HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SALEM BRIDGE, COUNTY SITE No. B IRVINE CREEK (LOTS 15 & 16, CONCESSION 11 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF NICHOL)

Transcription

1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SALEM BRIDGE, COUNTY SITE No. B IRVINE CREEK (LOTS 15 & 16, CONCESSION 11 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF NICHOL) WOOLWICH STREET WEST (WR 18) SALEM, TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, ONTARIO September 2018 Prepared for: WSP Canada Group Limited Prepared by:

2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SALEM BRIDGE, COUNTY SITE No. B IRVINE CREEK (LOTS 15 & 16, CONCESSION 11 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF NICHOL) WOOLWICH STREET WEST (WR 18), SALEM, TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, ONTARIO September 2018 Prepared for WSP Canada Group Limited 610 Chartwell Road Suite 300 Oakville, ON, L6J 4A5 Prepared by: Unterman McPhail Associates 540 Runnymede Road Toronto, ON, M6S 2Z7 Tel:

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study Description of the Property Report Format HERITAGE POLICIES Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) County of Wellington Official Plan Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST Heritage Recognition Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHV) ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Area and Site Description Built Heritage Resource Description Adjacent Property DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Introduction Preferred Solution ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT Introduction Identification of Potential Impacts Identification of Potential Impacts: Adjacent Property PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR HERITAGE RESOURCES Introduction Mitigation Strategies for Bridges Mitigation Strategies for Adjacent Property CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Conservation Recommendations for the Salem Bridge Conservation Recommendations for Adjacent Property 35 SOURCES APPENDIX: County of Wellington Official Plan (As Amended 2010 and 2013), Section 4.1, Cultural Heritage Resources

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Salem Bridge, Site No. B018050, is located on Woolwich Street West (WR 18) in Salem, Township of Centre Wellington. 1 Figure 2. This aerial view provides information on the cultural heritage resources in the vicinity of the Salem Bridge [Google 2017]. 11 Figure 3. This view looks east on Woolwich Street West to the Salem Bridge with 31 and 25 Woolwich Street West on the left and the entrance to Mill Street to the right. 14 Figure 4. This view looks west on Woolwich Street West to the Salem Bridge at the juncture with Geddes Street and the Washington Street entrance to the right. 14 Figure 5. This view looks west to the Salem Bridge with 16 Woolwich Street West on the corner of Geddes Street and Woolwich Street West. 14 Figure 6. This view looks south from the Salem Bridge to the Salem (Wissler) Dam and the Salem (Wissler) mill ruins. 14 Figure 7. This view looks north from the Salem Bridge along the Irvine Creek to the millpond and Veteran s Park in the background. 14 Figure 8. This long view looks west from James Street on top of the ridge to the Salem Bridge on Woolwich Street West. 14 Figure 9. This view looks south along the Irvine Creek to the north elevation of the Salem Bridge. Note the visibility of the Salem (Wissler) Mill downstream from the bridge crossing. 15 Figure 10. This view to the northwest shows the concrete abutment on the west and a remnant of an older abutment from the previous bridge. 17 Figure 11. This view to the southeast shows the east concrete abutment. 17 Figure 12. This is a view northwest to the south elevation of the Salem Bridge, a Warren truss with verticals. 17 Figure 13. This is a view northeast to the south elevation of the Salem Bridge. 17 Figure 14. This is a view south on the Irvine Creek to the north elevation of the Salem Bridge. 17 Figure 15. This is an oblique view to the east of the north elevation of the Salem Bridge with the sidewalk. 17 Figure 16. This view to the west shows the truss with a maker s plaque, the sidewalk and lattice guardrail on the north side of the bridge. 18 Figure 17. The maker s plaque on the east end of the north truss notes, Hamilton Bridge Company Limited, Hamilton, Ontario, Figure 18. The upper maker s plaque on the west end of the south truss notes, Hamilton Bridge Company Limited, Hamilton, Ontario, The lower commemorative plaque is by the County of Wellington, 1952, naming the warden, county road committee and county engineer and bridge contactor. 18 Figure Woolwich Street West, the former Salem (Wissler) Mill), a municipally registered heritage property, is located to the southeast of the Salem Bridge. 20

5 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 20. The Salem (Wissler) Dam located downstream from the Salem Bridge, is a GRCA heritage resource. 20 Figure 21. This view looks southeast to a structure located beside the bridge abutment that relates to the retaining wall for the Salem (Wissler) Dam. 20 Figure 22. This view looks west to a structure located on the southeast corner of the Salem Bridge that relates to the retaining wall for the Salem (Wissler) Dam. 20 Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the southwest corner of the Salem Bridge. 20 Figure (left) and 482 Washington Street (right) are located northeast of the bridge. 480 is a municipally registered heritage property and 482 is municipally designated. 20 Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the northwest corner of the Salem Bridge. 21 Figure Woolwich Street West is located on the south side of the street west of Mill Street to the west of the Salem Bridge. 21 Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the north side of the street to the west of the Salem 21 Bridge. Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the north side of the street to the west of the Salem 21 Bridge. Figure 29. General Arrangement, Replacement of Salem Bridge, Structure No , County of Wellington, WSP, April Figure 30. Proposed Deck Section, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, May 30, 2018]. 25 Figure 31. Proposed Elevation, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, May 30, 2018]. 26 Figure 32. Example of a concrete baluster rail barrier {WSP]. 26 Figure 33. Example of a concrete baluster rail barrier {WSP]. 26 Figure 34. Example of a barrier with circular metal railings [WSP]. 34 Figure 35. Example of a barrier with rectangular metal railings [WSP]. 34

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Built in 1952, the Salem Bridge, No. B018050, located on Woolwich Street West, Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington, is classified as a single span, steel half-through (pony) truss structure. In 2015, it was identified as being in an advanced state of deterioration with some functional deficiencies and load restrictions. To address these deficiencies, the County is conducting a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study. An MEA Heritage Bridge Checklist concluded a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) was required for the bridge; it was completed in April 2018, concluding the bridge meets one or more of the evaluation criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA. The Class EA process identified the preferred alternative for the Salem Bridge as replacement in its entirety. The proposed replacement bridge is a single span, precast NU concrete girder design, wider than the existing, with a concrete baluster rail barrier. Since the Salem Bridge is of cultural heritage value or interest the County requested a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be prepared. Section 9.0 includes the following conservation recommendations. Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken: Ideally, the Salem Bridge would be retained on its original site, rehabilitated in a sensitive manner and continue to fulfill its original function as a road bridge. However, it will be replaced in its entirety precluding the conservation options of being retained in-situ with few and/or sympathetic modifications, in proximity to a sympathetically designed new bridge for non-vehicular purpose or as a heritage monument for viewing purposes. Bridge replacement with a sympathetically designed structure: The proposed replacement design, a wider, single span, precast NU concrete girder structure with a concrete baluster rail barrier, is more solid in appearance than the existing truss bridge. It does not convey the openness and materials of the current structure. In order to be more harmonious with its environment and to better reflect the openness and materials of the existing truss bridge design, it is recommended a more open barrier with metal railings should be considered. Views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features: Views under and over the bridge, particularly looking south on the Irvine Creek to the Salem Bridge should be considered and retained to the greatest extent possible in the design of the replacement bridge. This may be achieved by selecting a barrier system with horizontal metal railings that could allow better views. Relocation, Reuse, Salvage: The County should consider the feasibility of reusing the truss structure in its entirety as a pedestrian bridge at another location, incorporating salvaged elements into the design of a new pedestrian bridge at another location or as a monument near the Irvine Creek crossing. The three (3) commemorative plaques on the existing bridge will be removed and conserved and either applied to the new bridge structure or included in a commemorative bridge display/plaque. If the plaques are not reused, as a last resort to ensure they are saved, the Wellington County Museum and Archives should be approached as a repository. Commemoration: The County shall consider, in cooperation with the Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Committee and the GRCA, the installation of a commemorative plaque at or near the crossing of the Irvine Creek that describe the history of the bridge crossing, the Salem (Wissler) Mill and Dam and Salem. The existing (3) bridge plaques should be incorporated into the new bridge structure or included in a commemorative display. Documentation: The Salem Bridge CHER and HIA may act as the principal documentation records and will be deposited with the Township of Centre Wellington Library, the Wellington County Museum and Archives and the GRCA.

