appendix b background - cambridge.ca · local 0.5 m contour mapping riverside.dwg unknown unknown...

$: Appendix B Background - cambridge.ca · Local 0.5 m contour mapping Riverside.dwg Unknown Unknown AutoCAD .DWG City City Paul Hilker 02-Nov-11 04-Nov-11 Various GIS Mapping\ Preston$
Appendix B

Background

Information Tracking

DATA CATEGORY

Item Sta

tus

Description File Name Author Date Type Format Data Owner Data Provider Contact Date RequestedDate

Received

1. Base Layers, Mapping

�� Aerial Photography Cambridge2009.tif Unknown 2009 Image .TIF City City Paul Hilker 02-Nov-11 04-Nov-11 Latest aerial photography

�� Local 0.5 m contour mapping Riverside.dwg Unknown Unknown AutoCAD .DWG City City Paul Hilker 02-Nov-11 04-Nov-11

Various GIS Mapping\

�� Preston Zoning Map zoningmappreston.dwg Unknown Unknown AutoCAD .DWG City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11

�� Rogers Drive Geodetic Survey and Layout ROGERSDrive.dwg Unknown Unknown AutoCAD .DWG City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11

�� Sanchez Geodetic Survey Dam sanchez ACAD2000.dwg Unknown Unknown AutoCAD .DWG City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11

�� Plans of Survey (Legal Plans) Various Multiple Various Map .TIF City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11 Local lot plans, etc.

�� Plan & Profile Drawings Various Multiple Various Dwg .TIF City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11 Local infrastructure drawings

�� Regulation Mapping Various GRCA Unknown Map .SHP GRCA GRCA Website 02-Nov-11 16-Dec-11

�� Two-Zone floodplain mapping Preston2zMap1.PDF Dwight Boyd Sep-96 Map .PDF GRCA GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11 16-Nov-11 Downloaded from GRCA website

�� Upstream Speed River survey Various Parish 2007 Various Various Parish Parish Shari Faulkenham 02-Nov-11 05-Dec-11 Survey and photos

�� Structural dwgs of King St. Bridge Various Various Various Drawing .TIF City/Region City Paul Hilker 15-Nov-11 21-Nov-11

�� Survey of King St Bridge Unavailable

�� Structural dwgs/survey of CP Rail Bridge WATO 4.66 Bridge 925 Drawing.pdf Unknown Unknown Drawing .PDF CP City Paul Hilker 15-Nov-11 11-Nov-11 Hand sketch

�� Park layout drawing 97-P-19.dwg Unknown Unknown Map .DWG City City Paul Hilker 02-Nov-11 11-Nov-17

2. Models and Technical

Data

�� Sanchez HEC-RAS Model HEC-RAS - South Control

Structure_zip.zip

Sanchez Engineering Oct-09 Model HECRAS City City Paul Hilker 02-Nov-11 16-Nov-11 Converted from GRCA HEC2 model

�� Speed River HEC-2 Model H2S1.DAT GRCA Model HEC2 GRCA GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11 21-Nov-11

�� Water quality and temperature data (GRCA) GRCA GRCA GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11

��Water quallity and temp data (sewage treatment plant) GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11

�� Water quality data 1150250.xls Parish Dec-11 Excel .XLS Parish Parish Shari Faulkenham 07-Mar-12 WQ and sediment sampling results

��

3. Planning Docs

�� Hedstrom Park Proposed Layout 185_King_St_CP-Layout1.pdf S. Reise, OALA Feb-09 PDF PDF City City Elaine Brunn Shaw 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11 Layout, sections, materials, planting

��Parkhill Dam EA GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11 Relevent local project including hydro gen opportunities Not available,

study has not started.

�� Riverside Park Planning Docs City City 02-Nov-11 Unavailable

4. Technical Reports

��Riverside Dam Emergency Repairs Design Brief Riverside Dam Emergency Repairs

Design Brief.pdf

Sanchez Engineering Nov-08 PDF PDF City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11 Includes drawings and construction RFP

��Riverside Dam Structural Evaluation and Detailed

Design

SN0163 Final_Report_October

09_with_Appendices.pdf

Sanchez Engineering Oct-09 PDF PDF City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11

��

Fish and Fish Habitat Existing Conditions Report Fish and Fish Habitat Existing

Conditions Report-July 2008C.pdf

Stringer's Environmental

Services

Aug-08 PDF PDF City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11

�� Riverside Dam Underwater Video Survey Applus Aug-08 Report Hardcopy City City Paul Hilker 14-Oct-11 02-Nov-11 Including DVD video

�� Natural Resource Reporting City/GRCA/Region ?

��Preston 2 Zone Technical Background Report SpeedPreston2ZTechBavkroundRe

port.pdf

Dwight Boyd Oct-97 Report .PDF GRCA GRCA Dwight Boyd 02-Nov-11 16-Nov-11

��Speed and Eramosa Rivers Floodline Mapping Study SpeedPrestonParagonHydraulicsEx

tract.pdf

GRCA ? Report .PDF GRCA GRCA Gus Rungis 02-Nov-11 16-Nov-11 Extract

�� Cost Benefit Analysis - Springbank Dam PA 9915 a Cost Benefit Analysis -

Springbank Dam.pdf

Jeff Brick Dec-11 Report .PDF UTRCA City Kealy Dedman 08-Dec-11

5. Misc

�� Relevent data on Riverside Park City Arborist reporting, mapping, survey, etc.

�� Riverside Dam EA Sch B TOR Review MEM_RiversideDamEA_TOR_Review15

November2011.docxSandra Cooke Nov-11 Memo .DOC GRCA GRCA John Brum 29-Nov-11 GRCA internal review of TOR

Riverside Dam EA

INFORMATION TRANSFER TRACKING

City of Cambridge

COMMENTSDATA TRANSFER TRACKING STATUSDATA DESCRIPTION

DATE: 27/03/2013 PAGE: 1

Photo Inventory

Riverside Dam

1

Birds eye view of Riverside Park and parts of Preston – early 1900s

Historical view of Riverside Dam looking north – early 1900s

Riverside Dam

2

Historical view of Riverside Dam looking south

Postcard view of dam – 1907

Riverside Dam

3

North side of headpond – looking downstream at dam and mill race

Dam and north control structure – looking upstream

Riverside Dam

4

Dam and CP Rail bridge – looking east

North control structure

Riverside Dam

5

South control structure with temporary structural measures

South control structure with temporary structural measures

Riverside Dam

6

CP Railway Bridge – downstream of dam structure

CP Railway Bridge – wooden pilings

Riverside Dam

7

CP Railway Bridge – debris adjacent to rail bridge

CP Railway Bridge – downstream of dam structure

Riverside Dam

8

Upstream side of mill race inlet structure

Upstream side of mill race inlet structure

Riverside Dam

9

Downstream of mill race control structure

Downstream of mill race control structure

Riverside Dam

10

Downstream of mill race control structure looking upstream

Riverside Dam

11

Erosion along mill race

CP bridge and King Street culvert along mill race

Riverside Dam

12

Downstream of P&H Milling, looking upstream

Speed River downstream of P&H Milling

Riverside Dam

13

South side of King Street looking east

North side of King Street looking east

Riverside Dam

14

North side of headpond, Riverside Park – looking upstream of dam

North side of headpond – looking upstream of dam

Riverside Dam

15

South side of headpond – looking downstream to dam

South side of headpond – looking downstream to dam

Riverside Dam

16

Looking downstream to dam

Looking downstream to dam

Riverside Dam

17

South side of headpond – looking upstream of dam

North side of headpond – looking upstream of dam

Riverside Dam

18

Main entrance to Riverside Park

Main entrance to Riverside Park

Riverside Dam

19

Ring road through Riverside Park

Inlet to Sulphur Creek

Riverside Dam

20

Speed River – upstream of Sulphur Creek Inlet

Riverside Dam

21

Sulphur Creek pond through Riverside Park


Riverside Dam

22


Sulphur Creek – downstream of pond

Background Documents

Appendix C

Geodetic Survey

ABRAHAM ST

CHOPIN DR

KITCHENER RD

MA

RG

AR

ET S

T

MARMEL CRT

WILLIA

M S

T

QU

EE

NS

TON

RD

HA

MILTO

N S

T

DOVER ST N

CYRUS ST

KIN

G S

T E

DU

KE

ST

WATERLOO ST N

NELSON ST

HEDLEY ST

HWY 401

RUSS ST

WATERLOO ST S

JACO

B ST

EAGLE ST S

EAGLE ST N

DOVER ST S

LEGEND

Riiverside

Departme

Cityof

ePark

J.Muirhead

entofCivil&Univers

WaN

Nove

ECO-HYDRA

Civil&EnvirUniversity

519888‐45wkannabl@

Cambr

Bathym

dandW.K.A

&EnvironmsityofWateaterloo,ONN2L3G1

ember2011

AULICS GROU

ronmentalEnyofWaterloo

[email protected]

ridge

metricS

Annable

entalEnginrloo

1

UP

g.

5a

Survey

neering

1

1.0 IntroductionAone‐kilometrereachoftheSpeedRiverboundbyaconcretespillwayatthedownstreamlimitandapedestrianbridgeattheupstreamlimitlocatedinRiversideParkinCambridge,OntariowassurveyedbetweenNovember18thand21sttoobtainabathymetricsurveyofthereservoir(Figure1).

2.0 SiteSurveyandMethodologyASonTekAcousticDopplerProfiler(ADP)outfittedonbotha1.2mlongcatamaranandakayakwasemployedtoobtainsoundingsofthereservoiratapproximately15m–20mtransectsthroughoutthestudyarea(Figure2).ASokkiafirst‐orderdifferentialGPSwasalsoemployedtoestablishtopofbankandwatersurfaceelevationsfortheriverboundaries.ComparisonofRTK‐fixedwatersurfaceelevationsfromNovember18,2011andNovember21,2011showednosignificantvariationandnosignificantprecipitationeventsoccurredovertheSpeedRiverwatershedduringthesurveyperiod.Therefore,itwasassumedthatwaterdepthsacquiredonNovember18,2011fromtheADPcouldbeprocessedusingwatersurfaceelevationsacquiredonNovember21,2011toseamlesslydepictthesurveybathymetryofthestudyarea.Approximately400metresalongnortheastshorelinewasinaccessibleforaGPSRTKlockforbothbankandwatersurfaceelevations.Inspectionofgeo‐referencedorthoimageryallowedforidentificationofhorizontalcoordinatesofriverextents,whichwereassignedawatersurfaceelevationof272.000metresabovesealevel(masl,inaccordancewithwatersurfaceelevationobservedforentirereach).Toallowforproperbreaklineconstructionofthebathymetrysurveyextents,a2:1(H:V)bankslopeforaverticalriseof1metreabovethewatersurfaceelevationwasassumed(consistentwithfieldobservations).

3.0 ResultsAtotalof1051ADPbathymetricsoundingswereobtainedproducingaUTMirregularnetworkofelevations.ThedatasetwasKriggedandabathymetryplotproduced(Figure3).Further,thebathymetricsoundingselevationsweresubtractedfromthewatersurfaceelevationtoproduceawaterdepthmap(Figure4).TheUTMresultsofthebathymetricsurveyarealsoincludedinthisreportasanelectronicaddendum.Areasupstreamofthepedestrianbridgewerenotsurveyedasthedepths(riffle)weretooshallowtoemploytheADPapparatus.BackwatereffectsgoverntheSpeedRiverwatersurfaceelevationstotheupperextentofthestudyarea(pedestrianbridgecrossing).Thechannelbedelevationsrangefrom270.2maslto272.0masl,thelatterbeingthewatersurfaceelevationatthetimeofthesurvey.Relativelydeepholesexistatthesouthwestextentaswellasalongtheeastbankinthelowerhalfofthestudyarea.Theupperhalfofthestudyareaischaracterizedbyshallowerdepthsandmoregradualslopechangeswherecoarsegaveldepositionwouldbeoccurringresultingfromthebackwaterchangesintheenergygrade‐lineslope.AsecondarychannelwithasmallpondexiststothewestoftheprimaryRiversideParkreservoir.Thissecondarypondwasnotsurveyedinthecurrentstudy.

8

EAGLE

ROGERS

401

KING

HE

DL

EY

LA

UR

EL

DO

VER

FO

UN

TAIN

MARGARETWILLIAM

NORTHA

GN

ES

401

8

Figure 1: Riverside Park Bathymetry Survey Location

Area Subject to Bathymetric Survey ±0 110 220 330 44055Meters 2

%,%,

%,%,

%,

%,%,%,%, %,%,

%,%,%,%,

%,%,

%,%,%,%,%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,%,%,

%,%,%,%,

%,%,

%,%,%,%,

%,%,%,%,%,%,

%,%, %,%,%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,%,

%,

%,%,%,%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,

%,%, %,

8

EAGLE

ROGERS

401

KING

HE

DL

EY

LA

UR

EL

DO

VER

FO

UN

TAIN

MARGARETWILLIAM

NORTHA

GN

ES

401

8

Figure 2: Riverside Park Bathymetry Survey Points

±0 110 220 330 44055Meters

%, GRX-1 Surveyed Boundary Points

ADP Sounding Locations 3

551400 551500 551600 551700 551800 551900 552000Easting (m)

Figure 3: Riverside Park Bathymetry Contour Map

4805500

4805600

4805700

4805800

4805900

4806000

4806100

Nor

thin

g (m

)

270.2270.3270.4270.5270.6270.7270.8270.9271271.1271.2271.3271.4271.5271.6271.7271.8271.9272272.1272.2272.3272.4272.5

Elevation (masl)

4

551400 551500 551600 551700 551800 551900 552000Easting (m)

Figure 4: Riverside Park Bathymetry Depth Map

4805500

4805600

4805700

4805800

4805900

4806000

4806100

Nor

thin

g (m

)

270.2270.3270.4270.5270.6270.7270.8270.9271271.1271.2271.3271.4271.5271.6271.7271.8271.9272272.1272.2272.3272.4272.5

Depth (m)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.8

1.0

1.7

1.5

0.7

1.5

1.7

1.1

1.4

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.7

5

Appendix D

Hydrology / Hydraulics

Appendix E

Stream Geomorphology

Figure D1: Geomorphic reach delineation and study area.

Figure D2: Cross-section locations

Speed River ‐ XS‐12

271.5

272

272.5

273

273.5

274

274.5

275

275.5

276

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Width (m)

Elevation (m

)

12‐Dec‐07 Series2 Water

Top of Bank Cross-section - Site 13

271

271.5

272

272.5

273

273.5

274

0 10 20 30 40 50Width (m)

Depth

(m

)

14-Nov-07 Water Bankfull 28-Nov-11


270

270.5

271

271.5

272

272.5

273

273.5

274

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Width (m)

Depth

(m

)

14-Nov-07 Water Bankfull 28-Nov-11


270

270.5

271

271.5

272

272.5

273

273.5

274

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Width (m)

Ele

vation (m

14-Nov-07 Water Bankfull 8-Dec-11


270

270.5

271

271.5

272

272.5

273

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Width (m)

Ele

vation (m



269

269.5

270

270.5

271

271.5

272

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Width (m)

Depth

(m

)


XS-12 2007 vs. 2011

0102030405060708090

100

< .0

002

.001

-.004

9

.02-

.049

.2-.4

9

.60-

.79

1.2-

1.59

2.4-

3.19

4.8-

6.39

9.6-

12.7

9

19.2

-25.

59

38.4

-51.

19

102.

4-20

4.79

> 40

9.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total % 2007

Total % 2011

Cumulat ive % 2007

Cumulat ive % 2011

XS-13 2007 vs. 2011

0102030405060708090

100

< .0

002

.001

-.004

9

.02-

.049

.2-.4

9

.60-

.79

1.2-

1.59

2.4-

3.19

4.8-

6.39

9.6-

12.7

9

19.2

-25.

