broadview and eastern flood protection project due

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Due Diligence and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Pending City Approval) – Hydraulic Modelling and Conceptual Design Report - FINAL

Prepared by:

AECOM

50 Sportsworld Crossing Road, Suite 2900 519 650 5313 tel

Kitchener ON, Canada N2P 0A4 519 650 3424 fax

www.aecom.com

September 2019 Project Number: 60554370

RPT-2019-09-16-BEFP Hydraulic Modelling Report-60554370-FINAL.Docx

Distribution List

# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name

✓ Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

✓ AECOM Canada Ltd.

AECOM Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project

Due Diligence and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Hydraulic Modelling and Conceptual Design Report


Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in

accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

▪ is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

▪ represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of

similar reports;

▪ may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified;

▪ has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

▪ must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

▪ was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

▪ in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no

obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have

occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical

conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other

representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the

Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or

construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the

knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic

conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and

employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or

implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no

responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or

opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental

reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied

upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the

Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or

decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those

parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss

or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject

to the terms hereof.

AECOM: 2015-04-13

© 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.






Authors

Report Prepared

By:

Anya Yi, P.Eng.

Water Resources Engineer

Xiaoxu Qu, P.Eng, M.Eng

Water Resources Engineer

Report Reviewed

By:

Pippy Warburton, P.Eng

Manager, Water Resources






Table of Contents

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Background Data Review................................................................................................... 3

2. Baseline Surface and Model Update ........................................................... 4

2.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Surface Update ................................................................... 4

2.2 2D Model Update and Results ........................................................................................... 4

3. Development and Initial Screening of Options .......................................... 6

3.1 Do Nothing ......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Channel Widening.............................................................................................................. 6

3.2.1 Preliminary Hydraulics Assessment........................................................................ 7

3.2.2 Previous Assessments ........................................................................................... 7

3.2.3 Further Consideration of Flow Diversion and Storage ............................................ 7

3.2.4 Recommendation for Channel Widening Alternative ............................................... 8

3.3 Flood protection landform Options ..................................................................................... 8

3.3.1 Flood Protection Landform Design Criteria and Considerations .............................. 8

3.3.1.1 Landform Design Criteria ................................................................................. 9 3.3.1.2 Geotechnical Considerations .......................................................................... 10

3.3.2 Option 3A FPL ...................................................................................................... 11 3.3.3 Option 3B FPL ...................................................................................................... 11

3.3.4 Option 3Bi FPL ..................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Flood Protection Structure Options .................................................................................. 12

3.4.1 Floodwall Design and Construction Considerations .............................................. 12

3.4.2 Option 4A Floodwall ............................................................................................. 13

3.4.3 Option 4B Floodwall ............................................................................................. 14

3.4.4 Option 4C Floodwall ............................................................................................. 14

3.4.5 Option 4D Flood Protection Berm ......................................................................... 14

3.4.6 Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing .................................................... 14

3.5 Operation & Maintenance Considerations ........................................................................ 16

3.6 Initial Screening of Options .............................................................................................. 16

3.6.1 Initial Screening of Options ................................................................................... 16

4. Refinement of Short Listed Options – Stage 2 ......................................... 19

4.1 Design Considerations and Geometry Refinement........................................................... 19

4.1.1 FPL Dry Side Scour Analysis................................................................................ 19

4.1.2 Seepage Analysis................................................................................................. 19

4.1.3 FPL Grading Refinement ...................................................................................... 21

4.2 Hydraulic Validation of Short Listed Options .................................................................... 21

4.2.1 Option 3R ............................................................................................................. 21

4.2.2 Option 4B ............................................................................................................. 22

4.2.3 Option 4C ............................................................................................................. 23






5. Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................... 24

6. References ................................................................................................... 26

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Initial Screening of Options ................................................................................................................... 18

Table 4.1: USACE Guidance for Exit Gradients .................................................................................................... 20

Table 4.2: Calculated Flow Quantities and Exist Gradients ................................................................................... 20

Table 4.3: Summary of MIKE 21 Modeling Scenarios ........................................................................................... 21

List of Attached Figures

Figure 1.1 Study Area and Adjacent Projects

Figure 2.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Surface Update

Figure 2.2 Updated Baseline Regional Steady Water Surface Elevation

Figure 2.3 Updated Baseline Regional Steady Depth

Figure 2.4 Updated Baseline Regional Steady Velocity

Figure 2.5 Updated Baseline Regional Steady Risk

Figure 2.6 Updated Baseline 350 Year Steady Depth

Figure 2.7 Updated Baseline 350 Year Steady Velocity

Figure 2.8 Updated Baseline 350 Year Steady Risk

Figure 2.9 Updated Baseline 100 Year Steady Depth

Figure 2.10 Updated Baseline 100 Year Steady Velocity

Figure 2.11 Updated Baseline 100 Year Steady Risk

Figure 3.1 Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis for Channel Widening

Figure 3.2 Sketch of Typical Berm/Levee and Flood Protection Landform (FPL)

Figure 3.3 Option 3A Plan

Figure 3.4 Option 3B Plan

Figure 3.5 Option 3Bi Plan

Figure 3.6 Option 3Bi Profile

Figure 3.7 Option 4A Plan

Figure 3.8 Option 4B Plan

Figure 3.9 Option 4C Plan

Figure 3.10 Option 4D Plan

Figure 3.11 Option 4D Profile

Figure 4.1 Preferred Option Plan

Figure 4.2 Preferred Option Profile A-A and B-B

Figure 4.3 Preferred Option Profile C-C

Figure 4.4 Preferred Option Profile D-D

Figure 4.5 Preferred Option Profile E-E

Figure 4.6 Option 3A Regional Steady Water Surface Elevation

Figure 4.7 Option 3A Regional Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.8 Option 3A Regional Steady Velocity Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.9 Option 3A Regional Steady Risk Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.10 Option 3A 350 Year Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.11 Option 3A 350 Year Steady Velocity Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.12 Option 3A 350 Year Steady Risk Change (Alternative – Baseline)






Figure 4.13 Option 4B Regional Steady Water Surface Elevation

Figure 4.14 Option 4B Regional Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.15 Option 4B Regional Steady Risk Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.16 Option 4B 350 Year Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.17 Option 4C Regional Steady Water Surface Elevation

Figure 4.18 Option 4C Regional Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.19 Option 4C Regional Steady Risk Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Figure 4.20 Option 4C 350 Year Steady Depth Change (Alternative – Baseline)

Appendices

Appendix A. Channel Widening

Existing and Widening HEC-RAS Model Results

Appendix B. FPL Dry Side Scour Analysis

Appendix C. Seepage Analysis Memo





RPT-2019-09-16-BEFP Hydraulic Modelling Report-60554370-FINAL.Docx 1

1. Introduction

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was retained by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to

undertake the hydraulic modelling component and conceptual development of flood protection alternatives in

support of the Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Due Diligence and Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment (EA), further referred to in this report as the Project. Dillon Consulting was retained by TRCA to

provide the overall EA planning and engineering services for the Project, which includes preparation of the

Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Class EA report. EXP was retained by TRCA to provide

geotechnical surfaces and prepare the Subsurface Geo-Environmental Report for the Project location. AECOM,

Dillon, and TRCA are further referred to in this report as the Project Team.

The implementation of the approved Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP)

preferred alternative will eliminate approximately 240 ha of the 290 ha area at risk of flooding from the Don River.

The remaining 50 ha of flood vulnerable area is located within the Keating Channel, lower Don River channel and

the new naturalized river valley, and an 8 ha portion of urbanized land located east of the Don River and north of

the Metrolinx railway embankment (the current Project area).

A Transportation and Servicing Master Plan (TSMP) was also approved for the Port Lands and South of Eastern

Area, which includes the future First Gulf East Harbour development and the southern extension of Broadview

Avenue. The Broadview Extension requires the creation of a new underpass through the Metrolinx rail

embankment, which would also create an undesirable new path for floodwaters. To address this and other

potential flood vulnerable areas, the TSMP grading plan upgraded the Flood Protection Landform (FPL) feature on

the east bank of the Don River from the rail embankment to Lake Shore Boulevard, proposed in the DMNP EA, to a

Valley Wall Feature (VWF); and also included the crescent shaped FPL encompassing the extension of Broadview

Avenue on the south side of the rail embankment and the crescent shaped FPL encompassing Eastern Avenue on

the southeast side of the rail embankment proposed in the DMNP EA. The locations of the VWF and FPLs are

shown in Figure 1.1.

In addition to the DMNP and the TSMP, numerous other projects are in various stages of development and were

considered for this Project. A complete list is provided below:

▪ Broadview Extension and LRT;

▪ Don and Central Waterfront Project & Coxwell Sewer Bypass;

▪ Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA (approved 2015) and Port Lands Flood

Protection and Enabling Infrastructure (PLFPEI) Due Diligence Study;

▪ East Harbour Smart Track and GO Station;

▪ First Gulf East Harbour Development;

▪ Gardiner Expressway EA;

▪ Metrolinx Union Station Railway Corridor (USRC) Expansion;

▪ Metrolinx Electrification Study;

▪ Port Lands and South of Eastern Transportation Master Plan (approved 2017);

▪ Detailed Design and Implementation of the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure

Project;

▪ Riverside Square Development;

▪ TTC Subway Relief Line (now Metrolinx Ontario Line); and

▪ Enbridge NPS 30” Don River Natural Gas Replacement Project.






1.1 Study Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the Project is to recommend a flood protection solution that will (1) address flood risk up to and

including the Regulatory Flood event to the 8 ha of land north of the Metrolinx railway embankment east of the Don

River; (2) not increase flood risk elsewhere; and (3) integrate with concurrent planning and infrastructure plans in

the area.

The Project has been separated into Stages 1 and Stage 2. Following completion of the Stage 1 – Due Diligence

Services, the Project Team will present the results to the Executive Steering Committee (ESC), which will decide if

the Project is technically feasible and eligible. The original scope of work for Stages 1 and 2, and subsequent

changes following commencement of the project are summarized below.

Stage 1 – Due Diligence Services

▪ Refinement of the consolidated baseline surface developed by Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) to

incorporate the latest design changes and assumptions;

▪ Update of the 2D MIKE model developed by DHI to incorporate the updated baseline surface and to

review input parameters;

▪ Development of a new HEC-RAS model to simulate baseline conditions for the purposes of rapid

iteration of conceptual options;

▪ Development and initial screening of options, which include:

o Option 1 – Do Nothing: Includes implementation of the DMNP, Gardiner EA, and TSMP for the First

Gulf East Harbour development;

o Option 2 – Channel Widening: Includes the Do Nothing option with widening of the east bank and

deepening of the channel. This would include shifting the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) and Metrolinx

bridge abutment eastward;

o Option 3 – Permanent Flood Protection:

a) BMW building removed with construction of a FPL immediately east of the DVP

b) BMW building retained with construction of a FPL east of the BMW building.

c) Phased (BMW building initially retained, but removed in the future)

o Option 4 – Flood Protection Structure:

a) BMW building retained with construction of a floodwall and FPL

b) BMW building retained and incorporated into floodwall and FPL

▪ Refinement and evaluation of options and provide input in the identification of a preferred solution; and

▪ Preparation of draft hydraulics technical report.

Stage 2 – Class EA Services

▪ Preparation of technical content in support of two Public Information Consultation (PIC) sessions;

▪ Further refinement of the preferred solution and/or development or consideration for a new alternative

solution; and

▪ Review of Project Team Class EA document and participation in responses to inquiries during the EA

approval process.

