Riverside Dam Presentation June 18, 2013 at Knights of Columbus Hall

Public Information Centre No.
2
Presentation of Alternative Solutions for Riverside Dam
Class Environmental Assessment City of Cambridge
June 18, 2013
Welcome
Presentation Outline
1. Opening Remarks Kealy Dedman, Director, Engineering Services 2. Main Presentation Ron Scheckenberger, Consultant Team PM 1. Introduction/Background 2. Baseline Inventory 3. Study Progress and Timeline Since First Public Session 4. Problem and Opportunity Statement 5. Selection of Alternatives 6. Assessment of Alternatives 7. Legislative and Regulatory Requirements 8. Costs and Liabilities 9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 10. Next Steps 3. Closing Remarks George Elliott, Commissioner of Transportation and Public Works 4. Breakout to Work Stations Anne McIlroy, Public Facilitator
Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment
Welcome
Public Information Centre Outline
After the presentation individuals can visit Work Stations to view the
preliminary alternatives and to ask questions and provide comments directly to City Staff and Consultant Team members
Each Work Station is the same and includes:

- Drawings that illustrate each of the preliminary alternatives - City Staff and Consultant Team Members to facilitate a discussion, answer questions and take notes
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1. Introduction and Background

Sulphur Creek
Riverside Park
Riverside Dam

Riverside Dam constructed in the late 1800s to
support Erb Mill Maintenance of structure likely ended once the dam and associated mill race were no longer required to power the mill Over time Dam has deteriorated to current state 2008/2009 study (Sanchez) determined dam to have elements in poor structural condition Emergency repair of south control structure completed in December 2008 Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) permit stipulated requirement to build permanent works under the Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act based on the results of a broad based investigation

Riverside Dam is 1.5 m +/- high, 67 m +/long concrete/rubble stone gravity dam Two control structures previously controlled water levels but are no longer functional The dam facilitates diversion of water flow to the mill race which is conveyed under CP railway, King Street and P&H Milling P&H Milling has expressed an interest in decommissioning the mill race as it is no longer required for the operation of the mill

City has initiated the study using the
Provincial MEA Class Environmental Assessment process which guides decision making for Municipal Infrastructure To direct and guide the study, the City has formed: - Project Team - Technical Committee - Stakeholder Committee Input has been received at strategic points in the study process from each of the above
2. BASELINE INVENTORY
2. Baseline Inventory
As part of this study, the AMEC Team conducted numerous baseline assessments to develop a better understanding of the Riverside Dam and its local environs, these included: land use hydrology (flows) hydraulics (levels) park use cultural heritage water quality structural engineering sediment quantity and quality geotechnical topographic surveys (above fisheries/aquatic habitat and below water line) vegetation stream stability wildlife
Park Use and Inventory
Various components of the park include: The Speed River Interface Riverside Dam Active Park Programming Passive Leisure Circulation (roadway) Built Heritage Features
CP Rail Line Roadway (Shared Automotive and Pedestrian) Parking Trails
Board Walk Park Features (Uses + Buildings) Heritage Features
Character Areas Prominent Views Internal Edges Noise Disturbance
Cultural Heritage Assessment
The current dam was constructed in the late 1800s as a water supply source for the Erb Mill The Cherry family, acquired the mill from the Erb family and operated the mill until 1923, after which it was operated by the Standard Milling Company, Dover Flour Mills, and currently P&H Milling The existing railway bridge (now owned by CP Rail) was constructed in July 1894 the Riverside Dam is listed on the City of Cambridge Heritage Properties Inventory
Fisheries and Terrestrial (Vegetation/ Wildlife) Assessment
Fish Community
Mixed water fishery: cool water predators (pike), warmwater based fishery One Species at Risk (SAR) fish identified downstream of the study area - Silver Shiner (Notropis photogenis) One Species at Risk (SAR) mussel identified downstream of the study area Wavy-rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola)
Mussel Community
Terrestrial (Vegetation/Wildlife) Community