7 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study The Salem Bridge, County Bridge, No. B018050, is a single span steel half-through (pony) truss structure with a concrete deck located on Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) in the community of Salem, Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington. The County of Wellington owns the subject bridge. In 2015, a county bridge inspection found the structure to be in an advanced state of deterioration with some functional deficiencies and a for the load restrictions of tonnes. The County of Wellington is conducting a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study for the Salem Bridge, in accordance with a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), Municipal Engineers Association (June 2000, amended 2007, 2011 and 2015). This Class EA is to confirm and document the existing structural deficiencies of the subject bridge and identify alternative solutions including rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge, and evaluate associated environmental impacts. Figure 1. The Salem Bridge, Site No. B018050, is located on Woolwich Street West (WR 18) in Salem, Township of Centre Wellington, ].

8 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B As part of the project, WSP and Unterman McPhail Associates competed a Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist (dated 2013, revised April 11, 2014) for the Salem Bridge in February The MEA Heritage Bridge Checklist concluded a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) was required under Part B Cultural Heritage Assessment. In April 2018, Unterman McPhail Associates prepared the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Salem Bridge, County Site No. B18050, (Lots 15 &16, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Nichol) Woolwich Street West (WR 18), Salem, Township of Centre Wellington, County of Wellington. The CHER concluded through the evaluation process set out under Ontario Regulation 9/06, which was developed for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for protection under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), that the Salem Bridge meets one or more of the evaluation criteria. Therefore, it is of cultural heritage value or interest. In light of this identified cultural heritage value or interest, the MEA Heritage Bridge Checklist, Part B, requires the County of Wellington, as the owner of the Salem Bridge, to prepare a HIA. The purpose of the HIA is to assess the impacts of the proposed bridge replacement and to develop mitigation strategies to preserve identified heritage attributes. WSP Canada Group Limited retained Unterman McPhail Associates,, to undertake the HIA on behalf of the County of Wellington. 1.2 Description of the Property Designed in 1953 by William H. Keith, the Engineer for the County of Wellington, the Salem Bridge comprises a steel half-through (pony) truss structure described as a Warren truss with verticals. It is located on Woolwich Street West (WR 14) in the community of Salem about 0.10 km east of WR 7 and spans the Irvine Creek. The structure is oriented in a southwest to northeast direction; however, for the purposes of this HIA, the structure direction will be referred to east to west to correspond to bridge inspection reports. 1.3 Report Format Section of the County of Wellington Official Plan (OP), as amended in 2010 and 2013, includes an outline of suggested the contents of a HIA (Appendix). This information has been considered with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (January 31, 2017) and the former Ministry of Culture s Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (2006), specifically InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans in the preparation of this HIA. The historical research, site analysis and evaluation

9 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) are based on the information contained in the CHER (2018). This HIA includes the following information: o introduction to the property (Section 1); o discussion of relevant heritage policies (Section 2); o statement of cultural heritage value or interest (Section 3); o description or assessment of the existing conditions (Section 4); o description of public and community engagement (Section 5); o description of the proposed development (Section 6); o assessment of the impact of the proposed development (Section 7); o discussion of mitigation strategies (Section 8); o discussion of conservation recommendations (Section 9); and, o Sources. Generally, the photographs illustrating the text are included at the end of the relevant section. All photographs are attributed to Unterman McPhail Associates and date to April 2017 unless noted otherwise. 2.0 HERITAGE POLICIES 2.1 Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act came into effect on April 30, It applies to all planning decisions made on or after that date and replaced the PPS, The PPS (2014) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest is identified as a matter of provincial interest, under Section 2 of the Planning Act. Section 2.6 of the PPS deals with Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. Policy of the PPS states: Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS also deals with development adjacent to a protected heritage property in policy It states, Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it

10 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Part IV of the OHA enables municipalities to list and to designate properties of cultural value or interest after consultation with its heritage advisory committee, if one is appointed. Section 27 of the OHA requires the clerk of every municipality to keep a register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest in the municipality. As of 2005, subsection 27.1 of the OHA allows municipal councils to include on the municipal register properties of cultural heritage value that have not been designated under the OHA (listed properties) after the council has consulted with its municipal heritage advisory committee. The Provincial Government has established criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of properties through Ontario Regulation 9/06. Once a property is designated under the OHA, it may not be altered or demolished without the approval of the municipal council. An owner may appeal Council s decision on an application to alter or demolish to the Ontario Municipal Board. Once a property is listed in the municipal register under the OHA, any application to demolish a building on a listed property is delayed for 60 days from the date when Council is notified of the proposed demolition, during which Council may pursue designation of the property. The OHA also enables municipalities to enter into easement agreements for the conservation of property of cultural heritage value or interest (section 37). Such easements run with the title to the property and municipalities may enforce such easements. The decision of a municipal council with respect to an easement is final. 2.3 County of Wellington Official Plan The County of Wellington Official Plan, Part 4, General County Policies, Section 4.1, Cultural Heritage and Archeological Resources, provides information with regard to the identification, and protection of cultural heritage resources (Appendix). With regard to public infrastructure work, the County of Wellington OP, Part 13, Implementation, Section 13.1 states, All public works by-laws and decisions of public authorities shall conform to this Plan. Concerning cultural heritage resources, Part 4, Section 4.1.5, Policy Direction, states, a) Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Conserved means the identification,

11 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archeological resources in such as way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment in accordance with Section assessment in accordance with Section b) The need for a Heritage Impact Statement and/or conservation plan will be based on the heritage attributes or reasons for which the resource is identified as significant, and will normally be identified in pre-consultation on development applications. c) Wellington County will work with its local municipalities to identify significant cultural heritage landscapes. Section continues to state the need for a HIA and mitigation measures an/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to conserve the heritage attributes of a heritage property. The important cultural significance of the Grand River as a Canadian Heritage River and the need to conserve its inherent values is recognized. Section Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan (Appendix) addresses the need for an HIA for cultural heritage resources affected by a development proposal. A heritage impact assessment and conservation plan may be required to determine if any cultural heritage resources are impacted by a development proposal. A heritage impact assessment is a study to determine if any cultural heritage resources are impacted by a development proposal, whether the impacts can be mitigated, and by what means. A heritage impact assessment will generally be required to contain: a) Historical research, site analysis and evaluation. b) Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resources c) Description of the proposed development or site alteration d) Assessment of development or site alteration impact e) Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods f) Implementation and monitoring g) Summary statement and conservation recommendations.