During development of the baseline 2D MIKE model, it was determined by TRCA and AECOM that development of

a new baseline model in HEC-RAS would not be required for the rapid iteration and screening of options. The

development of the baseline HEC-RAS model would have required replication of the results from the baseline 2D

MIKE model, which is generally difficult due to the differences in hydraulic computations (e.g. back water and

storage). Since the final output for the refined options would be completed in 2D MIKE it was decided that it would

be simpler to develop the permanent and flood protection structure screening options in 2D MIKE as well. HEC-






RAS would still be used for the channel widening option, but it was agreed by TRCA and AECOM that an existing

model of the Lower Don would be used, as only a relative comparison would be necessary for the assessment.

Options 3 and 4 have been classified into permanent and non-permanent solutions. Permanent solutions are

generally defined as features which have an indefinite service life and require minimal structural maintenance and

replacement (e.g. FPL), which would still provide some level of flood protection if management and maintenance

were terminated due to budget constraints or dissolution of an overseeing organization. The Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry (MNRF) will also consider the removal of the floodplain from Special Policy Areas, which

was done for the West Don Lands through the construction of a FPL. Non-permanent solutions are generally

defined as features with a fixed service life and require ongoing structural maintenance and ultimately replacement

(e.g. floodwall, traditional berm/levee). The MNRF will not consider non-permanent solutions as adequate

protection for removal of the floodplain from Special Policy Areas.

1.2 Background Data Review

Background information was provided by TRCA throughout the Project as new or changing information became

available. In addition to the background information provided for the projects identified in Section 1.0, the following

sources of information were used as the basis for the 2D hydraulic model updates and conceptual designs:

▪ Available as-built structure drawings for lower Don River crossings;

▪ Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Class EA Draft Screening Report, Dillon Consulting,

2018;

▪ Don Mouth MIKE FLOOD Modelling and Analysis Project, DHI, 2017;

o Baseline 2D model

o Consolidated baseline surface including existing conditions and approved developments (e.g. DMNP,

TSMP)

▪ Don River Bathymetric Survey, TRCA, 2003 & 2015;

▪ LiDAR data, 2013;

▪ Riverside Square Grading Plan, 2017;

▪ Subsurface Geo-Environmental Report 11 and 20 Sunlight Park Road and Vacant Land Parcel on

northeast corner of Don Valley Parkway and Sunlight Park Road, EXP Services Inc., March 2018;

▪ TSMP Grading Plan, November 2016; and

▪ 2017 Don Hydrology Update, AECOM, 2018.

The following engineering guidelines were consulted during preparation of the Flood Protection Landform and

Flood Protection Structure alternatives:

▪ Engineering and Design: Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913), US Army Corps of

Engineers, 2000;

▪ Flood proofing Non-Residential Buildings, US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2013;

▪ Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flood Hazard Limit, 2002;

▪ The International Levee Handbook, US Army Corps of Engineers, CIRIA, and French Ministry of

Ecology, 2013; and

▪ Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Design Considerations Prepared, AECOM, 2018.






2. Baseline Surface and Model Update

In 2017, DHI prepared a fully 2D MIKE hydraulic model and detailed baseline surface to simulate the full buildout

plan for the DMNP. Due to the ongoing development in the area, the original assumptions and

conceptual/preliminary designs that were incorporated into DHI’s original baseline model have since changed.

TRCA provided the DHI model and surface to AECOM for further updates and refinements prior to development of

the conceptual flood protection options. The following sections describe the updates completed by AECOM. For

the original model input parameters and results, refer to the Don Mouth MIKE FLOOD Modelling and Analysis

Project (July 2017) prepared by DHI.

2.1 Topographic and Bathymetric Surface Update

The baseline surface prepared by DHI consolidated the following sources of both existing information and approved

future developments:

▪ Bathymetric and topographic survey completed by TRCA in 2003;

▪ Channel bathymetry used in an earlier Delft3D model for the lower Don River;

▪ Detailed LiDAR data (2013); and

▪ The approved grading plans for the DMNP and TSMP.

Many of the projects included in the baseline surface are still in early development stages and continue to evolve

through design iteration. Based on discussions with TRCA, AECOM further refined the baseline surface to

incorporate the latest information and correct minor anomalies in the surface. A summary of the updates made to

the baseline surface are provided below and illustrated in Figure 2.1:

▪ Refinements to abutments and pedestrian path for the Metrolinx rail bridge;

▪ Addition of proposed grading for Riverside Square development;

▪ Replacement of the LiDAR tile for the west bank rail ramp and incorporation of pedestrian underpass;

▪ Replacement of channel bathymetry from Metrolinx rail bridge to top of MIKE model domain;

o DHI 2017 MIKE model included DELFT 3D bathymetry.

o Replaced channel bathymetry with “lidar_underpass_correct0” raster which included 2003 bathymetric

survey data, which was also confirmed to be consistent with new data from a survey completed in

2015.

▪ Addition of a 1.5 m scour assumption for the bed of the Don River from approximately the Enbridge

utility crossing South to the Metrolinx rail bridge.

2.2 2D Model Update and Results

DHI’s baseline model was updated to incorporate the revised baseline surface, which included the adjustment of

inverts for the following structures and features coded in the model to reflect the new PLFP design:

▪ Metrolinx rail bridge east opening invert elevation increased from 70 m to 71.28 m;

▪ Metrolinx rail bridge west opening invert elevation increased from 70 m to 73.01 m; and

▪ East Harbour Valley Wall increased by 1 m.

The baseline model continues to assume that the Old Eastern Ave. and Enbridge bridges will be removed and have

not been represented in the model.






The revised baseline model was re-run using the latest Steady State Regional Flow of 1,560 m3/s from the 2018

Don Hydrology Update. However, note that for the initial hydraulic screening the original Regional Flow rate of

1,690 m3/s was used

The updated baseline 2D model results of the water surface elevation, depth, velocity and risk for the Regional

flood event are illustrated in Figures 2.2, 2.3,2.4 and 2.5, respectively. The updated baseline model results of the

depth, velocity and risk for the 350 year event are provided in Figure 2.6 to 2.8, and modelled depth, velocity and

risk for the 100 year event are shown in Figure 2.9 to 2.11.

The conveyance of the Lower Don, through the Area of Interest, is currently estimated to be 1,560 m3/s.

Approximately 100 m3/s, representing 6% of the total flow, is conveyed by the east floodplain through the BMW and

Mini dealerships, where it is eventually conveyed back to the main channel and through the Metrolinx rail bridge.

Implementation of a flood control structure in the Area of Interest would eliminate the 6% conveyance, potentially

impacting the upstream water level.






3. Development and Initial Screening of Options

In parallel with the baseline modelling update, the initial conceptual options were qualitatively assessed and

screened to eliminate options where further hydraulic modelling would not provide added value. Additional options

were also considered beyond the original list envisioned at the beginning of the project. The revised list of pre-

screened conceptual options is summarized below and described in the following sections.

▪ Option 1 – Do Nothing: Includes implementation of the DMNP, the Gardiner EA, and TSMP for the

First Gulf East Harbour development;

▪ Option 2 – Channel Widening: Includes the Do Nothing option with widening of the east bank and

deepening of the channel. This would include shifting the DVP and Metrolinx bridge abutment

eastward;

▪ Option 3 – Flood Protection Landform:

o Option 3A FPL – BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd. removed, and crest tie-in at

Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180;

o Option 3B FPL – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed; and

o Option 3Bi FPL – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed, and new Sunlight Park Rd. ramp

to DVP.

▪ Option 4 – Flood Protection Structure:

o Option 4A Floodwall – Mini Dealership protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180;

o Option 4B Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180;

o Option 4C Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and Eastern Ave. ramp removed;

o Option 4D Flood Protection Berm – Mini dealership removed and crest tie-in at Eastern Ave ramp STA

0+110; and

o Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing – A retrofitted and flood proofed BMW building

incorporated into a floodwall.

3.1 Do Nothing

The Do Nothing option (1) will serve as the baseline hydraulic modelling condition for the Project, representing the

assumed future condition based on the approved plans as listed above. The Do Nothing option would leave the 8

ha of the Area of Interest identified in Figure 1.1 vulnerable to flooding as illustrated in Figures 2.2 and 2.3.

3.2 Channel Widening

The Channel Widening option (2) proposed includes shifting the DVP east at the Metrolinx railway and widening the

channel approximately 11.5 m to 13.5 m between the area approximately 40 m north of the railway to 180 m south

(see Figure 3.1). To facilitate the widening, the abutment of the existing Metrolinx railway bridge would need to be

moved further east. This would require substantial modification to the existing crossing and would impact the

conceptual design for the East Harbour SmartTrack Station. This would also push the W-N Ramp from the

Gardiner to the DVP further east into the First Gulf East Harbour development. These modifications would be

substantial undertakings and the assessment of their feasibility is beyond the scope of this study.






3.2.1 Preliminary Hydraulics Assessment

A preliminary hydraulics assessment was completed to assess the channel widening option using a relative

comparison to existing conditions in 1D HEC-RAS to assess changes to water surface elevation. A draft HEC-RAS

model prepared by TRCA for the Lower Don DMNP was used with modifications completed by AECOM. The

modifications to the model included extending the channel and cross sections 250 m downstream of the Metrolinx

rail bridge, re-cutting the cross sections through the study area to capture the new 1.5 m scour assumption, and

removal of the Old Eastern Ave. and Enbridge bridges from the model. Replication of the 2D MIKE baseline model

results was not required as the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate only a relative comparison for the

channel widening.

For the modelling of the channel widening scenario, the cross sections within the channel widening extent (see

Figure 3.1) were widened up to a maximum of 13.5 m. The existing surface elevations for the channel and the

DVP were used for the widened areas and tied back into the existing surface at the east edge of the re-aligned

DVP.

The HEC-RAS water surface elevation results for existing conditions and the channel widening option are shown in

Figure 3.1. HEC-RAS output file is provided in Appendix A. The results of the channel widening scenario showed

a significant drop (maximum 1.18 at XS 9) on regional water surface elevation from cross section XS 4 to XS 10

(downstream of the Metrolinx railway bridge). However, these benefits did not propagate upstream to the Eastern

Avenue Bridge or BMW site. Thus there was no observed improvements in WSE at these two locations.

3.2.2 Previous Assessments

Preliminary runs were also completed by TRCA using DEFLT 3D prior to this Project and showed only a localized

reduction in water surface elevation at the BMW site and no reduction to the water surface elevation at the Eastern

Avenue ramp to the DVP, which is similar to the estimates from the HEC-RAS model run above. The water surface

extent for the widened channel from the DEFLT3D model is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Channel widening was also considered during development of the flood protection alternatives for the Lower Don

River West Remedial Flood Protection Project in 2005. The preliminary modelling results indicated that the channel

and the Metrolinx railway and Lake Shore Avenue bridges would need to be widened to 90 m to accommodate the

Regional flood elevation of 79 m (Dillon Consulting, 2005). The potential risk of failure was also classified as higher

due to increased sedimentation and ongoing dredging and maintenance requirements for the channel (Dillon

Consulting, 2005).

3.2.3 Further Consideration of Flow Diversion and Storage

Other options such as storage and flow diversion have also been discussed amongst the Project Team and are

generally considered to be technically unfeasible to accommodate the flow for the baseline Regional storm event of

1,560 m3/s.

