The Water Crossing

The Gregory Road culvert will be replaced over the next couple of years with some type of structure. I thought that before the culvert disappears forever, I would write a research article revealing more history of the Burnt River and some of the actual history of the existing culvert. I will also attempt to explain, in a chronological order, some of the issues and events surrounding the culvert over the past few decades.

While it is not the intent of this article to attempt to resolve many of the issues and jurisdictional disputes about the culvert, the solution to many of the problems is readily identifiable after studying the article.

Loon Lake is one of the Trent Severn Waterway reservoir lakes. While there are many ways that water gets into Loon Lake, there is only one way out. And that way is the Burnt River. It's mouth is at the end of the peninsula where Sunrise Condominiums is located. The water leaves Loon Lake and passes under the Gregory Road culvert after mixing with waters from Miskwabi and Long Lakes. As the waters continue downstream, they pass through what many cottager's refer to as Stump Lake before flowing through Loon Lake dam and head toward Blue Hawk lake and beyond.

The Gregory Lane culvert is the topic of this article, but before I really get started, I must give some history.

The actual why's and where's of the culvert have their roots a long way back in time. It was in April 1935 that an agreement was signed between the Dysart Land Company Limited and the Standard Chemical Company Limited to build a road. Standard Chemical was the builder and they wanted to build a road for purposes of transporting timber, lumber, minerals, or other products along the West shore of Loon Lake. The road they built went from what is now Highway 118 - just east of Black Lake, to beyond Portage Lake. The road had a bridge on it at the location of what is now the Loon Lake dam. The bridge was built very close to the dam and you can still find pieces of logs from the bridge on the river bottom beyond the pool below the dam. The bridge had been installed about 1940 by Mr. Gregory and Mr. Ventress. Mr. Ventress lived in what is now the white house on the hill across from the dam.

Mr. Gregory got approval from the Trent Canal people and his Member of Parliament to install the bridge below the dam.

On April 23, 1955 two Trent Canal maintenance men wrote to their supervisor that driftwood going through the dam would get caught on the

bridge and create a very dangerous condition for them as they tried to clear the log jam. The Trent Canal eventually contacted Mr. Gregory about the situation and he said that he wanted to build a new bridge, above the dam, that would come out on the highway near what is now Sunrise Condominiums. He also said that he planned to remove the old bridge in the fall of 1955.

He eventually advised the Trent Canal that the new temporary bridge would be 300 - 400 feet above the dam, and wider with a span of about 18 feet. Further discussions between the Trent Canal, Mr. Ventress, and Mr.Gregory revealed that the new bridge would be about 500 yards upstream, at a location where there existed two old piers from what was thought to be a previous bridge. This would have been at the location of the present culvert.

The Trent Canal advised him that the new bridge would not interfere with their drawing of water through the Loon Lake dam and that they had no objection.

Interestingly, I have a GPS topographical map that shows the location of a dam at the location of the present culvert and it is labelled "Loon Lake Dam".

An error perhaps ???

Not quite - it turns out that my GPS topographical map was not in error at all...

In fact, a Trent Canal employee remembered a dam at the location of the proposed new bridge. And further researching revealed that the dam is actually identified in old correspondence from the Hay Lumber Company. The dam was their own water control point that they used for controlling the reach in the river.

Logs at one time went down the river to Donald.

I recall that it wasn't too long ago that an artefact that we think is part of the logging heritage in this area was discovered on the flats of the Burnt River between the Loon Lake dam and the Gregory Road culvert. That artefact is now in the Haliburton museum.

It took a while to get the old bridge below the dam removed and at one time the Trent Canal people even threatened to remove it themselves and send Mr.Ventress the bill for the work. Apparently there was a mining company that was doing some digging around the area for uranium exploration and they wanted the bridge left in place!

The bridge was finally moved on April 26, 1956.

Previously I had posted a picture of the gravel truck that went through the Gregory Road bridge on October 28, 1974. There's not a lot of information available between 1956 and the time the truck went through the bridge. I do however fondly remember the old bridge particularly when taking my fishing boat through the wide opening and looking at the log cribs full of big rocks. The water was crystal clear so you could easily see the bottom.

And there was no sediment anywhere on the river bottom in those days!

When the truck broke through the bridge, gravel had to be bulldozed into the river to get the truck out. And after the truck was removed, the gravel that got into the river was all cleaned from the river bottom.

Then in order to make the road usable, two 30" diameter culverts were temporarily placed in the river, backfilled, and a causeway built overhead.

It didn't take long before it was discovered that the two 30" diameter culverts were restricting water flow to the dam and causing a back up of water upstream of the causeway.

Neighbouring property owners had complained of flooding and the Trent Canal, who couldn't draw the needed water, told the owners of the road -Mr. Dawson and Mr. Hunter - to remove the two 30" diameter culverts because they were restricting water flow. The Trent Canal also gave Mr. Dawson and Mr. Hunter information as to what was or was not allowed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Mr. Dawson then advised the MNR that he was going to install a 10 ft diameter culvert, and on November 28, 1974 the MNR advised Mr. Dawson that they concurred with the proposal to install a 10 ft diameter culvert. This culvert has never been indicated as being temporary and it has stayed until this current day.

However, the problems surrounding the life of this culvert were far from over!