The head pond upstream of Riverside Dam is documented by Guelph MNR as waterfowl wintering concentration area Several regional/local significant natural heritage features adjacent to the study area Speed River Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally Significant Landscape, Speed River Significant Valleyland No terrestrial Species at Risk (SAR) found during study, but potential for Butternut (Juglans cinerea) an endangered tree species - to occur within the study area
Flood and Water Level Assessment
Speed River Flow Rates @ Riverside Dam (m3/s)
Summer Riverside Mean Base Park Floods Flow 2 Year Flood 10 Year Flood 100 Year Flood Regional Storm Flood
>45
110
181
269
679
Flood flows and flood levels have previously been determined by GRCA using computer models Levels used to generate Regulatory floodplain Riverside Dam is understood to increase flood levels 0.56 m and 0.58 m for the 100 year and Regional Storm floods, respectively Floodplain includes a Two-Zone policy which establishes distinct regulatory restrictions on local development potential within the flood fringe vs. the floodway
River Morphology (Physical Properties)
Study Activities Built upon information from existing studies Examined the head pond as well as upstream and downstream channel reaches with a particular focus on the sediment that has accumulated behind the dam Field work included re-measurement of river stations set in 2007 to assess change
Depth (m)
Top of Bank Cross-section - Site 13

274
14-Nov-07
273.5
Water
Bankfull
28-Nov-11
273
272.5
272
271.5
271 0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (m)
Findings The river in the vicinity of the study area has not been overly dynamic The sediment within the reservoir has accumulated to approximately 13,000 m3 The sediment within the reservoir is finer than the surrounding reaches
Water Quality and Sediment Quantity/Quality
Water and sediment quality studies have demonstrated the Riverside Dam causes the following: Decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations in the head pond (below Provincial objectives) Increased summer water temperatures downstream A build-up of sediment with metals (Cadmium, Copper and Zinc) exceeding Provincial standards A sediment management plan would be required for any future works affecting the Riverside Dam (Provincial Ministry of the Environment requirement)
Survey of Dam and Head Pond
As part of the study, a bathymetric (underwater survey) investigation was conducted The depth of water to sediment versus former creek bed in the dam head pond is important to understand the flow properties, flood depths as well as the amount of sediment for potential remediation/removal The head pond water levels tend to be quite shallow (less than 1.2 m on average)
3. STUDY PROGRESS AND TIMELINE SINCE FIRST PUBLIC SESSION
3. Study Progress and Timeline

Since First Public Session
Supplemental Field investigations to address key unknowns Extensive consultation with Ministry of Natural Resources (agency which permits and regulates dams in Province) to discuss possible management alternatives and governing regulations Assessment of alternatives and consultation with Technical and Stakeholder Committees
End of 2011/ 2012
Desktop Characterization
April 2012
PIC No. 1
June 2012
Aug 2012
Oct 2012
Dec 2012
Feb 2013
April 2013
June 2013
Consultation with MNR Supplemental Field Investigations (Pond Survey, SAR)
Develop Alternatives Assessment of Alternatives Draft Report Technical Committee Meeting No.2 Stakeholder Committee Meeting No.2 PIC No. 2
Technical Committee Meeting No.1 Stakeholder Committee Meeting No. 1
4. PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
4. Problem and Opportunity Statement