AECOM has updated the existing hydrology model for the Don River watershed for TRCA and storage was not

included in the Regional hydrology model. Implementation of storage would not be feasible so far downstream

within the watershed due to delay in the attenuation provided and the amount of storage required. Considerations

for storage would likely need to occur further upstream in the watershed (e.g. south of Highway 401 and/or Bloor

Street). Furthermore, the MNRF guidelines don’t recommend storage be credited towards floodplain mapping.

Flow diversion would provide limited practical benefit and it would be unfeasible due the substantial costs to create

a diversion structure capable of accommodating the balance of the level of protection for the Regional event. The






estimated Regional event flow is 1,560 m3/s and the approximate flow capacity of the bank full channel in the Area

of Interest is 870 m3/s. To divert the remaining balance of 690 m3/s would require a structure approximately 10 m

in diameter, or an equivalent of multiple barrels. Capturing a portion of this flow may be more feasible but tunneling

remains a costly undertaking.

3.2.4 Recommendation for Channel Widening Alternative

The results of the preliminary hydraulic analyses indicate that there would be a negligible improvement to the water

surface elevation at the study site. Further modelling of this option in MIKE 21 would provide no added value to the

Project as the fundamental hydraulics would not improve through more detailed modelling.

3.3 Flood protection landform Options

The flood protection landform options (3), featuring construction of FPLs includes various configurations based on

the presence of the BMW and Mini dealerships and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP. These options were initially

conceptualized from a horizontal perspective (i.e. 2D) prior to the Project and did not account for the vertical

alignment of the adjacent roads (Eastern Ave/Eastern Ave DVP ramp) and some structures (e.g. Mini Dealership).

Preliminary grading exercises using the draft FPL guidelines were completed by AECOM to develop the FPL

Options 3A, 3B, and 3Bi, which are summarized below and described in the following sections.

▪ Option 3A FPL – BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd. removed, and crest tie-in at

Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180;

▪ Option 3B FPL – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed; and

▪ Option 3Bi FPL – Eastern Ave. Ramp and BMW dealership removed and new Sunlight Park Rd. ramp

to DVP.

3.3.1 Flood Protection Landform Design Criteria and Considerations

Flood Protection Landforms (FPL) are a relatively new concept, they provide a physical barrier to prevent flooding

from extending beyond the river. The significant difference between a FLP and other smaller physical barriers such

as dams / dykes / berms is that FPLs are much flatter and wider given their shallow sloped sides. These large

landforms are dimensioned specifically to eliminate the risk due to failure during a flood event that is associated

with the smaller flood protection structures. An image showing the conceptual FPL is provided in Figure 3.2. To

date, only one FPL has been constructed in TRCA’s jurisdiction, which is located within the West Don Lands in the

City of Toronto along the opposite bank of the Study Area (Figure 1.1).






Figure 3.2: Sketch of a Typical Berm/Levee and Flood Protection Landform (FPL)

3.3.1.1 Landform Design Criteria

AECOM has developed Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Design Considerations prepared for TRCA in 2018. The

general requirements are summarized below.

▪ Design Geometry

o Slope requirements;

▪ Wet side slope of 5 – 15%

▪ Dry side slope of 1.5 – 3.5%

o Minimum crest width of 3 m and a recommended range of 3 – 5 m;

o Minimum offset of 5 m from the toe of the wet and dry side slopes to allow for vehicular maintenance

access and staging.

▪ Hydrotechnical

o Regional storm design event for hydraulic evaluation;

o The minimum design freeboard is 0.5 m from the Regional water surface elevation to the crest of the

FPL, which includes 0.3 m of design freeboard and an additional 0.2 m for climate change

considerations;

o A detailed 1D, 2D or coupled 1D/2D hydraulic model (e.g. HEC-RAS, MIKE) is required for both the

baseline condition and proposed flood protection landform alternatives to provide a detailed

characterization of the upstream and downstream impacts due to FPL implementation.

▪ Geotechnical

o The FPL foundation embedded depth is subject to geotechnical assessment and should be embedded

to sufficient depth to allow for future channel dredging operations and lowering of the adjacent channel

invert elevation;

o A clay core is generally assumed to be required, but may be subject to site specific considerations and

geotechnical requirements;

o Cohesive foundation materials such clay and clayey soils should be selected for FPL construction

which have a high shear strength, and low permeability, compressibility and erodibility;

o Avoid the use of loose fine grained non-cohesive foundation soils, which are susceptible to internal

erosion and modes of failure such as liquefaction;

o Toe protection and/or armouring of portions of the FPL may be required for water courses with high

velocities;






o A slope stability analysis is required to confirm that the fill materials are suitable for the promised FPL

wet and dry side slopes. Slope stability analysis methods include, simplified methods such as At-rest

pressure and bearing capacity approach, design charts, limit equilibrium methods, and 2D or 3D

analysis;

o Settlement analysis to identify the anticipated reduction in FPL height due to the effects of

instantaneous settlement, primary consolidation and secondary compression;

o Seepage modelling (e.g. SEEP/W) is required to determine the exit gradient of the in situ soils and

imported fill material; and

o The required seepage exit gradient on the dry side is less than 1, but less than 0.5 is preferred for

additional safety. Exit gradients in excess of 1 can lead to slope instability and failure.

▪ Additional Considerations

o Structures cannot be constructed on, or incorporated into the FPL;

o Roadways overtop can be considered, but require additional loading considerations; and

o Subsurface utilities should be removed from the footprint of the FPL to prevent seepage conduits and

damage to the FPL during utility maintenance/replacement.

Since the baseline hydraulic model update occurred in parallel with the development of the screening options, the

hydraulic requirements were not fully known. Based on the original DHI model results, an elevation of 81.01 m was

selected as an interim number for the crest heights for the flood protection landform options, which included the

required freeboard protection of 0.5 m at their most upstream limits. This number was subject to further refinement

following the hydraulic modelling update and inclusion of the final flows from the 2017 Don River hydrology update.

3.3.1.2 Geotechnical Considerations

Subsurface investigation and analysis was completed by EXP, and the full results of their investigation are

documented in the Subsurface Geo-Environmental Report 11 and 20 Sunlight Park Road and Vacant Land Parcel

on northeast corner of Don Valley Parkway and Sunlight Park Road. The subsurface investigation included the

installation of three groundwater monitoring wells and 12 boreholes throughout the Area of Interest, the key findings

of their report have been included below.

▪ Compressible soils such as soft clayey silts and silty clays were encountered approximately 1.2 m to

9.1 m below the existing ground surface. The compressible layer thicknesses range from

approximately 1.7 m to 7.6 m thick;

▪ Groundwater levels range from approximately 2.50 mbgs to 7.25 mbgs or elevations 72.0 metre above

sea level (masl);

▪ The proposed landform loading will induce long-term consolidation settlement in clayey silt/silty clay

soils. Ground improvement and or preloading design should be carried out to meet the construction

schedule, if required;

▪ Where proposed finished grades are steeper than 3H:1V, stability analyses should be carried out to

verify that finished slopes will have adequate factors of safety against overall stability;

▪ The conceptual design should be analyzed to ensure that loading from new works does not adversely

affect the foundations for existing structures or underground services;

▪ It is observed that Options 3A and Options 3B may be challenging to install, since the low-permeability

core is designed to extend to 5 m depth in a very narrow trench. This will be mitigated using best

management construction practices;

▪ Slope stability was analyzed using Slope/W 2012 and the results indicate that both proposed landforms

have satisfactory factors of safety under static, seismic and rapid drawdown conditions;

▪ Area where soft clays are present settlement could be in the order of 527 mm and 481 mm, for Options

3A and 3B respectively. It is expected that majority of the consolidation settlement will be completed

within ten years after the end of construction. Settlement can be accelerated by the installation of wick

drains;






▪ Landform fill may compress during placement depending on the material type and placement methods.

Settlement of the fill of proposed landform could be in the order of 30 mm to 45 mm;

▪ Samples of the fill encountered in this investigation had chemical exceedances of Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHS), metals and inorganics in excess of the Table 3 SCS for ICC property use from

Ontario Regulation 153/04 amended from time to time.

▪ Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) were detected for Borehole 2017-09 in excess of Table 3 SCS for ICC

property use from Ontario Regulation 153/04. Groundwater chemical analysis performed in this

investigation did not detect PCBs, suggesting the impacts are likely localized. Further delineation of

the PCBs in the soils should be conducted and remediated and groundwater analyzed to confirm final

conditions meet the Table 3 SCS; and

▪ During future development, any excavated impacted fill materials will require off-site disposal at a

licensed landfill or waste disposal facility. Additional testing will likely be required at the time of

disposal.

(EXP Services Inc., 2018)

3.3.2 Option 3A FPL

The Option 3A FPL would require removal of the BMW and Mini dealerships, and Sunlight Park Rd. and the crest to

tie-in to STA 0+180 of the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP. This option would require the vertical alignment of both

Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be raised to facilitate the tie-in of the crest at STA 0+180.

This option provides 0.36 ha of residual area. The conceptual plan drawing for Option 3A is shown on Figure 3.3.

To provide more efficient use of space the wet side slopes have been maximized in some areas at 15%, while

generally targeting 10% throughout the majority of the structure. Some localized areas on the dry side slope

exceed the 3.5% maximum at tie-in areas along Eastern Ave. but generally have been kept to approximately 3 –

3.5%.

An internal clay core extending from the crest to the surface with 67% side slopes has been assumed for the

conceptual design. The embedded depth of the FPL has been assumed to be 3 m with an additional 2 m for the

clay core (total of 5 m). Further geotechnical assessment of the embedded depth and FPL composition would be

required in future design stages.

This conceptual design intersects both the Don and Central Waterfront Project and East Harbour Go Station

electrification paralleling station, and further consideration of these constraints would need to be addressed if this

option is carried forward.

3.3.3 Option 3B FPL

The Option 3B FPL would require removal of the BMW dealership, Sunlight Park Rd. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to

the DVP, but would retain the Mini dealership. This option provides 1.03 ha of residual area. The conceptual plan

drawing for Option 3B is shown on Figures 3.4.

The wet and dry side slopes for the structure are approximately 10% and 3.5%, respectively.

An internal clay core extending from the crest to the surface with 67% side slopes has been assumed for the

conceptual design. The embedded depth of the FPL has been assumed to be 3 m with an additional 2 m for the

clay core (total of 5 m). Further geotechnical assessment of the embedded depth and FPL composition would be

required in future design stages.






This conceptual design also intersects both the Don and Central Waterfront Project and East Harbour Go Station



3.3.4 Option 3Bi FPL

The Option 3Bi FPL would require removal of the BMW dealership, Sunlight Park Rd. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to

the DVP. The function of the DVP ramp would be replaced with a new ramp originating from Sunlight Park Rd., but

would remove the existing vehicle access to the Mini dealership on Sunlight Park Rd. This option provides two

pieces of residual land 0.49 and 0.44 ha in area. The conceptual plan and profile drawings for Option 3Bi are

shown on Figures 3.5 and 3.6.

The wet and dry side slopes for the structure are generally the same as Option 3B, remaining at approximately 10%

and 3.5%, respectively, with the exception of localized slopes of 25%, perpendicular to the crest, where the ramp

ties into the FPL.

A transportation analysis is beyond the scope of this Project and a separate transportation study would be required

to validate this option if it is carried forward.

This conceptual design also intersects both the Don and Central Waterfront Project and East Harbour Go Station



3.4 Flood Protection Structure Options

The flood protection structure options (4) includes various configurations of floodwalls and flood protection berms

based on the presence of the BMW and Mini dealerships and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP. Preliminary

design exercises were completed by AECOM to develop four floodwall options and one flood berm option (i.e. does

not meet the FPL dry side slope criterion), which are summarized below and described in the following sections.

▪ Option 4A Floodwall – Mini Dealership protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180;

▪ Option 4B Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180;

▪ Option 4C Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and Eastern Ave. ramp removed;

▪ Option 4D Flood Protection Berm – Mini dealership removed and crest tie-in at Eastern Ave ramp STA

0+110; and

▪ Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing – A retrofitted and flood proofed BMW building incorporated into a floodwall.

3.4.1 Floodwall Design and Construction Considerations

The conceptual consideration prior to commencement of this Project assumed that the structure would be a sheet

pile wall with a limited below grade footprint, which could be accommodated between the edge of the DVP and the

BMW building. Separate to this project, AECOM has developed Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Design

Considerations prepared for TRCA and has completed an extensive literature review of flood protection structure

design manuals. The preferred method for construction of modern floodwalls requires a cantilevered keyed footing

(see Exhibit 1) to prevent slippage and rotational failure. Unlike a sheet pile wall, which can be driven into the






ground, a cantilevered wall would require sufficient excavation to accommodate the footings. The BMW building is

approximately 10 m away from the edge of the DVP at the closest point and there is likely insufficient room to

properly excavate for cantilevered footings. The structure would also have to be designed to consider the close

proximity of the DVP and would require a minimum clear zone of 5 m.

Exhibit 1: Example Sketch of Inverted T-type Floodwall-levee

As also described in Section 3.3.1.1 for the flood protection landform options, an interim elevation of 81.01 m was

selected for the top of the flood protection structure options, which included the required freeboard protection of 0.5

m at their most upstream limits. This number was further refinement with variable crest elevations following the

hydraulic modelling update and inclusion of the final flows from the 2017 Don River hydrology update.

3.4.2 Option 4A Floodwall

The Option 4A floodwall would retain the Mini dealerships and would tie-in to STA 0+180 of the Eastern Ave. ramp

to the DVP. The conceptual plan drawing for Option 4A is shown on Figure 3.7.

This option would require the vertical alignment of both Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be

raised by approximately 2.8 m to facilitate the tie-in to the wall and would isolate the BMW dealership through

removal of the entranceways, leaving the structure unprotected from floodwaters. A retaining wall would also be

required to accommodate the vertical re-alignment of the roads.

The wall dimensions and footing depth for this option is subject to further geotechnical and structural analysis.






3.4.3 Option 4B Floodwall

The Option 4B floodwall would retain the BMW and Mini dealerships and would tie-in to STA 0+180 of the Eastern

Ave. ramp to the DVP. The conceptual plan drawing for Option 4B is shown on Figure 3.8.

This option would require the vertical alignment of both Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be

raised to facilitate the tie-in to the wall. A retaining wall would also be required to accommodate the vertical re-

alignment of the roads.


3.4.4 Option 4C Floodwall

The Option 4C floodwall would retain the BMW and Mini dealerships and remove the Eastern Ave. ramp to the

DVP. The conceptual plan drawing for Option 4C is shown on Figure 3.9.


This conceptual design intersects the Don and Central Waterfront Project, and further consideration of this

constraint would need to be addressed if this option is carried forward.

3.4.5 Option 4D Flood Protection Berm

The Option 4D Flood Protection Berm would remove the Mini dealership and would tie-in to STA 0+110 of the

Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP. The conceptual plan and profile drawings for Option 4D are shown on Figures 3.10

and 3.11.

This option requires the vertical alignment of both Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be raised

to facilitate the tie-in to the berm. A retaining wall would also be required to accommodate the vertical re-alignment

of the roads.

An additional alignment of this option is also illustrated on the drawings, which intersects with the East Harbour Go

Station electrification paralleling station and further consideration of this constraint would need to be addressed if

this option is carried forward.

3.4.6 Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing

Another alternative being considered under Option 4 is to incorporate the BMW building into the floodwall design.

A detailed assessment has not been completed of the as-builts or the interior of the structure and descriptions of

the BMW building are based on observations made during a site visit on November 28, 2017. A portion of the

existing BMW structure includes an open concept, glass paned car show room, which protrudes from the building

towards the DVP (see Exhibit 2). The remaining portion of the building appears to be decorative concrete

panelling. The building was likely constructed with a slab on grade foundation. The structure appears to be

approximately 20 m tall (6 stories).






Exhibit 2: BMW Building - Looking North from East of DVP

A non-exhaustive list of modifications to the existing BMW building that would need to occur in order to incorporate

the structure into a floodwall design includes:

▪ Deeper footings tied into the bedrock to prevent uplift due to buoyancy force (see Exhibit 3);

▪ Removal of the glass paned car show room;

▪ Design and construction of a reinforced wall on the west side of the structure, able to withstand flood

forces and designed to the Regional flood level with at least 0.5 m of freeboard;

▪ Removal of car parking between the building and the DVP; and

▪ Removal of all openings and windows on the wet side of the building.

(US FEMA, 2013)

Exhibit 3: Hydrostatic Pressures Applied to Exterior Elements of Regular Building (left)

vs. Flood Proofed Building (right)






The removal and rebuilding of the existing building with the appropriate specifications may be cheaper /

easier which would undermine the benefits of this option.

3.5 Operation & Maintenance Considerations

A previously noted, AECOM has developed the Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Design Considerations

prepared for TRCA. The general FPL operation and maintenance requirements are summarized below.

▪ An Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Manual should be prepared for the FPL;

▪ Monthly monitoring and maintenance should occur during the summer months to maintain plantings,

and detect and remove the occurrence of animal burrows, invasive vegetation, and debris;

o Animal burrows can pose a substantial risk to the FPL through the exacerbation of seepage conduits

and shortening of the flow travel distance between the wet and dry sides.

▪ Ongoing survivability of plantings and vegetation should be monitored to ensure continued erosion

control. Dead or toppled vegetation should be replaced, and holes left by root balls should be filled;

▪ Maintenance inspections following construction of the FPL should monitor for the appearance of cracks

and fissuring, slumping, and surface scour due to concentrated runoff and high water events; and

▪ Settlement and seepage monitoring should be completed following construction.

The general operation and maintenance requirements for the floodwall or in combination with a retrofitted BMW

building are summarized below.

▪ Design life of 75 years;

▪ Visual inspections occurring every 2 years;

▪ Enhanced visual inspection/condition survey occurring every 5 years; and

▪ Wall repair in years 40 and 60.

Both the flood protection landform and flood protection structure options would need to be either owned or

accessible by TRCA through property expropriation or an easement agreement to ensure continued operation and

maintenance. This also assumes that there is a continued entity (e.g. TRCA) maintaining the structure. The size

and indefinite service life of the flood protection landform options provide the added benefit of providing some level

of flood protection if maintenance initiatives were to cease.

3.6 Initial Screening of Options

3.6.1 Initial Screening of Options

A preliminary qualitative/quasi-quantifiable technical review of the options being considered was completed to

screen out options, which are technically unfeasible or provided limited to no benefit.

The Flood Protection Landform options (3A, 3B, 3Bi) provide the most desirable protection due to their indefinite

service life and benefit of removing the floodplain from Special Policy Areas.

The Flood Protection Structure options (4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E) have considerable technical challenges which could

ultimately prove to be unfeasible due to the limited space for excavation for a cantilevered flood wall between the

BMW building and the DVP, or the significant modifications required to incorporate the existing BMW building into

the floodwall design. These options have a fixed service life and would require ongoing structural repair. In

addition these options would not be considered for removal of the floodplain from the Special Policy Area.






The initial screening of options is summarized in Table 3.1.

Due to the technical constraints and limited benefits of the options below, the Project Team recommended that they

not be carried forward to the short list of options for refinement.





eastward;



o Option 4D Flood Protection Berm – Mini dealership removed and crest tie-in at Eastern Ave ramp STA

0+110; and

o Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing – Includes a retrofitted and flood proofed BMW building







o

Table 3.1: Initial Screening of Options

Option Initial Screening of Options Proceed to Short List

1. Do Nothing - Includes implementation of the DMNP, the Gardiner EA, and TSMP

for the First Gulf East Harbour development, and also serves as the baseline

hydraulic condition and is required for comparison with other alternatives.

8 ha of the Area of Interest would remain vulnerable to flooding and would not be preferable. ×

2. Channel Widening - Includes the Do Nothing option with widening of the east

bank and deepening of the channel. This would include shifting the DVP and

Metrolinx bridge abutment eastward.

Preliminary hydraulic assessment using HEC-RAS and DEFLT 3D indicated that channel widening would provide hydraulic benefits in the vicinity of the Metrolinx railway

crossing, however, it would not extend sufficiently far north to address flooding north of the embankment. Also, the channel would need to be widened so drastically as to

make it not feasible. This option is not preferable as it would be a costly undertaking and would provide no improvement.

×

3. Flood Protection Landform (FPL)

3A. FPL - BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd. removed, and

crest tie-in at Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180.

Requires the removal of the BMW and Mini dealerships, Sunlight Park Rd., and raising the vertical alignment of Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP.

✓

3B. FPL - Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed.

Requires removal of the BMW dealership, Sunlight Park Rd., and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP, but would retain the Mini dealership. This option provides 1.03 ha of

residual area (including the Mini dealership), but removes the existing access to the DVP from Eastern Ave.

✓

3Bi. FPL - Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed, and new Sunlight

Park Rd. ramp to DVP.

Requires removal of the BMW dealership, Sunlight Park Rd., and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP, but would provide access to the DVP through a new ramp originating

from Sunlight Park Rd. The new ramp originating from Sunlight Park Rd. would require the removal of the vehicle access to the Mini dealership. This option would require

additional transportation analysis to validate this option if it is carried forward.

✓

4. Flood Protection Structure

4A. Floodwall - Mini Dealership protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180.

Requires the vertical alignment of both Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be raised, and removal of vehicle access to the BMW dealership, but the

Mini dealership would be retained. This option is not preferable because it would isolate the BMW dealership and prevent vehicle access while providing no additional

benefits compared to other options that have fewer negative impacts.

×

4B. Floodwall - BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp

STA 0+180. Requires the vertical alignment of both Eastern Ave. and the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP to be raised, but would retain the BMW and Mini dealerships. ✓

4C. Floodwall - BMW and Mini dealerships protected and Eastern Ave. ramp

removed.

Requires removal of the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP, but would retain the BMW and Mini dealerships. This option maintains the residual land area, but removes access

to the DVP from Eastern Ave. This option is preferable because the parallel configuration of the floodwall to channel flow would likely have less hydraulic performance

impact than the other non-permanent options.

✓

4D. Flood Protection Berm - Mini dealership removed and crest tie-in at Eastern

Ave ramp STA 0+110.

Requires removal of the Mini dealership, Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP, and the removal of vehicle access to the BMW dealership. This option is not preferable because it

does not meet the slope requirements of an FPL and similar to Option 4A, would isolate the BMW dealership and prevent vehicle access. This option provides no additional

benefits compared to other options that have fewer negative impacts.

×

4E. Floodwall and Building Flood Proofing - A retrofitted and flood proofed BMW

building incorporated into a floodwall.

Requires the retrofitting of the existing BMW building and incorporation into a floodwall. This option is not preferable because the building was not originally designed as a

flood proofed structure, extensive modifications would be needed, at which point a whole new building may be required. This option provides no additional benefits

compared to other options that have fewer negative impacts.

