County of Wellington

Gordonville BridgeRehabilitation / Replacement

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Welcome to the Online Public Information Centre (PIC) for this Class EA Study. We invite you to sign-in online by visiting:

https://goo.gl/VFqg4K

We encourage your input/feedback on the materials presented through this Online PIC. Questions or comments can be submitted online via the URL listed above, or by mail/fax/email to:

A comment sheet is available for download on the County’s website. Background reports are available upon request.

There is an opportunity at any time during the EA process for interested persons to provide written input. Any comments received will be collected under the Environmental Assessment Act and, with the exception of personal information, will become part of the public record.

County of Wellington

Gordonville Bridge Rehabilitation / ReplacementMunicipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

Welcome

Mr. Chris Middleton, P.Eng.,Consultant Project ManagerWSP610 Chartwell RoadSuite 300Oakville ON L6J 4A5T 905.823.8500F 905.823.8503E chris.middleton@wsp.com

IntroductionThe County of Wellington has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to move forward with the rehabilitation or replacement of the Gordonville Bridge, located on Wellington Road 14 in the Township of Wellington North, 0.4 km north of Line 6.

The study is being conducted in accordance with ScheduleB of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessmentprocess. The study will confirm and document the existing structural deficiencies and identify alternative solutions, including rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge, and evaluate associated environmental impacts. Upon completion of the study, the planning process will be documented in a Project File and made available for public review.

Study Area Aerial Photo Mosaic

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) is an approved process for planning and designing municipal projects, including roads and bridges. The Class EA describes the process that proponents must follow in order to meet the requirements of the Provincial EA Act.

Based on the scope of this project, the rehabilitation or replacement of Gordonville Bridge is being undertaken as a Schedule ‘B’ Class EA, which will follow Phases 1 and 2 outlined below and be documented in a Project File, which is a detailed compilation of all data and reports produced for the project.

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process

Study process is here (PIC #1)

Need and JustificationStructural Condition

• As part of a bridge inspection conducted in 2015, Gordonville Bridge was found to be in an advanced state of deterioration.

• The conclusion of WSP’s investigations are summarized in a Structural Condition / Structural Needs Analysis Technical Memorandum. A copy of the memorandum is available upon request.

• The cost of maintaining the current bridge under a rehabilitation approach may meet or exceed the cost of replacement options and therefore the EA Study has been initiated to define the most appropriate bridge management strategy to carry forward

Need and JustificationWhy Improvements are Needed

Abutment Condition

Widened Structure

Original Structure

Widened Structure

Original Structure

Widened Structure

Evidence of leakage and efflorescence at joint

Original Structure

Typical Girder End and Bearing Seat

Concrete deterioration at fascia

Concrete encasement at exterior T-Beam bearing seats

Need and JustificationWhy Improvements are Needed

Deck Soffit Condition

Pier Condition

Typical widened structure deck soffit

and T-Beams (Interior)

Widened Structure

Original Structure

Side Pool

Typical deck drains

Patch repairs on T-Beam and on deck soffit

Typical end diaphragm of widened structure

Beam and Joint Condition

Side pool below north span

Need and JustificationWhy Improvements are Needed

Exterior T-Beam Cracks

Widened Structure

Pier

Widened Structure

Original Structure

Exposed corroded reinforced steel bar

Deterioration at joint between structures

Typical condition of deck soffit on original structure

T-Beam

Rust staining and efflorescence

Patch repairs on T-Beam and on deck soffit

Rust staining on T-Beam

Posted Load Limit

Barrier System

Flow Splitting at Higher Flows

East Side West Side

Need and JustificationWhy Improvements are Needed

Impact Damage

Concrete deterioration

at fascia

Main Flow

Side Pool

Obsolete barrier system

Narrow Shoulder

Substandard roadway widthInsufficient Height

No curb face since 2008 rehab

Main Flow

• The original bridge was constructed in circa 1919• The bridge was widened to its current configuration

during the 1950’s• The bridge is a two span concrete T-Beam structure with a

thin deck slab• The bridge has two 10.67 m clear spans and an overall

deck width of 9.6 m• The bridge accommodates two lanes (northbound and

southbound) of traffic• The roadway width on the bridge is 8.7 m• The posted speed limit is 80km/h• The AADT has been recorded between 1690 and 3850

(since 2006)• The bridge is posted with a load limit of 21-40-55 tonnes• Past rehabilitations took place in 1978, 1994 and 2008

Existing ConditionsGeneral Overview

Bridge Description

• Constructed in 1919

• Earliest example of a concrete T-beam structure in the Township of Wellington North and one of the few remaining.