While the MNR indicated it concurred with the proposal for the 10 foot diameter culvert, the Trent Canal was not too sure about it and on November 29, 1974 they asked the MNR to provide Mr. Dawson's design plans for the new culvert before it was placed. They also wanted to examine a cross section of the river showing the high water line relative to the invert

of the proposed culvert.

What followed was a series of letters between the owners of the road, the MNR, and the Trent Canal. The Trent Canal was demanding to see Mr. Dawson's design drawings and gave him instructions for compliance with the Navigable Waters Act. The culvert had been installed by January 10, 1975 and without any approval from the Trent Severn Waterway. On May 2, 1975, the Trent Canal sent a registered letter to Mr. Dawson [Algonkin Properties Limited] stating that they would not be responsible for flooding upstream of the culvert because of it's inability to pass sufficient water. On the same day, the Trent Canal sent a letter to the Ministry of Transport asking them to investigate the installation of the culvert as a violation of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the same letter, the Trent Canal stated that it was their understanding that the previous wooden bridge provided for navigation of small craft and that the flow section below it was sufficient for passing high flows. They also called for an investigation as to whether or not the culvert was in violation of the Ontario Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act since it was acting as a dam; and whether or not under the Ontario Public Lands Act, a permit had been issued before the culvert was placed.

The Trent Canal called for replacement of the culvert with a bridge similar to the old one that provided navigational clearances and provided for sufficient flow.

On May 21, 1975, the MNR sent a registered letter to Algonkin Properties Limited ordering them to remove the 10 foot diameter culvert. And if the road was to continue to be used beyond the point of the culvert, a properly designed bridge must be provided to provide for proper navigational and water flow requirements.

On June 13, 1975, a meeting took place wherein it was identified that the 10 foot diameter culvert was sufficient for navigation but not for flow. Algonkin Properties was told to try to add more culverts to meet flow requirements. The existing 10 foot diameter culvert would pass only 210 cfs wherein the dam required 800 cfs at high water level.

Mr. Dawson proposed adding two more 48 inch diameter culverts, but his proposal was rejected by the Trent Canal.

At this point, the 10 foot diameter culvert was still in the river, as it is today!

A series of letters to Dawson of Algonkin Properties produced no results and on October 7, 1975, the Trent Canal sent a letter to Algonkin Properties ordering them to remove the culvert before the freeze-up of the fall of 1975

or the Trent Canal would remove it and back charge Algonkin Properties.

So as of this date, the MNR and TC have both ordered Algonkin Properties to remove the culvert. And it was never done!

Between October 1975 and June 23, 1976 the culvert was still not removed and Algonkin Properties had not yet been able to produce a satisfactory replacement design to the Trent Canal, including that of an additional 6 foot diameter culvert.

The problem regarding the sizing of a suitable water crossing, using a culvert, and even using multiple culverts, had still not been resolved on May 4, 1981.

The Trent Canal requirements had not yet been met.

And it was on May 21, 1981 that the MNR wrote a letter to the Trent Canal suggesting that since cottagers on Loon Lake didn't seem to have a problem with the culvert and since the culvert had seemed to be working satisfactorily for the past few years, that the situation be left alone. The Trent Canal did not accept this suggestion.

Following this letter, the Trent Canal wrote to the Municipality of Dysart et al requesting that it take over the problem of correcting the restriction caused by the existing culvert as well as the restriction problem caused by the encroachment existing at the mouth of the river. The Municipality of Dysart et al was of the opinion that the MNR had already taken the responsibility of removing the culvert problem in it's letter to Algonkin Properties ordering removal of the culvert.

On April 7, 1986, Mr. Lees of the Gregory Road Cottager's Association enquired of the Trent Canal as to the status of the culvert situation.

It is still the opinion as of this date, that the entire matter rests with the MNR.

On November 1988 the Gregory Road Cottager's Association purchased a portion of road, including the culvert, for cottage access.

Over time, changes occurred with respect to the existing culvert including the installation of gabian baskets; rock placements; additional but limited fill on top of the culvert for load protection; and in 2008 a structure to limit wash-outs and provide for additional build-up of the road surface.

To-day, the culvert is 38 years old and has exceeded it's life expectancy. It has been the subject of many letters; it has caused concerns and consumed a lot of people's time; it has passed many boats; it has had many loons and fishes swim through it; it has helped in flood prevention; and it has got plugged with Springtime logs that required a crane to remove the blockages.

As far as I can recall, there were never any problems with the wooden bridge that preceeded the existing culvert. And interestingly enough, the approving authorities all preferred the wooden bridge.

The period before the placing of the culvert, when there was a bridge at the Loon Lake Dam, and a small control dam at the culvert's present location, was a part of the important logging heritage of this area.

So the Gregory Road culvert itself is an important part of the heritage of not just Loon Lake but Haliburton County. And whatever structure eventually ends up replacing it will be a part of a new era.

Mike

Mike Grinnell,Loon Lake, Haliburton.

Disclaimer

This article is published by me as a service to my readers and other interested parties. It is based on my own findings and interpretations. No scientific validation has been performed. No one should act upon comments made without considering the facts of specific situations and/or consulting appropriate professional advisors.

I assume no responsibility for errors or omissions and will not accept liability of any nature whatsoever that may be suffered by use of the information contained in this article.

© 2012