59

38.4

-51.

19

102.

4-20

4.79

> 40

9.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total % 2007

Total % 2011

Cumulat ive % 2007

Cumulat ive % 2011

XS-14 2007 vs. 2011

0102030405060708090

100

< .0

002

.001

-.004

9

.02-

.049

.2-.4

9

.60-

.79

1.2-

1.59

2.4-

3.19

4.8-

6.39

9.6-

12.7

9

19.2

-25.

59

38.4

-51.

19

102.

4-20

4.79

> 40

9.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total % 2007Total % 2011Cumulative % 2007Cumulative % 2011

Photo 1. Reach 5: General site conditions, viewing upstream.

Photo 2. Reach 5: Viewing \upstream at the downstream section of island feature.

Photo 3. Reach 4: Viewing downstream at pedestrian crossing at upstream end of reach.

Photo 4. Reach 4: Viewing upstream at King St. dam at downstream end of reach.

Photo 5. Reach 3: Viewing upstream at rail crossing and dam on King St. (upstream reach limit)

Photo 6. Reach 3: Viewing upstream end of braided channel.

Appendix F

Natural Heritage System

APPENDIX F

1

Fish Species found in the Speed River below the City of Guelph Compiled from data maintained by Guelph District MNR, 1974‐2008; and personal communications with A. Timmerman and T. Zammit, 2011 Common Name Scientific Name Northern Pike Esox lucius White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Stonecat Noturus flavus Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides

Blackside Darter Percina maculata Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Species of conservation concern criteria listed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000)

species identified as nationally endangered or threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which are not protected in regulation under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act

species identified as provincial Special Concern based on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) updated periodically by the MNR

species that are listed as rare or historical in Ontario based on records kept by the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough (S1 is extremely rare, S2 is very rare, S3 is rare to uncommon)

species whose populations are known to be experiencing substantial declines in Ontario species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are rare or

uncommon in the planning area species that are rare within the planning area, even though they may not be provincially rare species that are subjects of recovery programs (e.g., the Black Duck Joint Venture of the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan) species considered important to the municipality, based on recommendations from the

Conservation Advisory Committee

APPENDIX F

2

Species of conservation concern that may have habitat in the study area. Common Name Scientific Name Highest Designation

Amphibians Jefferson X Blue‐spotted Salamander, Jefferson genome dominates

Ambystoma hybrid pop. 1

S2

Birds Bald Eagle SC Black Tern Childonias niger SC Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor SC Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina SC Louisiana Waterthrush SC Short‐eared Owl SC Yellow‐breasted Chat Icteria virens SC

Butterflies Monarch Danaus plexippus SC West Virginia White SC

Dragonflies/Damselflies Lilypad Clubtail Arigomphus furcifer S3 Spatterdock Darner Rhionaeschna mutata S1 Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros S2S3 Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton S2S3

Reptiles Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritis SC Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum SC Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica SC Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SC

Plants Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium SC Downy Yellow False Foxglove Aureolaria virginica S1 Hairy Valerian Valeriana edulis S1 Moss Phlox Phlox subulata S1? Chinese Hemlock Parsley Conioselinum chinense S2 Long‐stlyed Canadian Sanicle Sanicula canadensis var. grandis S2 Puttyroot Aplectrum hyemale S2 Slim‐flowered Muhly Muhlenbergia tenuiflora S2

Soft‐hairy False Gromwell Onosmodium molle ssp. hispidissimum S2

Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia S2 Woodland Flax Linum virginianum S2 Burning Bush Euonymus atropurpureus S3 Northern Hawthorn Crataegus dissona S3 Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis S3 Pawpaw Asimina triloba S3 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra S3 Ram's‐head Lady's‐slipper Cypripedium arietinum S3 Scarlet Beebalm Monarda didyma S3

APPENDIX F

3

Common Name Scientific Name Highest Designation Amphibians

Sharp‐fruited Rush Juncus acuminatus S3 Smith's Bulrush Schoenoplectus smithii S3 Wild Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota S3 Harbinger‐of‐spring Erigenia bulbosa S3?

APPENDIX F

4

Endangered and threatened species (excluding aquatic SAR) that have been historically documented in the vicinity of the study area Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC COSSARO Significant Habitat Significant Habitat

Present within Study Area

Amphibians Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma

jeffersonianum END END Requires temporary, fishless ponds to breed; and

extensive surrounding moist deciduous forest for remainder of its life activities.

No

Birds Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens END END Nests in mature closed‐canopy forests with open

understorey. In Ontario, typically found either in large patches of mature deciduous forest or in mature, forested ravine settings.

No

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR Historically associated with tall‐grass prairie habitat, now nests in hayfields and pastures due to the plant cover present at the start of the nesting season. Microhabitat requirements include moderate litter depth, high grass‐to‐legume ratios, and a high proportion of forb cover (e.g., clover)

No

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea END END Requires relatively large tracts of continuous deciduous forest, but also requires small gaps and other elements of heterogeneity within these tracts. Affinities to specific mature tree species for male singing posts (e.g. bitternut hickory)

No

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR Historically nested on cave walls and in hollow trees or tree cavities in old growth forests. Currently nest and roost (rest or sleep) in chimneys and other manmade structures close to water where the flying insects they eat congregate.

No; individuals potentially nesting in nearby urban structures may forage over the Speed River in the vicinity of the study area.

APPENDIX F

5

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC COSSARO Significant Habitat Significant Habitat Present within Study Area

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

END END Nests in open fields including tall grasses that are interspersed with tall herbaceous plants, or shrubby species. Prefer undisturbed areas with dense living grasses and a dense thatch of dead grasses. May occupy hayfields.

No

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis THR THR Breeds strictly in marshes dominated by emergent vegetation surrounded by areas of open water. Stands of dense vegetation are essential for nesting on platforms of stiff stems. The nests are almost always within 10 m of open water.

No

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus SC THR Nests on cliff ledges on steep cliffs, usually near wetlands ‐‐ including artificial cliffs such as quarries and buildings; nesting territory includes 1km area around the nest; home range includes the extended, non‐defended area where foraging occurs

No

Insects Rusty‐patched Bumble Bee

Bombus affinis END END Typically nests underground in old rodent burrows; forages in a wide variety of habitats such as mixed farmland, sand dunes, marshes, urban and wooded areas. As the species is active from April to October a lengthy period of abundant flowering plants is required.

No

Mammals American Badger Taxidea taxus

jacksoni END END Typically occur in open habitats, whether natural

(grasslands) or man‐made (agricultural fields, road right‐of‐ways, golf courses), with friable soils suitable for badgers to burrow in and to support small burrowing mammals upon which badgers prey.

No

APPENDIX F

6


Reptiles Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii THR THR Prefers lakes, permanent or temporary pools,

slow‐flowing streams, marshes and swamps. Usually nests in dry conifer or mixed hardwood forests, up to 410 m from any body of water, but also partially vegetated sites such as fields or roadways. Overwintering occurs in permanent pools that average about one metre in depth, or in slow‐flowing streams.

Yes; no records for this species were found for the vicinity of the study area during this assessment.

Queensnake Regina septemvittata END END Found adjacent to rocky shorelines of primarily rivers and some lakes, rarely being found more than 3 m from the shoreline, and has a highly specialized diet, feeding almost exclusively on freshly moulted crayfish

No

Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta END END Semi‐aquatic, rarely strays farther than 300 m from water. Typically associated with rivers and streams with sandy or gravely‐sandy bottoms and prefers clear meandering watercourses with a moderate current. Nests on sand or gravel‐sand beaches and banks, riparian areas with diverse, patchy cover, and also gravel holes at the edges of roads and railways, in utility right‐of‐ways, in farming fields, pastures and former fields. Less frequently used habitats include bogs, marshy pastures, beaver ponds, shrubby cover, meadows, coniferous forests, mixed forests, hay, and agricultural fields and pastures. Hibernates at the bottom of the water.

No

Vascular Plants American Chestnut Castanea dentata END END Found in deciduous forest communities,

preferring dry forests with acid and sandy soils. Found almost exclusively in the United States,

No

APPENDIX F

7


and is only found in Ontario because of the moderating influence of the Great Lakes.

American Columbo Frasera caroliniensis END END Most commonly associated with open deciduous forested slopes, but also found in thickets and clearings. In Ontario, frequently found growing with perfoliate bellwort, woodland sunflower, Pennsylvania sedge, poverty oat‐grass and various asters and goldenrods.

No

American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius END END Grows in rich, moist, undisturbed and relatively mature deciduous woods in areas of neutral soil (such as over limestone or marble bedrock). The forest canopy is usually dominated by Sugar Maple, White Ash, Bitternut Hickory, and Basswood. Colonies are often found near the bottom of gentle south‐facing slopes, where the microhabitat is warm and well‐drained.

No

Butternut Juglans cinerea END END Found in rich, moist, and well‐drained soils often found along streams; well‐drained gravel sites, especially those made up of limestone; and seldomly, on dry, rocky and sterile soils.

Yes; no records for this species were found for the vicinity of the study area during this assessment.

Eastern Flowering Dogwood

Cornus florida END END Typically grows in the understory or on the edges of mid‐age to mature, deciduous or mixed forests. Generally found in the drier areas of its habitat, although it is occasionally found in slightly moist environments. Prefers clayey, sandy soil.

No

False Hop Sedge Carex lupuliformis END END In Ontario, found in the Carolinian Forest zone in areas with swamps, marshes or temporary pools flooded in spring. Populations are largest in open areas with ample sunlight, such as forest edges or clearings.

No

Appendix G

Water and Sediment Quality

Page 1 of 3

Figure 1. Substrate size distribution for cross-section 12 (located at top of head pond).

Figure 2. Substrate size distribution for cross-section 16 (immediately upstream of Riverside Dam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

< .0

002

.000

2-.0

009

.001

-.004

9

.005

-.019

.02-

.049

.05-

.19

.2-.4

9

.50-

.59

.60-

.79

.80-

1.19

1.2-

1.59

1.6-

2.39

2.4-

3.19

3.2-

4.79

4.8-

6.39

6.4-

9.59

9.6-

12.7

9

12.8

-19.

19

19.2

-25.

59

25.6

-38.

39

38.4

-51.

19

51.2

-102

.39

102.

4-…

204.

8-…

> 40

9.6

BE

DR

OC

K

To

tal P

erce

nt

Particle Size (cm)

Substrate Size Distribution - XS-12

Total %

Page 2 of 3

Table 6. Analytical results of water samples collected from Riverside Dam head pond in 2011

Parameter Units MDL1 Provincial Water Quality Objective

Sample 2011‐A 2011‐B 2011‐C 2011‐D

Sample Date (m/d/y) 12/08/2011 12/08/2011 12/08/2011 12/08/2011 Metals Mercury ug/L 0.1 0.2 ug/L ND2 (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) Aluminum ug/L 1 15 ug/L 54 113 90 53 Antimony ug/L 0.5 20 ug/L ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) Arsenic ug/L 1 5 ug/L ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Barium ug/L 1 23 24 22 22 Beryllium ug/L 0.5 11 ug/L ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) Boron ug/L 10 200 ug/L 29 30 28 27 Cadmium ug/L 0.1 0.1 ug/L ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) Calcium ug/L 100 72800 75400 75200 69200 Chromium ug/L 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Chromium (VI) ug/L 10 1 ug/L ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) Cobalt ug/L 0.5 0.9 ug/L ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) Copper ug/L 0.5 1 ug/L 2.0 5.3 3.2 2.0 Iron ug/L 100 300 ug/L ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) ND (100) Lead ug/L 0.1 1 ug/L 0.7 2.0 1.3 0.7 Magnesium ug/L 200 21000 21100 20500 20400 Manganese ug/L 5 17 19 18 16 Molybdenum ug/L 0.5 40 ug/L 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 Nickel ug/L 1 25 ug/L 1 1 1 1 Potassium ug/L 100 2480 2510 2530 2440 Selenium ug/L 1 100 ug/L ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Silicon ug/L 10 2570 3680 2590 2710 Silver ug/L 0.1 0.1 ug/L ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) Sodium ug/L 200 30900 31000 29400 22400 Strontium ug/L 10 162 160 159 156 Thallium ug/L 0.1 0.3 ug/L ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) Tin ug/L 5 ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) Titanium ug/L 5 ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) Tungsten ug/L 10 30 ug/L ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) Uranium ug/L 0.1 5 ug/L 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Vanadium ug/L 0.5 6 ug/L 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 Zinc ug/L 5 20 ug/L 15 19 16 13

1 Minimum Detectable Limit 2 Not Detectable (below detectable limits)

Page 3 of 3

Table 7. Analytical results of sediment samples collected from Riverside Dam head pond in 2011 and 2012

Parameter Units MDL Ontario Regulation 153/04 (2011)‐

Table 9 Sediment Sample

2012‐1 2012‐2 2012‐3 2011‐1 2011‐2 2011‐3 2011‐4 2011‐5 2011‐6 Sample Date (m/d/y) 08/28/2012 08/28/2012 08/28/2012 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 12/08/2011 12/08/2011 % Solids % by Wt. 0.1 77.3 59.8 55.2 68.5 56.7 68.0 51.3 70.0 85.9 Metals Aluminum ug/g dry 10 842 1170 1540 1040 868 1250 1950 1380 1290 Antimony ug/g dry 1 ND (1) ND (1) 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) 1 ND (1) ND (1) Arsenic ug/g dry 1 6 ug/g dry ND (1) ND (1) 1 ND (1) ND (1) 2 1 ND (1) ND (1) Barium ug/g dry 1 38 32 37 34 30 120 35 11 19 Beryllium ug/g dry 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) Boron ug/g dry 5 6.1 8.7 15.0 5.8 5.6 ND (5.0) 5.7 ND (5.0) ND (5.0) Cadmium ug/g dry 0.5 0.6 ug/g dry ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 1.4 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 0.9 1.0 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) Calcium ug/g dry 200 67600 49500 38900 77300 81900 215000 70000 22300 77500 Chromium ug/g dry 5 26 ug/g dry 8 8 26 9 ND (5) ND (5) 9 ND (5) 12 Chromium (VI) ug/g dry 0.2 ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) ND (0.2) Cobalt ug/g dry 1 50 ug/g dry 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 Copper ug/g dry 5 16 ug/g dry 8 13 24 7 6 ND (5) 18 ND (5) 14 Iron ug/g dry 200 3700 3780 3910 4470 3850 8760 6290 5730 8800 Lead ug/g dry 1 31 ug/g dry 14 15 40 10 9 3 22 6 20 Magnesium ug/g dry 200 18400 11700 18300 16900 12500 11200 14400 4510 23000 Manganese ug/g dry 5 441 382 444 204 393 3030 382 92 205 Mercury ug/g dry 0.1 0.2 ug/g dry ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 0.2 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 0.2 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) Molybdenum ug/g dry 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Nickel ug/g dry 5 16 ug/g dry 6 6 10 ND (5) ND (5) 7 7 ND (5) ND (5) Potassium ug/g dry 200 ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) ND (200) 224 ND (200) 298 ND (200) 249 Selenium ug/g dry 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Silver ug/g dry 0.3 0.5 ug/g dry ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) ND (0.3) Sodium ug/g dry 50 220 287 225 140 135 115 181 71 139 Strontium ug/g dry 10 138 113 64 76 95 186 79 26 64 Thallium ug/g dry 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Tin ug/g dry 5 ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) ND (5) 10 Titanium ug/g dry 10 85 91 173 106 80 69 91 149 126 Uranium ug/g dry 1 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) Vanadium ug/g dry 10 ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) ND (10) 11 12 Zinc ug/g dry 20 120 ug/g dry 131 200 298 117 121 780 298 101 96

Appendix H

Park Use and Inventory

LEGENDPark Planting & TreesForest / Naturalized Riparian / WetlandBuildingsStudy Area Boundary

CAMBRIDGE RIVERSIDE PARK PARK USE + INVENTORY | VEGETATIVE COVER DIAGRAM

N

0 100

SCALE = 1:5000100

METERS METERS200

King S

treet

Eagle Street

Foun

tain

St.