• Designed by Bowman & Connor, Consulting Engineers, Toronto, and built by Charles Mattaini of Fergus Ontario.

Current Heritage Status of Bridge

• Not Listed on Municipal Heritage Register

• Identified as a heritage resource in the publication Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013)

• Not designated under Ontario Heritage Act

Cultural Heritage Evaluation (CHER)

• Gordonville Bridge identified through CHER as:• The oldest concrete T-beam structure in the County of Wellington

and, out of the five oldest bridges in the County, is the only example of a two-span T-Beam and the longest in length of its type.

• Unique in the County given its arched double-span design.

A copy of the CHER is available upon request.

Existing ConditionsCultural Heritage

Existing and Key Natural Features• Four Mile Creek and its riparian corridor is the most prominent natural feature within the study area. Four Mile

Creek has been classified as a warmwater watercourse and supports a range of warm and cool water baitfish

and sportfish species (including Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu).

• Terrestrial habitats in the immediate vicinity of the Gordonville Bridge include common roadside and wetland

communities containing vascular plant species present in similar habitats throughout the landscape. Residential

areas (including manicured lawns), active pasture and agricultural fields occur beyond the right-of-way (ROW).

• A colony of active Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrronota) nests were observed on the underside of bridge.

Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA).

Existing ConditionsNatural Environment

Policy Designated Features• The County of Wellington Official Plan (2016) identifies Four Mile Creek and its riparian corridor as Core

Greenlands.• There are no other Designated Features in the vicinity of the crossing.• Four Mile Creek and its associated floodplain is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)

under Reg. 162/06.

Species at Risk (SAR)

• MNRF has indicated that they have no records of SAR in the vicinity of the Gordonville Bridge

• The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database listed three records of SAR in the 1 km2 cell

surrounding the bridge site, including: Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus (2003) and Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella

magna (2003) – potential habitat for these species occurs beyond the ROW; and Loggerhead Shrike Lanius

ludovicianus (1982) – no suitable habitat in the vicinity of the bridge site.

• Potential habitat for four other SAR in the vicinity of the bridge was identified during field surveys. Impacts to

these potential SAR species and habitat can be minimized through appropriate mitigation measures.

• The existing Gordonville Bridge does not have enough clearance / freeboard during design floods and overtops during Regional Storm events (i.e. Hurricane Hazel).

• Since the existing bridge is not drivable during Regional floods, its current viability as an emergency route is limited.

Existing ConditionsWater Resources

Catchment Area = 52 km2

Based on the assessment of the existing Gordonville Bridge and an overview of the area features, the problem being addressed is described as follows:

• The bridge is in an advanced state of deterioration

• The bridge has deficient barrier protection

• The bridge is posted with a load limit

• The bridge has narrow shoulders and has substandard roadway width

• The bridge has no provisions for pedestrians or cyclists

• Normal flow only passes below the south span

• The bridge pier contributes to flow splitting during higher flows and has created a side pool below the north span

Overall, the existing Gordonville Bridge is in poor condition with a number of functional and operational deficiencies. The entire Gordonville Bridge is at the end of its useful service life.

Problem (Deficiency) or Opportunity Statement

Alternative Solutions

Continued on next display board…

AlternativeSolutions

Assessment Conclusion

Alternative 1:Do Nothing

• Not a reasonable alternative because significant repairs are required to address the existing structural deficiencies.

The “Do Nothing” alternative is not considered an acceptable alternative and will only be carried forward for comparison purposes.

Alternative 2:Remove the ExistingBridge and Do Not Replace

• Not a reasonable alternative because current traffic would be required to detour to adjacent roadways.

• Results in the permanent full closure of the road (dead ends) to traffic over Four Mile Creek

This alternative addresses the identified structural deficiencies. However, it results in a variety of socio-economic impacts to adjacent communities.This alternative is not recommended.

Alternative 3: Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge

• A complete superstructure replacement is required.

• An extensive rehabilitation of the existing bridge substructure would be required.

• The clear distance (opening width) of each span would at best remain unchanged.

• The full closure (road and bridge) to traffic for the duration of rehabilitation would be required.

• A rehabilitated substructure could only have an additional 15-20 years of service life.

This alternative addresses the identified structural deficiencies. However, this alternative does not result in improvements to all of the functional and operational deficiencies. Furthermore, the costs associated with such a major rehabilitation cannot be justified with such a short life span on the remaining substructure. This alternative is not recommended.