12 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan The Municipal Official Plan for the Township of Centre Wellington was approved May 31, The Municipal Plan is a policy document rather than a regulatory document. Section A.2 Relationship with the County of Wellington Official Plan states the County Plan provides a consistent set of planning policies for the entire County and contains sufficient detail to provide appropriate official plan coverage for all of Centre Wellington. It also provides for local municipalities to rely on the County s planning policies or to develop their own more detailed policies for all or parts of their community. The Township of Centre Wellington has chosen to prepare its own local municipal plan. Section B.4, Major Goals includes the following directions. Item 11 Protect the unique cultural heritage resources of the community. Item 13 Create a culture of conservation, including water, energy and cultural heritage conservation and air quality protection. Section C General Policies of the Municipal Official Plan includes statements cultural heritage resources. o C.2 Cultural Heritage Resources addresses the importance of cultural heritage resources in the Township of Centre Wellington and their identification, evaluation, protection and conservation through the application of the OHA. o C.2 (18) describes the mandate of Heritage Centre Wellington, including, but limited to preparing and maintaining an inventory of cultural heritage resources, recommending listing or designation of cultural heritage resources under the OHA, advising the municipality on development plans, and to advise on heritage related issues or matters facing the Township of Centre Wellington. o C.2 (21) states heritage resources encompass more than just old buildings ; they can include complete landscapes as well. Cultural heritage landscapes represent the interrelationship between people and the natural environment, and the combined works of nature and man. Cultural heritage landscapes provide a sense of place and identity to the community.

13 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 3.1 Heritage Recognition A CHER was completed for the Salem Bridge in April It determined through the application of the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value under Ontario Regulation 9/06 that the bridge has design/physical value, historical and associative value and contextual value. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration by the Township of Centre Wellington for municipal designation under the Part IV of the OHA. As of December 2017, the Salem Bridge is not included on the Township Heritage Register as a registered heritage property or as a municipally designated property under Part IV or Part V of the OHA. The bridge is not the subject of a municipal heritage easement. Grand River Conservation Authority The federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to recognize outstanding rivers and ensure protection of significant heritage values established the Canadian Heritage Rivers system. The Salem Bridge spans Irvine Creek within the Grand River Watershed, which was designated as a Canadian Heritage River in The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) is responsible for the management of the Grand River. The Salem Bridge is identified as a heritage resource in the GRCA publication Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013). As well, the GRCA identifies Wissler s Mill at 16 Woolwich Street West and the adjacent Salem Dam on the Irvine Creek, which is privately owned, on the Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed (March 2013) as cultural heritage resources. 1 The heritage and scenic significance of the Salem (Wissler) Dam is recognized by its inclusion on GRCA promotional tourist information. 2 Provincial and Federal The Salem Bridge is not provincially-owned, therefore, it is not identified as a provincial heritage property. It is not recognized provincially through an Ontario Heritage Trust easement or commemorative plaque. The subject bridge is not recognized as a federal heritage resource, i.e., national historic site or federal heritage property. However, it is located on Canadian 1 GRCA, Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed. Cultural Features and Values that support the Grand (including Speed, Eramosa, Nith and Conestogo Rivers) as a Canadian Heritage River (2013) 162, and 163. Access: --< (July 2017). 2 Scenic Drive 1, Guelph, Fergus/Elora, Elmira/St. Jacobs (Flying Camel Advertising + Design, Province of Ontario and Grand River Conservation Authority, 2007).

14 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Heritage River, federal, provincial and territorial government initiative (see Grand River Conservation Authority above). 3.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHV) Section 5.3 of the CHER for the Salem Bridge includes the following SCHV. 3 The Salem Bridge is located on the Irvine Creek within the community of Salem, Township of Centre Wellington. The Irvine Creek is a tributary of the Grand River, which has been a Canadian Heritage River since Design or Physical Design Completed in 1953, the Salem Bridge is classified as a steel half- through (pony) truss, Warren truss with verticals. It has not undergone any significant modifications to its original design intent. The bridge is the fourth oldest and the third longest of its type in overall length within the County of Wellington s jurisdiction. It is also one of only two remaining pony trusses structures found in the Township of Centre Wellington. The Salem Bridge is considered to be a representative example of a steel halfthrough (pony) truss within the County of Wellington and the Township of Centre Wellington. Within the Grand River Watershed, it is one of several remaining structures of its type although this bridge type is diminishing due to age, modern traffic needs and safety concerns. Historical or Associative Value William H. Keith, County of Wellington Engineer from 1933 to 1965, is credited with designing and working on many bridge structures in the County of Wellington. As the county engineer, Keith is considered to be significant to the community, i.e., Wellington County. The Hamilton Bridge Company is considered to be a 19 th and 20 th century manufacturing company of significance to Ontario bridge construction. The Salem Bridge is considered to reflect the work of a builder (engineer) who is significant to a community and a company of significance to Ontario bridge building. 3 Unterman McPhail Associates. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. Salem Bridge, County Site No. B18050 (Lots 15 & 16, Concession 11, Geographic Township of Nichol), Woolwich Street West (WR 18), Salem, Township of Centre Wellington,. Prepared for WSP Canada Group Limited (April 2018).

15 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Contextual Value The Salem Bridge is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. Bridges have been built at this location on the Irvine Creek from the mid 19 th century onwards. The Salem Bridge provides a physical and functional link over the Irvine Creek in Salem. It is a visually attractive in its setting and since bridges have been built at this location from the mid 19 th century onwards, it is historically linked to its surroundings. The Salem Bridge with the adjacent Salem (Wissler) mill ruins, dam and millpond are considered to be a well-known physical landmark and scenic location within the community of Salem, Elora and the Township of Centre Wellington and the Grand River system. The bridge provides an entrance/exit function due to its location on Woolwich Street West (WR 18) that leads to downtown Elora through Salem over the Irvine Creek and is well-used by vehicular traffic. Additionally, the he SCHV identifies the following heritage attributes, i.e., character defining elements, of the subject bridge. Design and Physical Value o Its original cast-in-place concrete abutments, wingwalls, beams and deck; o Its original deck stringers and transverse beams; o Its original steel, Warren with verticals, trusses fabricated; o Its original sidewalk that is integral to the structure; o The older stone abutment found on the west end of the bridge; Historical and Associative Value o Its association with a family of bridges on the Irvine Creek within Salem and Elora; Contextual Value o Its adjacency to the Salem (Wissler) mill at 16 Woolwich Street West, the Salem (Wissler) dam and millpond and its adjacency to the municipally registered (listed) properties at 16, 20, 25 Woolwich Street West and 480 Washington Street; o Its design suitability and context within the 19 th century village of Salem on the Irvine Creek; and o Its landmark status as an entrance/exit function on Woolwich Street West.

16 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Salem Bridge is a single 31.7 m long span, simply supported steel half-through (pony) truss bridge with a 22.6 degree skew carrying two lanes of traffic on Woolwich Street West (WR 18) over Irvine Creek. Constructed in 1952, the east abutment was modified and retained from the previous structure. The first rehabilitation of the bridge took place in 1986 and included the coating of the structural steel, replacement of the deck slab and expansion joints and waterproofing and paving. As part of a regular bridge inspection, the Salem Bridge was found to have major elements in an advanced state of deterioration. Several components were found to be in need of maintenance, rehabilitation and/or replacement and it was concluded the bridge is nearing the end of its useful service. Functional/operational deficiencies were noted, including: substandard roadway width of 7.32 m (recommended minimum two-way traffic is 8.50 m), restricted sidewalk width on the north of 1.53 m and a posted load limit of tonnes and sub-standard barrier protection and guide rail protection at the site. The main load bearing components are exposed to potential traffic impact damage that could result in severe structural damage or bridge collapse. 4.1 Area and Site Description The following description draws from research material contained in the CHER and a site survey of the bridge and environs completed by Unterman McPhail Associates in April The photographs used in this HIA report date from the 2017 survey. For the purposes of this report, the Salem Bridge is considered to run in an east to west direction. The community of Salem, which is part of Elora, on the Irvine Creek is located in the northeast section of the physiographic region known as the Guelph Drumlin Field. The northeast is characterized by the surfaces of the drumlins being covered with a layer of stoneless fine sand and silt, the Guelph till plain. Agriculture on the till plain was developed as a generalized type. On the northern edge of the till plain, smaller centres such as Fergus, Elora on the Grand River and Salem on its tributary, the Irvine Creek, were established as mill sites and became services centres. In the Elora and Salem area a definite break in the slope of the bedrock occurs and the Irvine Creek, as well as the Grand River, have cut deep gorges in the area dolostone. 4 The Irvine Creek starts in the geographic township of West Garafraxa near Dracon and flows southeast towards Lake Belwood. Before the lake, the creek 4 L.J. Chapman and D.F. Putnam, The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1984) 96 and

17 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B enters the geographic township of Nichol and flows through Salem on bedrock and a deep rock gorge from Salem to its mouth at the Grand River in Elora. Figure 2. This aerial view provides information on the cultural heritage resources in the vicinity of the Salem Bridge [Google 2017]. The Grand River Watershed, which was designated as a Canadian Heritage River in 1994 includes the Irvine Creek. The identified the Salem Bridge was identified as a heritage resource in the GRCA publication Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013). As well, the GRCA has identified the Salem (Wissler s) Mill at 16 Woolwich Street West and the adjacent Salem Dam on the Irvine Creek, which is privately owned, as cultural heritage resources in its report Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed (March 2013). 5 As well the heritage and scenic significance of the Salem (Wissler) Dam is recognized by its inclusion on GRCA promotional tourist information. 6 5 GRCA, Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed. Cultural Features and Values that support the Grand (including Speed, Eramosa, Nith and Conestogo Rivers) as a Canadian Heritage River (2013) 162, and Scenic Drive 1, Guelph, Fergus/Elora, Elmira/St. Jacobs.

18 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Woolwich Street West, a two lane paved road, runs east from WR 7 into the historical community of Salem and then turns south to the east of the Irvine Creek and becomes Geddes Street leading into the downtown area of Elora. The Salem Bridge is part of an important grouping or family of bridges identified in proximity to each other on the Irvine Creek and located within and in the vicinity of Salem and Elora. They include the landmark David Street Bridge (rebuilt in 2004) located in Elora; the subject Salem Bridge; the Washington Street Bridge (1925), Structure 12- N, an earth-filled concrete arch located just south of William Street/Wissler Street in Salem, now closed; and the Irvine Street, CW 18 (1929), a concrete bowstring arch located north of Woolwich Street East/Sideroad 15. The Salem Bridge, located on Woolwich Street West, spans the Irvine Creek in the community of Salem. The structure is oriented in a southwest to northeast direction; however, for the purposes of this HIA, the structure direction will be referred to east to west to correspond to bridge inspection reports. A bridge has probably spanned the Irvine Creek since the mid 19 th century. Historical photographs show a steel through truss bridge spanning the Irvine Creek on Woolwich Street west in Salem c1890 and prior to The historical village of Salem, as laid out in 1856, includes a grid pattern of streets centred on the Irvine Creek. Woolwich Street West and Union Street (now Geddes Street) Mill Street, Water Street, Washington Street and James Street on top of the ridge are all part of the 1856 survey and the original village. This older central part of the village of Salem centred on the Irvine Creek retains its uniquely 19 th century character and includes historical links to the Salem (Wissler) mill, millpond and dam and the Salem Bridge. The Salem Bridge is posted 18/2/8/35 tonnes. There are hazard signs on all four corners of the structure. Ministry of Natural Resources signs for the Irvine Creek are posted at the bridge crossing. Woolwich Street West, a two lane paved road, runs east from WR 7 into the historical community of Salem (Figures 3 and 4). It then turns sharply south to the east of the Irvine Creek to become Geddes Street that leads into the downtown area of Elora (Figure 4). At the Irvine Creek, Mill Street runs north to south to the west of the Irvine Creek and south of Woolwich Street West. Water Street runs north to south to the west of the Irvine Creek and north of Woolwich Street West. It provides access to Veteran s Park on the west side of the Irvine Creek between the Salem Bridge and the Washington Street Bridge. The former millpond area associated with the Salem (Wissler) Mill is located on the north side of the Salem Bridge and a view of the (Wissler) Mill at 16 Woolwich Street West with the Salem Bridge in the background is located at the corner of Geddes Street and Woolwich Street West (Figure 5). Washington Street, an original street that is no longer continuous due to the closure

19 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B of the bridge over the creek, runs north to south on the east side of the Irvine Creek to the north of the Woolwich Street West/Geddes Street intersection. The Salem Bridge is set in a scenic location over the Irvine Creek in the 19 th C. community of Salem, which is characterized by a number of properties listed as cultural heritage resources of interest or value under the OHA. The Salem Bridge is a well-known physical landmark on Woolwich Street West and provides an entrance/exit function to Salem and Elora. Within Salem, the bridge is an important element of the historical cultural heritage landscape that includes the Salem (Wissler) mill, dam and millpond on the Irvine Creek and it provides a viewing point for the mill site to the south and the millpond to the north (Figure 6). As well, the bridge forms a key visual component in the public viewscapes east on Woolwich Street West to the Irvine Creek and west on the street from the road curve at Washington Street/Geddes Street, in a long viewscape south on the Irvine Creek from Veteran s Park to the bridge that includes the millpond (Figure 7) and in a long viewscape west from James Street at the top of the ridge to Woolwich West, the Irvine Creek and the bridge in Salem (Figure 8).

20 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 3. This view looks east on Woolwich Street West to the Salem Bridge with 31 and 25 Woolwich Street West on the left and the entrance to Mill Street to the right. Figure 4. This view looks west on Woolwich Street West to the Salem Bridge at the juncture with Geddes Street and the Washington Street entrance to the right. Figure 5. This view looks west to the Salem Bridge with 16 Woolwich Street West on the corner of Geddes Street and Woolwich Street West. Figure 6. This view looks south from the Salem Bridge to the Salem (Wissler) Dam and the Salem (Wissler) mill ruins. Figure 7. This view looks north from the Salem Bridge along the Irvine Creek to the millpond and Veteran s Park in the background. Figure 8. This long view looks west from James Street on top of the ridge to the Salem Bridge on Woolwich Street West.

21 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Built Heritage Resource Description The following description is based on a site visit in August 2017, an original drawing (1952), rehabilitation drawings (1986) and an inspection report by MMM Group (2015). Imperial measurements with metric measurement in brackets are provided in keeping with the system in use at the time the bridge was designed. The original design drawing for the Salem Bridge is contained in Appendix A. For the purposes of this description the Salem Bridge is considered to run in an east to west direction. Figure 9. This view looks south along the Irvine Creek to the north elevation of the Salem Bridge. Note the visibility of the Salem (Wissler) Mill downstream from the bridge crossing. The Salem Bridge is classified as a seven panel, rivet-connected, steel half-through (pony) truss, Warren Truss with verticals (Figure 9). The abutments and wingwalls and sidewalk are cast-in-place concrete. Remains of an earlier abutment are located at the west abutment in front of the 1952 concrete structure. The bridge has a skew angle of 23. The inspection report (2015) indicates the bridge has a single span length of 105-ft. (32 m), an overall structure length/deck length of 107-ft. (32.6 m). The overall structure width is 32-ft. 2-in. (9.8 m). There are expansion joints on the east and west ends of the structure. The superstructure length is 104-ft. (31.70 m) in length (Figures 10 and 11). Six (6) steel longitudinal

22 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B deck stringers are set on top of eight (8) steel transverse floor beams. The deck is placed on the deck stringers. The roadway measures 24-ft. (7.3 m) in width with 12- in. (300 mm) wide concrete curbs on the north and south sides. The north truss and the south truss measure 12-ft. (3.66 m) in height (Figures 12 to 15). A Warren truss with verticals is comprised of steel bars, angles, rods, channels and plates. Each truss is 8-ft. 4-in. (2.54 m) high from the sidewalk. The Warren truss comprises seven (7) panels with verticals located at each connection. The top and bottom chords comprise two standard I-beams held together with battens and V- lacing. The Warren trusses with verticals are set on top of the concrete curbs measuring 7½ -in. (190 mm) in height. A sidewalk runs along the north side of the structure measuring 5-ft. in (1.53 m) width (Figure 16). There is a railing comprised of eight (8) latticework panels on the outside of the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge. Each panel is 3-ft. (0.91 m) high and with the exception of the two end panels that have been added on each end, measuring 12-ft. 11-in (3.90 m) in width. The top and bottom chords are comprised of two steel angles. Guardrails comprised of steel channels are found on the traffic side of the north and south trusses. Each guardrail has three railings. The northeast end post of the north truss has one (1) maker plaque for the Hamilton Bridge Company (1952) (Figure 27). The southwest end post has two (2) plaques, one (1) for the Hamilton Bridge Company (1952) and one (1) commemorative plaque (1952) by the County of Wellington (Figure 18). No other company marks from the steel fabricators were found. According to the information provided by WSP Canada Limited and the County of Wellington and the results of the site survey, the bridge appears to have undergone few modifications to its original design intent. It underwent rehabilitation work in 1986 under Contract No to replace the deck and expansion joints, drain improvements and to coat the steel components. Blue service conduits are located on the north and south side of the structure.

23 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 10. This view to the northwest shows the concrete abutment on the west and a remnant of an older abutment from the previous bridge. Figure 11. This view to the southeast shows the east concrete abutment. Figure 12. This is a view northwest to the south elevation of the Salem Bridge, a Warren truss with verticals. Figure 13. This is a view northeast to the south elevation of the Salem Bridge. Figure 14. This is a view south on the Irvine Creek to the north elevation of the Salem Bridge. Figure 15. This is an oblique view to the east of the north elevation of the Salem Bridge with the sidewalk.

24 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 16. This view to the west shows the truss with a maker s plaque, the sidewalk and lattice guardrail on the north side of the bridge. Figure 17. The maker s plaque on the east end of the north truss notes, Hamilton Bridge Company Limited, Hamilton, Ontario, Figure 18. The upper maker s plaque on the west end of the south truss notes, Hamilton Bridge Company Limited, Hamilton, Ontario, The lower commemorative plaque is by the County of Wellington, 1952, naming the warden, county road committee and county engineer and bridge contactor.

25 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Adjacent Property There are four (4) heritage resources included on the Centre Wellington Heritage Register that are adjacent to the Salem Bridge and associated with the 19 th century village of Salem, namely, 16, 20 and 25 Woolwich Street West and 480 Washington Street. The property at 16 Woolwich West is the former Salem (Wissler) Mill, which was built in 1850 as a two storey, stone mill building (Figure 19). The GRCA identifies Wissler s Mill and the adjacent Salem Dam on the Irvine Creek, which is privately owned, on the Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed (March 2013) as cultural heritage resources. 7 The Salem (Wissler) Dam, which is under the authority of the GRCA, is recognized for its heritage and scenic significance by its inclusion on GRCA promotional tourist information. 8 The dam is located approximately 15 m south of the road and the subject bridge on the Irvine Creek (Figure 20). At this point the Irvine Creek falls in elevation and enters a small gorge as it heads for the Grand River. The Salem Dam has an overall length of 12 m and overall height of 5 m. In the vicinity of the bridge there is a millpond on the upstream on the north side and downstream a dam with a millrace, an overflow spillway and a weir. There is a retaining wall associated with the dam on the east side of the creek (Figures 21 and 22). 20 Woolwich Street West located on the southwest corner of the bridge includes a two storey stone residence built in 1870 (Figure 23). The property at 480 Washington Street on the northeast corner of the bridge is a two and-a-half storey brick building that was formerly a hotel (Figure 24). The property associated with 482 Washington Street, a municipally designated property, extends to the creek banks bordering the Salem millpond area. 25 Woolwich Street West is situated on the northwest corner of the bridge includes a one and-a-half storey stone residence built in 1850 (Figure 25). A Craftsman style residence from the early 20 th century located at 26 Woolwich Street West is not included on the Heritage Register (Figure 26). Other properties in the vicinity of the Salem Bridge, but not adjacent, included on the Centre Wellington Heritage Register are located at 31, 33 Woolwich Street West (Figures 27 and 28). 7 GRCA, Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed. Cultural Features and Values that support the Grand (including Speed, Eramosa, Nith and Conestogo Rivers) as a Canadian Heritage River (2013) 162, and Scenic Drive 1, Guleph, Fergus/Elora, Elmira/St. Jacobs.

26 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure Woolwich Street West, the former Salem (Wissler) Mill), a municipally registered heritage property, is located to the southeast of the Salem Bridge. Figure 20. The Salem (Wissler) Dam located downstream from the Salem Bridge, is a GRCA heritage resource. Figure 21. This view looks southeast to a structure located beside the bridge abutment that relates to the retaining wall for the Salem (Wissler) Dam. Figure 22. This view looks west to a structure located on the southeast corner of the Salem Bridge that relates to the retaining wall for the Salem (Wissler) Dam. Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the southwest corner of the Salem Bridge. Figure (left) and 482 Washington Street (right) are located northeast of the bridge. 480 is a municipally registered heritage property and 482 is municipally designated heritage property.

27 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the northwest corner of the Salem Bridge. Figure Woolwich Street West is located on the south side of the street west of Mill Street to the west of the Salem Bridge. Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the north side of the street to the west of the Salem Bridge. Figure Woolwich Street West, a municipally registered heritage property, is located on the north side of the street to the west of the Salem Bridge.

28 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Introduction The County of Wellington is undertaking a Class EA study to identify an appropriate solution to address the structural and safety concerns as well as access issues, associated with the Salem Bridge in accordance with the MCEA (Municipal Engineers Association, June 2000, as amended 2007, 2011 and 2015) as a Schedule B project. The Salem Bridge has been identified as having major structural, operational and functional deficiencies. As part of the regular biannual bridge inspections in 2015, the Salem Bridge, B018050, was found to have major elements in an advanced state of deterioration and a bridge evaluation resulted in posted load restrictions. Several components are in need of maintenance, rehabilitation and/or replacement and the bridge is approaching the end of its useful service life. In addition, there are several functional/operational deficiencies including substandard roadway width, restricted sidewalk widths, posted load limit and sub-standard barrier protection and guide rail protection. In 1952, when the previous structure was removed and replaced, the limited information available in the record drawings suggest the east abutment was maintained to support the current structure. The rehabilitated substructure would only have an additional years of service life while the replacement would provide a 75-year service life. The cost of maintaining the existing bridge structure under a rehabilitation approach may meet or exceed the cost of replacement options. Key considerations with regard to cultural heritage when undertaking work on the Salem Bridge include the proximity of the bridge to the right-of-way (ROW) that may result in property impacts and restricted adjustments to the profile due to the proximity of adjacent buildings to the road. Three alternatives were considered for the Salem Bridge. They include: o Alternative 1: Do Nothing - Work on the structure is not included; therefore, the structure condition would be monitored regularly until a full road closure is warranted. o Alternative 2: Rehabilitate - Rehabilitation is anticipated to include cleaning and coating of the existing steel truss in addition to structural steel repairs and local strengthening in order to eliminate the need for load posting. o Alternative 3: Replace - Includes removal of the existing truss structure and replacing it with a new bridge. The proposed bridge replacement will include a reinforced concrete deck on precast NU I-girders with semi-integral abutments.

29 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Full road closure will be required for Alternatives 2 and 3 with a detour likely including Geddes to David Street to WR 7, a length of approximately 3.5 m. Alternative 1 would require a similar detour. The alternatives were evaluated resulting in a preferred solution. 5.2 Preferred Solution Since the cost of maintaining the current bridge under a rehabilitation approach is comparable to the cost of replacement options, Alternative 3 (bridge replacement) is the preferred alternative for the Salem Bridge. It is considered to best addresses the structural and functional deficiencies, improves wildlife passage and provides a much longer service life for the structure. The proposed design for the replacement bridge is a single span, precast NU concrete girder design with concrete baluster rail barrier (Figures 29, 30 and 31). The replacement structure will wider than the existing bridge.

30 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 29. General Arrangement, Replacement of Salem Bridge, Structure No , County of Wellington, WSP, April 2018.

31 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 30. Proposed Deck Section, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, June 13, 2018].

32 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Figure 31. Proposed Elevation, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, June 13, 2018]. Figure 32. Example of a concrete baluster rail barrier [WSP]. Figure 33. Example of a concrete baluster rail barrier {WSP].

33 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Introduction This section provides an assessment of the potential adverse effects of the proposed removal and replacement of the Salem Bridge, a steel half-through (pony) truss structure built in The Salem Bridge CHER evaluated the structure under Ontario Regulation 9/06 and identified it as being of cultural heritage value or interest due to its design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. Accordingly, it is worthy consideration for designation under Part IV of the OHA. Impacts can be described as direct when cultural heritage landscapes and/or built heritage resources will be removed or significantly altered by a proposed development activity or indirect when cultural heritage resources are disrupted by the introduction of physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with their character and, or setting. The conservation of cultural heritage resources is considered to be a matter of public interest. Negative impacts, as outlined in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans that may apply to a bridge replacement include, but are not limited to: o Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; o Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; and o Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features. 6.2 Identification of Potential Impacts: Salem Bridge The potential direct impacts (displacement) and indirect impacts (disruption) of this project are principally associated with the proposed removal and replacement of the Salem Bridge as identified in the Preferred Design Alternative. The proposed replacement bridge design is a single span, precast NU concrete girder design, wider than the existing bridge, with concrete baluster rail barriers. The proposed bridge replacement will be within the existing County ROW. The removal of the bridge substructure will be minimized to reduce impacts on the adjacent earth retaining structures.

34 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Direct Impacts Impacts can be described as direct when cultural heritage landscapes and/or built heritage resources will be removed or significantly altered by a proposed development activity. The existing steel half-through (pony) truss Salem Bridge structure will be removed, i.e., demolished, in its entirety, therefore, it is a direct impact. Indirect Impacts Impacts can be described as indirect when cultural heritage resources are disrupted by the introduction of physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with their character and, or setting. Potential indirect impacts are described below. The community of Salem is identified as a cultural heritage landscape. The visually appealing character of the existing steel half-through (pony) truss structure is wellbalanced with the historic fabric and appearance of the surrounding heritage environment that includes, but is not limited to, the Irvine Creek and the historical hamlet with the Salem (Wissler) Mill and Salem (Wissler) Dam. The compatibility of a bridge structure with its heritage environment will be altered with the introduction of the proposed preferred replacement bridge design of a precast NU concrete girder design bridge with a concrete baluster barrier system that is not as sympathetic to the existing environment. The design of the existing steel half-through (pony) truss is lighter in appearance and not intrusive in the environment. The overall massing, proportions and scale of the replacement bridge design should be developed in consideration of the existing bridge. As well, if an exiting heritage bridge has an open character with clear viewing from both the structure and the surrounding landscape that openness should be maintained in replacement design. The aesthetic qualities of the new bridge should ensure sensitivity to and compatibility with the existing environment in the context of both the streetscape and the riverscape. A barrier design contributes to the appreciation and aesthetic qualities of a bridge, are highly visible bridge elements and have a major impact on the overall appearance of a structure. Barrier design can be one of the main obstructions of views to and from the bridge and should allow for crossing motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and viewers to look beyond the barriers and see the surrounding environment. The preferred proposed single span, precast NU concrete girder design with concrete baluster rail barriers (Figures 29, 30 and 31). will introduce physical and visual elements that are not in keeping with the existing character and, or setting of the water crossing. The replacement bridge design is not harmonious in the historical