×






4. Refinement of Short Listed Options – Stage 2

Through the screening process (Section 3) four short listed options were selected for further refinement and

hydraulic validation in Stage 2. They are listed below:

• Option 3A Flood Protection Landform (FPL) – BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd.

removed, and crest tie-in at Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180;

• Option 3B Flood Protection Landform (FPL) – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed;

• Option 3Bi Flood Protection Landform (FPL) – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed, and

new Sunlight Park Rd. ramp to DVP

• Option 4B Floodwall - BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA 0+180.

• Option 4C Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected, and Eastern Ave. ramp removed.

4.1 Design Considerations and Geometry Refinement

The grading of the FPL options were refined by conducting additional hydraulic scour and geotechnical analysis.

The following sections describe the scour analysis and geotechnical seepage analysis in more detail.

4.1.1 FPL Dry Side Scour Analysis

The FPL dry side scour analysis to justify using 3.5% slope vs 1.5% slope was performed by TRCA. The FPL was

forced to overtop at 115%, 120%, and 130% Regional flow. The 115% model run showed minor overtopping at low

velocities so that case wasn't analyzed further. As expected, the 1.5% slope FPL had generally lower velocities in

the 120% scenario. However, in the 130% scenario the area extent of erosive flows (>1.2 m/s) is greater with 1.5%

slope. Perhaps this might be because the 3.5% scenario is more efficient at passing flows over the crest, so it takes

a wider spill area to pass the same flow with 1.5% slopes. To fully protect a FPL from the overtopping mode of

failure, where erosive flows scour the dry side of the FPL when overtopped, it may be appropriate to armor the dry

side slopes in select areas. Based on these early model runs, the top and bottom third of a 3.5% slope can be

armored armored with something like buried stone sized to resist design flow rates. This design consideration can

be fleshed out in detailed design. The conclusion of the analysis is that 3.5% dry side slopes is suitable for the

BEFP FPL’s. Detail analysis is provided in Appendix B.

4.1.2 Seepage Analysis

Steady-state seepage analysis was performed on one cross section for the proposed FPL (Stage 2 Option 3B –

3.5% dry side slope) to assess the seepage potential through the structure and verify the feasibility of the proposed

FPL. A memorandum of Seepage Analysis is provided in Appendix C of this report and results summary are

presented below here.

Case Scenario:

The seepage analysis was performed for the following case scenario:

▪ Steady-state condition wherein water level remains at normal stage from 0:00AM to 2:00AM. In our

case, it is 74.5 masl for Don River (TRCA, 2018);






▪ During flooding, water level rises to 79.9 masl (i.e. 0.5 m below the top of crest) from 2:00AM to

4:00AM, remains at this level for another two hours (Ontario Realty Corporation, 2006);

▪ The water level drops back to normal water level in the next 12 hours (Ontario Realty Corporation,

2006).

The assumed design criterion is that the groundwater table on the dry side of the landform should not rise above

existing grades.

Exit Gradient:

The exit gradient is typically calculated by dividing the total head loss between two particular nodes by the elevation

difference between the nodes. SEEP/W provides exit gradient values under different conditions in addition to

evaluating the seepage quantity. The USACE guidance for exit gradients under various seepage conditions in

presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: USACE Guidance for Exit Gradients

Exit Gradient (i) Seepage Condition

0.0 to 0.5 None to Light Seepage

0.2 to 0.6 Medium Seepage

0.4 to 0.7 Heavy Seepage

0.5 to 0.8 Sand Boils

In general, USACE guidance document mentions that seepage gradient on the landside should not exceed 0.5.

Results:

The seepage analysis was performed for the above mentioned scenario. The output results are presented in the

preliminary seepage analysis memorandum (Appendix C), the calculated flow quantities and exit gradient results

are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Calculated Flow Quantities and Exist Gradients

Seepage Condition

Seepage Location

Sta 40+00 Sta 80+00 Sta 120+00

Cumulative Flow

(m3/hr)

Exit

Gradient

Cumulative Flow

(m3/hr)

Exit

Gradient

Cumulative Flow

(m3/hr)

Exit

Gradient

Steady-State

Condition (0-2 hrs) 0.00024 0.00002 0.0004 0.001 0.000238 0.00006

Flood Condition

(2-4 hrs) 0.00024 <0 0.002 0.008 0.0015 0.0001

Rapid Drawdown

Condition (4.3 hrs) 0.00003 0.08 0.0014 0.008 0.0015 0.00006

Rapid Drawdown

Condition (4.8 hrs) 0.00066 0.0007 0.00127 0.006 0.0015 0.00006

Rapid Drawdown

Condition (6.1 hrs) 0.0013 <0 0.0009 <0 0.0015 0.00006

Rapid Drawdown

Condition (9.1 hrs) 0.0014 <0 0.0006 <0 0.0015 0.00006

Rapid Drawdown

Condition (16 hrs) 0.0011 <0 0.0004 <0 0.0015 0.00006






The exit gradient that was calculated from SEEP/W analysis at three stations is 0.1 or less for the case scenario

presented above. The maximum value found is 0.08 at Station 40+00 during the rapid drawdown condition.

The results from above preliminary analysis indicate that the exit gradient at these locations meets the USACE

guidance criteria, therefore there is no potential for catastrophic failure of the FPL due to seepage through the

structure during a Regulatory Storm event. However, as indicated above, these results are only preliminary and

further analysis has to be carried out during detailed design stage, to properly assess seepage conditions, when

further subsurface information becomes available.

4.1.3 FPL Grading Refinement

The results of the hydraulic scour and seepage analysis concluded that dry side slopes can be generally steepened

from 1.5% to 3.5%. With the new FPL grading scheme the study team discovered it was possible to accommodate

the Eastern Ave on-ramp over FPL Option 3B. This meant that Option 3Bi became redundant because the on-ramp

can be accommodated without impacts to vehicular traffic. Option 3A similarly became redundant because the

Eastern Ave on-ramp can be accommodated without removing the Mini Dealership. Therefore, all three FPL options

were combined to a single option – FPL Option 3R (Figure 4.1 – 4.5).

4.2 Hydraulic Validation of Short Listed Options

Following completion of the revised baseline model, the short listed options were hydraulically modelled in 2D.

Scenarios for the short listed options 3R, 4B and 4C were created in MIKE 21 using the updated baseline model for

comparison. A summary of this hydraulic assessment is provided in Table 4.3.

For the flood protection landform options 3R, a consolidated surface was prepared using the updated baseline

surface and the FPL geometry for use in the hydraulic model. In addition to this update, the BMW building was

removed from the 2D mesh in Option 3R.

For flood protection structure option 4B, a new dike was modelled west of the BMW building between the raised

Eastern Ave. and ramp and the Metrolinx rail bridge, with a total length of approximately 393 m. Various crest

elevations (representing the top of wall) from 81.06 m to 79.89 m were tested for the new Option 4B dike. For

the Option 4C, a new dike was modelled west of the BMW building between Eastern Ave. and the Metrolinx rail

bridge, with a total length of approximately 373 m, Various crest elevations from 80.58 m to 79.89 m (North to

South) were tested for the new Option 4C dike.

Table 4.3: Summary of MIKE 21 Modeling Scenarios

Option Crest Elevation of FPL/Floodwall (m) WSE (m) Free Board (m)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream

Baseline 79.84 78.89

3R 80.47 79.59 79.97 78.73 0.50 0.86

4B 81.06 79.89 80.06 78.84 1.00 1.05

4C 80.58 79.89 80.08 78.73 0.50 1.16

4.2.1 Option 3R

The modelled Regional water surface elevations (WSE) are shown in Figure 4.6. The WSE at the upstream and

downstream limit of the FPL are approximately 79.94 and 78.72 m. The crest elevation at the upstream and






downstream limit of the conceptual FPL are approximately 80.47 and 79.59 m. Compare to the updated baseline

Regional storm event results, the WSE increased by approximately 0.1 – 0.2 m at upstream limit of the FPL.

However, the crest of the conceptual FPL would not be overtopped during the Regional storm and the required

freeboard of 0.5 m would be met.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional depth are shown in Figure 4.7. The Regional depth

comparison results predict that the introduction of the Option 3R FPL would decrease the flood depth along the

downstream portion of the main channel by approximately 0.1 to 0.4 m. The areas encompassed by the Eastern

Ave. ramp to the DVP, and the area behind the rail embankment on the west bank of the Don are predicted by the

model to have an increase in depth of approximately 0 to 0.4 m for the Regional storm. The area upstream of the

FPL to the top of the model at Gerrard St. E is predicted by the model to have an increase in depth by

approximately 0 – 0.2 m for the Regional storm. This may be boundary effects causing fluctuations in water

elevations, especially near the upstream end of the model. It is recommended to extend the upstream end of the

model for detail design. Also, most of the depth increases are below 10 cm, which is within model tolerances.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional velocity predict a general increase in velocity of

approximately 0.01 to 0.75 m/s along the east and west banks of the Don River, as shown in Figure 4.8. The area

encompassed by the Eastern Ave. ramp to the DVP and the west pier of the Metrolinx rail bridge are predicted by

the model to have a decrease in Regional velocity of approximately 0 to 0.5 m/s.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional flood risk are illustrated in Figure 4.9. The Regional flood risk

was generally no change within the modelled area, while a High to Low flood risk change was predicted along to

the Option 3R FPL Low to High and Low to Medium flood risk changes were predicted along Metrolinx rail and

West Don Lands FPL, respectively, on the west bank of the Don River close to the Metrolinx bridge. The change in

risk areas are localized, and the increased risk is low. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Comparison results to the updated baseline 350-year depth, velocity and flood risk are shown in Figure 4.10, 4.11

and 4.12. Generally, the depth and velocity increases would be minimal (within 0.1 m for depth, 0.1 m/s for

velocity). The flood risk was generally no change within the whole modelled area.

4.2.2 Option 4B

The modelled Regional WSE is shown in Figure 4.13. The Regional WSE at the upstream and downstream limit of

the floodwall are approximately 80.06 and 78.84 m. The crest elevation at the upstream and downstream limit of

the conceptual floodwall are approximately 81.1 and 79.89 m. The Regional WSE elevation increased by

approximately 0.15 m adjacent to the West of floodwall. However, the crest of the conceptual floodwall would not

be overtopped during the Regional storm and the required freeboard would be met.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional depth are shown in Figures 4.14. The Regional depth

comparison results predict that the introduction of the Option 4B floodwall would decrease the depth in the

downstream portion of the main channel by approximately 0.1 to 0.35 m. The area upstream of the floodwall to the

top of the model at Gerrard St. E is predicted by the model to have an increase in depth by approximately 0 – 0.2 m

for the Regional storm. This may be boundary effects causing fluctuations in water elevations, especially near the

upstream end of the model. It is recommended to extend the upstream end of the model for detail design. Also,

most of the depth increases are below 10 cm, which is within model tolerances.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional flood risk are illustrated in Figure 4.15. The Regional flood

risk was generally no change within the modelled area. However, small section of Low to High and Low to Medium

flood risk changes were predicted at north of ramp. Low to High and Low to Medium flood risk changes were

predicted at small section of Metrolinx rail, on the west bank of the Don River close to the Metrolinx bridge. This is

not the critical area, mitigation is not required






Comparison results to the updated baseline 350-year depth is shown in Figure 4.16. Generally, the depth

increases would be minimal (within 0.1 m) in the modelled area.

4.2.3 Option 4C

The modelled Regional WSE is shown in Figure 4-17. The Regional WSE at the upstream and downstream limit of

the floodwall are approximately 80.08 and 78.73 m. The crest elevation at the upstream and downstream limit of

the floodwall are approximately 80.58 and 79.89 m. Based on the hydraulic analysis, the crest of the conceptual

floodwall would not be overtopped during the Regional storm and the required freeboard would be met.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional depth are shown in Figure 4.18. The Regional depth

comparison results predict that the introduction of the Option 4C floodwall would decrease the depth in the

downstream portion of the main channel by approximately 0 to 0.1 m. The area behind the rail embankment on the

west bank of the Don is predicted by the model to have an increase in depth of approximately 0 to 0.25 m for the

Regional storm. The area upstream of the floodwall to the top of the model at Gerrard St. E is predicted by the

model to have an increase in depth by approximately 0 – 0.2 m for the Regional storm.

Comparison results to the updated baseline Regional flood risk are illustrated in Figure 4.19. The Regional flood

risk was generally no change within the modelled area. However, a few spots of Low to Medium flood risk changes

were predicted at north of Eastern Avenue. Low to High and Low to Medium flood risk changes were predicted at

small section of Metrolinx rail on the west bank of the Don River close to the Metrolinx bridge. The change in risk

areas are localized, and the increased risk is low. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Comparison results to the updated baseline 350-year depth is shown in Figure 4.20. Generally, the depth

increases would be minimal (within 0.1 m) in the modelled area.






5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of the Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Due Diligence and Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment (EA) is to recommend a flood protection solution that will (1) address flood risk up to

and including the Regulatory Flood event to the 8 ha of land north of the Metrolinx railway embankment east of the

Don River; (2) not increase flood risk elsewhere; and (3) integrate with concurrent planning and infrastructure plans

in the area.

Four primary conceptual option categories were developed for the project and the pre-screened list of conceptual

options is identified below.





eastward;


o Option 3A FPL – BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd. removed, and crest tie-in

at Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180;


o Option 3Bi FPL – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed, and new Sunlight Park Rd.

ramp to DVP.



o Option 4B Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA

0+180;

o Option 4C Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and Eastern Ave. ramp removed;

o Option 4D Flood Protection Berm – Mini dealership removed and crest tie-in at Eastern Ave ramp

STA 0+110; and

o Option 4E Floodwall & Building Flood Proofing – A retrofitted and flood proofed BMW building


A preliminary qualitative/quasi-quantifiable technical review of the options being considered was completed to

screen out options, which are technically unfeasible or provided limited to no benefit. Of the ten options that were

evaluated, six were deemed technically unfeasible or provided limited to no benefit. The remaining short listed

options are identified below:


o Option 3A FPL – BMW and Mini dealerships removed, Sunlight Park Rd. removed, and crest tie-in

at Eastern Ave. ramp STA 0+180;


o Option 3Bi FPL – Eastern Ave. ramp and BMW dealership removed, and new Sunlight Park Rd.

ramp to DVP.


o Option 4B Floodwall - BMW and Mini dealerships protected and floodwall tie-in at ramp STA

0+180;

o Option 4C Floodwall – BMW and Mini dealerships protected and Eastern Ave. ramp removed.






The FPL dry side scour analysis and seepage analysis were performed to confirm the design consideration and

geometry refinement. The FPL dry side scour analysis conclude that 3.5% dry side slopes is suitable for the BEFP

FPL’s. Results of seepage analysis indicate that no potential for catastrophic failure of the FPL due to seepage

through the structure during a Regulatory Storm event. However, seepage analysis results are only preliminary and

further analysis has to be carried out during detailed design stage, to properly assess seepage conditions, when

further subsurface information becomes available. Based on this analysis the FPL options were refined and through

that process the three FPL options were merged into one.

The short listed options were subject to 2D hydraulic validation in MIKE 21 using the baseline model developed by

DHI and updated by AECOM for the lower Don River in Stage 2. The updated baseline model represents a

consolidation of both existing conditions and approved future projects, which include the Don Mouth Naturalization

and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP) and the Transportation Servicing Master Plan (TSMP) for the Port

Lands and South of Eastern Area, which considers the future First Gulf East Harbour development and the

southern extension of Broadview Avenue. The latest Steady State Regional Flow of 1,560 m3/s from the 2017 Don

Hydrology Update was utilized for the revised baseline model and four short listed options in Stage 2.

The results of the hydraulic validation predict that none of the short listed options would be overtopped during the

Regional storm event. The freeboard criterion of 0.5 m (including 0.2 m contingency for climate change) was met

for all three (3R, 4B and 4C) short listed Options. Flood risk was not changed in the short listed options, with the

exception of localized areas.

The results from the hydraulic validation suggest that Options 3R provide the best hydraulic performance and

minimizes impacts to infrastructure and private property. This option has the least impact to water surface

elevation and depth but would require removal of the BMW dealership. Therefore, the preferred option is Option 3R

(Figure 4.1 – 4.5). This keeps the FPL on the western most edge of the project site which it allows it to be as little

land consumptive as possible while also allowing the Eastern Avenue on ramp (access to the DVP) to remain (to be

rebuilt in place). Dillon Consulting is preparing in parallel with this report, the Broadview and Eastern Flood

Protection Project Class EA Screening Report, which will further evaluate the four short listed options based on

Technical, Social, Environmental, and Financial criteria.

Next Step:

In detail design, update the 2D model (Mike 21) based on the final FPL design and extend the upstream end of

modeling boundary is recommended.

The seepage model is also recommended to be updated accordingly to the final layout of the FPL to verify

the exit gradient and confirm no potential for catastrophic failure during a Regulatory Storm event.






6. References

Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). (2017). Don Mouth MIKE FLOOD Modelling and Analysis Project. Dillon Consulting. (2005). Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project Class Environmental

Assessment Environmental Study Report.

Dillon Consulting. (2018). Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Project Draft Screening Report.

EXP Services Inc. (2018). Subsurface Geo-Environmental Report 11 and 20 Sunlight Park Road and Vacant Land

Parcel on Northeast Corner of Don Valley Parkway and Sunlight Park Road.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). (2002). Technical Guide - River and Stream Systems: Flood

Hazard Limit.

US Army Corps of Engineers. (2000). Engineering and Design: Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-

1913).

US Army Corps of Engineers, CIRIA, and French Ministry of Ecology. (2013). The International Levee Handbook.

US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2013). Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings.

COLGATE AVE

CLARK STKINTYRE AVE

THOMPSON ST

LABATT AVE

CARROLL ST

JUNE CALLWOODWAY

GRANT ST

BASIN STCOLGATE AVE

MUNITION ST

ST LAWRENCE ST

HAMILTON ST

LAWRE N HARRIS SQ

HAMILTON ST

WASCANA AVE

MATILDA ST

BISLEY ST

SAULTER ST

BAY V

I EWAV

EGRAHAM PL

CARROLL ST

BOOTH AVE

BUSY ST

MARK ST

MILL ST

DONMOUNT CRT

MUNRO ST

LOWER RIVER ST

WASCANA AVE

EMPIRE AVE

JUNE CALLWOOD WAY

OLD BREWERY LANE

BOULTON AVE

MCGEE ST

FEE PL

LEWIS ST

BOOTH AVE

MILL ST

DE GRASSI ST

WOODG

REEN

PL

TANNERY RD

TANNERY RD

ROLLINGMILLS RD

STRANGE ST

EASTERN AVE

PERCY ST

DAVIES AVE

DIBBLE ST

PALACE ST

MUNRO ST

TROLLEY CRES

DEFRIES ST

SUNLIGHT PARK RD

SAULTER ST S

MUNRO ST

KINTYRE AVE

BOOTH AVE

DISTILLERY L A NEBOUCHETTE ST

EDON RDWY

WARD

ELLS

T

HOWIE AVE

ROLLING MILLS RD

COOPERAGE ST

VILLIERS STVILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

QUEEN ST E

BROADVIEW AVE

EASTERN AVE

CHERRY ST

DON VALLEY PKY

KING ST E

DUNDAS ST E

BAYVIEWAVE

DON RDWY

CHERRY ST

RIVER ST

CHERRY ST

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

LOGAN AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

FRONT ST E

EASTERN AVE

EASTERN AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

CHERRY STCOMMISSIONERS ST

DON RDWY

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

ADELAIDE ST E

EASTERN AVENUE DIVERS

RICHMOND ST E




EASTERN AVE. RAM

PEASTERN AVENUE

EASTERN AVENUE

EASTERN AVENUE

EASTERN AVENUE

DON VALLEY PKY

DON VALLEY PKY

F G GARDINER EXPYF G GARDINER EXPY

Keating Channel

West Don Lands

Flood Protection Landform

Eastern

Ave. Ramp

Broadview Avenue

Extension and LRT

Don and Central

Waterfront Project

Future East HarbourDevelopment

Future East Harbour

Valley Wall

Future BroadviewAve. FPL

Future East

ern

Ave. FPLFuture ReliefLine Station

Future EastHarbour GO Station

Riverside Square Development(under Construction)

Future Gardiner Re-AlignmentFuture Don Mouth Naturalizationand Port Lands Flood Protection

Future GO TransitDon Yard Expansion

Sediment and DebrisManagement Area

HONI Utility

Bridge

Old Eastern Ave.

Bridge (Abandon)

Metrolinx

Rail Bridge

BMW

MINI

Lower Don River

m

0 100 200 30050Meters

Jul. 30, 2018 1:5,000

Figure 1.1

Study Area and Adjacent Projects

P#: 60554370 V#: 1.0

Datum: NAD83 UTM17Source: TRCA, LIO, Toronto

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing

agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

N

Map l

ocati

on: T

:\Proj

ects\

6055

4370

- TRC

A BEF

P\90

0-Work

\920-9

29 (G

IS-G

raphic

s)\mx

d\rpt\

Stag

e 1\FI

G_1-1

_Stud

y Area

_605

5437

0_11

x17.m

xdDa

te Sa

ved:

7/30/2

018 1

:02:32

PM

Lake Ontario

YellowCreek

Lower Don River

BROADVIEW AVE

GERRARD ST E

EASTERN AVE

KING ST E

PARLIAMENT ST

YONGE ST

DANFORTHAVE

BAYVIEW AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

³ LegendArea of InterestProperty Parcels

Note: Project location illustrations are approximate. Broadview and Eastern Flood ProtectionProject Class Environmental Assessment


Replaced Channel Bathymetrywith 2003 bathymetric survey.

Replaced LiDARfor rail ramp

Scour Assumption and Relocationof Dredging Assumption

Riverside SquareDevelopment

Refinementsto Abutment

Refinementsto Abutment

PedestrianUnderpass

DUNDAS ST E

CHERRY ST

BROADVIEW AVE

EASTERN AVE

LOGAN AVE

EASTERN AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

CHERRY ST

KING ST E

DON VALLEYPKY

BAYVIEWAVE

DON RDWY

RIVER ST


QUEEN ST E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

GERRARD ST E

RIVER ST


COMMISSIONERS ST

SHUTER ST

FRONT ST E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

DON RDWY

CHER

RYST ADELAIDE ST EEASTERN AVENUE DIVERS

RICHMOND ST E

EASTERN AVE.RA

MPDON VALLEY PKY

DON VALLEY PKY

F G GARDINER EXPYF G GARDINER EXPY

BMW

MINI

Lower Don River

m

0 100 200 30050Meters

Jul. 30, 2018 1:5,000

Figure 2.1

Broadview and Eastern Flood ProtectionProject Class Environmental Assessment


Topographic and Bathymetric Surface Update

P#: 60554370 V#: 1.0



agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

N

Map l

ocati

on: T

:\Proj

ects\

6055

4370

- TRC

A BEF

P\90

0-Work

\920-9

29 (G

IS-G

raphic

s)\mx

d\rpt\

Stag

e 1\FI

G_2-1

_Top

ograp

hic an

d Bath

ymetr

ic Su

rvey U

pdate

_605

5437

0_11

x17.m

xdDa

te Sa

ved:

7/30/2

018 1

:02:49

PM

Lake Ontario

YellowCreek

Lower Don River

BROADVIEW AVE

GERRARD ST E

EASTERN AVE

KING ST E

PARLIAMENT ST

YONGE ST

DANFORTHAVE

BAYVIEW AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

³ LegendArea of InterestUpdated Baseline Surface AreasRoads

SACK

VILLE

ST

BRIGHT

ST

CLARK ST

PAISLEY AVE

KINTYRE AVE

THOMPSON ST

DORIS ANDERSONCRT

LABATT AVE

GREIG AVE

BOUL

TON A

VE

TANK HOUSE LANECA

RROL

L ST

JUNE

CALL

WOOD

WAY

GRAN

T ST

BASIN

ST

BASIN ST

REGE

NT ST

MOUNTSTEPHEN ST

MUNI

TION

ST

STLA

WR E

NCES

T

ASHB

Y PL

SYDENHAM ST

LAWREN HARRIS SQ

PATE

RSON

PL

BUSY ST

CUMMINGS ST

EASTERN AVE

HAMI

LTON

ST

GILE

AD P

L

MATILDA ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

MUNR

OST

HAMI

LTON

ST

TRAC

Y ST

SAUL

TER S

T

RAY LANE

BAYVIEW AVEGRAHAM PL

CARR

OLL S

T

BOOT

H AVE

VIRGIN PL

HAMI

LTON

ST

BLEVINS PLMARK ST

ALLEN AVE

WEST

AVE

MILL ST

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

MORS

E ST

DON M

OUNT

CRT

MUNR

O ST

TREF

ANN ST

MORS

E STLOGA

N AVE

LOWE

R RI

VER

ST

ST PA

UL ST

EMPIR

E AVE

JUNE CALLWOOD WAY

OLD B

REWE

RY LA

NE

BOUL

TON A

VE

MCGE

E ST

LEWI

S ST

BOOT

H AVE

SUMA

CH ST

GURN

EY ST

DE G

RASS

I ST

ST DAVID ST

SUTTON AVE

WOO D GREE

NPL

DIST IL LERY LANE

VIRGI

N PL

SUTT

ON AV

E

STRA

NGE S

T

WILK

INS A

VE

BLAC

KBUR

NS T

BLEV

INS P

L

ANNA

HILLIA

RDLA

NE

1ST AVE

DAVIE

S AVE

PERC

Y ST

BLEV

INS

PL

DIBBL

E ST

PALACE ST

FEE P

L

MUNR

O ST

TROL

LEY C

RES

WARDELL ST

POWE

R ST

DEFR

IES ST

SUNLIGHT PARK RD

DE G

RASS

I ST

CORK

TOWN

LANE

SAUL

TER

ST S

MUNR

O ST

WHITESIDE PL

REGE

NT PA

RK BL

VD

MILL ST

KINTYRE AVE

E DON

RDW

Y

BOUC

HETT

E ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

HOWI

E AVE

CORNWALL ST

SIMPSON AVE

BOOT

H AVE

NICHOLAS AVE

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

BOUC

HETT

E ST

LOGA

N AVE

COLGATE AVE

SUMA

CH ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

SUMA

CH ST

WASCANA AVETA

NNER

Y RD

ROLL

INGMI

LLS R

D

KING ST E

CARL

AW AV

E

QUEEN ST E

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

RIVER

STEASTERN AVE

SHUTER ST

CHER

RYST

GERRARD ST E

SUMACH ST

KING ST E

BAYV

IEWAV

E

DUNDAS ST E

DON

RDW

Y


CHER

RY ST

CHERRYST

LOGA

N AVE

PARL

IAMEN

T ST

RIVER ST


LAKE SHORE BLVD E

FRONT ST E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

CHERRY ST

DON RDWY

CHERRY ST

COMMISSIONERS ST

ADELAIDE ST E EASTERN AVENUE DIVERS

RICHMOND ST E

DON V

ALLEY

PKY

D ON

VALL

EYPK

YDO

N VA

LLEY

PKY

F G GARDINER EXPY

F G GARDINER EXPY

90

77

74

7271

68 76

7573

81

80

79

78

70

7672

7771

8077

86

79

7884

83

85

8286

85

87

79

84

83

84

78

77

85

80 78

8579

78

7978

77

75

888483

8582

8583

82

84

81

85 82 81

8483

7978

8177

8180

84

80

79 78

77

8483

8582

838280

818079

78

87

86

83 82

8482

83 82

818079

79

78

77

8079

78

797877

8079

78

77

78

76

78

76

77

75

7574

73

878685

858484

83

83

82

84

82

8483

8381

83

82

82

81

81

80

8079

7978

78

77

7978

7978

79

77

77

76

7877

7877

8786

87

86

85

84

85

84

85

84

84

83

84 83

8483

83

82

83

82

8281

8180

81 80

81

80

81

80

7978

79

78

79

78

7978

79

78

79

78

78

77

78

77

78

7778

77

78

77

7877

78

77

78

77

7877

78

77

7877

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

7776

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

75

74

74 73

73

72

70 69

84

82

75

74

73

69

68

76

79

84

83

82

87

86

80

84

83

82

81

82

85

85

83

82

84 83

81

79

81

76

89

87

82

84

82

84

84

82

82

82

81

82

81

80

78

79

80

80

79

80

79

78

78

77

78

78

77

79

79

79

78

78

76

77

76

78

78

78

78

78

77

75

77

77

89

87

87

87

87

8787

85

85

85

86

86

86

86

86

86

85

85

84

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

8585

8585

85

85

84

83

83

83

84

84

8484

84

83

84

84

82

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

82

81

81

81

81

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

8282

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

81

81

81

81

81

80

80

81

81

81

81

81

81

80

8080

80

79

79

79

79

79

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

79

79

80

78

78

78

7878

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

7877

78

7878

78

77

77

77

7777

77

77

7777

77

77

77

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

76

7676

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

7372

86

85

85

84

84

83

82

82

82

82

81

80

80

8080

79

79

79

79

79

7979

79

79

7979

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

7878

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

BMW

MINI

0 100 200 300 40050Meters

Sep. 17, 2019 1:3,000

Figure 2.2



P#: 60554370 V#: 2.0



agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Ma

p loc

ation

: \\CA

TRT3

FS00

2.na.a

ecom

net.c

om\M

arkha

m\Pr

ojects

\6055

4370

- TRC

A BEF

P\90

0-Work

\920-9

29 (G

IS-Gr

aphic

s)\mx

d\rpt\

Stage

2\20

1909

16\M

XD\FI

G_2-2

_Bas

eline

_REG

_WSE

_Stag

e_2_

Broa

dview

_Eas

tern_

6055

4370

_2x3

.mxd

Date

Save

d: 9/1

7/201

9 3:07

:24 PM

Lake Ontario

YellowCreek

Lower Don RiverBROADVIEW AVE

GERRARD ST E

EASTERN AVE

DANFORTH AVE

KING ST E

PARLIAMENT ST

YONGEST

BAYVIEW AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

³ Legend1 m ContoursArea of Interest

Water Surface Elevation (m)72.13 - 72.5

72.51 - 73

73.01 - 73.5

73.51 - 7474.01 - 74.5

74.51 - 75

75.01 - 75.5

75.51 - 76

76.01 - 76.576.51 - 77

77.01 - 77.5

77.51 - 78

78.01 - 78.578.51 - 79

79.01 - 79.5

79.51 - 80

80.01 - 80.580.51 - 81

81.01 - 81.5

.Updated Baseline Regional Steady

Water Surface Elevation

SACK

VILLE

ST

BRIGHT

ST

CLARK ST

PAISLEY AVE

KINTYRE AVE

THOMPSON ST

DORIS ANDERSONCRT

LABATT AVE

GREIG AVE

BOUL

TON A

VE

TANK HOUSE LANECA

RROL

L ST

JUNE

CALL

WOOD

WAY

GRAN

T ST

BASIN

ST

BASIN ST

REGE

NT ST

MOUNTSTEPHEN ST

MUNI

TION

ST

STLA

WR E

NCES

T

ASHB

Y PL

SYDENHAM ST

LAWREN HARRIS SQ

PATE

RSON

PL

BUSY ST

CUMMINGS ST

EASTERN AVE

HAMI

LTON

ST

GILE

AD P

L

MATILDA ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

MUNR

OST

HAMI

LTON

ST

TRAC

Y ST

SAUL

TER S

T

RAY LANE


CARR

OLL S

T

BOOT

H AVE

VIRGIN PL

HAMI

LTON

ST

BLEVINS PLMARK ST

ALLEN AVE

WEST

AVE

MILL ST

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

MORS

E ST

DON M

OUNT

CRT

MUNR

O ST

TREF

ANN ST

MORS

E STLOGA

N AVE

LOWE

R RI

VER

ST

ST PA

UL ST

EMPIR

E AVE

JUNE CALLWOOD WAY

OLD B

REWE

RY LA

NE

BOUL

TON A

VE

MCGE

E ST

LEWI

S ST

BOOT

H AVE

SUMA

CH ST

GURN

EY ST

DE G

RASS

I ST

ST DAVID ST

SUTTON AVE

WOO D GREE

NPL

DIST IL LERY LANE

VIRGI

N PL

SUTT

ON AV

E

STRA

NGE S

T

WILK

INS A

VE

BLAC

KBUR

NS T

BLEV

INS P

L

ANNA

HILLIA

RDLA

NE

1ST AVE

DAVIE

S AVE

PERC

Y ST

BLEV

INS

PL

DIBBL

E ST

PALACE ST

FEE P

L

MUNR

O ST

TROL

LEY C

RES

WARDELL ST

POWE

R ST

DEFR

IES ST

SUNLIGHT PARK RD

DE G

RASS

I ST

CORK

TOWN

LANE

SAUL

TER

ST S

MUNR

O ST

WHITESIDE PL

REGE

NT PA

RK BL

VD

MILL ST

KINTYRE AVE

E DON

RDW

Y

BOUC

HETT

E ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

HOWI

E AVE

CORNWALL ST

SIMPSON AVE

BOOT

H AVE

NICHOLAS AVE

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

BOUC

HETT

E ST

LOGA

N AVE

COLGATE AVE

SUMA

CH ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

SUMA

CH ST

WASCANA AVETA

NNER

Y RD

ROLL

INGMI

LLS R

D

KING ST E

CARL

AW AV

E

QUEEN ST E

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

RIVER

STEASTERN AVE

SHUTER ST

CHER

RYST

GERRARD ST E

SUMACH ST

KING ST E

BAYV

IEWAV

E

DUNDAS ST E

DON

RDW

Y


CHER

RY ST

CHERRYST

LOGA

N AVE

PARL

IAMEN

T ST

RIVER ST


LAKE SHORE BLVD E

FRONT ST E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

CHERRY ST

DON RDWY

CHERRY ST

COMMISSIONERS ST


RICHMOND ST E

DON V

ALLEY

PKY

D ON

VALL

EYPK

YDO

N VA

LLEY

PKY

F G GARDINER EXPY

F G GARDINER EXPY

90

77

74

7271

68 76

7573

81

80

79

78

70

7672

7771

8077

86

79

7884

83

85

8286

85

87

79

84

83

84

78

77

85

80 78

8579

78

7978

77

75

888483

8582

8583

82

84

81

85 82 81

8483

7978

8177

8180

84

80

79 78

77

8483

8582

838280

818079

78

87

86

83 82

8482

83 82

818079

79

78

77

8079

78

797877

8079

78

77

78

76

78

76

77

75

7574

73

878685

858484

83

83

82

84

82

8483

8381

83

82

82

81

81

80

8079

7978

78

77

7978

7978

79

77

77

76

7877

7877

8786

87

86

85

84

85

84

85

84

84

83

84 83

8483

83

82

83

82

8281

8180

81 80

81

80

81

80

7978

79

78

79

78

7978

79

78

79

78

78

77

78

77

78

7778

77

78

77

7877

78

77

78

77

7877

78

77

7877

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

7776

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

75

74

74 73

73

72

70 69

84

82

75

74

73

69

68

76

79

84

83

82

87

86

80

84

83

82

81

82

85

85

83

82

84 83

81

79

81

76

89

87

82

84

82

84

84

82

82

82

81

82

81

80

78

79

80

80

79

80

79

78

78

77

78

78

77

79

79

79

78

78

76

77

76

78

78

78

78

78

77

75

77

77

89

87

87

87

87

8787

85

85

85

86

86

86

86

86

86

85

85

84

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

8585

8585

85

85

84

83

83

83

84

84

8484

84

83

84

84

82

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

82

81

81

81

81

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

8282

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

81

81

81

81

81

80

80

81

81

81

81

81

81

80

8080

80

79

79

79

79

79

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

79

79

80

78

78

78

7878

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

7877

78

7878

78

77

77

77

7777

77

77

7777

77

77

77

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

76

7676

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

7372

86

85

85

84

84

83

82

82

82

82

81

80

80

8080

79

79

79

79

79

7979

79

79

7979

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

7878

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

BMW

MINI

Lowe

r Don

Rive

r

0 100 200 300 40050Meters

Sep. 17, 2019 1:3,000

Figure 2.3



Updated Baseline Regional Steady Depth

P#: 60554370 V#: 2.0




p loc

ation

: \\CA

TRT3

FS00

2.na.a

ecom

net.c

om\M

arkha

m\Pr

ojects

\6055

4370

- TRC

A BEF

P\90

0-Work

\920-9

29 (G

IS-Gr

aphic

s)\mx

d\rpt\

Stage

2\20

1909

16\M

XD\FI

G_2-3

_Bas

eline

_REG

_DEP

TH_S

tage_

2_Br

oadv

iew_E

aster

n_60

5543

70_2

x3.m

xdDa

te Sa

ved:

9/17/2

019 3

:07:26

PM

Lake Ontario

YellowCreek


GERRARD ST E

EASTERN AVE

DANFORTH AVE

KING ST E

PARLIAMENT ST

YONGEST

BAYVIEW AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

³ Legend1 m ContoursArea of Interest

Water Depth (m)0 - 0.250.26 - 0.50.51 - 0.750.76 - 11.01 - 1.251.26 - 1.51.51 - 1.751.76 - 22.01 - 2.252.26 - 2.52.51 - 2.75

2.76 - 33.01 - 3.253.26 - 3.53.51 - 3.753.76 - 44.01 - 4.254.26 - 4.54.51 - 4.754.76 - 55.01 - 5.255.26 - 5.55.51 - 5.755.76 - 66.01 - 6.25

6.26 - 6.56.51 - 6.756.76 - 77.01 - 7.257.26 - 7.57.51 - 7.757.76 - 88.01 - 8.258.26 - 8.58.51 - 8.758.76 - 99.01 - 9.259.26 - 9.5

.

SACK

VILLE

ST

BRIGHT

ST

CLARK ST

PAISLEY AVE

KINTYRE AVE

THOMPSON ST

DORIS ANDERSONCRT

LABATT AVE

GREIG AVE

BOUL

TON A

VE

TANK HOUSE LANECA

RROL

L ST

JUNE

CALL

WOOD

WAY

GRAN

T ST

BASIN

ST

BASIN ST

REGE

NT ST

MOUNTSTEPHEN ST

MUNI

TION

ST

STLA

WR E

NCES

T

ASHB

Y PL

SYDENHAM ST

LAWREN HARRIS SQ

PATE

RSON

PL

BUSY ST

CUMMINGS ST

EASTERN AVE

HAMI

LTON

ST

GILE

AD P

L

MATILDA ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

MUNR

OST

HAMI

LTON

ST

TRAC

Y ST

SAUL

TER S

T

RAY LANE


CARR

OLL S

T

BOOT

H AVE

VIRGIN PL

HAMI

LTON

ST

BLEVINS PLMARK ST

ALLEN AVE

WEST

AVE

MILL ST

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

MORS

E ST

DON M

OUNT

CRT

MUNR

O ST

TREF

ANN ST

MORS

E STLOGA

N AVE

LOWE

R RI

VER

ST

ST PA

UL ST

EMPIR

E AVE

JUNE CALLWOOD WAY

OLD B

REWE

RY LA

NE

BOUL

TON A

VE

MCGE

E ST

LEWI

S ST

BOOT

H AVE

SUMA

CH ST

GURN

EY ST

DE G

RASS

I ST

ST DAVID ST

SUTTON AVE

WOO D GREE

NPL

DIST IL LERY LANE

VIRGI

N PL

SUTT

ON AV

E

STRA

NGE S

T

WILK

INS A

VE

BLAC

KBUR

NS T

BLEV

INS P

L

ANNA

HILLIA

RDLA

NE

1ST AVE

DAVIE

S AVE

PERC

Y ST

BLEV

INS

PL

DIBBL

E ST

PALACE ST

FEE P

L

MUNR

O ST

TROL

LEY C

RES

WARDELL ST

POWE

R ST

DEFR

IES ST

SUNLIGHT PARK RD

DE G

RASS

I ST

CORK

TOWN

LANE

SAUL

TER

ST S

MUNR

O ST

WHITESIDE PL

REGE

NT PA

RK BL

VD

MILL ST

KINTYRE AVE

E DON

RDW

Y

BOUC

HETT

E ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

HOWI

E AVE

CORNWALL ST

SIMPSON AVE

BOOT

H AVE

NICHOLAS AVE

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

VILLIERS ST

BOUC

HETT

E ST

LOGA

N AVE

COLGATE AVE

SUMA

CH ST

SACK

VILLE

ST

SUMA

CH ST

WASCANA AVETA

NNER

Y RD

ROLL

INGMI

LLS R

D

KING ST E

CARL

AW AV

E

QUEEN ST E

BROA

DVIEW

AVE

EASTERN AVE

RIVER

STEASTERN AVE

SHUTER ST

CHER

RYST

GERRARD ST E

SUMACH ST

KING ST E

BAYV

IEWAV

E

DUNDAS ST E

DON

RDW

Y


CHER

RY ST

CHERRYST

LOGA

N AVE

PARL

IAMEN

T ST

RIVER ST


LAKE SHORE BLVD E

FRONT ST E

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

CHERRY ST

DON RDWY

CHERRY ST

COMMISSIONERS ST


RICHMOND ST E

DON V

ALLEY

PKY

D ON

VALL

EYPK

YDO

N VA

LLEY

PKY

F G GARDINER EXPY

F G GARDINER EXPY

90

77

74

7271

68 76

7573

81

80

79

78

70

7672

7771

8077

86

79

7884

83

85

8286

85

87

79

84

83

84

78

77

85

80 78

8579

78

7978

77

75

888483

8582

8583

82

84

81

85 82 81

8483

7978

8177

8180

84

80

79 78

77

8483

8582

838280

818079

78

87

86

83 82

8482

83 82

818079

79

78

77

8079

78

797877

8079

78

77

78

76

78

76

77

75

7574

73

878685

858484

83

83

82

84

82

8483

8381

83

82

82

81

81

80

8079

7978

78

77

7978

7978

79

77

77

76

7877

7877

8786

87

86

85

84

85

84

85

84

84

83

84 83

8483

83

82

83

82

8281

8180

81 80

81

80

81

80

7978

79

78

79

78

7978

79

78

79

78

78

77

78

77

78

7778

77

78

77

7877

78

77

78

77

7877

78

77

7877

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

7776

77

76

77

76

77

76

77

76

75

74

74 73

73

72

70 69

84

82

75

74

73

69

68

76

79

84

83

82

87

86

80

84

83

82

81

82

85

85

83

82

84 83

81

79

81

76

89

87

82

84

82

84

84

82

82

82

81

82

81

80

78

79

80

80

79

80

79

78

78

77

78

78

77

79

79

79

78

78

76

77

76

78

78

78

78

78

77

75

77

77

89

87

87

87

87

8787

85

85

85

86

86

86

86

86

86

85

85

84

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

8585

8585

85

85

84

83

83

83

84

84

8484

84

83

84

84

82

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

82

81

81

81

81

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

8282

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

81

81

81

81

81

80

80

81

81

81

81

81

81

80

8080

80

79

79

79

79

79

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

79

79

80

78

78

78

7878

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

79

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

78

78

77

78

78

7877

78

7878

78

77

77

77

7777

77

77

7777

77

77

77

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

76

7676

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

77

77

76

76

76

76

76

75

75

75

74

74

74

7372

86

85

85

84

84

83

82

82

82

82

81

80

80

8080

79

79

79

79

79

7979

79

79

7979

78

78

78

78

78

78

78

7878

78

78

78

78

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

BMW

MINI

0 100 200 300 40050Meters

Sep. 17, 2019 1:3,000

Figure 2.4

Updated Baseline Regional Steady Velocity

P#: 60554370 V#: 2.0




p loc

ation

: \\CA

TRT3

FS00

2.na.a

ecom

net.c

om\M

arkha

m\Pr

ojects

\6055

4370

- TRC

A BEF

P\90

0-Work

\920-9

29 (G

IS-Gr

aphic

s)\mx

d\rpt\

Stage

2\20

1909

16\M

XD\FI

G_2-4

_Bas

eline

_REG

_VEL

OCITY

_Stag

e_2_

Broa

dview

_Eas

tern_

6055

4370

_2x3

.mxd

Date

Save

d: 9/1

7/201

9 3:10

:23 PM

Lake Ontario

YellowCreek


GERRARD ST E

EASTERN AVE

DANFORTH AVE

KING ST E

PARLIAMENT ST

YONGEST

BAYVIEW AVE

LAKE SHORE BLVD E

³ .Legend1 m Contours

Area of Interest

Water Velocity (m/s)

0 - 0.25

0.26 - 0.5

0.51 - 0.75

0.76 - 1

1.01 - 1.25

1.26 - 1.5

1.51 - 1.75

1.76 - 2

2.01 - 2.25

2.26 - 2.5

2.51 - 2.75

2.76 - 3

3.01 - 3.25

3.26 - 3.5

3.51 - 3.75

3.76 - 4

4.01 - 4.25

4.26 - 4.5

4.51 - 4.75

4.76 - 5

5.01 - 5.25

5.26 - 5.5

5.51 - 5.75

5.76 - 6

6.01 - 6.25

6.26 - 6.5

6.51 - 6.75

6.76 - 7

7.01 - 7.25

7.26 - 7.5

7.51 - 7.75

7.76 - 8

8.01 - 8.25

8.26 - 8.5

8.51 - 8.75

8.76 - 9

9.01 - 9.25

9.26 - 9.5

9.51 - 9.75

9.76 - 10

> 12



broadview and eastern flood protection project due

Documents