The Riverside Dam is over 100 years old and beyond its design life Structural assessments have determined that various components of the dam are in poor condition, other components have required emergency repair, all generally indicating that the structure cannot be left unmanaged Furthermore, the City of Cambridge has an obligation to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources, under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, to implement a permanent solution for the Riverside Dam The Preferred Alternative must address the Problem while balancing study area constraints and opportunities, in order to best meet the needs of the various stakeholder groups invested in the Riverside Dam
5. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
5. Selection of Alternatives
Seven (7) preliminary alternatives have been considered to potentially address the future management requirements of the Riverside Dam and local environs: Alternative A: Do Nothing Alternative B: Rebuild Dam In-place Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River Alternative D: Construct In-stream Rock Structures Alternative E: Lower Dam Crest Alternative F: Build Offline Dam and Naturalize Speed River Alternative G: Incremental Decommissioning of Dam
Alternatives A, B, C, and D have been carried forward to be evaluated as part of the Short-listed Alternatives Alternatives E, F and G have been screened from further assessment as they were not considered technically feasible nor functionally effective or would not be permitable
6. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
6. Assessment of Alternatives
To systematically evaluate the short-listed alternatives, a set of appropriate Evaluation Factors needed to be established Functional Flooding Fluvial Stability/ Sediment Transport Natural Environment Fish Passage Aquatic Habitat / Health Water Quality and Temperature Natural Heritage Sediment Quality Social Cultural Heritage Boating Fishing Park Uses Public Safety Economics Capital Operations and Maintenance Liability Regulatory Permitability
Alternative A Do Nothing
Alternative A Do Nothing
Required by the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process Represents baseline conditions November 2008 permit (MNR) for temporary emergency works states that:
City has an obligation to the Province under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) to complete a Class EA (the current study) and make an application to complete permanent works to address the dam condition Only engineered solutions would be considered permanent works, thus Alternative A: Do Nothing is not considered feasible nor compliant with the Provincial requirements
Alternative B Rebuild Dam In-place
Riverside Dam would be replaced essentially in kind, maintaining existing structural
layout/configuration aesthetics and hydraulic performance; sediment upstream of the dam would need to be removed as part of the works; a feasibility study would be required to determine the potential for power generation
Visualization
Technical & Regulatory Considerations Existing structure has no status as a dam under Provincial policy (pre-dates), therefore a permit for a new dam is required from Province Province requires the City to obtain flooding rights for the increase in flood levels caused by a new dam (relative to a natural river condition); this likely will require City to purchase the affected land or acquire land rights The Province (MNR) has indicated Rebuilding the dam does not meet its mandate with respect to: restoration of fisheries improving water quality supporting recovery of Species at Risk improving navigation
Natural Environment Considerations No direct impact, but opportunities to improve the following are not realized: - Aquatic habitat - Fish passage - Water quality - Sediment transport/quality Social Considerations Considered preferred solution from a cultural heritage perspective best opportunity to maintain existing resource in existing configuration
Property Impacted by Alternative B Rebuild Dam In-place
Alternative C Naturalize Speed River
Remove Riverside Dam and with it the
headpond area Restore river from approximately King Street to Sulphur Creek Natural channel design - Riffle-pool sequences - Approximately 30 m wide channel - Depth varying from 1 m to 1.8 m +/ River would look and function like Speed River up and downstream of study area
Speed River Upstream of Dam
Speed River Downstream of Dam