Highway 401

Speed River

Riverside Dam

Spee

dvill

e R

oad

Speed River

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Soccer Field

Barn

W.R.

W.R.

Picnic Shelter

Picnic Shelter

Kinsman NationalHeadquarters

Fieldhouse

Greenhouse

GrandstandW.R.

Fountain

Playground

Elect.

Vacant Building

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Baseball Field

Rogers Drive

SplashPad

Play-ground

Petting Zoo

Tennis Courts

SkateboardPark

Park Maintenance

Picnic Shelter

Hydro Corridor

P

PPP

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

LEGENDParking AreaBuildingRoadway (Shared Vehicular and Pedestrian)TrailBoardwalkRail LineHeritage FeatureStudy Area Boundary

P

*

* * *

**

***

CAMBRIDGE RIVERSIDE PARK PARK USE + INVENTORY | CIRCULATION AND PARK FEATURES DIAGRAM

N

0 100

SCALE = 1:5000100

METERS METERS200

King S

treet

Eagle Street

Foun

tain

St.

Highway 401

Speed River

Riverside Dam

Spee

dvill

e R

oad

Speed River

SPORTS FIELD AREA #3

NATURALIZED WETLAND/WOODLOT AREAWETLAND AREA


WOOD LOT

WOOD LOT

SLOPED WOOD LOT

PONDACTIVE USE AREA

WOOD LOT/PICNIC AREA


TRADITIONAL PARKAREA

RIVERSIDE SHORE

Noise from 401Noise from 401

Noise from 401

LEGENDProminent ViewsNoise DisturbanceInternal EdgeStudy Area Boundary

CAMBRIDGE RIVERSIDE PARK PARK USE + INVENTORY | CHARACTER AND VIEWS DIAGRAM

N

0 100

SCALE = 1:5000100

METERS METERS200

King S

treet

Eagle Street

Foun

tain

St.

Highway 401

Speed River

Riverside Dam

Spee

dvill

e R

oad

Speed River

Appendix I

Preliminary Cost Estimates

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Alternative 'B': Rebuild Riverside Dam

Item

No.Description Unit

Estimated

QuantityUnit Price Amount

1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

2 Erosion & Sediment Control LS 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

3 Access & Dewatering LS 1 300,000.00$ 300,000.00$

4Excavation/dredging and Disposal of

Contaminated Material to Land Fill Sitem

3 13,000 150.00$ 1,950,000.00$

5 Remove and Dispose of Existing Dam LS 1 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$

6 Concrete Gravity Dam c/w Heritage Features LS 1 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$

7 Restoration & Landscaping m2 2,000 15.00$ 30,000.00$

Subtotal 4,065,000$

Engineering (10%) 406,500$

Contingency (20%) 813,000$

Subtotal 5,284,500.00$

HST TAX @ 13% 686,985.00$

TOTAL 5,971,485.00$

Note - Capital cost does not include:

- Securing easements, land acquisition or engineering for the emergency spillway.

- Annual maintenance and repair costs (estimated 2% of capital cost of the dam, annualy for 100 year

lifespan: $30,000)


Alternative 'C': Naturalize Speed River

Item

No.Description Unit

Estimated


1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 25,000$ 25,000$

2 Erosion & Sediment Control LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$

3 Access & Dewatering LS 1 300,000$ 300,000$

4Creek Bed Excavation and Disposal of


3 9,000 150$ 1,350,000$

5Creek Bed Excavation and Disposal of Non-

contamintaed Materialm

3 3,000 50.00$ 150,000.00$

5Imported Earth Material for Construction of

Channel bank, overbank and wetland aream

3 30,000 10$ 300,000$

6 Riffle Stone t 12,000 55$ 660,000$

7 Imported Topsoil m3 3,000 25$ 75,000$

8 Remove and Dispose of Existing Dam Offsite LS 1 250,000$ 250,000$

9 Cultural Heritage Considerations LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$

10 Restoration & Landscaping m2 40,000 15$ 600,000$

Subtotal 3,810,000$


Contingency (20%) 762,000$

Subtotal 4,953,000.00$

HST TAX @ 13% 643,890.00$

TOTAL 5,596,890.00$


- Channel maintenance and repair costs (estimated to be 10% of capital cost

(excluding sediment/dam removal) in the first three years: $275,000)


Alternative 'D': Construct In-Stream Rock Structures

Item

No.Description Unit

Estimated


1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

2 Erosion & Sediment Control LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$

3 Access & Dewatering LS 1 300,000.00$ 300,000.00$

4Creek Bed Excavation and Disposal of


3 13,000 150.00$ 1,950,000.00$

5Creek Bed Excavation and Disposal of Non-

Contaminated Materialm

3 15,500 50.00$ 775,000.00$

6 In-Stream Rock Structures t 28,000 55.00$ 1,540,000.00$

7 Remove and Dispose of Existing Dam LS 1 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$

8 Cultural Heritage Considerations LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$

9 Restoration & Landscaping m2 15,000 15.00$ 225,000.00$

Subtotal 5,165,000$


Contingency (20%) 1,033,000$

Subtotal 6,714,500.00$

HST TAX @ 13% 872,885.00$

TOTAL 7,587,385.00$


- Channel maintenance and repair costs estimated to be 5% of capital cost

(excluding sediment/dam removal) in the first three years: $190,000)

Appendix J

CHER

CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT

RIVERSIDE DAM

SPEED RIVER, PRESTON CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ONTARIO

June 2012 Revised March 2013

Prepared for: AMEC Environment and Infrastructure

Prepared by:

CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT

RIVERSIDE DAM

SPEED RIVER, PRESTON CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ONTARIO

June 2012 Revised March 2013

Prepared for: AMEC Environment and Infrastructure

3215 North Service Road Burlington ON

L7N 3G2

Prepared by: Unterman McPhail Associates

Heritage Resource Management Consultants 540 Runnymede Road

Toronto, ON M6S 2Z7

Tel: 416-766-7333 Email: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Description 1

1.2 Heritage Recognition 2

2.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY 2

2.1 Development of Preston 2

2.2 Cambridge Mills and the Speed “Riverside” Dam 8

3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 15

3.1 Area Context 15

3.2 Site Description 16

4.0 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION 18

4.1 Riverside Dam 18

5.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE EVALUATION 21

5.1 Introduction 21

5.2 Evaluation 21

5.2.1 Design Value or Physical Value 22

5.2.2 Historical Value or Associative Value 22

5.2.3 Contextual Value 24

5.3 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value 25

5.3.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 25

5.3.2 Description of Heritage Attributes 25

6.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 26

6.1 Introduction 26

6.2 Mitigation Recommendations 27

SOURCES

APPENDIX A: Historical Maps, Aerial Views and Photographs

APPENDIX B: Photographs, Context

APPENDIX C: Photographs Riverside Dam

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1. The circle marks the location of the Riverside Dam on the Speed

River, City of Cambridge City of Cambridge, 2012, as adapted].

1

Figure 2. View of Preston in 1856 [Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo

Historical Society, 1917, frontispiece].

5

Figure 3. “Cambridge Grist and Flouring Mills, Preston, A.A. Erb & Bros.,

Proprietors” [Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada

West].

10

Figure 4. View of Cambridge Mills, 1886 [Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1917, 31].

11

Figure 5. Early 1890s view of the Speed Dam to the east of the King Street

Bridge before the construction of the Galt, Preston & Hespeler

Railway line trestle bridge [PH6382, City of Cambridge

Archives].

12

Figure 6. View of the Speed Dam in the 1890s to the east of the King Street

Bridge after the construction of the Galt, Preston & Hespeler

Railway line trestle bridge [LAC, James Esson, MIKA No.

325823. Dam Speed River 1905].

12

Figure 7. View of Riverside Dam to north in the winter, n.d. stone structure

with a slightly raised top cap. [PH787, City of Cambridge

Archives].

13

Figure 8 View of “Speed Dam” c1949 showing north control tower and a

boater above the dam [Preston: a friendly welcome awaits you,

1949].

14

Figure 9. View of “Speed Dam” c1949 showing north control tower

[Preston: a friendly welcome awaits you, 1949].

14

Figure 10. Aerial of the Riverside Dam site in the former municipality of

Preston, now City of Cambridge [Google Maps 2011].

17

Figure 11. View east to the Riverside Dam on the Speed River with CN

railway spur line in the foreground.

19

Figure 12. View north to the railway spur downstream from the dam. 20

Figure 13. West elevation of the north stone masonry control tower top. 20

Figure 14. North elevation of the stoplog sluiceway structure. 20

Figure 15. West elevation of the south stone masonry control tower and

rubblestone debris.

20

Figure 16. Existing Conditions Plan, Riverside Dam, Structural Evaluation

& Detailed Design, Cambridge, Ontario, Drawing 1X. Sanchez

Engineering Inc., October 2008.

20

Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: Riverside Dam Page

Speed River, Preston, City of Cambridge, Ontario

Unterman McPhail Associates June 2012

Heritage Resource Management Consultants Revised March 2013

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project description AMEC retained Unterman McPhail Associates, Heritage Management Resource

Consultants, to undertake a Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Report (CHER) for

the Riverside Dam as part of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, City of

Cambridge. The proposed project is classified as a Schedule “B” undertaking in the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (2007). The principal objective of this undertaking is to provide the Municipality with direction on a preferred solution that addresses the City’s risk management requirements associated with its long term operations and responsibility of the Riverside Dam. The 2009 Study indicated several parts of the dam are in disrepair and pose a risk of failure due to ice. Temporary stabilization works have been implemented.

Figure 1. The circle marks the location of the Riverside Dam on the Speed River in Preston, City of Cambridge, Ontario [Preston Towne Centre Core Area and Business Improvement Area (BIA) Boundaries, The Corporation of the City of Cambridge, July 2011, as adapted]. The Riverside Dam on the Speed River is immediately upstream of King Street at Riverside Park in the former municipality of Preston, now part of the City of Cambridge. A dam has been located at this general site since the early 19th century. A.A. Erb may have built part of the existing dam as early as 1864 with the existing control towers possibly constructed in early 1890s by Samuel Cherry. The diversion of the north branch





2

of the Speed River into a millrace dates to the early 19th century and is historically associated with the first Erb mill on the site, which became Cambridge Mills. This CHER includes a historical summary of the Riverside Dam and the associated mill

site, a description of the structure and its setting, an evaluation of the cultural heritage

value of the structure and a summary of cultural heritage value and mitigation

recommendations. The site was evaluated using the criteria 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. Regulation 9/06 describes the three criteria as design value

or physical value, historical value or associative value, and contextual value. Historical

maps and drawings are included in Appendix A. Appendix B contains a survey form with

photographs of the structure and its setting.

1.2 Heritage Recognition The Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) has included the Riverside Dam, also referred to as the Speed Dam and the Cambridge Mills Dam, located on the Speed River at King Street West, Preston, on the City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory (October 2010) as a property of interest by for its architectural and/or historical significance. The City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory is a council endorsed inventory of known built heritage resources in the City of Cambridge.

In 1928, the Waterloo Historical Society placed a commemorative plaque on the

associated mill building currently owned by P&H Milling Group building. The plaque,

which still exists, refers to the site as the “oldest place of continuous business in Waterloo

County”.

The Speed River is a Canadian Heritage River and the Grand River Conservation

Authority (GRCA) has identified the Riverside Dam, also known as the Cherry-Taylor

Mill Dam, as a heritage structure on its Heritage River Inventory. Additionally,

immediately downstream from the dam, the GRCA Heritage River Inventory identifies

the P&H Flour Mill and the King Street Bridge as heritage resources.

2.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY

2.1 Development of Preston

Richard Beasley purchased land from the Six Nations and John Erb bought 75,500 acres

including land at the coming together of the Grand and Speed Rivers. John Erb, a major

stockholder in the German Company Tract to the north of the Block Line, and his wife

Magdalena Schrantz and family moved with William Corwell, Henry Kraft and family,

Peter Hammacher and family, Matthias Scheirich and family, Abraham Stauffer and

family, and others to Canada and settled in the township and county of Waterloo. Erb

bought 500 acres of land along the Speed River, part of Beasley’s “Broken Front”





3

comprising Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Outside of the German Tract, Erb’s choice of the land on

the Speed River was astute. The Speed had a powerful and constant current that was

reliable all year round for waterpower. At Erb’s site at the Great Road from Dundas,

there were several small islands that slowed down the current enough to allow a safe ford

for the crossing of wagons and livestock. Erb built a sawmill in 1806, the first in

Waterloo County, and a gristmill in 1807. Together the two businesses became the

nucleus for the establishment of a settlement called Cambridge Mills.

Mennonite settlers moved to the area in large numbers. Block Two was renamed

Waterloo Township in 1816. Erb and his son-in-law Daniel Snider opened a general store

and Erb expanded his milling enterprises in 1818. King Street (Highway 8) was opened

officially in 1819. Although Cambridge Mills was positioned nicely for growth, it had

only a handful of houses, a few mills and some cultivated land with dense forest all

around. This lack of growth is attributed to Erb’s reluctance to encourage development.

After John Erb’s death in 1832, his son John S. Erb inherited the lands south of the Speed

River and contracted English surveyor William Scollick to layout a village in a linear

form along the Great Road from Dundas. This became the village of Preston.1 Completed

in 1834, the survey laid out the streets and lots laid at right angles to the Great Road with

almost all of the buildings in the settlement stretched out along the road. Scollick

renamed the settlement Preston after his native town in England.2 Village sites were

advertised soon afterwards, and by 1835, the Speed River had been spanned by a bridge.

Interest in settling in Preston was immediate amongst generally young and recently

arrived German immigrants from Europe including numerous tradesmen, craftsman and

businessmen. They were attracted by the use of the German language, the clearance of

much of the land and a need for skilled workmen. Soon after the survey, more than 30

buildings constructed in one year in Preston and it contained mills, stores, hotels and

many tradesmen settled in the village.3

In the 1830s, Preston saw many changes and experienced substantial growth due to

significant immigration from Germany and due to the Canada Company opening up

settlement lands east and west of Preston. The Great Road from Dundas that ran through

Preston was macadamized in 1836. Erb’s Mill was remodeled, a school was built, mineral

springs were discovered and many new businesses opened in the burgeoning community.

In 1836, Preston had 40 families.4 Although the Erb’s still discouraged development on

their land, others, such as Jacob Hespeler, started successful industries in Hespeler on the

Speed River. In 1836, Preston became the recipient of a number of immigrant families

from Germany and well as some other new inhabitants of other nationalities. Village lots

were developed and Preston’s population increased. An important newcomer to Preston

was Friedrich Guggisberg, who had emigrated from Switzerland to Waterloo County in

1 Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, About Cambridge History, Brief History of the Community of Preston.

Access;--< http://cambridgeweb.net/historical/ preston.html> (November 20, 2011). 2 Ibid.

3 Kenneth McLaughlin, Cambridge: the making of a Canadian city (Windsor, Ontario: Windsor

Publications, 1987) 26. 4 Ibid, 28.