35 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B environment due to its concrete girder design, mass, width and materials that are dissimilar to the existing bridge. The concrete baluster rail barrier will have a more solid appearance in the environment and has the potential to block views to and from the bridge. Existing views to and from the existing bridge along Woolwich Street West (WR 18) are important in the community. The existing steel half-through (pony) truss is more open in design and therefore provides a more inclusive view of the surrounding environs, i.e., the Salem Mill and Dam, the Irvine Creek and Veterans Park to the north. Due to the introduction of and the design of the preferred proposed replacement bridge the existing views to and from the bridge will be changed and will potentially negatively affect the existing character and setting of the historical environment of Salem and the Irvine Creek. 6.3 Identification of Potential Impacts: Adjacent Property There are four (4) municipally listed properties under the OHA in the Township of Centre Wellington located adjacent to the subject bridge. The GRCA has identified the Salem (Wissler) Mill and Dam as cultural heritage resources within the Grand River. Potential indirect impacts to adjacent property are described below. The County has indicated it does not anticipate any impacts to the existing Salem (Wissler) dam structure or any buildings located adjacent to the bridge structure through property acquisition. There may be potential for temporary physical, audible or atmospheric elements due to vibration and construction activity. This project will result closing Salem Street to traffic during construction activities. Access to adjacent heritage properties may be affected at times during the construction. In addition, temporary increased noise and dust levels may occur to adjacent and built heritage resources as a result of construction activities. Construction activities will result in vibrations from construction equipment and activities that could cause damage to the masonry buildings in proximity to the bridge. It is anticipated there will be permanent visual impacts and change to the existing 19 th century character of adjacent heritage properties in community of Salem due to the introduction of the proposed new precast NU concrete girder design.

36 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WSP provided public access to the document County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class Environmental (EA) Study for a Online Public Information Centre (PIC) on May 30, 2018 for public review/ input/feedback on the materials presented and the selection of the preferred alternative, i.e., the replacement of the existing Salem Bridge. The public could submit questions or comments online or by mail/fax/ . In addition, a comment sheet was available for download on the County s website and background reports were available upon request. This Online PIC opportunity during the EA process provided for written input from the public. Comments were collected under the EA Act and, with the exception of personal information, became part of the public record. Notices for the commencement of the EA study and the Online PIC were delivered to local residents and a project sign has been installed at the bridge site. WSP Canada has indicated no specific comments addressing cultural heritage interest or value of the existing Salem Bridge were received on the Online PIC WSP Canada contacted the GRCA by communication to request a formal letter indicating the heritage status of the Salem Bridge and if it is of significance to inform the HIA for the Salem Bridge. 9 In response, correspondence from the GRCA to WSP Canada indicated the Salem Bridge is listed in the Heritage Bridge Inventory - Arch, Truss, and Beam (2013) report. It does not appear in the Grand Old Bridges: The Grand River Watershed Bridge Inventory Report (2004) prepared for the GRCA. No further information or assessment of the cultural heritage value of the Salem Bridge was provided by the GRCA to inform this HIA. 10 WSP Canada contacted the Township of Centre Wellington by correspondence on June 29, 2018 regarding the Class EA, Wellington County Bridge No. B018050, Salem Bridge over Irvine Creek, directing the Township to the online PIC display boards for review and requesting the Township Heritage Committee to provide comments on the project. WSP confirmed that the property impacts have been greatly reduced based on the new alignment and there will not be any impact to adjacent listed properties and built heritage structures. A reply from the Township to WSP was provided on July 27, 2018, and this correspondence indicates Townships staff has reviewed the CHER and agrees with the methodology and conclusions of the report. Staff is concerned the CHER information indicates that the bridge has significant cultural heritage value, thereby recommending the 9 correspondence from William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada to Jason Wagler, MCIP, RPP, Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority to (June 1, 2018, 11:09 am). 10 correspondence from Jason Wagler, MCIP, RPP, Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority to William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada (June 1, 2018, 11:27 am).

37 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B next stage of an HIA that has not yet been received. In addition, the municipality has identified all four (4) of the adjacent properties as having potential cultural heritage value through listing on the Municipal Register and staff is concerned about the impacts to these adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Committee discussed the issue at it August 7, 2018 meeting and is has noted it will not provide a formal decision until an HIA document has been reviewed. 11 The County of Wellington has decided to wait until the Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Committee comments before presenting the project file for endorsement to the Roads Committee and County Council. 12 As well, WSP contacted the MTCS by correspondence. The MTCS replied indicating sine the CHER found the bridge to be of cultural heritage value, a HIA should be prepared in order to inform the EA Study MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR HERITAGE RESOURCES 8.1 Introduction A proposed site alteration, such as the replacement of the Salem Bridge should not adversely affect cultural heritage resources and intervention should be managed in such a way that its impact is sympathetic with the value of the resources and that it minimizes or avoids an adverse effect to cultural heritage resources. A bridge has been located at this location on the Irvine Creek since the early 19 th century. The continued presence of a bridge in the same location is an important component of the cultural heritage landscape associated with the historical community of Salem and the adjacent Salem (Wissler) Mill and Dam sites and it provides an important entrance/exit function for the community of Salem and nearby Elora. When the nature of the site alteration is such that adverse impacts are unavoidable, it may be necessary to implement the management of mitigation strategies that alleviate the deleterious effects to the cultural heritage resource. The principal heritage philosophy for the protection of cultural heritage resources is retention in situ and the preservation of the material integrity to the maximum extent possible, consistent with public safety. Mitigation measures lessen or negate anticipated adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources. 11 correspondence from William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada to Unterman McPhail Associates re: Salem Bridge HIA (August 24, 2018). 12 Ibid. 13 correspondence from Laura Hatcher, MCIP, RPP, Heritage Planner, Heritage Program, Programs and Services Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to Stefan Sirianni, EIT, Designer, Transportation Planning, WSP re: 16M County of Wellington - Salem Bridge EA Study - CHER (Draft Final) for MTCS Review (April 17, 2018).

38 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B Mitigation strategies identified within The County of Wellington OP, Section (Appendix) are comparable to those provided by the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. They include, but are not limited to: o alternative development approaches o isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas o design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials o limiting height and density o allowing only compatible infill and additions o reversible alterations o buffer zones, and o site plan control 8.2 Mitigation Strategies for Bridges For bridges the following mitigation strategies, which are arranged according to level or degree of intervention from minimum to maximum, are appropriate in managing change and interventions to heritage bridges. 1) Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken. 2) Restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where physical or documentary evidence (e.g. photographs or drawings) exists for their design. 3) Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification. 4) Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity. 5) Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicular purposes but adapted for a new use. 6) Retention of bridge as a heritage monument for viewing purposes only. 7) Relocation of smaller, lighter single span bridges to an appropriate new site for continued use (or adaptive re-use. 8) Bridge removal and replacement with a sympathetically designed structure: a. Where possible, salvage elements/members of bridge for incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays; b. Undertake full recording and documentation of the existing structure. 8.3 Mitigation Strategies for Adjacent Property Mitigation strategies identified in The County of Wellington OP, Section are similar to those provided by the MTCS Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans and can be applied to adjacent heritage properties.