Visualization
Technical/Regulatory Considerations Permit required for dam decommissioning (Provincial/MNR) MOE would require a sediment removal plan The removal of the dam would be expected to result in an overall reduction in water surface elevations for all design events Natural Environment Considerations Removes an obstruction and provides migratory access for fish and aquatic species, including local Species at Risk (SAR) Eliminates the negative impact (i.e. warming) of the existing headpond on water temperature Improves water quality (dissolved oxygen) Eliminates future liability related to contaminated sediment build-up Reinstates natural movement of sediment Returns 800 m +/- of natural river and associated riparian habitat
Social Environment Considerations Highest impact on cultural heritage resources Mitigation can include: - Protect/restore/relocate the north and south control structures, a portion of the gravity dam structure, and the Mill Race control structure while accommodating the new channel - Install commemorative interpretation signage documenting the history of the Riverside Dam and its significance to the Preston community Reduction in nuisance flooding in Riverside Park and related park closures
Alternative D Construct In-Stream Rock Structures
Remove Riverside Dam and headpond Construct 4 +/- rocky ramps from
downstream of King Street and upstream through headpond Rocky ramps would: - Collectively generate the height of the Riverside Dam (1.5 m) - Span the width of the existing headpond (+/-) - Cause localized ponding areas upstream - Would have a cascade effect on downslope (4%)
Under low flow conditions, the top of the rocky ramps will be visible extending from the banks towards the centre of the ponded area The river would generally be navigable through Riverside Park when the similar reaches of the Speed River are navigable (this depends on flows and type of boat) Large storm events may cause minor shifting in the ramps; The river will be calmer upstream of the rocky ramps, especially towards the banks, and faster in the centre, as it flows over the ramps
Visualization
Technical/Regulatory Considerations Permit required for dam decommissioning but does not require approval as a dam by the Province (requires approval as channelization) The removal of the dam would be expected to result in some reduction in water surface elevations for all design events MOE would require a sediment removal plan Natural Environment Considerations Provides migratory access for fish and aquatic species, including local Species at Risk (SAR) Improves water quality (dissolved oxygen) Social Environment Considerations Level of impact on cultural heritage resources would be the same as Alternative C Mitigation measures would be similar to Alternative C
Assessment Category
Functional (Physical) Environment Natural Environment
Assessment Factor
Flooding Fluvial Stability / Sediment Transport Fish Passage Aquatic Habitat / Health Water Quality and Temperature Natural Heritage Sediment Quality
Alternative A: Do Nothing
Alternative B: Rebuild Dam
Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River
Alternative D: InStream Rock Structures
Social Environment
Cultural Heritage Boating Fishing Park Uses Public Safety
Economic
Capital Operations and Maintenance Liability
Regulatory
Positive
Permitability
Positive Neutral Neutral Negative Neutral Negative Does not meet Regulatory Requirements Meets Regulatory Requirements
7. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
7. Legislative and Regulatory Requirements

Relevant Legislation: - Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act - Public Lands Act - Navigability Act - Fisheries Act - Conservation Authorities Act - Cultural Heritage Act - Endangered Species Act / Species at Risk Act - Environmental Protection Act - Water Resources Act Administered by several regional, Provincial and Federal agencies: - Grand River Conservation Authority - Ministry of Natural Resources - Ministry of the Environment - Department of Fisheries & Oceans - Transport Canada - Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport
7. Legislative and Regulatory Requirements

Permitability of Short-Listed Alternatives Under Relevant Provincial/Federal Policy
Legislative Policy Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act Public Lands Act Navigable Waters Protection Act Fisheries Act Conservation Authorities Act Ontario Heritage Act Species at Risk Act Environmental Protection Act Water Resources Act Less Preferred Does not meet Regulatory Requirements Meets Regulatory Requirements Alternative A: Do Nothing Alternative B: Rebuild Dam Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River Alternative D: In-Stream Rock Structures
8. COST AND LIABILITY
8. Costs and Liability

Preliminary Cost Estimate
Estimated Life Cycle Cost for Short-Listed Alternatives ($)
Alternative Alternative A: Do Nothing Alternative B: Rebuild Dam In-place Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River Alternative D: In-Stream Rock Structures Capital 0 Land 0 Replacement 0 Maintenance 0 Total Life Cycle 0
5,805,000
8,525,000+
1,205,000
802,000
16,337,000
4,953,000
275,000
5,228,000
6,715,000
190,000
6,905,000
8. Costs and Liability

Potential Liability of Short Listed Alternatives
City accepts liability for the infrastructure it builds Liability results from normal operation of infrastructure and potential failure scenarios The larger the infrastructure, the greater the potential damage Potential liability: - Damage to project infrastructure itself - Damage to downstream infrastructure (CPR bridge), buildings, environment - Risk to Life
Estimated Potential Liability for Short-Listed Alternatives

Alternative Estimated Liability Cost ($) Relative Risk To Life (*)
Alternative A: Do Nothing Alternative B: Rebuild Dam In-place Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River Alternative D: In-Stream Rock Structures
* 1 = highest relative risk and 4 = least relative risk
7,681,000 13,486,000 Minimal 750,000
1 2 4 (Typical river) 3
9. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)
9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. How long before the dam fails? A1. Predicting when a structure will fail is very difficult and depends on several variables. Instead we rely on indicators like the structural condition of the dam to indicate the potential to fail. Investigations have determined that portions of the dam are in poor condition indicating the dam has a higher likelihood of failure than a dam in good condition. The dam will continue to deteriorate without mitigation.

