Bee Branch Watershed Application, Tab B, Appendix D, (H) Bee Branch Creek Alignment StudyContents
Section 1- Background
1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Bee Branch Drainage Basin .....................................................................................1-1
1.3 Existing Bee Branch Sewer ......................................................................................1-4
1.4 Previous Studies .......................................................................................................1-6
1.5 Purpose of Study.......................................................................................................1-8
1.5.1 Citizen Advisory Committee ...................................................................1-9
1.5.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................1-9
1.6 Report Organization...............................................................................................1-10
Section 2- Design Criteria
2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Background ...............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3- Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Model Selection .........................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Hydrology..................................................................................................................3-1
3.3.1 Study Watershed .......................................................................................3-2
3.3.2 Rainfall ........................................................................................................3-2
3.3.2.1 Rainfall Depth and Distribution ................................................3-2
3.3.2.2 Critical Duration Analysis..........................................................3-4
3.3.2.3 Design and Historical Storm Events .........................................3-5
3.4 Hydraulics .................................................................................................................3-5
3.4.1 Model Representation ...............................................................................3-6
3.4.2 16th Street Basin and Mississippi River...................................................3-6
3.5 Validation ................................................................................................................3-10
3.6 Existing Conditions Performance .........................................................................3-11
3.7 Design Storm and Outlet Condition ....................................................................3-11
3.8 Freeboard Criteria...................................................................................................3-12
Section 4- Alternative Analysis
4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Overview of Coordination ......................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee ..............................................4-1
4.2.2 Technical Support Committee .................................................................4-2
4.3 Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................4-2
4.4 Alignment Development & Evaluation .................................................................4-5
4.5 Alternative Development & Evaluation ................................................................4-5
A i
Document Code
Table of Contents
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
4.5.1 Open Channel Alternative .......................................................................4-5
4.5.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis........................................4-7
4.5.1.1.1 Model Representation ................................................4-7
4.5.1.1.2 Design Condition Results ..........................................4-7
4.5.2 Pipe Alternative .........................................................................................4-8
4.5.2.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis........................................4-9
4.5.2.1.1 Model Representation ................................................4-9
4.5.2.1.2 Design Condition Results ..........................................4-9
4.6 Final Recommendation .........................................................................................4-10
4.6.1 Preferred Alignment Recommendation ...............................................4-11
4.6.2 Channel Alternative Recommendation ................................................4-11
Section 5- Preliminary Design
5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Channel Alignment ..................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Open Channel Concept ............................................................................................5-3
5.3.1 Low Flow Channel ....................................................................................5-5
5.3.2 Channel Treatment....................................................................................5-6
5.3.3 Over-bank Areas........................................................................................5-7
5.4 Streets and Roadways ..............................................................................................5-8
5.5 Crossing Structures ................................................................................................5-11
5.6 Utilities .....................................................................................................................5-13
5.7 Geotechnical/ Environmental ..............................................................................5-13
5.7.1 Geotechnical Investigations ...................................................................5-14
5.7.1.1 Subsurface Conditions ..............................................................5-14
5.7.1.2 Slope Stability.............................................................................5-15
5.7.1.3 Groundwater Levels .................................................................5-15
5.7.1.4 Groundwater Seepage ..............................................................5-15
5.7.2 Environmental Investigation .................................................................5-16
5.8 Other Considerations .............................................................................................5-17
5.8.1 Property Acquisition ...............................................................................5-17
5.8.2 Historical Structures ...............................................................................5-19
5.8.3 Permitting .................................................................................................5-19
5.8.4 Project Extents/Limits ............................................................................5-19
5.8.5 Existing Bee Branch Sewer .....................................................................5-20
5.8.6 Project Staging .........................................................................................5-20
5.8.6.1 Segment 1....................................................................................5-20
5.8.6.2 Segment 2....................................................................................5-22
5.8.6.3 Segment 3....................................................................................5-22
5.8.6.4 Optional Contracts ....................................................................5-22
5.9 Estimate of Probable Cost......................................................................................5-23
A ii
Table of Contents
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
Appendices
Appendix A Design Criteria
Appendix B Hydrologic Model Event- Critical Duration Analysis
Appendix C BBCAC Meeting Protocols (9/11/2003)
Appendix D BBCAC Meeting Dates
Appendix E BBCAC Meeting Presentations
Appendix F BBCAC Meeting Newsletters
Appendix G BBCAC Meeting- Alignments and Alignment Ranking
Appendix H BBCAC Chairmen- Council Letter (6/30/2004)
Appendix I Index and Legend- Preliminary Plans
Appendix J Channel Typical Sections- Preliminary Plans
Appendix K Channel Plan and Profile Drawings- Preliminary Plans
Appendix L Street Plan and Profile Drawings- Preliminary Plans
Appendix M Structure Crossing Typical Sections- Preliminary Plans
Appendix N Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report (March 15, 2004)-
Terracon
Appendix O Environmental Investigation
Appendix P Estimate of Probable Cost
Appendix Q Bibliography
A iii
Section 1
Background
1.1 Introduction
The City of Dubuque (City) is in the eastern portion of Dubuque County in eastern
Iowa. The corporate limits of the City cover approximately 30 square miles and
include a population of approximately 60,000 people. The City is on the west bank of
the Mississippi River and is characterized by numerous outcrops of limestone and
steep slopes in the upland areas and generally flat low lying floodplains in the
lowlands. Earthen levees and floodwalls offer protection to the city against a
Mississippi River flood. Behind the levees/floodwalls, numerous sites provide
temporary storage of storm water during a river flood event. Temporary storage is
discharged into the Mississippi River through gravity outlets, or pump stations when
gravity drainage is not possible.
The streams and channels existing in the City of Dubuque predominately originate
within the corporate limits and flow easterly to the Mississippi River. The City is
principally drained by the Bee Branch Drainage Basin (Bee Branch), North Fork
Catfish Creek Drainage Basin, and their tributaries.1
1.2 Bee Branch Drainage Basin
Located in the north-central portion of the city, the Bee Branch Drainage Basin is
approximately 7.1 square miles in area. It is generally bounded by West 32nd Street
to the north, Asbury Road and University Avenue to the south, Northwest Arterial to
the west, and the Mississippi River to the east, see Figure 1-1. Stormwater generally
drains from the west to the east: originating in the upland-bluff areas, it flows down
the steep slopes into the densely populated flats where it is collected in the Bee Branch
storm sewer.
The Bee Branch Drainage Basin consists of several large subareas draining from large
bluffs into a flat, densely populated lowland area within the old Mississippi River
floodplain, hereafter referred to as the Couler Valley area. The subareas include West
32nd Street, Kaufmann Avenue, Locust Street, Washington Street (main Bee Branch
trunk line storm sewer), Windsor, 11th Street, 14th Street, Upper Kerper and Lower
Kerper. During various flood event stages on the Mississippi River, runoff is
diverted from Dock Street, Hamilton Street, and 8th Street subareas to the 16th Street
detention basin, see Figure 1-2.
1 General description of Dubuque and the Bee Branch Drainage Basin from HDR, 2001.
A 1-1
Sour
ces: C
ity o
f Dubuque
- Drainage
Basin Master Plan, Fall 2001
Dubu
qu
e Area Geog
raphic I
nformation Systems (DAGIS), dated May 2000
N
A
16th Street Basin
Future
C
arter
Ro
ad B
asin
West 3
2nd
Ba
si
n
West 3
2n
d
St
r
e
et
B
a
s
i
n
Kau
f
ma
n
n
Aven
u
e
B
asin Loc
u
s
t S
tree
t
Ba
si
n
Wa
s
h
in
gt
on
Su
bbasin
Wi
ndsor
Su
b
basin
Dock SubbasinHamiltonSubbasin Upper Kerper Subbasin
G
RE
EN
ST
W O O D S T
E
2
4
T
H
S
T
L O C U S T S T
E
2
0
T
H
S
T
E
2
2
N
D
S
T
E L M S T
W LOCUST ST
E
2
1
S
T
S
T
C E N T R A L A V E
J A C K SO N S T
E
3
0
T
H
S
T W A S H I N G T O N S T
E L M S T
E
2
9
T
H
S
T
K A N E S T
E
2
6
T
H
S
T
E
2
5
T
H
S
T
W I N D S O R A V E E
1
6
T
H
S
T
E
12TH ST
RHOMBERG AVE
LINCOLN AVE
E 11TH ST K E R P E R B L V D
GARFIELD AVE
HUM BOLDT ST DO CK ST 16TH ST
KA
UFM
ANN AV
E
S
U
N
S
E
T
P
A
R
K
C
I
R
N
W
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
HILL ST
U
N
IV
ERSIT
Y A
VE
I O W A S T
7
T
H
ST
W
3
2
N
D
S
T
HAMILTON ST
8t
h
S
tr
ee
t
Su
b
ba
sin
11
th
S
t
re
et
Su
b
basin
1
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
b
b
a
s
i
n
Lower Kerper Subbasin BEE BRANCH CREEK
RE
STORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY BEE BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN SUBAREAS
DAT
E: S
E
PT. 2004FIGURE No. 1-2
No
t
e
s
:
1.
Hamilton
S
tree
t
a
n
d
D
ock
S
treet
s
ubba
s
ins d
i
vert i
nto
1
6th
Str
ee
t
Dete
n
t
i
on
Bas
in
w
he
n
t
h
e
M
i
ssi
ss
ipp
i
Riv
er is
a
t
S
tag
e
6
0
3
.
5
a
n
d
600
.
5
r
espe
c
ti
vely
.
2. 8
t
h
S
tr
ee
t
s
ub
b
a
s
in di
v
erts
i
nto
t
h
e
1
6
th
Stree
t
D
ete
n
t
i
on
B
asi
n
w
he
n
t
h
e
M
iss
is
sipp
i
Ri
ver is at
Stag
e
5
9
8
.