39 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Introduction The Salem Bridge CHER concluded through the evaluation process set out under O.Reg. 9/06 that the structure meets one or more of the evaluation criteria and therefore is of cultural heritage value or interest and worthy of consideration for municipal designation under Part IV of the OHA by the Township of Centre Wellington. Currently, the Salem Bridge is not included on a municipal heritage register inventory or designated it under the OHA. There are identified heritage properties included on the municipal heritage register for the Township of Centre Wellington located within the community of Salem and adjacent to the Salem Bridge. As well, the GRCA recognizes the Salem Bridge as a heritage resource in the publication Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Heritage Bridge Inventory (March 2013). 9.2 Conservation Recommendations for the Salem Bridge The following conservation recommendations are provided for the Salem Bridge to mitigate the negative effects of the replacement of this cultural heritage resource, namely, the Salem Bridge, in surrounding historical environment. 1) Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken. Ideally, the Salem Bridge would be retained on its original site, rehabilitated in a sensitive manner and continue to fulfill its original function as a road bridge. However, it will be replaced in its entirety precluding the conservation options of being retained in-situ with few and/or sympathetic modifications, in proximity to a sympathetically designed new bridge for non-vehicular purpose or as a heritage monument for viewing purposes. 2) Bridge replacement with a sympathetically designed structure The overall massing, proportions and scale of the replacement bridge should be developed in consideration of the existing bridge. A new bridge should incorporate aesthetic qualities that ensure sensitivity to and compatibility with the existing environment. If the existing heritage bridge has an open character with clear viewing from both the structure and the surrounding landscape, that openness should be maintained in the design of the replacement bridge. The design of barrier systems contribute to the openness, appreciation and aesthetic qualities of a bridge, are highly visible bridge elements and have a major impact on the overall appearance of a bridge. Their design can be one of the main obstructions of views to and from the bridge. The design should not impede views that already exist and should allow for crossing motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and viewers to look beyond the barriers and view the surrounding environment.

40 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B The proposed replacement design for the Salem Bridge, which is a wider, single span, precast NU concrete girder structure with a concrete baluster rail barrier, is more solid in appearance than the existing truss bridge. It does not convey the openness and materials of the current structure (Figures 32 and 33). Therefore, in order to be more harmonious with its environment and to better reflect the openness and materials of the existing truss bridge design, it is recommended a more open barrier system with metal railings should be considered (Figures 34 and 35). Figure 34. Example of a barrier with circular metal railings [Bracebridge ON, Google, 2018], Figure 35. Example of a barrier with rectangular metal railings [WSP]. 3) Views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features Views under and over the bridge, particularly looking south on the Irvine Creek to the Salem Bridge should be considered and retained to the greatest extent possible in the design of the replacement bridge. This may be achieved by selecting a barrier system with horizontal metal railings that could allow better views.

41 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B ) Relocation, Reuse, Salvage The County should consider the feasibility of reusing the truss structure in its entirety as a pedestrian bridge at another location, incorporating salvaged elements into the design of a new pedestrian bridge at another location or as a monument near the Irvine Creek crossing. The three (3) commemorative plaques on the existing bridge will be removed and conserved and either applied to the new bridge structure or included in a commemorative bridge display/plaque. If the plaques are not reused, as a last resort to ensure they are saved, the Wellington County Museum and Archives should be approached as a repository. 5) Commemoration The County shall consider, in cooperation with the Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Committee and the GRCA, the installation of a commemorative plaque at or near the crossing of the Irvine Creek that describe the history of the bridge crossing, the Salem (Wissler) Mill and Dam and Salem. The existing (3) bridge plaques should be incorporated into the new bridge structure or included in a commemorative display. 6) Documentation The Salem Bridge CHER and HIA may act as the principal documentation records and will be deposited with the Township of Centre Wellington Library, the Wellington County Museum and Archives and the GRCA. 9.3 Conservation Recommendations for Adjacent Property Although the County of Wellington has indicated the identified heritage properties located adjacent to the Salem Bridge will not be impacted by property acquisition for the bridge replacement, given their proximity, care should be taken during construction activities for the replacement bridge to protect these resources. Mitigation actions should include, but not limited to, protective fencing or boarding to prevent damage to any buildings, a noise and vibration management plan detailing prevention and management measures associated with construction activities and the close monitoring of vibrations during construction activities to adjacent built heritage resources.

42 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 SOURCES County of Wellington Official Plan. As Amended 2010 and Ontario Heritage Act. RSO Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, InfoSheet: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties InfoSheet: Heritage Conservation Principle s for Land Use Planning. Spring Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Provincial Policy Statement. Issued under section 3 of the Planning Act. April 30, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Information Bulletin 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties. January 31, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Aesthetic Guidelines for Bridges Township of Centre Wellington. The Municipal Official Plan for the Township of Centre Wellington. Approved May 31, Scenic Drive 1, Guelph, Fergus/Elora, Elmira/St. Jacobs. Flying Camel Advertising + Design, Province of Ontario and Grand River Conservation Authority, Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. A Federal, Provincial and Territorial Collaboration. Parks Canada, Canada s Historic Places. 2 nd ed Township of Centre Wellington. Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Heritage Register, List of Cultural and Heritage Significant Properties. February Township of Centre Wellington Municipal Official Plan. Adopted November 24, 2003, approved May 31, 2005 and consolidated January 4, Unterman McPhail Associates. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Salem Bridge, County Site No. B18050, (Lots 15 &16, Concession 11, Geographic Township of

43 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Nichol) Woolwich Street West (WR 18), Salem, Township of Centre Wellington, (April 2018). Unterman McPhail Associates with WSP Canada. Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist ( (2013, revised April 11, 2014) Part B Cultural Heritage Assessment, Salem Bridge County No. B18050 (February 2016). Web Sites County of Wellington, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Heritage River Inventory Grand River Watershed. Cultural Features and Values that support the Grand (including Speed, Eramosa, Nith and Conestogo Rivers) as a Canadian Heritage River Access: --< Documents/Heritage-Inventory_As-of-March-13_2013.pdf> (July 2017). WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class Environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, May 30, Access: --< Roads-construction-interior-SalemBridgeSlides.pdf> (August 2018). Maps and Drawings Google Maps, WSP, Proposed Deck Section, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement. Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class Environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, May 30, WSP, Proposed Elevation, Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement. Preferred Design Alternative Bridge Replacement [WSP, County of Wellington, Salem Bridge, No , Woolwich Street West (Wellington Road 18) Municipal Class Environmental (EA) Study. Online Public Information Centre, May 30, WSP, General Arrangement, Replacement of Salem Bridge, Structure No. B108050, Replacement, April 2018.

44 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Contacts Telephone Communication, Mariana Iglesias, Planner, Township of Centre Wellington, July 2018, correspondence from Laura Hatcher, MCIP, RPP, Heritage Planner, Heritage Program, Programs and Services Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to Stefan Sirianni, EIT, Designer, Transportation Planning, WSP re: 16M County of Wellington - Salem Bridge EA Study - CHER (Draft Final) for MTCS Review (April 17, 2018). correspondence from William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada to Jason Wagler, MCIP, RPP, Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority to (June 1, 2018, 11:09 am). correspondence from Jason Wagler, MCIP, RPP, Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority to William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada (June 1, 2018, 11:27 am). correspondence from William Van Ruyven, P.Eng., Project Engineer, WSP Canada to Unterman McPhail Associates re: Salem Bridge HIA (August 24, 2018, 11:52 am).

45 APPENDIX: COUNTY OF WELLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN (AS AMENDED 2010 AND 2013) SECTION 4.1 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES

46 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix

47 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix

48 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix

49 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix

50 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix

51 Heritage Impact Assessment: Salem Bridge, County Bridge No. B18050 Appendix