Q2. Why cant the current dam be just repaired? Why would it have to be a full replacement? A2. Since the existing Riverside Dam does not have status with the Province under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (it pre-dates the Act), any repair or modification to the dam would trigger the necessity for the permit for a new dam and the structure would be required to meet the current design requirements of the Province. The existing dam, at over 100 years old, was not designed or constructed to current standards and would therefore need to be fully rebuilt.

Q3. When will the Preferred Alternative be selected? A3. The Preferred Alternative will be selected once all comments have been received from the public and regulatory agencies. All comments are expected to be received by the beginning of July 2013. It is anticipated that the final report will be filed and available for public comment in September 2013.

Q4. What will be the impact to Sulphur Creek if the dam is removed? Will water in the creek be maintained? A4. The flow into Sulpher Creek would need to be maintained by providing riffles or other structures in the Speed River to maintain water levels high enough to divert flows into Sulpher Creek. Alternatively, or in combination, the inlet to Sulphur Creek could be altered, thereby improving the ability to control inflow to the Sulphur Creek.

Q5. Will removing the dam stop the flooding in the park (i.e. the ball diamonds)? A5. Removing the dam will lower flood elevations and reduce the frequency of flooding in the park, however flooding will not be eliminated.

Q6. Will the removal of the dam affect the flooding of properties downstream of the current dam location? A6. Removing the dam would in fact reduce the risk of flooding associated with a dam failure. Removing the dam would not change the extent of the existing downstream Regulatory floodplain or floodplains associated with other storm events.

Q7. Will any of the alternatives for the dam harm any of the SAR identified? Will removal of the dam help invasive species invade the upper reaches of the Speed River ? A7. None of the alternatives will harm the identified SAR, the alternatives to remove the dam will serve to benefit these SAR. Invasive aquatic species known in the Grand River Watershed include the Round Goby, Sea Lamprey, Zebra Mussel, Asian Grass Carp, and the Rusty Crayfish and none of these species will be affected by this project. Invasive species have not been identified as a threat by our team, MNR or GRCA.

Q8. What will the sediment management plan entail? Why the high cost? Where would the sediment be taken to? A8. The form of the sediment management plan would be dependent on the Preferred Alternative which has yet to be determined by this study. It will also be dependent on the volume and quality of sediment to be managed, which will be determined in detail at the next stage of assessment, and finally on the opportunity to use the sediment elsewhere. The sediment management plan could include one or a combination of the following: management on-site (using the sediment for other purposes in Riverside Park), disposal at another site in need of fill, or disposal in landfill. The cost represents a worst case scenario whereby all of the accumulated sediment has been assumed to be contaminated, could not be managed onsite in a safe manner, and would require landfilling as contaminated waste. The cost is high because of the following: the volume of sediment is significant, the cost to remove it from a sensitive watercourse is high, the sediment will be wet and require dewatering, the cost to transport it is high, and the tipping fees to landfill it are high.

Q9. How will the options affect canoeing? A9. Alternative B: Rebuild Riverside Dam would maintain flat water boating opportunities in the headpond as per existing conditions. Navigation would be impeded by the dam. Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River would provide river (moving water) boating conditions. Depths would be similar to Speed River up and downstream of Riverside Park and would vary seasonally. The river would generally be navigable through reach adjacent to Riverside Park when similar reaches of the Speed River are navigable (this depends on flows and type of boat). Alternative D: In-stream Rock Structures would provide a mix of flat water and moving water conditions. The extent of flat water conditions would be smaller than the existing headpond. The river would generally be navigable through Riverside Park when the similar reaches of the Speed River are navigable (this depends on flows and type of boat).