4

1834 to join family members. Guggisberg established the earliest furniture works in the

community with his two brothers. In 1838, he started his own cabinetmaking shop, and it

grew from making chairs to a diversified manufacturing concern that produced desks,

tables and some of the first barrel type patented revolving drawer desks and high roll-top

desks in Canada. The finest designs were sent to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. At

one time, the Guggisberg furniture works was the largest employer in Preston. Frederick

Guggisberg served as a member of Preston's first village council in 1852.5 Otto Klotz

arrived in 1837 and built a small brewery, and later, the Klotz Hotel. Klotz expanded his

enterprises in 1862 by erecting a starch factory. Klotz’s hotel later became the Central

Hotel.6 Jacob Beck arrived in Preston in 1838 and went on to establish a foundry

business. Jacob Hespeler opened a general store in Preston and then tried to expand his

business interests in 1839 through the using of the undeveloped water power on the

Speed River below Erb’s mills on land owned by John Erb Jr. After the failure of his

plan, he established a store, gristmill and distillery business on the north side of King

Street that served as a strong competition to the Erb’s, until he moved to New Hope, now

Hespeler. Hespeler also served as postmaster of Preston and the first village reeve. Robert

Hunt bought an existing mill and established the Preston Woolen Mill in 1845.

In first half of the 19th

century, Preston existed as two communities, namely, Cambridge

Mills developing along a “T” juncture at the Speed River and largely controlled by

agriculturally oriented German Mennonites, and the village of Preston along the Great

Road populated by European Germans interested in commercial and industrial

development. In 1846, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer described the Preston as,

A Village in the township of Waterloo, three miles from Galt and fourteen from Guelph – was laid out in 1834- contains 600 inhabitants, who are principally Germans. There are two churches, viz., one Lutheran and one Catholic. Post Office, post every day. Professions and Trades.- One steam grist mill and distillery, one tannery, two stores, four taverns, three breweries, one pottery, one grocery and drug store, three saddlers, two wagon makers, one baker, eight shoemakers, one watchmaker, one tinsmith, three cabinet makers, one cooper, five tailors.7

In 1851, Preston was the largest village in Waterloo Township and had reached a

population of 1180 people, principally German.8 W. H. Smith’s Canada, Past, Present

and Future described the community in 1851:

5 Waterloo Regional Museum/Inductees, Frederich Guggisberg (1818-1888). Access:--< http://

waterlooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees---g-to-i.aspx> (December 2011). 6 Otto Klotz, “Sketch of the History of the Village of Preston”, Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo

Historical Society (1917) 28. 7 Wm. H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer (Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846) 153.

8 McLaughlin, 28.





5

Preston….is the largest village in the township of Waterloo; it has considerably improved its buildings and business in the last few years. Stone of excellent quality is obtained in the neighbourhood of the village and it has for some time been extensively used for building, thus giving a solid and substantial character to the buildings;…The Speed here is a broad and rapid stream, not very deep, but having a sufficient body of water for the machinery it is required to turn. Preston contains about eleven hundred inhabitants, principally Germans, one of whom (Mr. Jacob Hespeler) sometime since, erected vinegar works…There are two grist mills in the village —the “Cambridge Mills” and Anchor Mills”,— two sawmills, two vinegar factories, a woolen factory, two tanneries, starch factory, pottery and three breweries. There are three schools…a court house and town hall and two churches…A daily stage runs to Goderich and Woolwich, and two stages between Guelph and Hamilton, passing through Preston. There is also a fire company established with an engine and company. Preston is pleasantly situated on a gravelly soil, at the termination of the Dundas and Waterloo macadamised road. A large number of houses are built in the old fashioned German style, and have a very comfortable appearance.9

1856 Dam on King Cambridge the Speed River Street Mills

Figure 2. View of Preston in 1856 [Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1917, frontispiece]. Incorporated as a village in 1852, Preston was the most important centre in Waterloo

Township of the time supporting many successful industries and businesses. Otto Klotz

prepared a map of the village of Preston in1852 with Cambridge Mills on the northern

edge of the village of (Appendix A). Four years later in 1855, Preston’s population had

9 W. H. Smith, Canada, Past, Present and Future (Toronto: T. Maclear, 1851) 118-119.





6

reached approximately 1600 people.10

During the 1850s, Preston was a popular stop on

the Great Road leading to the interior of the Province for travellers. The hotels and inns at

Preston attracted many European visitors as well.

The pace of Preston’s growth began to slow in the late 1850s and early 1860s after Berlin

was selected as the county seat in 1850, thus bypassing Preston and Galt, and the Grand

Trunk Railway built its route between Toronto and Berlin in 1856 shifting the economic

orientation from Preston to Berlin. Berlin then surpassed Preston as the economic,

religious and cultural centre of the German community as new immigrants headed to

Berlin rather than Preston. Many of Preston’s inhabitants also moved away. In an attempt

to preserve its earlier prosperity, Preston made two attempts at building railways, namely,

the Galt to Guelph line and the Preston to Berlin line. The Galt to Guelph line bypassed

the town to the north and east. The Preston to Berlin line failed and left the village with a

large debt that was not paid off until the early 1870s. Tremaine’s Map (1861) depicts

Cambridge Mills on the north side of the Speed River on King Street, Frederick

Guggisberg’s Preston Chair and Cabinet Factory on the southeast bank of the Speed

River, and further east on the south bank of the Speed River, the Hunt & Elliot’s Cloth

Factory.

Around 1860 some of the principal businesses in Preston included, but were not limited

to three breweries, two foundries, including Clare and Beck, Guggisberg‘s furniture store,

Robert Hunt’s woolen mill, a pottery, four wagon makers, a tannery, four smithies, three

loom factories, saddler shops and two lime kilns. Joseph Erb and Jacob Hespeler both

operated a gristmill, distillery, cooperages and stores. Joseph Erb also ran a sawmill.

There were six hotels, two churches, and two schoolhouses, a newspaper and two fire

brigades. At this time, freighting of wheat and farm products from Lake Huron passed

through Preston on it way to Dundas, and later Hamilton, and Lake Ontario. This resulted

in a linear development of businesses along the main road.11

By the 1870s, Preston’s economic boom was over. The Illustrated Historical Atlas (1881)

described Preston as an incorporated village with a railway station on the Wellington,

Grey & Bruce Railway with a population of 1600 people.12

After Frederick Guggisberg’s

death in 1888, his sons sold the family furniture business and it became the Preston

Furniture Company, manufacturing office desks. In the late 19th

century Preston had

became a small manufacturing centre with furniture, stove, implement, woollen and boot

and shoe manufacturers and extensive flour mills. Although mineral springs had been by

a member of the Erb family in 1837-38, it was not until the early 1880s that Preston

became a fashionable mineral springs spa. Later Samuel Cornell developed land near the

hot springs believed to have been discovered by Joseph Erb. He built a hotel and a

bathhouse. Christopher Kress acquired this property and it became the Kress Hotel. This

activity created a slight upward trend in the population as many wealthy visitors arrived

10

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, About Cambridge History, Brief History of the Community of Preston.

Access;--< http://cambridgeweb.net/historical/preston.html >.(November 20, 2011) ; and, McLaughlin, 28. 11

Klotz, Otto. “Preston, reminiscences”, Ninth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. 1921)

171-172. 12

Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo (Toronto: H. Parsell & Co., 1881) 44.





7

to experience the mineral springs. The North American Hotel, then the Del Monte, and

finally the Sulphur Springs Hotel provided accommodation for the wealthy spa visitors.13

Preston’s fame as a spa destination lasted until 1910 when the mineral baths were closed.

The Galt and Preston Street Railway Company Limited was incorporated on November

12, 1890. After some financial difficulties, construction got under way in the spring of

1894. A single-track railway in the Village of Preston followed the centre of King Street

to and across the Speed River by a timber trestle to Main Street (a continuation of King

Street and now part of that same street). It terminated at the intersection of Main and

Fountain Streets in the vicinity of what was then the Del Monte Hotel, later the Preston

Springs, the Kress Hotel, and the Mineral Springs Bath House. In January 1896, the

interurban railway between Galt, Preston and Hespeler was opened just as Preston was

incorporated as a town. It ran from the Preston Junction Station at the King Street

entrance to Riverside Park to Hespeler.

On July 6, 1888, William Schleuter sold 32 acres of land on the banks of the Speed River

to the Preston Riding and Driving Association. This property was sold to the Town of

Preston at a latter date and turned into Riverside Park. In 1911 the Town of Preston

acquired the property associated with the Preston Curling and Skating Club Co. beside

the lands acquired from the Preston Riding and Driving Association. The Town

commissioned Frederick G. Todd of Montreal to design the Speed Park, later Riverside

Park. The original park plan was typical of Olmstead‘s approach to park design. In the

late 1890s, Todd (1876-1948) apprenticed in the American landscape architecture firm of

Olmstead, Olmstead and Eliot, the most renowned landscape architectural practice in

North America at that time. Todd was actively engaged in park planning in numerous

Ontario communities in the early 1900s.14

The circa 1900 birds-eye view of Preston

shows a large racetrack in the park. In 1920, J.J. Mickler submitted revisions of the 1911

plans prepared by Todd for Speed Park. J. Paterson, in association with local architect

J.H. Meckler, originally designed the entrance gates in November 1919 as a memorial to

the local men who lost their lives in World War I. The design for the gates was redone in

1921 on a more modest scale by Paterson and Meckler. They were built in the same year.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip visited Riverside Park in 1973.

A birds-eye view of the Town of Preston circa 1900 shows the principal buildings located

at the Speed River and King Street were industrial and manufacturing businesses. S.J.

Cherry’s Cambridge Roller Mills was situated in the northwest quadrant, the GP&H car

sheds were on the north side of the Speed River, the large Guggisberg Furniture Factory,

later the Preston Furniture Co. was in the southeast quadrant with the large manufacturing

complex of the Preston Foundry of Clare Bros. & Co. located to its south. Riverside Park

was located in the northeast quadrant along the banks of the Speed River. The expansive

racetrack is shown on the birds-eye view. A metal truss bridge carried King Street over

the Speed River and the GP&H tracks for the street railway were located on its east side.

THE GP&H ran along Main Street to the Speed River and south on King Street with a

13

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, About Cambridge History, Brief History of the Community of Preston. 14

J.R. Wright, Urban Parks in Ontario, Part II: The Public Park Movement 1860-1914 (Ottawa:

University of Ottawa, 1984) 152.





8

line going east on Water Street between the two sites of the Guggisberg Furniture Factory

and the Clare Bros. & Co. Preston Foundry. The Preston Furniture Company was sold to

Percy Hilborn in 1919, and became consolidated with Hilborn's Canadian Office and

School Furniture Company in 1928.15

In 1910, the Preston fire insurance plan shows a

railway car shed and an electric powerhouse as well as a pumping station on the north

side of King Street at the entrance to Riverside Park.16

The Town of Preston replaced the

metal truss road bridge on King Street in 1923-24 with a concrete rigid frame structure

with a decorative balustrade. F.H. Midgeley was the engineer and Webster and Tory the

bridge contractors. The 1923-24 bridge was replaced with a replica in 1987.

The Galt, Preston & Hespeler Street Railway (GP&H) and the Preston & Berlin Street

Railway were amalgamated in 1908, and, as the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley & Lake

Huron Railway Company, it was leased to the Canadian Pacific Railway for 99 years.

The existing CN rail spur was added by the GP&H to the east side of the King Street line

across the Speed River downstream of the dam sometime after 1900 and before 1910.

The GP&H railway spur is not shown on the circa 1900 view of Preston, but is depicted

on 1910 fire insurance plan of Preston (Appendix A).17 The name of the railway was

changed to the Grand River Railway Company Limited in 1914. In 1939, all passenger

service moved to the freight trackage in Galt and Preston, and the track paralleling

Highway 8 and the tracks on King Street in Preston was removed.18

Preston experienced tremendous industrial growth and prosperity in the early 20th

century

that continued into the 1920s. The 1930s were times of economic depression and then

World War II spurred the town’s economy again and it was followed by a post war boom

until the mid 1950s when the textile industry in Canada collapsed. In Preston, three major

employers including the George Pattinson Company closed. Highway 401 was opened in

1960 and the Galt, Preston and Hespeler Railway closed in 1961. On January 1, 1973,

Preston, Galt, Hespeler and North Dumfries became part of the new City of Cambridge.

2.2 Cambridge Mills and the Speed “Riverside” Dam

John Erb was born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania on December 8, 1764 and was the

third son of Christian and Maria Erb. He married Maris Schrantz and they had nine

children. John Erb became an initial subscriber to the new German Company and

therefore, acquired 7,500 acres of land in the north part of Block 2. He also bought

additional land in what became Waterloo Township at the confluence of the Speed and

Grand River.

John and Magdalena Erb settled on the Speed River and built the sawmill in 1805,

another sawmill in 1806 and a gristmill in 1807. Before this time no sawed lumber could

15

Waterloo Regional Museum/Inductees, Frederich Guggisberg (1818-1888). 16

Underwriter’s Survey Bureau, Fire Insurance Pan of Preston, Ontario. Chas. E. Goad, 1910. 17

Ibid. 18

TrainWeb, “Grand River Railway, Preston Ontario, Canada”, Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org

/elso/grr.htm> (November 2011).





9

be obtained nearer than Toronto or Niagara.19

Erb’s mills were located at the best

waterpower site on the Speed River. A dam was located on the Speed River immediately

north of the crossing point near the large island where Erb’s sawmill was located on the

north bank. The gristmill was situated slightly below the sawmill at a creek outlet flowing

parallel to the river. It was at this creek outlet that a millrace was built between the island

and the north bank to provide waterpower to run both of the mills.20

The location of the

mills allowed for growth on the gravel terrace on the south bank of the river and provided

a good and safe river ford that was situated near bedrock and various islets making the

river crossing safe for wagons and stock.21

The mills were also located at the juncture of

important land transportation routes connecting Cambridge Mills to Dundas, Waterloo,

Woolwich Township, the Huron Tract and Guelph. John Erb added a general store to his

site in 1816. He hired Ira White to expand the capacity of his mill business in 1818.22

The settlement of Cambridge Mills grew up around the Erb mills on the Speed River. Erb

consistently refused to sell land around his mill site for commercial purposes. John Erb

died on September 2, 1832 and transferred his property to John Erb Jr. and Joseph Erb.

Son John Erb Jr. had the village of Preston surveyed in 1834 along the Great Road, while

Joseph Erb took over the operation of the Cambridge Mills in 1832.

Joseph Erb was born in Lancaster Pennsylvania on March 30, 1800 and was the sixth of

nine children and fourth son of John and Magdalena Erb. He moved with his parents to

Preston in Waterloo County in 1805 and in 1827, married Mary Kolb.23

Joseph Erb

rebuilt the gristmill in 183424

and enlarged the mill site adding a distillery, a store and

other buildings. He took on Adam Argo as a partner and they conducted a milling,

distilling and stores business under the name of Erb & Argo for a number of years.25

When Argo retired, Walter Gowinlock became a partner of Joseph Erb. Following

Gowinlock, Joseph’s son Abram C. Erb became a partner and the business was named

Erb & Son. At some point after 1859, John McNaughton was involved in the Cambridge

Mills in Preston.26

After Joseph Erb retired in 1867, his sons Abram A., Cyrus, Jacob and

Joseph27

took over the milling operations and became A.A. Erb & Bros.

Abram Albert Erb was born in Preston on March 30, 1829. He married Margaret Wallace

and had nine children. His family lived in a stone house at 506 King Street East, Preston

(Cambridge). Abram A. Erb was the proprietor of the second German language

newspaper in Preston, first published in 1853 as well as being involved in the family

19

Ezra Eby, From Pennsylvania to Waterloo: A Biographical History of Waterloo Township. John Erb. 20

McLaughlin, 24. 21

Bloomfield, 79. 22

McLaughlin, 26. 23

Ezra Eby, From Pennsylvania to Waterloo: A Biographical History of Waterloo Township. Joseph Erb. 24

Ibid, John Erb. 25

Otto Klotz, “Sketch of the History of the Village of Preston”, Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society (1917) 31. 26

Jim Quantrell, Cambridge Mosaics (City of Cambridge, Ontario, 1998) 140. 27

Klotz, “Sketch of the History of the Village of Preston”, 31; and, Quantrell, 60.





10

milling business. He served on the Preston council (1853-1857) and as reeve of Preston

(1860-1861 and 1868-1869 and 1871-1875).28

A map of Preston (1852) shows Cambridge Mills on the northern edge of the village of

Preston. A.A. Erb & Bros. operated a mill at this location. As well, there was a dam

structure on the Speed River, a road bridge over the waterway and a millrace. The dam

and the mill race in 1852 are depicted in same general location as the current dam and

mill race (Appendix A).

Figure 3. “Cambridge Grist and Flouring Mills, Preston, A.A. Erb & Bros., Proprietors” [Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West]. Tremaine’s Map (1861) shows an illustration of the Cambridge Mills (Figure 3) as well

as a map of Preston (Appendix A) showing Cambridge Mills and an advertisement for

“A. A. Erb & Brothers, General Merchants, proprietors of “Cambridge Mills”, —also Saw Mill and Distillery, Dealers in Real Estate, etc.”. In the same year, the Cambridge

Mills gristmill operated by A.A. Erb & Son was described as having five run stones with

a production capacity of 160 bbls. of flour.29

Under A.A. Erb & Bros. the business

premises were enlarged considerably in 1864. A substantial store and a large dam

structure across the Speed River were built in order to provide steady waterpower to turn

the five mill stones.30

Tremaine’s map also shows Frederick Guggisberg’s Preston Chair

and Cabinet Factory on the southeast bank of the Speed River. Further east on the Speed

River, was the Hunt & Elliot’s Cloth Factory. About 1860, Joseph Erb operated a

gristmill, sawmill, distillery and a cooper shop and stores on his mill property about

28

Quantrell, 58. 29

Your Heritage Waterloo Region. President’s Address: Milling Industry2. This article contains a chart of

the Milling Industry in Waterloo County from Data contained in Sutherland’s Gazetteer and Directory of

1864 and supplemented by information gathered from other sources. 30

Hosted by rootsweb. An ancestry.com community. Cambridge Mill – Preston, Waterloo Co., Ontario –

about 1880. Access:--< http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~larkins/photos/photos17.html>

(December 2011).





11

1860.31

Otto Klotz describes playing shinny on an ice rink in the winter and swimming at

Erb’s dam in the summer during the early1860s.32

In 1878, the five mill stones at the Erb mill were replaced. A year later in 1879, the mill

building was destroyed by fire.33

Abraham Erb retired in the same year as the fire after

selling the gristmill business to Samuel and John Cherry. He died on June 24, 1896 and is

buried in the Preston Cemetery.34

Figure 4. View of Cambridge Mills, 1886 [Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1917, 31]. Samuel J. Cherry was born on February 4, 1843, in Diamond, Carleton County, where his

parents had settled after moving to Upper Canada from County Armangh, Ireland. His

family moved to Dundas, Ontario in his infancy, where he attended school and at age of

15 years became an apprentice in the gristmill of the late James Coleman. At age 19

years, Cherry arrived in Preston to work in the Abram Erb & Bros. owned Cambridge

Mills. In Preston, Cherry married Barbara Willerich (1845-1908). They had three

children, all born in Preston: George A. (1863-1944), Mary E. (b. 1865) and William

Cherry (B. 1866). Samuel Cherry returned to Dundas to take charge of the Joseph

Webster mills, and a few years later, went to Guelph to work at the Speedsville mill

owned by James Goldie. When Goldie built a new mill, Samuel Cherry worked as the

31

Otto Klotz, “Preston, reminiscences”, Ninth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society (1921)

171-172. 32

Ibid, 176-177. 33

Ontario Mennonite Archives, 1992-7.1 Erb’s Mill. 34

Quantrill, 58.





12

Figure 5. Early 1890s view of the Speed Dam to the east of the King Street Bridge before the construction of the Galt, Preston & Hespeler Railway line trestle bridge [PH6382, City of Cambridge Archives]. Figure 6. View of the Speed Dam in the 1890s to the east of the King Street Bridge after the construction of the Galt, Preston & Hespeler Railway line trestle bridge [LAC, James Esson, MIKA No. 325823. Dam Speed River 1905].





13

superintendent for about 12 years. By this time, Cherry decided to go into business with

his brother John Cherry. Together, they owned in succession the Phoenix mill in Guelph,

the Glenmorris Mill, a mill in Walkerton, and later, operated the Clendinning Mill.

In 1879, John and Samuel Cherry acquired the Cambridge Mills in Preston from the Erb

family, which became the Cherry Taylor Flour Mills Ltd.35

The Cherry brothers

modernized the mill by introducing a Hungarian roller milling process equipment.36

In

1886, S.J. Cherry became a sole proprietor

Figure 7. View of Speed Dam to north in the winter, with north control tower stone structure, n.d. [PH787, City of Cambridge Archives].

In 1894, fire destroyed the older mill building and S. J. Cherry built new brick mill

buildings.37

One year later, the Preston and Hespeler Railway was built and opened in

January 1896 with a station at Cambridge Mills. Cherry also improved and beautified his

mill property and built two brick houses at Nos. 126 (demolished) and 140 King Street

West c1906, with the first replacing an old frame house. The 1910 Fire Insurance Plan

shows the Cambridge Flour Mill and its associated millpond and flume on King Street at

the “T” junction of King Street immediately north of the Speed River and the Galt,

Preston and Hespeler Railway trestle and the stone dam structure constructed on the

Speed River to the east of King Street.38

35

“Samuel Cherry”, Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. Vol. V (1917) 55. 36

Quantrill, 27. 37

Ibid. 38

Underwriter’s Survey Bureau, Fire Insurance Pan of Preston, Ontario, Chas. E. Goad, 1910.





14

After the death of his first wife, Samuel Cherry remarried in 1913 to Berina Stengel.39

During his years in Preston, Mr. Cherry served as a member of the Preston town council,

chairman of the Park Board almost from its inception to the time of his death, and for

eight years as member of the Waterloo County council, being warden of the County in

1906. He was member of the Toronto Board of Trade, member of the Dominion Millers'

Association, and director of the Galt Malleable Iron Co., Ltd., and of the Canadian

Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. He was a member of St. Johns Church (Anglican)

Preston. In politics he was a Conservative.40

When Cherry died on July 2, 191741

, the Galt Reporter noted,

“Sam” Cherry was one of the most successful of the old time flour millers, a worthy contemporary of the Sherks and Sniders and Goldies, who have made Waterloo County famous in the flour markets of Canada, England and Scotland. Sam was a public-spirited citizen, as Preston well knows. Who has not admired the beauty spot he created out of the canal and the slopes thereof? What would he not have done to beautify Galt had he been the owner of the dam and the surrounding property which, not long ago, offered opportunities for embellishment rarely at hand in a growing and picturesque city? The Cherry idea in Civic Beautification should not be allowed to lapse in the district of which Galt and Preston form a part.42

Figure 8. View of “Speed Dam” c1949 showing north control tower and a boater above the dam [Preston: a friendly welcome awaits you].

Figure 9. View of “Speed Dam” c1949 showing the north control tower [Preston: a friendly welcome awaits you].

Eldest son George Cherry succeeded his father Samuel in family flour milling business.

He was born in Preston, Ontario on May 4, 1863 and married Minnie Herman. George

Cherry worked as the head miller at the S.J. Cherry flour mill in Preston for many years

as well as the head miller, at various times, at Walkerton, Arkell and Glenmorris. George

39

Waterloo Region Generations, Samuel Joseph Cheery. Access:--< http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/

getperson.php?personID=I89122&tree=generations> (December 2011). 40

Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History Digital Collection, Samuel J. Cherry.

Access:--< http://images.ourontario.ca/kitchener/ 44187/data?n=14> (November 2011); and, “Samuel

Cherry”, Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. Vol. V (1917) 55. 41

Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History Digital Collection, Samuel J. Cherry. 42

“Samuel Cherry”, Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. Vol. V (1917) 55.





15

Cherry retired in 1929 and died on November 5, 1944 at his home at No. 126 King Street,

Preston, Ontario.43

The Cherry family maintained management control over the mill until

1923 when it was taken over by Standard Milling Company. On December 26th

, 1928, the

Waterloo Historical Society placed a commemorative plaque on the mill building. It read,

”Oldest Place of Continuous Business in Waterloo Count”

The First Grist mill on this Site was built by John Erb in 1807. Succeeding owners were: Joseph Erb, 1832; Abram A., Cyrus, Jacob K., and Joseph J. Erb, 1867: Samuel J. and John Cherry, 1879; Samuel J. Cherry, 1886; S.J. Cherry and Sons, 1913; Standard Milling Company of Canada Limited, 1923.

By the 1950s, this site was the only flourmill left in the geographic township of Waterloo.

It continued to produce flour into the late 20th

century. It was operated as the Dover Flour

Mill for some years, and currently as P & H Flouring Company.

The residence located at 140 King Street West served as the office of Dover Mills for a

number of years and is now an employee lunchroom. The four storey buff brick mill

building built by Cherry in 1894, which is clad in modern metal siding, and the original

millrace from the Speed River remain on the site.

3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Area Context

The area immediately around the location of the Riverside Dam has undergone numerous

changes since 1990. The industrial site buildings associated with the Preston Furniture

Company, later Hedstorm Canada at No. 185 King Street East have been demolished.

The Rivers Edge Condo and Luxury Apartment I & II development has been built on the

location of the former Clare Bros. City Bakery & Café now occupies the self service

Shell Station beside the Grand Valley Auctions at No. 194 King Street East. On the P&H

Milling Group site, the residence once located at No. 126 King Street West has been

demolished for a parking lot. The Grand River Railway Shop just off King Street West

beside Riverside Park has been demolished.44

The street alignment of King Street has remained essentially unchanged since the early

19th

century. The T intersection of King Street north of the road bridge over the Speed

River allows for a framed view of the bridge crossing. Long views up and down the

43

George A. Cherry, (1863-1944) Access:--< http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson. php?

personID= I89120&tree=generations> (December 2011). 44

Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited and Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates. The Preston Mills Heritage Conservation District Study, Heritage Assessment Report (Prepared for the City of

Cambridge, September 1990).





16

Speed River and of the dam to the east of the bridge are possible for pedestrians on the

King Street Bridge. Riverside Dam can also be viewed downstream from Riverside Park

and along the CP rail line. The City of Cambridge Mill Run Trail is located in Riverside

Park, the largest park in Cambridge. Connecting Hespeler to Preston, this 6.5-km long

trail follows the 1895 right-of-way for the Galt, Preston, Hespeler Electric Railway Line

that opened in January 1896 between Preston Junction Station at the King Street entrance

to Riverside Park and the Village of Hespeler. In 1918, a new right-of-way was built

further away from the river to solve the problem of the rail line being under water when

the Speed River flooded in the spring. As the Mill Run Trail follows the Speed River

from Hespeler, under the highway to Riverside Park to the King Street Bridge, three mill

races are noted as points of interest: Pattinson’s Mill that includes a remnant of the dam

and mill race associated with Preston; and associated with Hespeler, the Silknit dam and

mill race (formerly R. Forbes Co. Mill built in1864 and later Dominion Woollens and

Worsteds) and the site of Jacob Hespeler’s 1847 stone dam associated with a grist, flour,

saw mills and a distillery and cooperage.

Riverside Park, the largest park in Cambridge, was opened in the late 19th

century on the

north banks of the Speed River adjacent to the Cambridge Mills area. Originally it

contained a race track. The existing entrance gates located on the east side of King Street

north of the Speed River were built in 1921-22. The City of Cambridge designated the

structure in 1993 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and erected a

commemorative plaque noting the entrance gates as a heritage landmark. The Riverside

Park Gates form a part of the streetscape as a prominent landmark and gateway to the

Riverside Park, greeting vehicular and pedestrian traffic from King Street. The park

contains a band stand, splash pad, playgrounds, tennis courts, a soccer pitch, skateboard

park, picnic areas, walking trails and baseball fields. It is often used for Canada Day

celebrations. The 7.5 km Mill Run Trail runs northeast from the park at Russ Street,

along the banks of the Speed River, to Sheffield Street in the town of Hespeler. The

Speed River is designated as a Canadian Heritage River and is under the management of

the Grand River Conservation Authority.

3.2 Site Description

For the purposes of this report, the Riverside Dam runs in a north to south direction with

the upstream to the east and the downstream to the west. The dam is situated 30 m east of

King Street East (formerly Highway 8) and the Speed River Bridge on the Speed River

and approximately 1.8 km metres upstream of the confluence of the Speed River and the

Grand River and beside Riverside Park. (Figure 10).





17

Figure 10. Aerial of the Riverside Dam site in the former municipality of Preston, now City of Cambridge [Google Maps 2011].





18

Currently, the area immediately around the Riverside Dam is characterized by the Speed

River, the CN timber trestle railway bridge carrying a railway spur line, the King Street

Bridge over the waterway, the north stoplog sluiceway the runs under King Street to the

P&H Milling Group mill site, and Riverside Park. The King Street Bridge was rebuilt in

1987 using the design of the earlier 1923-24 concrete bridge structure. The CN spur line

was built after 1900 and before 1910.

The dam comprises a stone north control structure and a stone south control structure

with a stone south abutment. The north control structure is relatively complete, while the

south control structure has collapsed into the river. Upstream from the dam structure, the

head pond has deeper water and a low flow velocity. The north shore is sand and silt with

gravel and seasonal vegetation. There are some large trees on the bank. Shrubs and

aquatic vegetation define the south shore. Downstream from the dam and east of the King

Street Bridge is a wide and shallow channel. Stone masonry retaining walls are located

on both the north and south banks of the river. The CN timber trestle bridge curves

northward across the downstream side of the dam, partially obscuring the view of

the dam from the King Street Bridge

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE

The following description of the dam is based on the Sanchez Engineering Inc. report

(October 2009) and a site visit in November 2011. No drawings of the dam structure or

the adjacent control structure were provided by the City of Cambridge. Measurements of

the structures are taken from the Sanchez Engineering Inc. report (2008). For the

purposes of this report the dam runs in a north to south direction with upstream to the east

and downstream to the west.

4.1 Riverside Dam The Riverside Dam is a gravity dam with two control towers built as part of the dam

(Figure 11) . The foundations of the dam sit directly on river alluvium consisting of

dense to very dense coarse sand and gravel, cobbles and boulders.45

The dam is about

66.8 m long with an approximately 1.5 m high concrete weir.46

It is classified as a Small

Size Dam based on its height (<7.5 m) and on the head pond storage (<1000,000 m3).

47

The dam structure has two control tower structures, one on the north end and one on the

south end. The two control structures were built with a set of stoplogs for controlling the

water level; however, there is no mechanism for the removal and replacement of the

stoplogs.48

The rubblestone core and coursed, ashlar pattern, limestone facing of the north

and south control towers possibly dates from the 1860s when local history suggests the

45

Sanchez Engineering Inc. The City of Cambridge Riverside Dam Structural Evaluation and Detailed Design (Final Report October 2009) 40. 46

Ibid, 11. 47

Ibid, 23. 48

Ibid, 11.





19

Erb brothers built a new stone dam for their mill. The two control towers are shown on

c1900 bird’s-eye aerial of Preston (Appendix A). The older illustrations and postcards of

the two control towers indicate they originally had a slightly raised or chamfered top cap.

The existing concrete cap and some concrete repair work at the top was probably added

in the early 20th

century as repairs.

Figure 11. View east to the Riverside Dam on the Speed River with CN railway spur line in the foreground.

There are three stone buttresses on the downstream side of the structure placed on the

ends and two, round-headed stone arch outlets. Photographs from 2009 show the south

control tower is of the same design as the north control tower with two stone arch water

outlets with more concrete repair work. The north control tower is relatively intact while

the south control tower has collapsed and been repaired with concrete.

A third control structure, referred to as a stoplog control sluiceway, is located

immediately north of the river dam. It is associated with the former mill race to the mill.

This concrete structure measures 8.4 m long and 2.6 m high. It releases water flow into

the north branch of the river, which was once constituted the millrace for the Cambridge

mill. The c1900 bird’s-eye view of Preston indicates there was once a taller control tower

structure, similar in design to the control towers on the dam, standing on the north bank at

the gate (Appendix A). The banks of the Speed River at the dam are held in place by

coursed, stone retaining wall.





20

Figure 14. North elevation of the stoplog sluiceway

structure at the mill race.

Figure 15. West elevation of the south

stone masonry control tower and rubblestone debris.

Figure 13. West elevation of the north stone masonry

control tower.

Figure 12. View north to the railway spur downstream

from the dam.

Figure 16. Existing Conditions Plan, Riverside Dam, Structural Evaluation & Detailed Design, Cambridge, Ontario, Drawing 1X. Sanchez Engineering Inc., October 2008.





21

5.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE EVALUATION

5.1 Introduction

The Cambridge Mills Dam, also known as Riverside Dam, on King Street West, Preston,

is included on the City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory (October 2010) as a

property of interest by the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC)

for its architectural and/or historical significance. This document is a council endorsed

inventory of known built heritage resources in the City of Cambridge.

The Heritage Planner at the City of Cambridge confirmed the Riverside Dam is not listed

on a municipal heritage register adopted under the Ontario Heritage Act and it is not

municipally designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The site is not recognized

through a local, provincial or federal plaque program.

The following municipally listed and designated properties adjacent to the Riverside Dam

are included on the City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory. The Landmark

Series comprises properties noted under a summer program as being of potential heritage

interest or value, but not evaluated.

o Riverside Park Main Entrance Gates – municipally designated

o No. 1633 King Street East – listed

o No. 101 King Street West – Erb House/Triangle Traffic Services, Landmark

Series – listed

o No. 140 King Street West – Cherry-Taylor Flour Mills – listed

o No. 134 King Street West – Cottage – Landmark Series The Speed River is a Canadian Heritage River. The GRCA has identified the Riverside Dam, referred to as the Cherry-Taylor Mill Dam, as a heritage structure on its Heritage River Inventory. 5.2 Evaluation

The criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest were set out under Ontario

Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act, as amended in 2005. These

criteria were developed to assist municipalities in the evaluation of properties considered

for designation. The regulation states that:

“A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest:

1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it,





22

i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield , information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark.”

The evaluation criteria set out under Ontario Regulation 9/06 were applied to the

Riverside Dam structure.

5.2.1 Design Value or Physical Value

Design or Physical Value

i. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method.

N/A

ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. ✔

iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement N/A

i. Representative example of a style, type – The existing Riverside Dam was built in the

19th

century, possibly as part of renovations carried out by Samuel Cherry in the early

1890s.

ii. Craftsmanship or artistic merit – The stone masonry of the control towers of the

Riverside Dam indicate a skilled stonemason was used in the construction of the

structure.

iii. Technical or scientific achievement – The Riverside Dam is a typical gravity style dam,

and is not considered to demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

5.2.2 Historical Value or Associative Value

Historical or Associative Value

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

✔

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

✔

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

N/A





23

i. Direct associations with a theme –The Riverside Dam is associated with the historical

theme of the early 19th

century settlement of Cambridge Mills by the Erb family, and the

development of the village Preston by the mid 19th

century as an industrial centre in

Waterloo Township and Waterloo County. The Erb family built the first dam in this

location in the early 19th

century. The existing control tower structures probably date to

the early 1890s work done by Samuel Cherry. Both the map of Preston (1852) and

Tremaine’s map (1861) show Cambridge Mills on the northern edge of the village of

Preston with the associated dam structure on the Speed River. The Speed River dam was

rebuilt in 1864 by Abraham Erb of A.A. Erb & Bros., and again in the early 1890s by

Samuel Cherry. Prominent Preston citizen Otto Klotz recollected his childhood

experiences of the Speed River dam structure being used a community swimming area

and an ice skating rink in the 1860s.

The Speed Dam, or the Riverside Dam, was prominently shown in postcards of the early

20th

century and is linked historically from the 1890s onwards with the cultural landscape

of the neighbouring Riverside Park. The existing millrace and the dam structure are

linked physically and historically to the first mills built by the Erb family and its owners

to the present P&H Flour Mill site. Thus, the dam structure played a significant role in

the industrial development of Preston through its association with Cambridge Mills from

the early 1800s to the present. As well, it has social significance in the community of

Preston.

ii. Contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. A dam structure on

the Speed River in the location of the Riverside Dam has been associated with a mill site

since the Erb’s established their first buildings in 1805-1807. Erb’s Mills, later

Cambridge Mills, was the nucleus for the development of the village of Preston. The Erb

mill was a prominent business in the 19th

century economy of Preston, as was the Cherry

Mills in the late 19th

century and early 20th

century. In 1928, the Waterloo Historical

Society placed a commemorative plaque on the mill building noting it was the oldest

place of continuous business in Waterloo County at the time. The mill site is still

operational today, 84 years after the commemorative plaque was unveiled. The dam is an

important component in the understanding of the history of the mill site, and therefore,

the development of Preston.

Riverside Dam is considered to yield significant information that contributes to an

understanding of the community.

iii. Demonstrates work of a builder, designer who is significant to a community –

The current dam structure was probably built for Samuel Cherry, the owner of the

Cambridge Mills in the early 1890s. The name of the builder is unknown.





24

5.2.3 Contextual Value

Contextual Value i. Is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area.

✔

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

✔

iii. Is a landmark. ✔

ii. Character – The Speed River with the King Street Bridge, the P&H Flour Mill and

Riverside Park define the character of the area. There is mixed land use along the

riverbanks including former industrial and current lands, commercial use and recreational

use. A millrace, adjacent and linked to the dam structure visually and functionally,

carries the north branch of the Speed River to the P&H Flour Mill. Riverside Dam is

important in defining, maintaining, and supporting this area character. As well, as part of

the P&H Flour Mill landscape, it is an important element mill in interpreting the

industrial history of the Speed River between Preston and Hespeler. The Riverside Dam

would be an important addition to this interpretive story of the Mill Run Trail between

Preston and Hespeler.

ii. Linkages –Riverside Dam is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked

to its surroundings including the mill race, the P&H Flour Mill and Riverside Park. A

dam structure has been situated on the Speed River in this location since the first mills

built between 1805-07. It is shown on the 1852 map of Preston. The construction date of

the current dam structure is undetermined, however, it may have been built by Samuel

Cherry for the his mill in the early 1890s. Therefore, it has been linked to the mill site, as

well as Riverside Park landscape, for over 115 years. The route of the early 19th

century

millrace, built by the Erbs is still in-situ adjacent to the dam structure, and water flows

under the current mill structure.

iii. Landmark –Riverside Dam is located on the Speed River and is a physical and

symbolic landmark within the area. Although a clear view of the dam structure from the

King Street Bridge has been somewhat obscured by the CN railway spur since the early

20th

century, the dam structure and its control tower structures are clearly visible from the

north and south banks of the Speed River, and form part of an important view of the

Speed River from Riverside Park. The dam has been a popular landmark in Preston since

the mid 1800s. It was mentioned as a popular place for swimming and skating as early as

the 1860s, and early twentieth century postcards of Preston feature the Speed River Dam

showing boaters and people fishing from the dam structure. It has also been a part of the

Riverside Park landscape since the 1890s. Riverside Dam has been a well-known and

significant landmark in Preston since the mid 19th

century.





25

5.3 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value

It is determined through the application of the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage

Value under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as amended in 2005,

that the Riverside Dam is considered to be of cultural heritage value for design/physical,

historical and contextual reasons. As a structure of municipal heritage significance it is

considered to be worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.

5.3.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value

The Riverside Dam is a gravity dam with two, stone masonry control towers built as part

of the structure. A dam structure has stood in the Speed River at this location since John

Erb built his first mills on the Speed River between 1805 and 1807. Local history

suggests A.A. Erb & Brothers built a new stone dam for the Cambridge Mills in this

location in 1864. It is possible some of the stone masonry construction of the existing

dam is from this period of time. A dam in this location provided waterpower to John

Erb’s first mills (1806-07), the A.A. Erb & Brothers Cambridge Mills (1832-1879) and

the Cherry Flour Mill, owned and operated by Samuel Cherry (1879 to 1923). The dam is

an important element of the cultural heritage landscape encompassing the P&H Flour

Mill site, the King Street Bridge, Riverside Park and the CPR railway line and wood

trestle. It is located on the Speed River, which is a federally designated Canadian

Heritage River.

Riverside Dam is closely associated with the Cambridge Mills site, now P&H Flour Mill,

which has been an important industry in Preston and area from 1806 to the present and

formed part of a cultural heritage landscape that includes, but is not limited to, the dam,

mill sluiceway structure and mill race, and the mill buildings. The Waterloo Historical

Society commemorated the Cambridge Mills site in 1928 as the oldest continuous place

of business in Waterloo County at that time. It is still operating 84 years later. The mill

has been a major employer of Preston residents for over two hundred years.

The Riverside Dam forms part of a large industrial cultural heritage landscape that

extends along the Speed River from Hespeler to Preston. This landscape includes the

three mill sites identified on the Mill Run Trail.

Riverside Dam forms part of the cultural heritage landscape associated with Riverside

Park.

5.3.2 Description of Heritage Attributes

Heritage attributes, i.e., character defining elements, of the Riverside Dam structure

include, but are not limited to:

o the limestone facing stone on north control and south control structures;

o the round headed stone arches with stone voussoirs on south elevation of north

control structure; and,





26

o the stone buttresses on south elevation of north control structure (buttresses on

south control structure are hidden from view).

Although not physically linked to the Riverside Dam, the sluice gate to the former mill

race to its north is considered to be an important defining element in the landscape

associated with the dam.

6.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction

The City of Cambridge has completed a Municipal Class EA for the Riverside Dam

structure on the Speed River in Preston. An undertaking 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. When the nature of the undertaking

is such that adverse impacts are unavoidable, it may be necessary to implement

management or mitigation strategies that alleviate the deleterious effects of the

undertaking to cultural heritage resources. Mitigation measures lessen or negate

anticipated adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources. These measures may include

such actions as avoidance, monitoring, protection, relocation documentation, salvage,

remedial landscaping, etc., and may be a temporary or permanent action.

The principal heritage philosophy for the protection of cultural heritage resources is

retention in-situ. The protection of built heritage resources is to preserve in-situ the

structures and their material integrity to the maximum extent possible, consistent with

public safety. The following heritage conservation options, listed in descending order of

preference, should be considered within the context of the project:

1. Retention of existing built heritage resource in-situ with no major modifications.

2. Retention of existing built heritage resource in-situ with sympathetic

modifications.

3. Retention of existing built heritage resource adapted for a new use, e.g.,

pedestrian walkway, bicycle path or scenic viewing with a new sympathetically

designed structure in proximity.

4. Relocation of existing built heritage resource to an appropriate new site nearby in

its municipality, preferably in the vicinity of the existing site to preserve its

historical value.

5. Salvage of elements of built heritage resource for incorporation into other

structures.

6. Full recording and documentation of the built heritage resource and its associated

cultural heritage landscape if it is to be demolished.

The Riverside Dam is considered to be of municipal heritage significance (See Section 5.3.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and 5.3.2 Heritage Attributes) and is

worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.





27

6.2 Mitigation Recommendations

The most appropriate mitigation recommendations will be dependent on the conclusions

of the engineering study for the Riverside Dam. The mitigation recommendations are:

o If it is determined it is feasible to rehabilitate the existing structure, modifications

should be sympathetic and care should be taken to conserve the character defining

elements of the bridge (see 5.3.2 Heritage Attributes). o If rehabilitation occurs, it is recommended the Riverside Dam be municipally

designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The sluice gate to the former mill race

located immediately north of the dam should be included in the heritage

designation description and notice.

o If it is determined it is not feasible to rehabilitate the existing dam structure and it

is to be decommissioned and removed, full recording and documentation of the

dam and its associated cultural heritage landscape, including the stoplog

sluiceway structure, the mill race under King Street, the Cambridge Mills site and

Riverside Park in the area of the dam, should be completed prior to its removal

and any modifications to its surroundings.

o Given the demonstrated cultural heritage value of the existing dam, if it is

determined a replacement dam structure is to built, it should be designed in such a

manner as to complement the scenic character and views along the Speed River.

The design of a replacement dam and associated construction activities should not

impact any adjacent structures, i.e., the stoplog sluiceway structure and mill race.

o If the dam is not rehabilitated in full, or rebuilt, consideration should be given to

the rehabilitation of parts of the existing structure, e.g., the north or south control

structures in-situ, or for the relocation of the control structure(s) to nearby

Riverside Park as part of the interpretation of the dam site.

Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: Riverside Dam




SOURCES

Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Waterloo Historical

Society, October 1995.

Bloomfield Elizabeth, and Stelter, Gilbert A. Guelph and Wellington County: A bibliography of Settlement and Development since 1800. Guelph Regional Project

University of Guelph, Ontario: 1988.

Bray Heritage, et. al., Cambridge Heritage Master Plan, Final Report. Prepared for The

Corporation of the City of Cambridge, June 2008.

City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory. October 2010.

Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co., 1881.

McLaughlin, Kenneth. Cambridge: the making of a Canadian city, 1st ed. Windsor,

Ontario: 1987.

Paulter, Alfred. Preston: a friendly welcome awaits you. Preston, Ontario: Preston

Corporation, c1949.

Quantrell, Jim. Cambridge Mosaics. City of Cambridge, Ontario, 1998.

Sanchez Engineering Inc. The City of Cambridge Riverside Dam Structural Evaluation and Detailed Design. Final Report October 2009.

Smith, Wm. H. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846.

Smith, W. H. Canada, Past, Present and Future. Toronto: T. Maclear, 1851.

Waterloo Historical Society Annual Report.

Byerley, A.E. “Preston in 1866”, Twenty-first Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society,1933, 53-56.

Klotz, Otto. “Sketch of the History of the Village of Preston”, Fifth Annual Report of the

Waterloo Historical Society. 1917, 24-40.

Klotz, Otto. “Preston, reminiscences”, Ninth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society. 1921, 171-182.

“Preston Mill Historical Tablet”, Waterloo Historical Society, 1928, 77-78.

“Samuel Cherry”, Waterloo Historical Society. Vol. V. Kitchener. Ontario: Waterloo

Historical Society, 1917, 55.





Velae, Barbara J. A Decade in the Canadian Heritage Rivers System: A Review off the Grand Strategy 1994-2004. Cambridge, Ontario: Cambridge River Conservation

Authority, May 2004.

Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited and Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates.

The Preston Mills Heritage Conservation District Study, Heritage Assessment Report. Prepared for the City of Cambridge, September 1990.

Wright, J.R. Urban Parks in Ontario, Part II: The Public Park Movement 1860-1914.

Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1984.

Web Sites

Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, About Cambridge History, Brief History of the Community

of Preston. Access;--< http://cambridgeweb.net/historical/preston.html > (November

20, 2011)

Canada’s Historic Places, Canadian Register, Riverside Park Gates, Cambridge Ontario.

Access:--< http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=15304 >

(November 2011).

Dover Industries Limited. History. Access:--< http://www.dovergrp.com/

dover_flour_history.htm> (November 2011).

Ezra Eby. From Pennsylvania to Waterloo: A Biographical History of Waterloo.

Access:--< http://ebybook.region.waterloo.on.ca/about.php> (November 2011).

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).

Heritage River Inventory, Searchable heritage database. Cherry-Taylor Mill Dam,

Cambridge. Access:--< http://www.grandriver.ca/heritage/Results.aspx?HIT_

ID=15362> (April 2012).

Searchable Old Time Trains. Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/

CPEL/history.htm> (December 2011).

Township. Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History Digital

Collection, Samuel J. Cherry. Access:--< http://images.ourontario.ca/kitchener/

44187/data?n=14> (November 2011).

Trails, trails and more trails. Cambridge Mills, a virtual visit to the pat and present.

Access:--< http://www3.sympatico.ca/bobmcmu/Cambridge_Mills.htm> (November

2011).

TrainWeb

Galt & Preston Street Railway. Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org/elso/gph.htm>

(December 2011).





Grand River Railway. Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org/elso/grr.htm> (December

2011).

Mill Run Trail. Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org/elso/millrun.htm> (December

2011).

Preston & Berlin Street Railway. Access;--< http://www.trainweb.org/elso/pb.htm>

(December 2011).

Waterloo Region Generations,

Samuel Joseph Cherry.

Access:--< http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=

I89122&tree=generations> (December 2011).

George A. Cherry, (1863-1944)

Access:--< http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=

I89120&tree=generations> (December 2011).

Waterloo Regional Museum/Inductees,

Samuel J. Cherry (1843-1917).

Access:--< http://waterlooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees---a-to-

c.aspx> (December 2011).

John Erb (1764-1832)

Access:--< http://waterlooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees---d-to-

f.aspx> (December 2011).

Frederich Guggisberg (1818-1888)

Access:--< http://waterlooregionmuseum.com/ region-hall-of-fame/inductees---g-to-

i.aspx> (December 2011).

Your Heritage Waterloo Region.

Mennonites and Milling in Waterloo Region.

Access:--<http://www.mennoniteheritageportrait.ca/Report.php?ListType=

Documents&ID=2148> (November 2011).

President’s Address: Milling Industry1, by D.N. Panabaker, Hespeler, President,

Waterloo Historical Society, Annual Meeting, Oct. 25th

, 1929,

Access:--< http://www.yourlocalheritage.ca/Report.php? ListType=Documents&ID

=3481> (November 2012).

President’s Address: Milling Industry2, Access:--< http://www.yourlocalheritage.ca

/Report.php?ListType=Documents&ID=3482> (November 2012).











Maps, Drawings and Photographs City of Cambridge Archives.

Maps.

Town of Preston with Views of Principal Business Buildings, c1900.

Map of the Village of Preston in the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Otto Klotz,

Conveyancer, 1852.

Photographs:

PC137. Preston Dam late 1860s, early 1870s.

PC 138, Preston Dam, c1907.

PC 140, Preston Dam, n.d.,

PC148, Preston Dam, c1907.

PH787, Preston Dam, n.d.

PH1323, Preston Dam. n.d.

PH6380, James Esson, King Street, Preston, n.d.

PH6382, Preston Dam, n.d.

PH6554, Aerial c1974.

City of Toronto Reference Library (TRL). Virtual Reference Library.

Fire Insurance Plan, Preston, Ontario. Chas. E. Goad, Montreal, 1910.

Title page. Access:--< http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDMDC-

OHQ-MAPS-C-R-289&R=DC-OHQ-MAPS-C-R-289&searchPageType=vrl

(November 2011); and,

Page 3. Access:--<http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDMDCOHQ-

MAPS-C-R-300&R=DC-OHQ-MAPS-C-R-300&searchPageType=vrl (November

2011).

Speed Bridge, Preston, Ontario, Canada, 1910 [TRL, Rumsey & Co., Toronto,

Ontario 1910. Access:--< http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?

Entt=RDMDC-PCR-993&R=DC-PCR-993&searchPageType=vrl> (November 2011).

Library and Archives of Canada (LAC)

James Esson, PA-029073, Item No. 16349, Preston, Ontario, Dam Speed River, 1905.

Map of Waterloo Township, Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H.

Parsell & Co., 1881.

Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West, 1861.

Mennonite Archives of Ontario.

Photograph, 1992-7.1 Erb’s Mill.

Preston in 1856. Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1917,

frontispiece.

Preston Towne Centre Core Area and Business Improvement Area (BIA) Boundaries.

The Corporation of the City of Cambridge, July 2011





Sanchez Engineering Inc Existing Conditions Plan, Riverside Dam, Structural Evaluation

& Detailed Design, Cambridge, Ontario, Drawing 1X, October 2008.

TrainWeb. GP&H 51 crosses the Speed River as it departs Preston for Hespeler.

Access:--< http://www.trainweb.org/elso/GPH_51.HTM> (November 2011).

University of Waterloo. Maps, University Map Library, Air Photos Digitization Project,

Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo, Photo IMD16.

Access:--< http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IMD16.html>

(November 21, 2011).

1945 : A9196_14

1955: 4319_168, 4319_170, 4318_230, 4318_232

View of Cambridge Mills, 1886 [Fifth Annual Report of the Waterloo Historical Society,

1917, 31].

APPENDIX A: Historical Maps,

Aerial Views and Photographs

Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: Riverside Dam Appendix A




On this 1852 map the dam, bridge, mill race associated with the Cambridge Mills and the north branch of the Speed River are depicted. Joseph Erb owned land on the north side of Main (King) Street and A. A. Erb & Bros, owned south of Main (King) Street [Map of the Village of Preston in the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Otto Klotz, Conveyancer, 1852].





Location of Riverside Dam on Speed River in the Village of Preston as shown on Tremaine’s Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West, 1861.





Map of Waterloo Township showing the Town of Preston development south of the Speed River and the location of the Riverside Dam [Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co., 1881]. Cambridge Mills, c1880. Photograph noted as the John Erb mill [Mennonite Archives of Ontario].





View northwest showing the Galt, Preston and Hespeler Railway spur, the pre-1927 metal truss King Street Bridge, Cambridge Mills in the background, and the north retaining wall west of the dam and mill race in the background, circa early 1900s. Note the low water level immediately downstream from the dam, which is to the right just outside the photograph [PH6381, City of Cambridge Archives].





Town of Preston with Views of Principal Business Buildings, c1900. Note Riverside Dam shown with the north and south control towers, the north stoplog sluiceway and mill race leading to S.J. Cherry’s Cambridge Roller Mills [City of Cambridge Archives





Location of stone masonry constructed Riverside Dam [Toronto Reference Library: Underwriter’s Survey Bureau, Fire Insurance Pan of Preston, Ontario, 1910].





View of the dam on the Speed River in 1907 showing the Galt, Preston & Hespeler Railway bridge railway spur in the foreground and the Riverside Dam and the north control tower with an ashlar pattern stone exterior [PC 148, City of Cambridge Archives]. Galt, Preston & Hespeler Car 51 crossing the Speed River leaving Preston for Hespeler, circa the early 20thC Note the Riverside Dam to the right with the stone embankment wall and mill race to the north [TrainWeb].





1945 aerial view (above) and 1955 aerial view (below) of the Riverside Dam and the Speed River in Preston Ontario [University of Waterloo Map Library, Air Photos Digitization Project, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener-Waterloo, Photo IMD16.].





Aerial view showing Riverside Dam c1974 [City of Cambridge Archives, PH 6554].

APPENDIX B: Photographs, Context

Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: Riverside Dam Appendix B




View west from Riverside Park to the dam and Speed River Bridge on King Street East. View southwest to former mill race gate on right and the Riverside Dam.





Riverside Park Memorial Entrance Gates. City of Cambridge Heritage Landmark plaque on Riverside Park Gates.





View south along former mill race on west side of King Street showing the north branch of Speed River on H&P Milling Group site. View to the northwest of the King Street road bridge over the Speed River to the H&P Milling Group site, former site of 19th century Cambridge Mills that includes a former residence at No. 146 King Street West.





No. 149 King Street West.

No. 101 King Street West.





View south to CPR tracks and Riverside Dam with Rivers Edge Development in the background. View south over the Speed River Bridge on King Street with CPR bridge to left.





View north over Speed River Bridge on King Street East. View east from Speed River Bridge to the CPR wood trestle bridge in front of Riverside Dam.





View northward to Riverside Dam, the CPR track, the Speed River Bridge and H&P Flour Mills in the background. Commemorative plaque on the southeast corner of the 1987 Speed River Bridge.





No. 204 (to right) and No. 210 (to left) King Street East. No. 223 King Street East.

APPENDIX C: Photographs

Riverside Dam

Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report: Riverside Dam Appendix C




View northwest to the Riverside Dam with the remains of the south control structure in the foreground. View north to dam with the south elevation of the south control structure in the foreground.





View to northwest corner elevation of the south control structure on dam. Note the south elevation has been hidden behind the rock deposited into the Speed River. View south to Riverside Dam.





View east of north end of Riverside Dam showing the stone retaining wall and north control structure. South elevation of the north control tower showing the older limestone masonry and round arch voussoirs and quoins highlighting the two downstream water outlets.





Sluice gate located to the north of the main dam structure. It was the entrance to the former mill race to the Cambridge Mills and now serves as an outlet for the north branch of the Speed River.

Appendix K

Structural Inspection

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure A division of AMEC Americas Limited 3215 North Service Road Burlington, Ontario L7N 3G2 Tel +(905) 335-2353 Fax +(905) 335-1414 www.amec.com

P:\Work\111118\corr\Report\2014 Structural Investigation\14-12-23 Cambrdige-BRobinson.docx

Memo

To: Barbara Robinson, City of Cambridge File no: TP111118-26 From: Derk Meyer/Aaron Brouwers/Ron Scheckenberger Date: December 23, 2014 c.c.: George Elliott, City of Cambridge; Leo Sanchez, Sanchez

Engineering Inc. Subject: Riverside Dam

Structural Investigation & Review of Repair Feasibility, City of Cambridge

1. Background The City of Cambridge retained Sanchez Engineering Inc. to carry out an evaluation of the Riverside Dam in 2008/9 (ref. Riverside Dam Structural Evaluation and Detailed Design, Sanchez, 2009). The dam is located on the Speed River, just north of the CP Rail’s spur, servicing the industrial area to the northwest, and north of King Street (ref. Sheet 1). The inspection by Sanchez was completed in 2008 and the final report was submitted in 2009. The 2008 inspection revealed that the north stop log control structures were in poor to fair condition and the south stop log control structure was in need of an emergency repair which was subsequently carried out by the City of Cambridge after the inspection in 2009. The repair was completed as a stop-gap measure to stabilize the control structure and in so doing prevent catastrophic rapid failure of the dam. The Riverside Dam was constructed circa 1890 and consists of a rubble filled core, covered with a reinforced concrete shell that ranges in thickness from 0.45 m to 0.58 m. Sanchez reported reinforcing steel as being comprised of 12 mm square bars and 11 mm round bars. Core samples, taken from the crest in 2008 in support of the Sanchez study, determined that the concrete had an average strength of 37.3 MPa, based on an average thickness of the concrete shell (0.53 m). Concrete strength was calculated to be as low 29.4 MPa. The lower value was conservatively used in the structural calculations by Sanchez. The strength of the rubble core could not be determined analytically as the samples taken were not considered suitable for testing. The strength of the core was hence estimated as 13.1 MPa based on measurements from the nearby Silknit Dam, which was of a similar design and construction, and a similar vintage (built in 1906). The 2009 Sanchez report indicated that the structural factors of safety, based on the foregoing information, met the Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (MNR, Draft 1999) except for sliding under ice loading conditions. The calculated factor against sliding for the Sunny Day – Winter conditions was noted to be below 1.0. However, because the dam was known to experience active flow

2 City of Cambridge December 23, 2014

Project Number: TP111118 P:\Work\111118\corr\Report\2014 Structural Investigation\14-12-23 Cambrdige-BRobinson.docx

during the entire winter (i.e. does not freeze solid), it was concluded that it would be unlikely that the ice would make direct contact with the dam with sufficient force to develop the entire estimated ice force (25 kN/m); this assumption was supported by the fact that the structure has remained in-place over the years despite the build-up of ice. On this basis the dam was concluded to meet the requisite factors of safety. Based on the conclusions in the Sanchez report, which indicated parts of the Riverside Dam were in poor condition, and based on the vintage of the dam (> 100 years old) and the form of construction of the dam (concrete cap with a rubble core) complemented by engineering judgment, the alternative to repair the dam was screened out early in the process of the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment, currently being undertaken by the City of Cambridge and AMEC. Due to public resistance to dam removal, the City has commissioned further structural investigations to confirm the feasibility of rehabilitating the existing Riverside Dam. 2. Scope of Current Work As the inspection of the dam, which was completed in 2008 by Sanchez, is now over 6 years old, the City of Cambridge has requested AMEC (Engineering Consultants for the ongoing Class EA) to carry out an inspection and obtain additional samples through the core of the structure and into the foundation, to provide an indication of the durability of the materials in the core and the concrete shell, and to provide a better understanding of the founding materials. The purpose of the work has been to determine the feasibility of potentially rehabilitating the existing dam structure and if so, the scope of the possible works. Based on the Ministry of Natural Resources Procedure No. WR.4.03.05.05 for the Administration of Section 16 – Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), it is understood that concrete repairs representing greater than 15% of the existing concrete surface area (or greater than 15 m2) or have a penetration depth greater than 75 mm would trigger the requirement for approval under the LRIA. These thresholds are used to determine the magnitude of works which may affect the dam’s safety or structural integrity (ref. LRIA Regulation 454/96 Section 2.1.b). Where approval under LRIA is required, it is understood the overall dam would be required to satisfy the current Provincial dam safety requirements (now specified in the Technical Bulletins under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, MNR, 2011). Hence this report provides commentary on these working thresholds as they pertain to the repair opportunities identified herein. It is also understood that where approval under the LRIA is required, the MNR will consider other non-structural factors, as required under the 2011 Technical Bulletins, including ownership, flood rights, Species at Risk, and other environmental considerations. The current work plan was scheduled to be completed by June 2014, however safety concerns associated with inclement weather and elevated flows in the Speed River delayed the inspection until August 22, 2014. The normal summer low flow at the dam site in the Speed River is 3.5 m3/s, however for much of the summer (months June to August), flows were considerably higher, hovering around 6 m3/s +/- or higher (considered the maximum flow to safely undertake inspections).



The inspections were carried out by AMEC structural engineers on three (3) separate days: May 28, 2014 Inspection of the downstream side of the dam August 22, 2014 Inspection of the crest and upstream side of the dam (underwater

inspection) August 28, 2014 Coring of the dam and foundation

3. Inspection Stop Log Structures and Retaining Walls

Details associated with the inspection are depicted on Sheet 1, attached. The inspection of the downstream face of the dam started at the north stop log structure. The north stop log structure is a masonry structure with significant sections of the front face missing (ref. Figure 1). The exposed core consists of larger boulder rock with a low strength cement mortar. The joints are opened and vegetation is growing through the open joints. Several large sections are missing and others are on the verge of falling off the structure. The top slab of the structure is cracked in several locations and sloping downstream. It is not known if the top slab was intentionally constructed with a slope. The top of the south arch is severely delaminated and reinforcing steel is exposed. The timber stop logs shown in Figure 2 are leaking. This is typical of both raceways (arches shown in Figure 1) on the north structure. The wooden stop logs appear to be in fair condition. The retaining wall on the north side of the Speed River, just downstream from the dam is in poor condition (ref. Figure 3 & 4). The footings are eroded and the joints are open. Failure of the retaining wall could compromise the dam.

Figure 1: North stop log structure



Figure 2: North stop log structure – South raceway and stoplogs

Figure 3: North retaining wall

Figure 4: North retaining wall Figure 5: South stop log structure showing emergency repair and high water mark

The downstream side of the south stop log structure has been reinforced with large angular rock (0.45 to 0.60 m +/- diameter); this work was recommended as part of the Sanchez study and undertaken as an emergency repair and completed in 2009 (ref. Figure 5). The high water marks on the face of the stop log structure are also evident on Figure 5. The north and south stop log structures both have significant vegetation growing through them which continues to deteriorate their integrity. Dam Structure - Downstream Face

The downstream face of the dam was inspected by a combination of visual observations (where turbulent water did not obscure the view) and by physically touching the structure. Physical touch-based observations were difficult to confirm by photographs due to the turbulent flow obscuring most of the details and defects. It is noted that nearly all the significant details/defects were found in the turbulent flow areas as shown by the white water in Figure 6.



Between the north and south stop log structures, four (4) exposed reinforcing steel rods were observed. Three (3) areas were observed where the concrete shell was eroded and boulders within the reinforced concrete shell of the dam were exposed (ref. Figure 7; some detail is obscured by the flowing water). Within the white water zones, the depth of concrete shell erosion typically ranged from 50 mm to a maximum of 100 mm (adjacent to the south stop log structure). At the toe of the dam, erosion depths peaked at 150 mm depth. Figure 8 shows a previous bole hole from 2008 and small boulders, as well Figure 9 illustrates typical erosion of the concrete shell on the downstream face.

Figure 6: Downstream face of dam Figure 7: Example of exposed rebar and boulders in core of dam

Figure 8: Previous borehole on crest of the dam Figure 9: Erosion of the concrete shell

Top of Dam and Upstream face

The top of the dam (crest) and the upstream face were inspected on August 22, 2014. The concrete shell was obscured by algae, and as such, the surface was cleaned with a stiff push broom to allow for a visual inspection. Openings/holes in the crest of the dam (100 mm long x 50 mm wide x 50 mm deep) were observed at 1.5 m +/- (5 feet) spacing and are believed to be



the result of 2-by-4 timber left in place (since deteriorated and washed away) from the original formwork for the dam. The inspection noted a narrow crack near the middle of the crest extending from the north stop log structure for approximately 8 m (ref. Crack ‘A’, Sheet 1). This crack was visible after scrubbing the crest but was not clear in the photos taken and as such a photo is not included in this report. Also in this area, there were two (2) cracks observed extending from the river bottom on the upstream side and across the top and down the back side of the structure; the terminus of the cracks on the downstream side were not visible due to turbulent water (ref. Crack ‘B’ and ‘C’, Sheet 1). Crack ‘C’ was detected across the top of the dam and extended down both faces. The crack was not visible beyond the white water region on the downstream side which initiated near the top of the dam at this location. Figure 10 shows Crack ‘C’ near the top of the upstream side of the dam where it is 6 mm (+/-) wide. The crack splits into two (2) cracks as it extends toward the riverbed; this can be seen in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the north (right) crack extending to just above the river bed and the south crack extending into the river bed (the end was not found). Crack ‘B’ is located approximately 7.5 metres south of the north control structure. A clear photo of Crack ‘B’ could not be obtained and as such is not included herein. Crack ‘D’ was detected just above the river bed at the north end of the dam (north of the north stop log structure). Crack ‘D’ is shown on Figure 13 and located north of the north stop log structure. In the same location, the erosion (ref. Figure 14) and disintegration of the concrete surface on the north end of the dam structure was observed. Figure 15 shows deterioration of the wooden stop logs. It is noted that the main dam adjacent to the south stop log structure has deteriorated significantly, similar to the north stop log structure.

Figure 10: Crack ‘C’ – 6 mm wide, upstream Figure 11: Crack ‘C’ - Two cracks merging



Figure 12: Crack ‘C’ - Two Cracks at base, upstream

Figure 13: Crack ‘D’

Figure 14: Erosion of concrete on upstream face Figure 15: Wooden stop logs 4. Petrographic Examination A core sample (borehole) of the Riverside Dam was sample taken to determine the condition of the concrete shell and interior fill and to determine the founding conditions of the dam. The coring has been examined and tested by AMEC’s Hamilton office laboratory; the attached letter report (Little/Balinski – Meyer, October 14, 2014) summarizes the analytical methodology, results and feasibility of concrete rehabilitation. The core sample was taken through the crest of the dam, just north of the south stop log structure (ref. Sheet 1). It indicated that there is approximately 620 mm of concrete shell in that location, which is consistent with the results presented in the 2009 Sanchez report. The borehole went through the rubble filled core of the dam which consisted of boulders with no binding material. Below the rubble fill, the founding native material was observed to be fine silt. During the coring operation, water was pumped into the hole for cooling and to lubricate the cutting edge. The water stayed in the hole until the coring penetrated through the concrete and into the rubble at which point the cooling water disappeared into voids associated with the rubble fill. There was no trace of where the water went, however it drained as fast as it was pumped indicating significant available void space, consistent with the lack of cementitious material.



Following completion of the coring, the borehole was dry and the silt at the base of the hole was visible at approximately 2.0 m below the surface of the dam. The report on the core sample indicated that the concrete in the outer shell was not air entrained and that micro cracking had occurred; neither of these conditions is considered unexpected for a 120 ± year old structure (Note: air entrainment in concrete, only became part of standard design in 1958 in Ontario). The petrographic report concludes that the concrete in the existing structure is deteriorating and micro and macro cracking is occurring throughout the concrete however predominately within the top 350 mm from the surface. The macro cracks are considered significant as they range in width from 2 to 10 mm. In addition, the cement showed poor bonding to both the coarse and fine aggregates and within the concrete matrix; there were also organic matter consisting of seeds and wood fragments present throughout the entire sample. Further, no cementitious material was found on the loosely bound gravel comprising the interior of the dam core. Regarding options for rehabilitation of the concrete cap, the examination concluded that removal of 350 mm (out of 620 mm in total) of deteriorated surface concrete would be required in order to reach sound concrete suitable for anchoring new concrete. The removal of the outer 350 mm of the concrete cap would result in, at most, an original concrete cover of less than 270 mm. As only one core has been examined from the dam, it is unclear as to whether or not similar dam construction conditions (i.e. thickness of concrete cap overtop of gravel core) are also present in other parts of the dam. Feasibility of this type of repair would decrease with decreasing overall concrete cap thickness, or with an increase in the depth of deteriorated concrete. 5. Loading Conditions The 2009 Sanchez report indicated that the main dam structure (based on a 1 metre section of the dam) met the criteria for all required loading conditions except ice loading, as discussed earlier, given the assumption that ice would not be in contact with the dam and therefore would not be subject to any horizontal loading from the ice. Figure 16, considered representative of sunny day winter conditions, shows that ice is not typically in contact with the spillway portions of the dam, however ice can be seen to contact the north stop log structure (similar conditions would exist at the south stop log structure), and as such it is AMEC’s opinion that some ice loading would need to be considered at these locations. Based on the analysis included in the Sanchez report, the stop log structures would not provide the required factor of safety against sliding when subjected to ice loading conditions. However, the deficient factor of safety is considered a moot point given the poor condition of the stop log structures (i.e. replacement would be required regardless of the deficient factor of safety; this has also been recommended in the 2009 Sanchez report). The addition of the significant amount rip rap to the south control structure (through emergency repair in 2009) and the associated dead load used to stabilize the south control structure under summer loading conditions, may be sufficient to off-set this additional ice load under existing conditions (this has not been confirmed by analysis), however as noted previously, the repair works were not meant to be a permanent measure.



Presumably the north stop log structure remains at risk. Failure of either stop log structure could compromise the overall dam.

6. Repair Options Based on the structural inspection and petrographic examination, two (2) repair options have been identified for consideration (ref. Sheet 2, attached):

i. Option A: Concrete Shell Rehabilitation ii. Option B: Cap Existing Shell In-Place and Grout Core

Option A: Concrete Shell Rehabilitation Option A proposes the rehabilitation of 100% of the concrete shell. Rehabilitation would require the removal of the outer 350 mm (+/-) of the dam’s shell and replacement of the concrete and rebar. Photos showing a two examples of a bridge deck rehabilitation are attached. Construction methods would need to minimize the potential for damage to the remainder of the concrete shell. As a result, this would be a time consuming and costly procedure requiring significant manual labour effort and the use of low impact tools. Concrete rehabilitation is typically applied to a nominal depth on a larger concrete structure where the lifespan of the greater concrete structure can be increased (e.g. rehabilitation of a bridge deck, see attached photos). In the case of Riverside Dam, the depth of rehabilitation would be leave less than 270 mm of sound concrete, and no rebar. As a result, there would, in our opinion, be a very high risk of compromising the overall integrity of the shell during construction by causing additional cracking. Given that the core of the dam lacks stability without the shell, compromising the shell significantly increases the risk of failure of the overall dam. The potential to repair the dam by way of rehabilitation of the concrete shell has been identified based on petrographic examination of one (1) concrete coring sample. Overall feasibility of

Figure 16: Riverside Dam under ice loading conditions (March 9, 2009)

https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/19841376



Repair Option A would be subject to further confirming concrete conditions across the balance of the dam by way of additional coring. Should deterioration depths be greater across the dam, rehabilitation of the concrete shell, and repair of the dam may be considered infeasible. Since the concrete rehabilitation required under Option A is greater than 15% of the total concrete area, greater than 15 m2 and to a depth greater than 75 mm, the rehabilitation would trigger the requirement for approval of the repair under the LRIA. Further consultation with MNR staff is recommended to confirm this requirement. For the purpose of budget and project planning the estimated cost of Option A is $4M to $5M, including access, railway flagging, dewatering and erosion/sediment control, disposal of contaminated soil, removals, capital works, restoration, engineering, contingency and taxes. Option B: Cap Existing Shell In-Place and Grout Core Option B would involve removing only the crest of the existing dam shell and exposing the boulder filled core. The core voids would then be grouted from the top, to the extent possible, though the depth of penetration through the rubble would be expected to be limited. Boreholes could be taken to confirm the effectiveness of the grouting prior to replacing the top slab or crest of the dam. The upstream and downstream side slopes of the existing structure would remain in-place and then further covered with 350 mm (+/-) of reinforced concrete that would be dowelled through the deteriorated concrete and anchored into sound concrete next to the inner core. It is envisioned that the concrete cap would be extended to bed rock on the upstream side of the dam and doweled into the rock. On the downstream side the concrete would terminate at the construction joint between the dam and the apron as shown on sketch “A” (ref. attached). The slope would transition to the apron with a parabolic curve to minimize flow turbulence. The additional concrete and grouting would provide additional mass and hence increased resistance to sliding, including possibly achieving a satisfactory factor of safety.

Option B is considered to have a high risk of compromising the greater dam structure during construction (i.e. concrete removal would only be required on the crest, therefore relatively lower Risk than Option A) and this option would provide improved protection against seepage under the structure due to the additional ‘cut-off’ wall created by the concrete on the upstream side. It is noted however that when the existing dam crest is removed and the core of the dam is exposed during construction, should temporary dewatering measures be compromised (i.e. due to flood or failure), the flowing water forces would pose a significant risk to the integrity of the structure. Construction scheduling would need to carefully consider local weather forecasts and the operation of upstream flow control structures. The works associated with ‘capping’ the existing dam under Option B would represent greater than 15% of the total concrete area and greater than 15 m2 and as such it is understood that the repair would trigger the requirement for approval under the LRIA. Further consultation with MNR staff is recommended to confirm this requirement.



For the purpose of budget and project planning the estimated cost of Option A is $4M to $5M, including access, railway flagging, dewatering and erosion/sediment control, disposal of contaminated soil, removals, capital works, restoration, engineering, contingency and taxes. 7. Conclusions & Recommendations The following summarizes the conclusions of the investigation: 1. The 2014 structural inspection has determined that the dam has deteriorated further since

the inspection in 2008 completed by Sanchez. More concrete erosion has developed resulting in more exposed reinforcing steel bars, more boulders visible on the surface of the dam (primarily on the inclined surfaces), and more cracks.

2. Based on the advancing deterioration in the past 5 years, it is estimated that within 2 to 10 years the risk of concrete pop-out would be high, and that with a significant local failure, the integrity of the dam would be compromised. On this basis, it is recommended that inspection of the dam be carried out annually in the spring, at minimum, with consideration for inspection every 6 months, in order to monitor the dam’s condition and assess short-term risk.

3. The petrographic examination has determined that the exterior of the concrete has deteriorated due to the freeze-thaw cycles that the structure has been subjected to over the 120± year service life. The petrographic examination has also revealed micro and macro cracking in the exterior 350 mm of the shell. The examination further revealed an absence of cementitious material leaving the dam’s interior rubble/gravel fill loosely bound.

4. Due to the poor condition of the stop log structures, should the dam be repaired, the structures would need to be removed and/or replaced with a new section of the dam designed to withstand ice loading.

5. Repair Option A is considered to present significant risk of comprising the concrete shell during construction. Further, even with additional corings across the dam, the depth of concrete removal required cannot be fully predicted. Therefore, there is a high risk that the scope of work and associated cost could become larger than anticipated during construction. In a worst-case scenario, Option A could be determined to be infeasible during construction. Given that the potential for success of the concrete rehabilitation effort is considered uncertain, and the high risk for cost variances, Option A is not recommended.

6. Repair Option B is considered to be somewhat more feasible albeit several assumptions would need to be validated prior to adopting this option. It is difficult to establish the lifespan of the structure; an estimate cannot be made until further intrusive investigations are completed and detailed design is initiated. The estimate may need to be adjusted during construction based on the conditions of the dam. It is anticipated that anything less



than 50 years would not be considered ‘acceptable’ or ‘cost effective’. The estimate of dam lifespan will need to consider the existing degraded concrete and expectation of future degradation due to continued exposure to freeze-thaw cycles. Flowing water forces would pose a significant risk to the dam during construction.

7. The feasibility to repair the dam has been estimated based on review and petrographic

examination of only one (1) coring sample. Overall feasibility of repair would be subject to confirming current conditions across the balance of the dam by way of additional coring. Additional boreholes should collect information on the bedrock, overlying strata and the condition of the concrete (crest and side slopes) and the inner core.

8. Based on AMEC’s understanding of MNR Procedure No. WR.4.03.05.05 for the Administration of Section 16 – Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, both repair options are expected to represent a repair of a magnitude that would trigger the requirement for approval under the LRIA. This would trigger the need for the Riverside Dam to meet current Provincial dam design requirements under the LRIA, as well as ownership, flood rights, Species at Risk, and other environmental considerations. Based on the design and condition of the existing structure, it is AMEC’s opinion that this would not be feasible and that full re-design and construction of the dam would continue to be required as reported in the Class EA (Draft). Further consultation with MNRF staff is hence considered necessary to confirm this understanding.

AMEC does not recommend that repair of the dam be advanced considering the following: 1. Multiple indicators of accelerating deterioration; 2. The substantial capital cost of dam repair relative to the expected additional life span and

relative to replacing the dam; 3. Potential impacts to the integrity of the dam during construction and associated increased

risk of failure; and, 4. The repair options identified would trigger the need for the overall dam to meet current

LRIA design guidelines which may not be feasible due to other non-technical constraints (similar to replacing the dam). Clarification on application of the LRIA has been requested from MNRF.

DM/AB/RBS/ll

SHEET 1OCTOBER 2014

KEY PLAN

Site Area

SHEET 2OCTOBER 2014