5
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
20
0
0
Fee
t
K A N E S T
E L M S T
SAUNDERS ST
VALERIA ST
W LOCUST ST
E L M S T
M A DIS O N S T
ALMON
D ST LOWELL ST
THO
MAS PL
W HI T E S T
S
T
O
L
T
Z
S
T
ASPEN DR
BERKLEY
PL
NAPI
ER ST
W
2
8
T
H
S
T
E
DI
S
O
N
S
T
P I N A R D S T E L L I S S T
J A C K S O N S T
12TH ST
S
T
W
I
L
LI
A
MS
S
T
A ND RE W C T
C E N T R A L A V E
TIMBERLIN E ST
D
O
R
G
A
N
PL
R
I
E
S
S
T
W
2
3
R
D
S
T
FENGLER ST
T
22ND ST
H E E B S T
RCE ST
F R A N C I S S T
E A G L E S T
K
I
N
G
S
T
ANN ST
N O R T H R I D GE D R
CLARKE DR
W I N D SO R A V E
M A R Q U E T T E P L
OAK CREST DR
N M A I N S T
HAR OLD ST
F U L T O N S T
M E A D O W W O O D D R
L I N D A C T
P RI N C E S T
G
A
Y
S
T
L
I
E
B
E
S
T
W A S H I N G T O N S T
L
INK
ST
DOCK ST
R
E
G
E
N
T
K
I
R
K
W
O
O
D
S
T
L E M O N S T
VIOL A ST
KEOKU
K CT
GREENWOOD CT
PRIMROSE CT
FINK ST
LINCOLN AVE
PUTNAM ST
S H E L B Y S T
PRESCOTT ST
W
3
2
N
D
S
T
W
3
0
T
H
S
T
FA RR E LL CT
FOYE ST
B
O
Y
E
R
S
T
U
I
G
L
E
Y
L
N
FARLEY ST
E
1
7
T
H
S
T
HEMPSTEAD ST
E
2
0
T
H
S
T
B A L K E S T
E
2
1
S
T
S
T
E
2
9
T
H
S
T
N W H I T E S T
E
3
0
T
H
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E
2
2
N
D
S
T
KNIEST ST
N M A P L E S T
A R G Y L E S T
DUNHAM DR
M
E
1
5
T
H
S
T
N C E D A R S T
E
1
6
T
H
S
T
KLI
NGENBER
G TER
S
ABUL
A ST
V E N T U R A D R
M
E
R
Z
S
T
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
WHITTIER ST
SCHILLER ST
HEDL EY ST
K E R P E R B L VD
H
E
N
R
Y
S
T
BROADW AY ST
CHAPEL CT
SCH ROEDER ST
B U R D E N S T
Q U E E N S T
DIA
GO
NA
L
S
T
HIGH BLUFF ST
G O L D S T
LINCOLN AVE
C
L
A
R
K C
R
E
S
T D
R
LOB O LN
MARSHALL ST
E
2
6
T
H
S
T
E
2
7
T
H
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
S
U
T
T
E
R
ST
E
2
5
T
H
S
T
E 2
8
T
H
S
T
C A R R S T
M U S CATIN E ST
E 3
2
N
D
S
T
LINDBERG TER
G
O
E
T
H
E
S
T
E
1
9
T
H
S
T
HE
N
NE
P
IN
S
T
DECATUR ST
C
A
R
R
O
L
L
S
T
B U RLIN GT O N ST
E
D
W
AR
D
S
ST
HAMILTON ST
N S Y C A M O R E S T
G
ROVEL
AND PL
W
2
4
T
H
S
T
P
F
O
T
Z
E
R
S
T
E
1
8
T
H
S
T
M
E
R
C
H
A
N
T
S
L
N
S
T
R
A
U
S
S
S
T
W IL D W O O D D R
D I V I S I O N S T
PI N E S T
A S P E N C T
AVE
RAVENWOOD CT
ROSALINE ST
KUR T CT
BUEN A VISTA ST
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
CLARK CREST CT
P
RIM
R
O
S
E ST
B R U N S W I C K S T
PROVIDENCE ST
M
O
N
R
O
E
S
T
EMERSON ST
STAFFORD ST
E
2
4
T
H
S
T
T
E L M S T
PAUL ST
G R E E L E Y S T
RHOMBERG AVE
HUMBOLDT ST
D AVE N P O RT ST
T R A U T T E R
L
A
W
T
H
E
R
S
T
H ODG DON ST
S
H
A
D
Y
L
N
PL
EASAN
T
ST
GILLESPIE ST
DUNHAM CT
K NI G H T C T
G
R
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
NATIO
NAL ST
ASCENSION ST
COTTONWOOD CT
SP
R
INGG
REE
N C
T
W IL D W O O D C T
U.S. HWY 61 & 151 16TH ST
J A C K S O N S T
W A S H I N G T O N S T
B e e B r a n c h S e w e r M a i n li n e
16th Street Basin
We
s
t 3
2nd
Ba
sin
60
0
0
60
0
12
0
0
Fee
t
N
Sour
ces: C
ity o
f Dubuque
- Drainage
Basin Master Plan, Fall 2001
Dubu
qu
e Area Geog
raphic I
nformation Systems (DAGIS), dated May 2000
A
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RE
STORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY BEE BRANCH SEWER AND LOCAL SEWERS
DAT
E: S
E
PT. 2004FIGURE No. 1-3
Section 1
Background
The drainage basin is relatively steep, with an average terrain slope of approximately
37 percent. The overall slope of the main channel in the upland areas is
approximately 2 percent, while the slope of the main channel in the flat Couler Valley
area to the outlet is approximately 0.5 percent. Elevations in the drainage basin range
from 594 feet NGVD at the 16th Street Detention Basin at the Mississippi River to 962
feet NGVD in the upper reaches of the drainage basin.1
The drainage system in the Bee Branch Drainage Basin consists of both natural
channel and closed conduit sections. The majority of the drainage basin is highly
developed and therefore much of the runoff is conveyed through storm sewer
systems. Generally, natural channels are only present in the less densely populated
upland area, specifically the West 32nd Street Subarea.
1.3 Existing Bee Branch Storm Sewer
The Bee Branch storm sewer originates at the west 32nd Street Detention Basin,
approximately 625-feet west of the West 32nd Street and Saunders Street intersection.
Traveling in a southeasterly direction, the sewer resides under buildings, running
diagonally with respect to the streets, until it reaches 28th and Washington Street
where the alignment follows Washington Street south until 24th Street. At 24th Street,
the alignment makes two sharp bends. The first, at 24th and Washington Street, turns
the sewer east on 24th Street to Elm Street where it makes a second bend to the south
along Elm Street. The sewer continues to follow Elm Street from 24th Street to
approximately halfway between 21st Street and 20th Street. The sewer then proceeds
in a southeasterly direction, towards 19th and Pine Street and continues in the same
general direction to 15th Street and Sycamore. The sewer resides under numerous
buildings including the packing plant at 16th and Sycamore Street. The eventual
outlet of the sewer is into the 16th Street Detention Basin, see Figure 1-3.
According to City records, the storm sewer gradually increases from a 60-inch
concrete pipe where it originates at the West 32nd Street detention basin to a 20-foot
by 12-foot stone box where it outlets into the 16th Street Detention Basin. It then
outlets to the Mississippi River through the floodwall during normal river stages, or is
pumped during high river stages.
The Bee Branch storm sewer was once a creek that meandered through the north end
of Dubuque. Over a period of decades the creek was straightened, lined with
limestone, and eventually covered and transformed into the Bee Branch storm sewer
that currently exists.
1 General description of Dubuque and the Bee Branch Drainage Basin from HDR, 2001.
A 1-4
Section 1
Background
1.4 Previous Studies
The Bee Branch Drainage Basin has been previously studied by the City of Dubuque.
In the fall of 2001, the City published a Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP) (HDR,
2001). The plan reported that there were over 1,150 homes and businesses in the Bee
Branch Drainage Basin at risk of flood damage during a 100-year rainfall event.
While local flooding problems were identified in the upland areas of the basin, the
primary flooding problem area in the Bee Branch was found to be the heavily
developed Couler Valley area located in the former Mississippi River floodplain, also
referred to as the “North End” area of the City. While this area is protected from high
Mississippi River stages by levees, flooding problems persist due to interior drainage
and local storm sewer capacity deficiencies. During large storm events, runoff from
the steep upland areas rapidly drains toward the Couler Valley area and into various
storm sewers that ultimately connect to the existing Bee Branch sewer. The flat
topography of the Couler Valley area and the system of levees then slow the
progression of the floodwaters to the Mississippi River. The existing storm sewer
systems that collect and convey flood flows were also identified as not having the
capacity to provide significant relief during extreme events. These problems combine
to make the Couler Valley area prone to serious flooding during large storm events.
Four (4) recommended projects were outlined in the DBMP to reduce or eliminate the
risk of flooding in the Bee Branch Basin. The four recommendations included: 1)
Upper Carter Detention Basin, 2) West 32nd Street Detention Basin, 3) Grandview &
Kaufmann Detention Basin, and 4) an open waterway from 16th Street Detention Basin
to 24th and Elm Street. The Upper Carter Detention Basin and 32nd Street Detention
Basin were approved by the City Council and are currently in various stages of
development and completion. Since the DBMP the Grandview and Kauffman
Detention Basin has been removed from consideration by the City as not providing
sufficient benefit.
The severity of the problem in the Bee Branch Basin is shown in Figure 1-4. This
figure depicts the potential flooding extents from the main Bee Branch sewer trunk
line for the 100-yr 24-hour rainfall event including the Carter Road Detention Basin
and 32nd Street Detention Basin improvements.
The "Open Waterway" project, stretching from 16th Street to 24th Street and referred
to as the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project has not been approved. In October
2001, City staff presented the DBMP to the North End Neighborhood Association - the
neighborhood where the majority of the 1,150 homes and businesses are located.
Citizens voiced their concerns related to relocating families and the impact the
channel would have on the neighborhood.
A 1-6
Section 1
Background
In February 2002, city staff presented the DBMP to the Washington Neighborhood
Council. Many of the approximately 150 residents voiced strong opposition to the
portion of the DBMP that called for the removal of 70 homes - effectively destroying
their neighborhood.
In the months that followed, a growing number of citizens impacted by the flooding
voiced their desire for the City to move forward with the improvements
recommended in the DBMP. This included a petition which was submitted to the
City Council, which indicated that hundreds of citizens supported the proposed open
waterway.
Due to the concerns raised by the public, the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project has
been separated into two projects, or two phases. The proposed open waterway
concept from 16th to Garfield Avenue was adopted by the City Council as part of the
DBMP. The second portion (or phase) of the project, from Garfield Avenue to 24th
and Elm Streets, was not approved until additional information could be obtained.
1.5 Purpose of Study
On December 16, 2002, the City Council authorized City staff to issue a request for
proposals to do preliminary design and conduct an alignment study for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration Project from 16th and Sycamore to 24th and Elm. The study
entitled the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study included the following
project objectives:
1. Establish the optimum alignment for the proposed open waterway along its
approximately 4,500-foot length (from 16th Street detention basin to 24th and
Elm) based on environmental, utility, social, and economic constraints;
2. Provide a preliminary design to a level that establishes:
a. What the waterway will look like at different locations along its entire
length;
b. How the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms
of different magnitudes; and
3. Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizen advisory committee to
ensure that the recommended alignment location and waterway design are
based on the input from those neighborhoods impacted by the proposed
waterway.
The purpose of the study was to develop a recommendation on an alignment that was
acceptable to the public and develop a preliminary design using that alignment for
the proposed open waterway. One of the key elements was to have an open and
interactive process for the development of a recommended solution. With this in
mind, the City formed the Bee Branch Creek Citizen Advisory Committee (BBCAC).
A 1-8
Section 1
Background
1.5.1 Citizen Advisory Committee
The formation of the BBCAC established channels of communication that promoted
input from impacted property owners on the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment
Study. The BBCAC was assembled in an effort to faithfully represent a cross section
of the impacted residents in the potential project corridor.
The purpose of the Committee was to help the City and Consultant produce an
alignment and preliminary design that considered the social and economic concerns
and needs of the impacted residents and neighborhoods. The BBCAC established
evaluation criteria to be used to determine the optimum alignment. Additional
information is provided in Section 4 on the BBCAC evaluation criteria.
To facilitate communication with the affected residents, the City and Consultants met
with the BBCAC approximately every 6 to 8 weeks over a 10-month period from
September 2003 to June 2004. During the six meetings that were conducted, the
Consultant presented technical information to the Committee on the Bee Branch
Drainage Basin, the existing Bee Branch storm sewer, and potential solutions. Section
4 provides a summary of the alternatives analysis and coordination with the BBCAC.
1.5.2 Scope of Study
Given the work completed on previous studies of the Bee Branch Drainage Basin, the
scope of work for the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study was focused
primarily on the investigation of the existing Bee Branch sewer from 24th and Elm
Street to the 16th Street Detention Basin. To the maximum extent possible, the new
work relied on existing data and available information from the DBMP and City. The
scope of work for the alignment study consisted of seven (7) main tasks: Project
Management, Information Gathering, Public Involvement, Site Survey, Hydrologic
and Hydraulic Modeling, Alternatives Analysis, and Preliminary Design.
1. Information Gathering
The Information Gathering task consisted of conducting a kickoff meeting with
City staff and performing field reconnaissance of the Bee Branch Drainage Basin.
2. Public Involvement
The Public Involvement effort included working with the BBCAC to provide them
with technical information so that they could evaluate and make
recommendations for the alignment and preliminary design. The task also
included conducting meetings with neighborhood groups: to gather input from
affected residents and City while providing to the City Council progress updates
and the BBCAC recommendations.
A 1-9
Section 1
Background
3. Site Survey
A limited site survey was conducted to obtain information for the development of
a more detailed hydraulic model to better represent existing overland flow routes
and provide quantitative answers regarding flooding depths at key locations. For
the purposes of the preliminary design the Dubuque Area Geographical
Information Systems (DAGIS) digital terrain surface and base mapping were used
given the limited survey scope.
4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
Because the work relied on the hydrologic and hydraulic models previously
developed for the DBMP, the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling task mainly
consisted of updating the models and using them to verify and collect information
necessary for the selection of an alignment and the development of a preliminary
design.
5. Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis was conducted to screen, evaluate, optimize, and
recommend the appropriate solution. Input from the BBCAC was considered
during each step of the alternatives evaluation. The recommended alignment and
alternative was selected based on the evaluation criteria developed by the BBCAC.
6. Preliminary Design
The waterway was designed to convey the 100-year recurrence interval design
storm while also taking into consideration how the waterway would look and
function under smaller events. The design was based upon input from the
BBCAC and general public. The Preliminary Design task included developing a
preliminary design report, drawings, and renderings of various components of the
recommended alternative.
1.6 Report Organization
The Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study Report is primarily intended to
serve as an engineering analysis documenting the process used in the study and
technical basis of design. The report is divided into five (5) main sections. Section 1
includes the introduction and background on the project. Section 2 provides a general
description and list of criteria that were used in the development of the preliminary
design and estimate of probable cost for the project. Section 3 provides a summary of
the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis performed as part of the study, and
preliminary design including changes made to the DBMP existing conditions model.
Section 4 presents a summary of the BBCAC, the alternatives analysis that was
performed, and evaluation criteria that was used by the BBCAC to evaluate
alignments and develop a final recommendation. Section 5 includes a summary of the
A 1-10
Section 1
Background
preliminary design for the recommended alignment including the overall concept for
the open channel.
A 1-11
Section 2
Design Criteria
2.1 Introduction
Design criteria were established early in the project as a method of providing
consistency in the development and evaluation of alternatives, determining
appropriate preliminary cost estimates, and development of the preliminary design.
The purpose of this section is to establish the baseline design criteria that were used
for the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study.
2.2 Background
The design criteria for the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study were developed
with the assistance of the Technical Support Committee which included various City
Staff (see Appendix B for City staff listing). Design criteria were established for the
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Property Acquisition, Open Channel, Bridges/
Culverts, Utilities, Streets and Roadways.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis design criteria were established the modeling
roughness parameters and freeboard. Property Acquisition “screening” design criteria
were established in order to set a baseline for determining when a property would be
acquired and equally weigh each of the alternatives. Design criteria for the Open
Channel were used to guide the type of materials to be used so that a reflective cost
estimate could be created. Design criteria for the Bridges/ Culverts, Utilities, Streets
and Roadways were used so that a reflective cost estimate could be created.
Appendix A includes a complete listing of the various design criteria and standards
that were considered in the developing and evaluating potential solutions.
A 2-1
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The Bee Branch Watershed was analyzed using the hydrologic model HEC-HMS and
the hydraulic model SWMM. The models simulate both hypothetical and historical
rainfall events and route the rainfall runoff through the drainage system to evaluate
the level of protection and potential deficiencies of the existing stormwater
management system. The models predict flow and water elevations resulting from
the simulated rainstorms. This section presents the approach, data sources and
assumptions used to develop the model as well as the hydrologic and hydraulic
Design Condition parameters utilized in Section 4 for the Alternatives Analysis.
The original Bee Branch hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is documented in the “City
of Dubuque, Iowa Drainage Basin Master Plan – Fall 2001” (DBMP). The hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis began with the DBMP models and then minor modifications
were done to meet the requirements of the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study.
3.2 Model Selection
The DBMP utilized a hydrology and GIS preprocessor developed by the Center for
Research and Water Resources (CRWR) at the University of Texas, Austin. This
processor, called CRWR-PrePro, developed input data for the hydrologic model. The
DBMP incorporated the data from CRWR-PrePro into HEC-HMS with Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) methodology for the hydrologic analysis.
The results from the hydrologic analysis were then used as input to XP-SWMM for
the hydraulic analysis of the Bee Branch storm sewer system for the DBMP.
CDM used the previously developed DBMP HEC-HMS model to develop design
flows for the Bee Branch analysis. The HEC-HMS model was expanded and updated
as summarized in Section 3.3.
CDM chose to use the USEPA SWMM EXTRAN model for this Study. The DBMP XP-
SWMM model was used as a starting point for developing the Study model in USEPA
SWMM. The primary reason for re-creating the hydraulic model in EPA SWMM is its
wide availability (non proprietary) to the engineering and regulatory communities.
EPA SWMM is the public domain version of SWMM, and the algorithms and results
from EPA SWMM are essentially the same as XP-SWMM.
3.3 Hydrology
HEC-HMS simulates the rainfall-runoff process by computing runoff volume. The
runoff volume is dependent upon the volume of water infiltrated, evaporated,
transpired, intercepted, stored and routed. The results of this modeling process
provide inflow hydrographs to be used in the SWMM EXTRAN model.
A 3-1
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
3.3.1 Study Watershed
The Bee Branch watershed was modeled in the DBMP as four separate hydrologic
models: West 32nd Street, Kaufmann, Locust, and the Central Business District. The
drainage basin schematic is shown in Figure 3-1. These basins account for the extent
of the storm sewer network and surface drainage patterns of the Bee Branch
watershed. Several modifications were made to the DBMP HEC-HMS drainage basin
characteristics input. These changes involved adjusting the Curve Number (CN) for a
golf course in the Kaufmann basin as well as adjusting some of the local routings that
discharged into Bee Branch connection pipes.
The West 32nd Street basin comprises the northwest portion of the Bee Branch
watershed and includes Carter Road and portions of JF Kennedy Road and the
Northwest Arterial. The West 32nd Street basin drains into the West 32nd Street
Detention Pond northwest of the intersection of 32nd Street and Central (Figure 3-1).
The Kaufmann Avenue basin is located in the western portion of the Bee Branch
watershed and includes Kaufmann Avenue and the Bunker Hill Golf Course. This
basin drains generally to the east down Kaufmann to 22nd Street. The Kaufmann
Avenue basin enters the Bee Branch pipe at the intersection of Elm and 22nd Streets.
The Locust Street basin is the southwest portion of the Bee Branch watershed and
includes Locust Street and portions of Glen Oak Street and Loras Boulevard. This
basin also generally drains east down Locust Street to 17th Street. The Locust Street
basin enters the Bee Branch pipe at 16th Street.
Numerous Bee Branch Watershed subbasins drain into the 16th Street Detention Basin.
The Washington subbasin includes the Bee Branch mainstem and drains southeast
into the 16th Street Detention Basin. The Windsor subbasin drains into the Bee Branch
mainstem at 24th Street in the Washington subbasin. In the southeast portion of the
Bee Branch Watershed, the Central Business District basin and Upper Kerper subbasin
also drain directly into the 16th Street Detention Basin.
Three Bee Branch subbasins drain directly to the Mississippi River under normal
conditions and to the 16th Street Detention Basin under flood conditions. The Dock
and Hamilton subbasins on the northeast side and the 8th Street subbasin (southern
portion of the Central Business District basin) operate in this fashion.
3.3.2 Rainfall
3.3.2.1 Rainfall Depth and Distribution
Rainfall depths were taken from the isohyetal maps for the Dubuque area presented
in the Bulletin 71, “Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest” (Huff and Angel, 1992)
published by the Midwest Climate Center and Illinois State Water Survey. These
rainfall depths for the 24-hour storm duration match the DBMP rainfall totals.
Rainfall depths utilized for design purposes are discussed in Section 3.3.2.3.
A 3-2
16th Street Basin
Future
C
a
rter
Ro
ad B
a
sin
West 3
2nd
Ba
si
n
We
s
t 3
2n
d
St
r
e
et
B
a
s
i
n
Kau
f
ma
n
n
Aven
u
e
B
asin
Loc
u
s
t S
tree
t
Ba
si
n
Cen
t
ral
B
usine
ss
Di
stri
ct B
a
sin
Wa
sh
in
gt
on
Su
bbasin
Wi
ndsor
Su
bba
sin
Dock SubbasinHamiltonSubbasin Upper Kerper Subbasin
B e e B r a n c h M a i n l i n e
Sour
ces: C
ity o
f Dubuque
- Drainage
Basin Master Plan, Fall 2001
Dubu
qu
e Area Geog
raphic I
nformation Systems (DAGIS), dated May 2000
A
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
20
0
0
Fee
t
No
t
e
s
:
1.
Hamilton
S
tree
t
a
n
d
D
ock
S
treet
s
ubba
s
ins d
i
vert i
nto
1
6th
Str
ee
t
Dete
n
t
i
on
Bas
in
w
he
n
t
h
e
M
i
ssi
ss
ipp
i
Riv
er is
a
t
S
tag
e
6
0
3
.
5
a
n
d
600
.
5
r
espe
c
ti
vely
.
2. 8
t
h
S
tr
ee
t
s
ub
b
a
s
in di
v
erts
i
nto
t
h
e
1
6
th
Stree
t
D
ete
n
t
i
on
B
asi
n
w
he
n
t
h
e
M
iss
is
sipp
i
Ri
ver is at
Stag
e
5
9
8
.
5
FIGURE No. 3-1
DAT
E: S
E
PT. 2004
B
EE
B
R
ANCH MAJOR
SU
BBASIN SCHEMATICBEE BRANCH CREEK
RE
STORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
N
Leg
e
n
d
Maj
or
S
u
bb
a
si
n
Hy
dr
og
r
ap
h
Inf
low
L
o
c
ati
on
s
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
The DBMP utilized a modified 24-hour NRCS Type II rainfall distribution. The nature
of Dubuque’s soils as well as the geography of the steep ravines flowing into the low
flatlands of the Mississippi produced high peak flows for the modified SCS Type II
rainfall distribution. The SCS Type II distribution is a conservative hypothetical
distribution that includes a full range of critical durations within a single 24-hour, or
longer, storm. The modified SCS distribution is overly conservative for designing
conveyance based improvements.
CDM utilized an alternative rainfall distribution more applicable to the project area
and based on representative Midwest rainfall events. The rainfall time distributions
utilized were developed according to the procedure published in “Frequency
Distributions and Hydroclimatic Characteristics of Heavy Rainstorms in Illinois,”
(Huff and Angel, 1989) and listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Critical Duration Analysis 100-year Storm Design
Rainfall Depths (inches) and distributions (Huff
and Angel, 1989)
Duration Distribution 100-year
(1% chance)
Rainfall Depth
(inches)
1-hour Huff Type-I 3.20
2-hour Huff Type-I 4.10
3-hour Huff Type-I 4.50
6-hour Huff Type-I 5.25
12-hour Huff Type-II 6.30
24-hour Huff Type-III 7.00
3.3.2.2 Critical Duration Analysis
A critical duration analysis was performed for the Bee Branch watershed to determine
the rainfall duration that produces the highest flows in the largest number of locations
in the Bee Branch watershed. The critical duration analysis will determine the rainfall
duration utilized for sizing alternatives discussed in Section 4.
The critical duration analysis was accomplished by running the HEC-HMS model
using the 100-year frequency rainfalls for a range of storm durations. The 1-, 2-, 3-, 6-,
12- and 24-hour storms were all evaluated using the model of the Bee Branch
watershed (Table 3-1). The rainfall distributions, known as “Huff” distributions, are
categorized into four types of curves (first-, second-, third- and fourth-quartile) which
were dependant on whether the maximum rainfall occurred in the first, second, third
A 3-4
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
or fourth quarter of the storm. For the 1-, 2-, 3- and 6-hour storm events, the average
maximum rainfall occurs during the first quarter of the storm, thus these are
considered Type-I events. The 12-hour storm event has the maximum rainfall occur
in the second quarter and is considered a Type-II event. Finally, the 24-hour storm
event has the maximum rainfall in the third quarter and is considered a Type-III
event.
The critical duration model results indicate that the 2-hour storm event produces the
greatest flows for the majority of the Bee Branch basins (Appendix B). Therefore, the
2-hour storm duration was assumed to be the critical storm event to be used in the
design and analysis of proposed improvements to the Bee Branch.
3.3.2.3 Design and Historical Storm Events
Based on the Critical Duration Analysis discussed above and the CDM rainfall
distribution discussed in Section 3.3.2.1, Table 3-2 includes the Design Storm Events
utilized for this Study. The 2-year and 10-year rainfall events were utilized to
evaluate drainage system performance for smaller events and to evaluate alternative
components.
Table 3-2: Design and Historical Rainfall Events
Storm Event Rainfall Depth (inches)
2-year 2-hour Huff Type-I 1.69
10-year 2-hour Huff Type-I 2.50
100-year 2-hour Huff Type-I 4.10
May 16, 1999 Storm Event Modeled: 3.61 in 4 hours
June 4, 2002 Storm Event Modeled: 4.86 in 6 hours
Also included in Table 3-2 are the two historical storm events utilized for the
Validation of the existing conditions model discussed in Section 3.5. For the May 16,
1999 storm event in Dubuque, recorded rainfall distribution and depths were
available, while no detailed time distribution information was available in the Bee
Branch watershed for the June 4, 2002 storm event. However, anecdotal evidence
from various sources in Dubuque (newspapers, residents, municipal workers) gave
the total duration of the storm event to be approximately 6-hours. For the analysis of
this event, it was assumed that the rainfall was constant over the 6-hour period.
3.4 Hydraulics
The hydraulic analysis was performed in SWMM EXTRAN with inflow hydrographs
input from the HEC-HMS model. This section describes how the Bee Branch
A 3-5
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
mainstem was represented in the SWMM EXTRAN model, as well as the boundary
conditions modeled for the 16th Street Detention Basin at the downstream end of the
Bee Branch mainstem.
CDM obtained information from the City on major storm sewer pipes connecting to
the Bee Branch. These pipes were included in the updated model to provide a more
detailed hydraulic representation of the Bee Branch watershed.
3.4.1 Model Representation
The EXTRAN module of SWMM is a dynamic hydraulic model capable of routing
flow hydrographs through a network of sewers and open channels. It also provides
the means to represent storage areas and control structures including weirs, pumps
and orifice outlets. An EXTRAN representation of the Bee Branch sewer and major
connection sewer pipes was developed consisting of storm sewer pipes, surface
ponding, detention basins, overland flow paths and control structures. The Bee
Branch sewer begins at the West 32nd Street detention basin and proceeds southeast to
the 16th Street detention basin. The physical features represented in the existing
conditions SWMM EXTRAN model are depicted in Figure 3-2.
The Bee Branch EXTRAN model was developed from information from the DBMP
XP-SWMM model, as-built drawings provided by the City, surveyed cross-sections
for overland flow (street flooding), surveyed elevations for inverts and ground
surfaces, Dubuque Area GIS (DAGIS) data, and USACE data for the 16th Street
detention basin.
The Bee Branch EXTRAN model includes representation of 54 manholes, 52 storm
sewer reaches including the mainline Bee Branch and connection pipes, 28 overland
flow paths, 2 surface ponding areas, 1 detention basin and 3 pumps. The specific
EXTRAN input parameters are listed in Table 3-3 along with the data sources used for
the Bee Branch sewer system.
Over time, the Bee Branch sewer accumulates sediment that reduces flow capacity.
The SWMM EXTRAN hydraulic model assumed that the Bee Branch pipe is free from
sediment accumulation.
3.4.2 16th Street Detention Basin and Mississippi River Level
The only boundary condition required for the SWMM EXTRAN model is the
condition of the model outlet at the 16th Street Detention Basin and Mississippi River.
The 16th Street Detention Basin operates under two different scenarios depending on
the water level in the Mississippi River. Three operational scenarios were
investigated for the hydraulic analysis as summarized below.
A 3-6
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3-3: EXTRAN Input Parameters
Parameter Unit Source(s)
Manhole Location / Invert /
Ground (Rim) Elevation
Feet
NGVD
As-Built Plans, Survey Data, DAGIS
Storm Sewer Location - As-Built Plans, DAGIS
Pipe Length Feet As-Built Plans, DAGIS
Pipe Diameter / Size Feet As-Built Plans, DAGIS
Pipe Inverts Feet
NGVD
As-Built Plans, Survey Data, DAGIS
Cross-Sections for Overland
Flow
- Survey Data
Manning n values - Open Channel Hydraulics (Chow)
Concrete Pipe Handbook (ACPA)
Ponding Area vs. Elevation Acres DAGIS topography
Overland Flow Paths - Survey Data, DAGIS
16th Street Detention Basin
(Pumps, outfalls)
- USACE documentation
The 16th Street detention basin is an intermediate discharge and storage point between
the Bee Branch outfall and the Mississippi River. The basin outlet includes two 12-
foot by 12-foot box culverts discharging into the Mississippi River. At high river
stages, the box culvert outlets are sealed with sluice gates and flows are pumped over
the levee into the Mississippi by three pumps. Two of the pumps are 90,000 gpm (200
cfs) pumps rated at 18.7 feet total dynamic head and the third is a 20,000 gpm (45 cfs)
pump rated at 25.4 feet total dynamic head.
There are also three subbasins that normally discharge directly into the Mississippi
River but are diverted into the 16th Street basin during high Mississippi River stages.
These basins divert into the 16th Street basin at specific high water elevations on the
Mississippi River as listed below:
8th Street Subbasin: 598.0 feet NGVD
Dock Street Subbasin: 600.0 feet NGVD
A 3-8
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Hamilton Street Subbasin: 603.0 feet NGVD
The 16th Street Detention
Basin was represented as a
storage node in the SWMM
EXTRAN model. The twin
box culverts and three
pumps at the outlet of the
16th Street Detention Basin
were all included in the
hydraulic model to provide
an accurate representation
of the dynamic nature of
the basin and the
Mississippi River. The
subbasin diversions to the
16th Street Detention Basin
were also analyzed as
necessary.
The ultimate downstream
boundary condition is the Mississippi River and its water surface at Dubuque varies
from year to year. The USACE tracks the water surface along the Mississippi and
provides Stage-Duration Curves at the various gauge locations. The All-Year Stage
Duration Curve for Dubuque (downstream of Lock and Dam 11) from 1939 to 2003 is
shown in Figure 3-3. The Mississippi River water surface elevation controls the gate
structure and pumps for the 16th Street detention basin. Currently there are three
general operating scenarios for the 16th Street Basin: normal, gate closure and
minimum water surface elevation.
Figur e 3-3: All Ye ar Stage Dur ation Curve at Dubuque , Iow a
1939-2003 (USACE)
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Pe r ce nt of Tim e Equale d or Exce e de d
Mi
s
s
is
s
ippi R
iver E
lev
a
t
io
n (
f
t)
Normal Operating Conditions
This is the operating scenario when the Mississippi River is at 593.41 feet NGVD
(elevation at which 50% of the time the River elevation is equal to or exceeded). The
sluice gates are open and the pumps are initially off for the Normal Operating
Conditions. No additional subbasins are diverted to the 16th Street Detention Basin.
The pumps turn on during storm events as the 16th Street Detention Basin fills to
supplement the outlet capacity of the twin box culverts to the Mississippi River. The
pumps draw down the 16th Street basin elevation to match the Mississippi River
elevation between 593.41 and 597.9 as the gates are open. Below is a summary of the
Normal Operating Conditions in bullet form.
• Mississippi River at 593.41 up to 597.9 elevation
• Gates are open
• Pumps are off until 16th Street basin is higher than Mississippi River
• Pumps lower 16th Street basin to Mississippi level during storm
A 3-9
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Gates Closed Operating Conditions
The current procedure is to close the sluice gates when the Mississippi River water
surface elevation is at or above 597.9 feet NGVD (elevation at which 9.7% of the time
the River elevation is equal to or exceeded). At Mississippi River level of 598.0 feet,
the 8th Street subbasin is diverted into the 16th Street detention basin as well. With the
gates closed, all three pumps are turned on to lower the basin in preparation for a
storm event to the minimum water surface elevation discussed next. Below is a
summary of the Gates Closed Operating Conditions in bullet form.
• Mississippi River at or above 597.9 elevation
• Gates are closed
• Pumps are on and lower 16th Street basin to minimum water surface elevation
(591.0 elevation)
Minimum Water Surface Elevation
This scenario would be the result of the Gates Closed Operating Conditions scenario
with no major stormwater discharges and all three pumps operating to empty the
basin to that elevation. The minimum allowable water surface elevation in the 16th
Street Detention Basin is 591.0 feet NGVD. This elevation assumes that the sluice
gates are closed due to the Mississippi River stage and the pumps have lowered the
16th Street Detention Basin to 591.0 feet in anticipation of a storm event.
3.5 Validation
An analysis was conducted to evaluate the existing conditions Bee Branch sewer and
major connection pipes for the May 16, 1999 and June 4, 2002 storm events. Both of
these storm events caused extensive flooding and street ponding throughout the City
including the Bee Branch watershed. Analysis of these storms was conducted to
validate the results of the existing conditions model.
During these storm events, no flow monitoring gauges were present along the length
of the Bee Branch sewer. However, the City provided limited information on several
high water marks (HWM) as well as compiling information on complaints and reports
of flooding depths at various locations. The SWMM model representation of these
storms produced similar flooding as was reported. Comparison of results from the
model versus reported flooding is provided in Table 3-4.
The model result flooding depths are representative of reported flooding depths.
High water marks were surveyed in 2003 and were based on either photos or citizens
recollections. Although there appears to be a relatively wide range of difference
between the modeled and observed stages, the elevations generally confirm the model
results. These results are not unreasonable given the potential rainfall variability and
the uncertainty of the limited high water marks.
A 3-10
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3-4: Comparison of Reported Flooding Versus Model Results for Historical
Storms
Flooding Elevations / Depths Event Date Location Source
Reported Modeled Difference
Washington &
24th Street
Surveyed
HWM
609.5 610.3 +0.8 feet
Elm, between
21st and 22nd
Surveyed
HWM
610.4 610.0 -0.4 feet
Jackson,
between 20th
and 28th
Telegraph
Herald, May
18, 1999
5-6 feet deep
“chest deep”
1-4 feet deep 2-4 feet
May 16, 1999
17th and
Railroad
City Staff
Estimate
~1 foot deep 1.1 feet deep +0.1 feet
Elm, between
25th and 26th
Surveyed
HWM
610.8 611.2 +0.4 feet
Washington &
24th Street
Surveyed
HWM
610.8 610.2 -0.6 feet June 4, 2002
Washington &
22nd
City Video 2-4 feet deep 3 feet deep +/- 1 foot
3.6 Existing Conditions Performance
The existing Bee Branch consists of various pipe segments of multiple sizes, shapes
and material. Each of these pipes has a computed design flow based on normal flow
conditions (i.e. the water level is not above the crown of the pipe). The design flows
are based on the size, shape, material and slope of the pipe segments. Assuming that
the West 32nd Street and Carter Road detention basins are fully constructed and
online, the design flows for the Bee Branch sewer south of 25th Street can only convey
between 10 and 50% of the 100-year critical duration storm events. The actual
percentages at various locations are shown in Table 3-5. Based on the Bee Branch
performance, it was determined that the 100-year storm event in the Bee Branch
watershed would be used to design improvements.
3.7 Design Storm and Outlet Condition
The dynamic nature of the relationship between the Mississippi River and the 16th
Street detention basin required a joint probability analysis to determine the
appropriate starting water surface elevations and storm event frequencies for the
Alternatives Analysis.
A 3-11
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3-5: Existing Conditions Bee Branch Sewer Performance
Location Approximate Storm
Sewer Capacity
(cfs)
100-year Existing
Conditions Flow
(cfs)
Capacity
Conveyance
Percentage of 100-
year Flow
25th Street 320 1170 27%
24th/Washington to
24th/Elm
230 1650 14%
22nd Street 540 2730 20%
Rhomberg Avenue 360 3330 11%
Under the Packing
Plant
880 2400 37%
16th Street 1200 2500 48%
Two 100-year level of protection scenarios were evaluated to determine the worst case
situation for design. The first was a 10-year storm in the Bee Branch watershed with a
10%exceedance elevation on the Mississippi River (elevation 597.9 NGVD). The 10%
exceedance elevation is the elevation at which 10% of the time the river level is
equaled or exceeded. The second was the 100-year storm in the Bee Branch watershed
with an average elevation on the Mississippi River (elevation 593.9 NGVD). Based on
hydraulic model results, the 100-year storm in the watershed was the worst case
scenario, and this was used to evaluate alternatives in Section 4.
3.8 Freeboard Criteria
The alternatives discussed in Section 4 were sized to provide freeboard protection to
adjacent structures. Alternatives were sized using the 100-year design storm so that
water surface elevations would be a minimum of 1-foot below existing ground
elevations along the centerline corridor of the alternative. Based on a limited review
of adjacent structures, low water entry points on adjacent structures ranged from 1-
foot to 5-feet above existing ground elevations.
A 3-12
Section 4
Alternative Analysis
4.1 Introduction
Potential flood control solutions for the Bee Branch Watershed were evaluated
through an alternatives analysis process that included stakeholder participation in the
form of a Citizen Advisory Committee and public meetings. City of Dubuque staff
participated in the alternatives analysis by serving on a Technical Support Committee.
The primary objectives of the alternatives analysis for the Citizen Advisory
Committee were to reach a consensus on the following:
• Acceptable alignment for flood control solution between 24th Street and the
16th Street Detention Basin
• Recommended flood control solution
The primary objectives of the alternatives analysis for the Technical Support
Committee were to:
• Identify City technical constraints and limitations with proposed alignment
alternatives
• Answer questions and provide support as required to support the Citizen
Advisory Committee
The following sections describe the decision process utilized to achieve an acceptable
alignment and a recommended flood control solution in a collaborative effort with
citizens and City of Dubuque staff.
4.2 Overview of Coordination
Citizen participation was vital to reach consensus on an acceptable alignment and
recommended solution for the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study.
Sixteen citizens participated in regular meetings with CDM and City staff by serving
on the Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee (BBCAC). A public meeting and
several neighborhood meetings were held during the project, with the Bee Branch
Citizen Advisory Committee members participating in these meetings. City staff also
added insight into City related issues through a Technical Support Committee (TSC).
4.2.1 Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Sixteen City of Dubuque citizens served on the BBCAC. They were chosen based on
their home or business proximity to the Bee Branch mainstem and willingness to
participate in the BBCAC. Prior to the initial BBCAC meeting a set of protocols were
developed to establish a basic guideline and framework for the BBCAC. Included in
Appendix C is a copy of the BBCAC Meeting Protocols and BBCAC membership list.
The BBCAC met six times over the course of the project between September 2003 and
June 2004. Meeting dates, presentations, and newsletters are attached in Appendix D,
A 4-1
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
E and F, respectively. The newsletters summarized each BBCAC meeting and were
distributed to impacted residents throughout the project. BBCAC members were
presented with technical information regarding potential alignments and alternatives,
and then discussed and evaluated options as a group. The BBCAC provided direction
and questions that CDM utilized to refine the possible alignments and alternatives.
The BBCAC developed evaluation criteria that will be discussed in Section 4.3 that
were utilized to evaluate and eliminate various alignments and alternatives.
The BBCAC prepared a recommendation to Council at the conclusion of the project.
The recommendation was not unanimous, but represented the majority opinion of the
BBCAC membership. A minority opinion was also included in the recommendation.
Appendix H includes a copy of the BBCAC Chairman’s letter to the City Council with
the BBCAC recommendations.
Individual BBCAC members also participated in a Public Meeting on March 30, 2004
and a City of Dubuque Council Workshop on May 17, 2004.
4.2.2 Technical Support Committee
The City of Dubuque formed a Technical Support Committee (TSC) to serve as a
resource to CDM and the BBCAC. The TSC met to answer questions of the BBCAC
Chairman and CDM in preparation for BBCAC meetings. The TSC also met
periodically in support of the BBCAC and attended BBCAC meetings as needed. TSC
meetings generally corresponded to the BBCAC meeting schedule. BBCAC members
were welcome to attend these meetings and were encouraged to contact any of these
representatives with questions or need for additional information.
4.3 Evaluation Criteria
The BBCAC formulated evaluation criteria to rank alignments and alternatives for the
project. The evaluation criteria included prioritization of seven evaluation criteria
selected by the BBCAC. The priority of each evaluation criteria was reflected in a
weighting factor assigned to each evaluation criteria. The final BBCAC Evaluation
Criteria are included in Table 4-1.
The top three priorities chosen by the BBCAC to evaluate alignments and alternatives,
in order of importance, were to preserve commercial / noncommercial services,
minimize residential property acquisitions, and minimize cost (see Table 4-1). The
scale for each evaluation criteria is also described in Table 4-1. The scales were
typically between 1 and 10, with a higher value indicating a less desirable condition.
The scales were in some cases prorated based on the highest value in an evaluation
criteria category. For example, if the largest number of commercial properties lost
was 16, and this was assigned a value of 10, while a different alignment / alternative
with only 9 commercial properties lost was given a value of 5.6 (9/16 * 10).
The weight factor for each evaluation criteria is listed in Table 4-1. The weight factor
reflects the ranking for each evaluation criteria, and was multiplied times the scale
A 4-2
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
A 4-3
value to determine the score for each category. Scores were tallied for all seven
evaluation criteria, with the “best” alignment or alternative being the one with the
lowest overall score. The overall scores were used to rank the potential alignments in
Section 4.4 and in Section 4.5 to rank the final alternatives.
Ta
b
l
e
4
-
1
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
on
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
P
e
r
f
o
r
ma
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
S
c
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
W
e
i
g
h
t
s
BB
C
A
C
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
4
M
a
r
c
h
1
1
,
2
0
0
4
Ra
nk
Eval
u
a
tion
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
Pe
r
f
o
rmance
M
e
a
s
u
re
Sc
a
l
e
Weight
1
Preserve
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
no
n
c
om
m
e
r
c
i
al
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
n
o
n
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
e
rv
i
c
e
s
l
o
s
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
b
u
s
in
e
ss
re
l
o
c
ati
o
n
As
s
u
m
e
t
h
a
t
o
r
de
r
o
f
m
a
g
n
it
u
de
n
u
m
be
r
o
f
s
erv
i
c
e
s
p
ote
n
t
i
all
y
l
o
s
t
a
r
e
1
0
.
U
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
l
o
s
t
a
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
(
m
a
y
n
e
e
d
t
o
a
dju
s
t
a
f
t
e
r
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
ost
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
id
e
nti
f
i
e
d
)
.
1
0
or
m
o
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
es
l
o
s
t
would
s
til
l
b
e
1
0 p
o
in
t
s
.
On
c
e
t
h
e
a
l
i
gnments
w
ere
s
e
l
ect
e
d
–
a
l
l
t
he
al
i
g
nments
b
u
t
o
n
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
0
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
r
op
e
r
t
i
es
.
T
hu
s
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
s
w
ere
p
r
or
a
t
e
d,
w
ith
t
h
e
w
ors
t
a
l
i
g
nm
e
n
t
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
16
c
o
mm
e
r
c
ial
pr
o
p
er
t
i
e
s
(
1
0
po
i
nt
s
)
a
n
d
l
esser
t
o
t
a
l
s
s
u
c
h
as
9
c
o
mm
e
r
c
i
al
p
r
o
perties
re
c
e
i
v
i
ng
5
.
6
poin
t
s
[
(
9
/
1
6
)
*
10].
2.4
2
Minimize
re
s
i
d
en
t
i
a
l
pr
o
p
er
t
y
ac
q
u
is
i
t
i
o
ns
Nu
m
b
er
o
f
p
r
o
pe
r
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
mu
s
t
b
e
a
c
q
u
ir
ed
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
n
umbe
r
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
enti
a
l
p
r
op
e
r
t
y a
cqu
i
si
t
i
on
s
t
o
a
li
g
n
m
en
t
with
h
igh
est number.
Thu
s
i
f
th
e
worst
a
l
i
g
n
m
en
t
t
a
k
e
s
6
4
r
e
s
i
de
nces
(
1
0
p
o
in
t
s
)
, t
h
e
n
a
n
a
l
ig
n
ment affecting
60
r
e
s
i
de
n
c
es
woul
d
r
e
c
e
iv
e
a
p
o
i
nt
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
(
6
0
/
6
4
)
*1
0
=
9
.
4
.
2.1
3
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e c
o
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
jec
t
c
o
s
t
Es
ta
b
l
i
s
h
r
a
n
g
es
b
a
s
e
d o
n
h
ow c
los
e
t
o
C
i
t
y
’
s
budge
t
o
f
$
17
M
.
$
1
7
M
o
r
le
s
s
=
0; 0-10%
mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
$
17M (
$
1
8
.
7
M
)
=
1
;
1
1
-
2
0
%
m
o
r
e t
h
a
n
$
1
7M
(
$
2
0.4
M
)
=
2
;
4
1
-
5
0
%
(
$
2
5.5M)
= 5
;
9
1
-
1
0
0
%
(
$3
4
M
)
=
1
0
.
On
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
w
ere
f
i
n
a
l
ized,
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
a
li
g
nment
w
as
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0%
(
$
34
M) so points
were
p
r
o
-
r
a
t
e
d
to
t
h
e
h
i
g
he
r
c
ost
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
(
$
42
M
)
.
1.8
4
Preserve
ne
i
gh
b
or
h
oo
d
ac
c
e
s
s
/
co
n
n
ec
t
i
v
i
t
y
Nu
m
b
er
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
b
y t
he
p
r
o
jec
t
Co
u
nt
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
er
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
cu
t
o
f
f
o
r
l
o
s
t
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
h
a
t
n
u
m
ber; which
me
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
o
bstr
u
c
t
i
n
g
1
0
o
r
mo
r
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
g
ets
s
a
m
e
s
c
o
r
e
1.4
5
Minimize he
al
t
h
an
d
s
a
f
e
t
y r
i
s
k
Nu
m
b
er
o
f
s
a
f
e
t
y i
s
s
ue
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
Ch
a
r
ac
t
e
r
i
z
e
h
ea
l
t
h
a
nd
s
a
f
e
t
y i
m
p
act
s
t
h
r
o
u
gh
s
e
v
e
r
al
i
n
di
vi
d
u
al
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a:
p
e
s
t
p
o
t
e
ntial
(r
o
d
e
nt
s
/
b
u
g
s
/
vir
u
s
e
s
)
=
2 p
t
s
,
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
u
i
s
an
c
e
(
will
i
t
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
c
h
i
l
d
r
en
)
=
2 p
t
s
,
d
a
n
g
er
(d
e
e
p
wate
r
,
h
i
gh
v
e
l
oci
t
y,
s
t
e
ep
d
r
o
ps)
=
6 p
t
s
.
1.4
6
Enhanc
e
qua
l
ity
of
l
i
f
e
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e sc
o
r
e
o
f
w
het
h
e
r
al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
a
dds v
a
l
u
e
o
r
lo
wers
v
alu
e
o
f
t
h
e
ne
i
gh
b
or
h
oo
d
Sc
a
l
e
o
f
0
t
o
1
0;
with 0
b
e
i
ng
go
o
d
a
n
d
1
0
b
ein
g
b
a
d.
This
will
b
e
a
q
u
al
i
t
at
i
v
e
a
n
d
so
m
e
what
a
r
b
i
t
rar
y j
udgme
n
t
ba
s
e
d o
n
t
h
e
rela
t
i
v
e q
u
al
i
t
y of
l
i
f
e
e
n
h
an
c
ement between
al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
s
1.3
7
Protect
en
v
i
r
on
m
e
nt
Go
o
d
o
r
b
a
d
i
mpa
c
t
s
t
o
a
nu
m
b
er
o
f
e
n
v
i
ron
m
e
nta
l
pa
r
a
m
et
e
r
s
Ch
a
r
ac
t
e
r
i
z
e
e
nvi
r
o
nm
e
n
t
a
l i
mpa
c
t
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
10
i
n
di
v
i
du
al
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
:
a
i
r
,
water,
s
o
i
l
,
gr
o
u
nd
water,
f
l
o
r
a
,
f
a
u
n
a
,
n
oise,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l/c
ul
t
u
r
a
l,
s
o
c
i
a
l
,
en
v
i
r
on
m
e
nta
l
j
ustice. Each
cr
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
i
s
as
s
ess
e
d
a
s
a
1
o
r 0
.
0
i
f
n
o
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
nt
a
d
v
e
r
s
e i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
1
i
f
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
ant
im
p
a
c
t
s
a
r
e
p
erce
i
v
e
d.
A
n
e
n
ha
n
c
em
e
n
t
c
o
ul
d
b
e g
i
v
en
a
-1
.
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
en
d
angered
sp
e
c
i
es
will n
o
t
b
e
s
c
o
r
e
d
b
ut
w
ill
“
k
i
ll
”
t
h
e
p
r
oj
e
c
t
,
u
n
l
es
s
a
cc
e
p
t
a
b
le
m
i
t
i
g
ation is
po
s
s
i
bl
e
.
1.0
Weig
h
t
s
a
r
e
b
ased
v
o
t
i
n
g e
xer
ci
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
D
e
c
2
0
0
3
B
B
C
A
C m
e
e
t
i
n
g
an
d
s
c
a
l
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
ed
o
n
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
io
n
at
J
a
n
2
9
,
2
0
04 B
B
C
A
C
m
e
e
t
in
g.
4-
4
A
4.4 Alignment Development & Evaluation
Three potential alternative alignments were developed by the BBCAC at its January
29, 2004 meeting and were then refined by CDM to simplify road crossings, avoid
pertinent businesses or utilities, and maintain the integrity of the Packing Plant site.
CDM also developed two additional alignments that were hybrids of the alignments
developed by the BBCAC. The five preliminary alignments are included in Appendix
G.
A subset of the Evaluation Criteria discussed in Section 4.3 was utilized to rank five
preliminary alignments developed by the BBCAC and CDM. The five alignments
were evaluated for a uniform 180-foot corridor for three of the top four Evaluation
Criteria: 1) preserve commercial/noncommercial services, 2) minimize residential
property acquisitions, and 3) minimize cost. The remaining criteria were not utilized
in evaluating the alignments because they were directly related to the characteristics
of an alternative, as opposed to an alignment. The initial alignment ranking is
included in Appendix G.
The best alignment from the preliminary evaluation was Alignment 4 (Hybrid 1).
Alignment 4 began at 24th and Elm Street and proceeded along the centerline of Elm
Street from 24th Street to 22nd Street. Alignment 4 continued north of Kniest Street
from 22nd Street to Garfield, and then proceeded southeasterly across the railroad
tracks. South of the railroad tracks Alignment 4 was parallel to Pine Street to 16th
Street. The alignment then proceeded southeasterly to the 16th Street Detention Basin
(Appendix G). This alignment continued forward as the recommended alignment for
evaluation of alternatives.
4.5 Alternative Development & Evaluation
CDM discussed and evaluated the full range of potential solutions through a
screening process with the BBCAC. Some solutions were not feasible, while others
could be a component of an overall solution. The screening process narrowed the list
of solutions down to two options: 1) open waterway or open channel, and 2) a
combination of a buried pipe and open channel. Alternatives were developed for
each solution and then evaluated against the Evaluation Criteria.
4.5.1 Open Channel Alternative
The Open Channel alternative was an open channel from 24th Street to the 16th Street
Detention Basin along the recommended alignment [Alignment 4 (Hybrid 1)-
Appendix G]. The Open Channel cross section was sized using the SWMM model
and design storm event.
The Open Channel consists of a compound section described using the diagram
shown as Figure 4-1. The compound trapezoidal section has four main parts: low flow
channel, flood channel bottom, flood channel side-slope, and maintenance corridor or
overbank area.
A 4-5
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
Project Corridor
Channel Limits
Flood Channel Bottom Flood Channel
Overbank Side Slope
Low Flow Channel
Overbank
Open Channel Schematic
Figure 4-1
The low flow channel (LFC) is generally described as the narrow channel in the base
of the flood channel bottom which contains the normal base flow and up to a 0.5-yr
runoff event. For alternative analysis, the LFC was assumed to be a maximum width
of 25-ft for the worst case. The flood channel side-slopes were assumed to be 4 (H):1
(V) based on the stability of the soils encountered in geotechnical investigation
included in Appendix N. Side-slope stability is further discussed in Section 5.7.1.2.
Flood channel bottom and side-slope width varied based on the total channel depth.
The total open channel width assumed during the alternatives analysis was 150-ft. In
addition to the channel, an additional 15-ft was added on each side of the channel to
provide a maintenance corridor and buffer to abutting property making the total
channel width 180-ft. Figure 4-2 presents the general cross section used for the
alternative analysis of the open channel alternative.
Open Channel Alternative Cross Section
Figure 4-2
Issues related to the Open Channel include traffic access for the neighborhood and
Audubon School, safety, and channel aesthetics. Four bridges were required for this
alternative to maintain traffic access and connectivity in the neighborhood, while an
additional one-way road between Lincoln Avenue and Rhomberg Avenue was
included in the Open Channel alternative for Audubon School traffic. Section 5.4 and
5.5 provide additional discussion on the impact and decision process for street access
and connectivity. A smaller low flow channel within the flood channel was defined in
the Open Channel cross section to contain the base flows.
A 4-6
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
4.5.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis
4.5.1.1.1 Model Representation
The Existing Conditions hydraulic model was modified to incorporate the open
channel and its drainage components. The Open Channel hydraulic model consists of
the new open channel segments along the alignment corridor, concrete arch culverts
for structure crossings and adjusted storm sewer outfalls from various drainage
basins.
As described above, the open channel model section comprises a LFC and flood
channel bottom. The side-slopes from the flood channel bottom to the existing
ground surface were set as 4 (H) to 1 (V). The channel was assumed to have grassy,
maintained side slopes and channel bottom with low-flow channel consisting of
concrete articulated matting in the base and cut quarry stone banks. A typical
channel section is shown above in Figure 4-2. The low flow channel is 4-feet deep
below the flood channel bottom, and the overall flood channel ranges from 12 to 16-
feet deep.
The LFC is 15-feet wide upstream of the railroad and 25-feet wide downstream of the
railroad tracks. The total project corridor is typically 180-feet wide (including
maintenance access).
A new concrete arch pipe connects the existing Bee Branch sewer to the open channel
near the intersection of 24th and Washington Streets and extends to 24th and Elm
Street. There were also four concrete arch culverts that were used to maintain the
street crossing at 22nd St, Rhomberg, and 16th St as well as the railway located near
Garfield.
Several major storm sewer outfalls were adjusted in the model to correspond with the
new open channel alignment. The adjustments included changing locations and
lengths of major storm sewers and outfalls to deliver flows directly to the channel at
the following locations: 24th St., 22nd St., Lincoln, 19th and the railroad, 17th St. and 15th
St. Smaller, more local storm sewers were not modeled explicitly, but the hydrograph
loading points were assumed to correspond to the open channel alignment.
4.5.1.1.2 Design Condition Results
The results for the Open Channel alternative are provided in Table 4-2. This table
presents the proposed invert elevations, design water elevations, and design flows at
selected locations along the project length. The design storm results indicated that for
all but one location the freeboard criteria are met for the modeled Open Channel
alternative. The one location with less than 1-foot of freeboard between the design
storm water surface profile and existing ground (22nd and Elm) will be modified in
final design to maintain 1-foot of freeboard criteria. Average channel depths for the
modeled 2-yr and 10-yr runoff event ranged from 5 to 5ft and 6-8 ft respectively.
A 4-7
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
Modeled Open Channel velocities for the design storm typically ranged from 3 to 4
ft/s upstream of the railroad crossing and 3 to 5 ft/s downstream of the railroad to
the 16th Street Detention basin, excluding the structure crossings. At the structure
crossings the velocities typically ranged from 5.5 to 8 ft/s as the open channel
transitions through the structures.
4.5.2 Pipe Alternative
The Pipe alternative was assumed to be a pipe from 24th Street to the railroad tracks,
and then an open channel from the railroad tracks to the 16th Street Detention Basin
along the recommended alignment (Alignment 4 (Hybrid 1)- Appendix G). The Pipe
cross section and open channel cross section were sized using the SWMM model and
design storm event.
The pipe alternative consisted of a dual culvert placed side by side to maintain as
narrow a project corridor as possible. Other pipe alternatives were previously
studied during the DBMP but were considerably more expensive than this alternative.
The open channel portion of this alternative was the same as previously discussed in
Section 4.5.1 Open Channel Alternative and shown in Figure 4-2.
Sizing of the culverts for the pipe alternative indicated that the use of dual culverts
approximately 36-ft to 42-ft wide would be required. Construction of the pipe
alternative requires temporary construction slopes suitable to support the existing
ground surface that result in a total project corridor of 150-ft. Figure 4-3 presents the
general cross section used for the alternative analysis of the pipe alternative.
Pipe Alternative Cross Section
Figure 4-3
Issues related to the Pipe alternative include maintenance of traffic access to the
neighborhood, safety, and costs. Major road crossings over the Pipe portion from 24th
Street to the railroad tracks would be maintained once the Pipe was in place. One
bridge was required in the open channel portion across 16th Street to maintain traffic
access and connectivity.
A 4-8
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
4.5.2.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis
4.5.2.1.1 Model Representation
The Existing Conditions hydraulic model was modified to incorporate the pipe from
24th Street to the railroad and the open channel from the railroad to the 16th Street
detention basin and its drainage components. The pipe portion of the hydraulic
model consisted of double concrete arch pipes. The open channel portion of the
hydraulic model consisted of the new open channel as previously discussed in Section
4.5.1. The alternative also included concrete arch culverts for the structure crossings
and adjusted storm sewer outfalls from various drainage basins.
The pipes consists of side by side concrete arch pipes with sizes increasing as the
sewer continues downstream. These arch pipes have a concrete bottom and were
assumed to have adequate flow equalization, in order to balance flow between the
two pipes. The open channel model section comprised a LFC and flood channel
bottom. The side-slopes from the flood channel bottom to the existing ground surface
were set as 4 (H) to 1 (V). The channel was assumed to have grassy, maintained side
slopes and channel bottom with low-flow channel consisting of concrete articulated
matting in the base and uneven rock banks. A typical channel section was shown
above as Figure 4-2 and is essentially the same as the presented in the open channel
alternative.
The LFC is 25-feet wide with a total project corridor typically 180-feet wide (including
maintenance access).
A new concrete arch pipe connects the existing Bee Branch to the double arch pipes
near the intersection of 24th and Washington Streets and extends to 24th and Elm
Streets. There was also a concrete arch culvert that was used to maintain the roadway
at 16th St.
Several major storm sewer outfalls were adjusted in the model to correspond with the
new closed pipe and open channel alignment. The adjustments included changing
locations and lengths of major storm sewers and outfalls to deliver flows directly to
the pipe or channel at the following locations: 24th St., 22nd St., Lincoln, 19th and the
railroad, 17th St. and 15th St. Smaller, more local storm sewers were not modeled
explicitly, but the hydrograph loading points were assumed to correspond to the open
channel alignment.