Q10. Who will be covering the cost of the proposed work? A10. The City of Cambridge will be responsible for the cost of designing and constructing the preferred alternative, once selected. At this time, the City has allocated $5.0M as part of the Capital Budget that is intended for the preferred alternative. Various cost sharing opportunities will be investigated during the detail design phase.

Q11. How does the cost of rebuilding the Riverside Dam compare to other local dams? A11. The GRCA has recently completed a similar study for the Drimmie Dam in Elora. The cost of rebuilding the Drimmie Dam was estimated at $1.2 million (2010). This is comparable to the estimated cost for Riverside Dam which is $2.1 million (excluding sediment removal/disposal) note the Riverside Dam is a larger structure which partially accounts for the difference in cost. Other factors include geotechnical conditions, site access, site dewatering, etc. Note: It should be clearly understood that the full Life Cycle cost of the Dam Rebuild alternative is estimated at $16.3M which includes capital, land, maintenance and long term obligations to rebuild and remove sediment (this excludes liability estimates discussed earlier)

Q12. When will construction start? A12. Construction is anticipated to begin at the earliest in 2015. The City will first have to file the Class EA and then complete detail design and acquire all necessary approvals before construction can begin.
10. NEXT STEPS
10. Next Steps/Schedule

Next Steps Finalize assessment of short-listed alternatives based on comments received from regulatory agencies and the public Establish Preferred Alternative Document assessment of preliminary alternatives and Preferred Alternative in Project File and file for 30 day review period Establish Budget for Capital works Initiate detail design and approvals of Preferred Alternative Schedule Receive comments by July 5, 2013 Finalize and File Project File in September 2013
Closing Remarks
Public Consultation is essential to the EA Study Process Public reaction has been substantial, passionate and split We need and appreciate all comments Please share your passion....respectfully Work Stations provided for your comfort Ask questions, discover what we have learned Look, point, draw, write, chat, share...
Help shape the best solution Thank You
Breakout to Work Stations
Work Stations
Please join our Consultant Team at one of the three Work Stations you see in this room. Each Work Station is the same and includes: Drawings that illustrate each of the preliminary alternatives City Staff and Consultant Team Members to facilitate a discussion, answer questions and take notes Comment sheets are also available to fill out now or to take home and submit later.
We are here tonight to hear from you and answer your questions.
Public Information Centre Layout

Riverside Dam Presentation June 18, 2013 at Knights of Columbus Hall

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Riverside Dam Presentation June 18, 2013 at Knights of Columbus Hall

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Public Information Centre No.

Each Work Station is the same and includes:

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

1. Introduction and Background

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

1. Introduction and Background

1. Introduction and Background

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

1. Introduction and Background

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

CP Rail Line Roadway (Shared Automotive and Pedestrian) Parking Trails

Board Walk Park Features (Uses + Buildings) Heritage Features

Character Areas Prominent Views Internal Edges Noise Disturbance

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Terrestrial (Vegetation/Wildlife) Community

Top of Bank Cross-section - Site 13

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

3. STUDY PROGRESS AND TIMELINE SINCE FIRST PUBLIC SESSION

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

3. Study Progress and Timeline

Consultation with MNR Supplemental Field Investigations (Pond Survey, SAR)

Technical Committee Meeting No.1 Stakeholder Committee Meeting No. 1

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

4. PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

4. Problem and Opportunity Statement

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Alternative B Rebuild Dam In-place

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Alternative C Naturalize Speed River

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Speed River Upstream of Dam

Speed River Downstream of Dam

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Alternative D Construct In-Stream Rock Structures

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Alternative B: Rebuild Dam

Alternative C: Naturalize Speed River

Alternative D: InStream Rock Structures

Cultural Heritage Boating Fishing Park Uses Public Safety

Capital Operations and Maintenance Liability

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

7. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

7. Legislative and Regulatory Requirements

7. Legislative and Regulatory Requirements

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment