge was intentionally raised two feet above the last bridge level in order to minimize flood damage that

has been an issue in the past.

4.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value

The 1913 the McCurdy Bridge is a steel Pennsylvania truss design, with pin connections and concrete

abutments. The Pennsylvania truss was uncommon in rural Ontario even for long spans. The bridge is a rare

survivor of late-19th and early-20th centuries metal truss bridges built in southern Ontario to meet the demands

for better roads.

4.1.3 Heritage Attributes

The following are the character-defining attributes of the McCurdy Bridge:

Pin-connected, Pennsylvania truss system with distinctive arched top;

Deep trusses;

Location of the bridge on a road deviation away from the original land-survey grid pattern; and

Timber cribs of the previous bridge in the river.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 17

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Proposed Undertaking The Bruce County Highways Committee has proposed the replacement of the McCurdy Bridge with a new

structure. Bruce County and BM Ross have identified a series of bridge replacement alternatives for the crossing

at the existing McCurdy Bridge (See Appendix A). The alternatives currently being considered are as follows:

Construction of a new bridge in the same location as the existing – This would involve removal of

the existing crossing and then construction of a new two lane, three span concrete bridge in the same

alignment as the existing structure. The crossing would be closed to vehicular traffic for a period of 12

months.

Construction of a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing crossing – This would involve

construction of a new two lane, three span concrete bridge immediately south of the existing crossing.

The existing bridge would be retained to allow for through traffic during construction and then utilized

as a snowmobile/atv crossing upon completion of the crossing for as long as the bridge could be

maintained without significant repairs.

Construction of a new bridge along the original road allowance – This would involve the

construction of a new two lane, three span concrete bridge at a location approximately 90 metres

south of the existing crossing, within the Brant-Elderslie road allowance. The existing bridge would be

retained to allow for through traffic during construction and then utilized as a snowmobile/atv crossing

upon completion of the crossing for as long as the bridge could be maintained without significant

repairs.

5.2 Potential Impacts The three alternatives for the replacement of the McCurdy Bridge present a variety of potential impacts. The

impacts for each alternative are as follows:

Construction of a new bridge in the same location as the existing: - This undertaking would result

in the removal of the existing heritage resource. Removal of the bridge would result in the loss of the

rare Pennsylvania truss structure and would alter the character of the landscape.

Construction of a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing crossing – This undertaking

would result in the construction of a new bridge immediately south of the existing heritage resource.

The character of the landscape would be altered with the addition of a new structure in the landscape,

however, the existing Pennsylvania truss would be retained in situ.

Construction of a new bridge along the original road allowance – This undertaking would result in

the construction of a new bridge approximately 90 metres south of the existing bridge. The character

of the landscape would be altered with the addition a new structure in the landscape, however, the

existing Pennsylvania truss would be retained in situ. Construction of the new bridge along the original

road allowance would alter the character of the approach to the crossing.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 18

5.3 Potential Mitigation Options There is no, one, correct way to mitigate the direct or indirect impacts of an undertaking on heritage resource.

Strictly from the perspective of best practice for heritage conservation, the preferred mitigation options are ones

that conserve the heritage value of a resource. Typically, this involves maintaining a resource in situ. In reality,

economic and/or technical site considerations and the conservation of heritage value may require some form of

compromise.

As indicated in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the potential mitigation options for the McCurdy Bridge relate to the

proposed alternatives:

Construction of a new bridge in the same location as the existing – In order to mitigate the

impacts of this alternative, Bruce County should offer the bridge for relocation, or offer salvageable

elements or members to local museums or historical societies for interpretive purposes. At a minimum,

with the construction of the new bridge, the historic crossing of the bridge at this location on Brant-

Elderslie Road would be retained.

Construction of a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing crossing – In order to mitigate

the impacts of this alternative, Bruce County should design the new bridge to not cause a significant

visual barrier to the existing heritage resource. This alternative would retain the heritage bridge in situ.

The approach to the bridge on a deviated road would continue to be used.

Construction of a new bridge along the original road allowance – In order to mitigate the impacts

of this alternative, Bruce County should design the new bridge to not cause a significant visual barrier

to the existing heritage resource. This alternative would correct the road deviation that has become a

part of the historic bridge crossing.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 19

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Construction of a New Bridge Immediately Adjacent to the Existing Crossing

In order to minimize the direct or indirect impacts of the bridge replacement or rehabilitation options on the

McCurdy Bridge, Bruce County and BM Ross should construct a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing

crossing. This alternative would result in minimal impact to the existing heritage resource and would ultimately

retain the rare Pennsylvania truss structure in situ. A new structure adjacent to the historic structure should be

designed in a way to not form a visual barrier to the tall McCurdy structure. In addition, by constructing a new

bridge immediately adjacent to the McCurdy Bridge, the road deviation that forms part of the approach to the

existing structure would be retained as a visual characteristic of the cultural landscape at the bridge crossing

site. The retention of the existing bridge, alongside of a new structure would contribute to the historic crossing of

the Saugeen River on Brant-Elderslie Road.

6.2 Deposit Copies Copies of this HIA should be deposited with:

Bruce County Museum and Cultural Centre Bruce County Public Library

33 Victoria St. North 274 Queen Street

Southampton, ON Paisley, Ontario

N0H 2L0 N0G 2N0


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 20

7.0 PLATES

Plate 1: Saugeen River, looking south from the McCurdy Bridge

Plate 2: Saugeen River, looking north from bridge


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 21

Plate 3: Looking east to bridge, from the top of the steep- sloped valley wall towards the flood plain and distant valley wall.

Plate 4: Looking west towards east end of bridge, indicating sense of height


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 22

Plate 5: West abutment, north side showing abutment, wingwall return, and earthworks of approach

Plate 6: The McCurdy Bridge, north side


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 23

Plate 7: Riveted connection showing inclined end post, top chord, vertical post, portal bracing, and gusset plate

Plate 8 West abutment, south side showing large pin connection at bearing


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 24

Plate 9: Looking east across the bridge showing verticals, diagonals, and sway bracing

Plate 10: Pipe railings showing repairs, inclined end post, and concrete deck with drainage, looking east


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 25

Plate 11: Cross beams, deck, stringers, cross beams and lateral bracing, looking east

Plate 12: Riveted connection showing lattice girder, diagonal posts, girder plates, and piers from a previous timber bridge below


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 26

8.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Golder Associates Ltd. has prepared this report in a manner consistent with the standards and guidelines

developed by the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines and the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport,

Programs and Services Branch, Cultural Division, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to

this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described to

Golder Associates Ltd., by BM Ross and Associates Limited (the Client). The factual data, interpretations and

recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other

project or site location.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No

other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder Associates Ltd.’s express written

consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the

reasonable request of the Client, Golder Associates Ltd. may authorize in writing the use of this report by the

regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review

process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder Associates

Ltd. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as electronic media prepared by Golder

Associates Ltd. are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder

Associates Ltd., who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in

such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved

Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party

without the express written permission of Golder Associates Ltd. The Client acknowledges the electronic media

is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely

upon the electronic media versions of Golder Associates Ltd.’s report or other work products.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only

for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 27

9.0 SOURCES

9.1 Published Sources Brant Township Historical Society. The History of the Township of Brant, 1854-1979. Elmwood, Ont: Brant

Township Historical Society, 1979.

Caloren, Fred, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Gingrich. Is the Canadian Economy Closing Down? Montreal: Black

Rose Books, 1978

Carter, Floreen Ellen. Place Names of Ontario. Volume One. London, Ont: Phelps Publishing Company, 1984.

Chapman, John Lyman and Donald F. Putnam. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario

Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1984.

Comp, T. Allan and Donald Jackson. “Bridge Truss Types: A Guide to Dating and Identifying,” in American

Association for State and Local History. 1977

MacKay, Mary I. It Happened in Ellengowan. 2000.

Montreal Gazette, April 18, 1934.

County of Bruce. Minutes, Reports and Bylaws of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Bruce. January Session, 1913.

County of Bruce. Minutes, Reports and Bylaws of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Bruce. June Session, 1913.

United States. National Park Service. “Trusses: A Study by the Historic American Engineering Record.” 1976

9.2 Online Sources Bruce County Museum and Cultural Centre. “Historical Photos.” www. brucemuseum.ca (accessed August

2013).

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority. “Lower Main Saugeen River Watershed Report Card, 2013.”

www.saugeenconservation.com (accessed August 2013).

Statistics Canada. “Census Profile, Municipality of Brockton.” www.statscan.gc.ca (accessed August 2013).

Statistics Canada. “Census Profile, Municipality of Arran-Elderslie.” www.statscan.gc.ca (accessed August 2013).

9.3 Map and Drawings Stephenson, George E. Plan of Concrete Work for Proposed Bridge over Teeswater River known as Irwin’s

Bridge. 1924.

Stephenson, George E. Plan of Steelwork for Proposed Bridge over Teeswater River known as Irwin’s Bridge.

1924.


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01 28

10.0 CLOSURE We trust that this report meets your current needs. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further

assistance, please contact the undersigned.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Michael Greguol, M.A. Carla Parslow, Ph.D. Cultural Heritage Specialist Associate, Senior Archaeologist

MG/CAP/ly

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\golder.gds\gal\london\active\2013\1136-arch\13-1136-0012 bm ross-hia mccurdy & big irwin bridges-bruce county\ph 2000 - mccurdy's\rpts\mtcs revisions - june 2015\1311360012-2000-

r01-revised jun 29 15 bm ross hia mccurdy bridge bruce county.docx

lyildiz

Carla Parslow

lyildiz

Michael Greguol


29 June 2015 Report No. 13-1136-0012-2000-R01

APPENDIX A Proposed Alternate Bridges

PROJECT No.BR1098

FIGURE No.1.0

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR REPLACEMENT OF THE McCURDY BRIDGE

COUNTY OF BRUCE

PROPOSED ALTERNATE BRIDGES

DATEAPR. 17, 2015

SCALE1 : 1,750

Saugeen River

BRIDGE ALTERNATE B

BRIDGE ALTERNATE C

BRANT ELDERSLIE

SIDEROAD 5 NORTH

BRIDGE ALTERNATE A

±

0 50 100 150 20025 METRES

LEGENDALTERNATE BRIDGE PROPOSALALTERNATE ROAD PROPOSALROAD ALLOWANCE

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF PROJECT AREA

ALTERNATE A REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGEALTERNATE B NEW BRIDGE, SOUTH OF EXISTINGALTERNATE C NEW BRIDGE WITHIN UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE

Golder Associates Ltd.

309 Exeter Road, Unit #1

London, Ontario, N6L 1C1

Canada

T: +1 (519) 652 0099

1311360012-2000-r01-revised jun 29 15 bm ross hia mccurdy ... · heritage impact assessment (hia)...

Documents