Alternative Solutions

Full removal and replacement of the Gordonville Bridge is the preferred alternative.

AlternativeSolutions

Assessment Conclusion

Alternative 4:Bridge Widening and Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge

• Similar scope of work to the rehabilitation, but with new foundations constructed in the water

• The clear distance (opening width) of each span would at best remain unchanged.

• The full closure (road and bridge) to traffic for the duration of both the rehabilitation and the bridge widening would be required.

• The rehabilitated substructure could only have an additional 35-40 years of service life

This alternative addresses the identified structural deficiencies and some of the operational deficiencies. However, it does not result in improvements to all of the functional and operational deficiencies. This alternative is not recommended.

Alternative 5:Replace the Bridge

• The existing bridge would be removed in its entirety.

• The pier and footing in the water would be eliminated with a single span bridge.

• The abutments would be positioned above the bankfulland allow improved wildlife passage below the bridge.

• The full closure (road and bridge) to traffic for the duration of replacement would be required, but mitigates/ eliminates ongoing/future disruption to local traffic patterns.

• A full replacement would have an anticipated lifespan of approximately 100 years.

Replacement addresses the structural, operational and functional deficiencies.

This alternative is selected as the preferred alternative solution and will be carried forward for further review.

(Continued)

Preferred Design AlternativeBridge Replacement

In terms of bridge replacement alternatives, the following are being considered:

• Full removal and build new single lane bridge;

• Full removal and build new two lane bridge;

• Full removal and build new multi-lane bridge;

• Full removal and build new single span bridge;

• Full removal and build new two span bridge;

• Full removal and build new multi-span bridge

• Full width (side clearance) and paved shoulders; no sidewalks;

• Sidewalk / multi-use trail on one side of bridge;

• Sidewalk / multi-use trail on both sides of bridge

When comparing the above bridge replacement alternatives, the full removal and construction of a new two lane single span bridge with full width paved shoulders is preferred.

Proposed Deck Section and Proposed Elevation are shown on the next display boards.

Preferred Design AlternativeBridge Replacement

Proposed Deck Section

Preferred Design AlternativeBridge Replacement

Proposed Elevation

Evaluation Criteria

• Roadway Geometrics, including drainage, grades, horizontal curves

• Transportation / Traffic Maintenance, including existing and future traffic operations, emergency vehicle access, flexibility for staged construction

• Structureincluding advanced state of deterioration, structural deficiencies, functional deficiencies, operational deficiencies, barrier deficiencies, guide rail deficiencies, number of spans/piers, span length(s), depth and width of fill at roadway approaches, embankment widening, the need for retaining walls and general safety concerns

• Natural Environment, including direct and/or indirect impacts on watercourses, fisheries, aquatic habitat, terrestrial ecosystems, and shoreline habitat

• Socio-Economic Environment, including direct and/or indirect impacts related to property, utility facilities, site contamination and noise

• Cultural Environment, including impact on archaeology, built heritage and cultural landscape resources

• Cost Estimate, including property and construction costs

Analysis and EvaluationPage 1 of 3

Table continued on next display board…

Analysis and Evaluation

Table continued on next display board…

Page 2 of 3

Analysis and EvaluationPage 3 of 3

Following this PIC period we will: • Collect and respond to public comments• Compile the Project File • Publish a Notice of Study Completion in November 2017• 30 day review period of the Project File• Proceed to Phase 5, Implementation with the technically preferred alternative• Commence detailed design in December 2017

How can you remain involved in the Study? • Request that your name/e-mail be added to the mailing list • Provide a completed comment sheet • Contact the County or the Consultant at any time

For assistance with the above activities, please contact The County of Wellington Engineering Services Department, Roads Division at:

Thank you for your participation in this study. Your input is valuable and appreciated. If you have any questions or comments regarding this study or the contents of these PIC displays, you are encouraged to submit them to the Project Team by October 20, 2017. Please refer to the County’s website or the “Welcome” slide of these PIC displays for contact details. All information is collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Schedule / Next Steps

Mr. Mark Eby, P. Eng.,Construction ManagerCounty of WellingtonAdministration Centre74 Woolwich StreetGuelph ON N1H 3T9T 800.663.0750 x 2270F 519.837.8138E marke@wellington.ca

Carey HutchinsonEngineering Services ClerkCounty of WellingtonAdministration Centre74 Woolwich StreetGuelph ON N1H 3T9T 800.663.0750 x 2210F 519.837.8138E careyh@wellington.ca