4.5.2.1.2 Design Condition Results
The results for the combination closed pipe and open channel alternative are also
provided in Table 4-2. The design storm results indicate that the freeboard criteria are
met for the modeled Pipe alternative. Modeled Pipe alternative velocities for the
design storm typically ranged from 3 to 8 ft/s within the pipe and 3 to 5 ft/s
A 4-9
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
downstream of the railroad to the 16th Street Detention basin in the open channel,
excluding the structure crossings.
Table 4-2: Summary of Alternative Water Surface Elevations and Flows
100-year 2-hour storm and Mississippi River at 593.4 feet
Open Channel Enclosed Pipe / Open Channel
Location
Existing
Ground
Surface Invert
Maximum
Water
Surface
Maximum
Flow
(cfs) Invert
Maximum
Water
Surface
Maximum
Flow
(cfs)
24th and Washington 607.0 596.75 606.19 1190 596.75 602.94 1160
24th and Elm 607.0 592.45 605.72 1220 592.45 602.90 1430
22nd and Elm 606.0 591.97 605.67 2410 591.97 602.76 2360
Rhomberg and Kniest 606.0 591.51 604.64 2480 591.51 602.29 2610
Garfield and Kniest 606.0 591.30 603.64 2500 591.30 602.06 2680
Packing Plant,
downstream side of
railroad
607.0 591.10 602.70 2500 591.10 601.19 2510
17th and the railroad 604.0 590.86 602.51 3070 590.86 601.05 3070
15th and Sycamore 604.0 590.47 598.78 3110 590.45 596.88 3070
16th Detention Basin 602.0 590.00 596.61 3120 590.00 596.52 3100
4.6 Final Recommendation
The Evaluation Criteria were utilized to rank the two alternatives along the
recommended alignment. Two alternatives were ranked: an Open Channel from 24th
Street to the 16th Street Detention Basin; and a combination of an enclosed Pipe from
24th Street to the railroad tracks, and an open channel from the railroad tracks to the
16th Street Detention Basin. The two alternatives were evaluated for all seven of the
Evaluation Criteria. The alternative ranking is included in Appendix G.
Using the criteria established by the BBCAC, the alternative evaluation scores were
nearly identical, indicating that both alternatives achieved the overall Evaluation
Criteria in a similar manner. Nonetheless, significant differences exist by individual
evaluation criteria. For example, the Pipe Alternative is much more expensive than
the Open Channel Alternative ($41 million compared to $25 million, respectively).
However, the BBCAC perceived the Pipe Alternative as being much safer than the
Open Channel Alternative which offset the high cost. Because the alternative
evaluation scores were so similar the evaluation did not provide definitive results that
could be used by the BBCAC in its decision process. Rather the final alternative
selection and recommendation by the BBCAC was determined through a vote of the
Committee.
A 4-10
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
Include as Appendix H, is the final recommendation letter as submitted by the
BBCAC Chairmen to the City Council. The following is a summary of the major
recommendations.
4.6.1 Preferred Alignment Recommendation
The preferred channel alignment for the proposed improvements was based upon the
BBCAC’s final alignment recommendation and was used for preliminary design of
the channel alternative. CDM and City staff investigated an alternative alignment
south of the RR crossing around the north and east of the Packing Plant site, but
found this alignment to be less advantageous due to several factors including known
and unknown potential environmental liability associated with the property.
The preferred alignment shown in Figure 5-1, starts just north of the intersection of
24th Street and Elm Street and proceeds southeasterly along Elm Street to 22nd Street,
where the alignment runs parallel to and on the north side of Kniest Street. The
alignment continues southeasterly until it crosses the IC&E railroad. Downstream of
the railroad, the alignment proceeds south, parallel to and on Pine Street along the
west side of the Packing Plant until it crosses 16th Street. The alignment then runs
diagonally towards 15th and Sycamore Street until it eventually outfalls to the 16th
Street Detention Basin.
4.6.2 Channel Alternative Recommendation
The BBCAC’s final recommendation was for the Pipe Alternative which is comprised
of an enclosed pipe from 24th Street to the railroad, and an open channel from the
railroad to the 16th Street Detention Basin. A minority recommendation was also made
to the Council for the Open Channel Alternative. The alternatives analysis showed
that the open channel and pipe alternatives were essentially equal using the
evaluation criteria. However, because of the large difference in cost, City staff directed
CDM to prepare preliminary engineering plans for the Open Channel Alternative.
The final decision on solving the Bee Branch flooding problems will be made by the
Council.
A 4-11
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.1 Introduction
The preliminary design development for the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment study
was preformed for the open waterway design concept. Preliminary design of the open
channel waterway was conducted based on direction received from the City and
intent of the request for proposal (RFP) which authorized the study. This section is
divided into eight (8) main subsections. These subsections are intended to describe
each of the general elements of the open channel and the evaluation that went into
preliminary design evaluation and include: Channel Alignment, Open Channel
Concept, Streets and Roadway, Structures, Utilities, Geotechnical/ Environmental,
other Considerations, and Preliminary Cost Estimate.
Preliminary design plans are included in Appendix I through M. Appendix I provides
a sheet index and legend for information purposes when reviewing the other plan
sheets.
5.2 Channel Alignment
The preferred channel alignment for preliminary design was based upon the
BBCAC’s final alignment recommendation. CDM and City staff investigated an
alternative alignment south of the RR crossing around the north and east of the
Packing Plant site at the request of the City / Council but found this alignment to be
less advantageous due to several factors including known and unknown potential
environmental liability associated with the property.
The proposed alignment is shown on Figure 5-1 and starts just north of the
intersection of 24th Street and Elm Street and proceeds southeasterly along Elm Street
to 22nd Street, where the alignment runs parallel to and on the north side of Kniest
Street. The alignment continues southeasterly until it crosses the IC&E railroad.
Downstream of the railroad, the alignment proceeds south, parallel to and on Pine
Street along the west side of the Packing Plant until it crosses 16th Street. The
proposed alignment then runs diagonally towards 15th and Sycamore Street until it
eventually outfalls to the 16th Street Detention Basin.
Preliminary design plan and profiles were developed from this alignment and are
included in Appendix K. Appendix I provides a sheet index and legend for
information purposes when reviewing these plan sheets.
A 5-1
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.3 Open Channel Concept
The open channel design concept was developed to serve a flood control component
as well as provide lasting value to the community. The concept was developed to
achieve the following objectives:
• Be cost effective and consistent with the City’s budget and financial
constraints
• Minimize long term maintenance
• Preserve the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historical and natural resources
of the area
• Be viewed as an attractive asset and add lasting value to the community
The goal of the preliminary design of the open channel was to establish some basic
criteria and sizing that will be refined in the future during final design with
additional input and feedback from both City staff and citizens.
Sizing of the open channel was determined during the alternatives analysis phase of
the project and used to develop typical sections during preliminary design, provided
in Appendix J for each of the major segments of the project which define the total
width and project corridor. These sections were then used to define the project
corridor on the Preliminary Plan and Profile drawings included in Appendix K.
Beyond the need for the channel to be able to serve its intended purpose of flood
control, the channel also needs to be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with local
neighborhood needs. Included as Figure 5-2, is a graphic rendering which represents
a potential visualization of the open channel solution in the setting of the North End
area. The graphic is intended to show how the proposed open channel could look
with the amenities described herein and included in the estimate of probable cost to
produce a project that is viewed as an asset to the local neighborhood and the City of
Dubuque.
The rendering presents a visualization of the open channel set within the urban
neighborhood and is shown with naturally vegetated edges containing a mixture of
tall and short grasses. The bridge in the background is intended to reflect a rustic
stone appearance similar in pattern and color to local limestone outcroppings. Accent
lighting would be used on the bridge and adjacent walking paths in an effort to
developing an attractive and inviting corridor. Landscaping would also be designed
to reflect vegetation common to the area, yet compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood environment.
Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3 describe in more detail the major elements of the Open
channel typical section.
A 5-3
A
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY OPEN CHANNEL CONCEPT
DAT
E: S
E
PT. 2004FIGURE No. 5-2
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.3.1 Low Flow Channel
The low flow channel (LFC) is defined as the narrow area in the flood channel bottom
that contains the normal, dry weather flow from the Bee Branch watershed. As with a
natural stream bank, the LFC is intended to appear similar to a natural stream while
also being sensitive to the long term stability, availability of local materials for
construction, and economics of the project. Preliminary design of the low flow
channel incorporates a meandering low flow channel within the bottom of the flood
channel and the varying width characteristics of a natural stream.
For analysis purposes, the LFC has been preliminarily designed with a 25-ft wide
channel from the 16th Street Detention basin to the railroad and a 15-ft wide channel
from railroad to 24th Street with a relatively constant depth of 4-ft to adequately
maintain normal, dry weather flow. During final design and construction, these
dimensions will be further analyzed to refine the minimum dimensional requirements
and optimize the performance and characteristics of the channel. The intent is to not
create a uniform LFC channel section but to define constraints that will allow the LFC
to be varied as to provide randomness along its length.
Long term stability of the LFC was a significant consideration during preliminary
design. Materials that were considered for the construction of the LFC were concrete,
rip-rap, cut quarry stone, concrete articulated matting, gabions, revetments, and fabric
encapsulated soil lifts. After weighing the long term stability, availability of local
materials for construction, and preference of the BBCAC, it was determined that the
cut quarry stone with an articulated concrete matting base provided the most
economical mix of materials and aesthetics. The quarry stone would provide bank
stability similar to that of concrete but would be more natural in appearance. Use of
the concrete articulated matting for the base of the LFC was preferred as it is
economical and aesthetically equal to rip-rap or concrete. The LFC bottom will be
completely under water for normal conditions and will not be widely visible. In the
event of sediment build up, the concrete articulated matting also provides a smooth
bottom to minimize maintenance costs and ease the removal of sediment.
Final design of the concrete articulated matting will incorporate final hydraulic
modeling, future maintenance, and long term stability of the channel bottom. A
typical LFC cross section is provided as Figure 5-3. The edge of the low flow channel
is formed with cut limestone from a local quarry and placed along the bank,
extending 1 to 3 feet above the normal water elevation. The bottom of the low flow
channel would consist of a layer articulated concrete matting (precast, interlocking
concrete blocks) over a sub-base of crushed aggregate base course as a foundation
leveling pad for the matting. The articulated concrete matting is constructed using
precast concrete blocks which are cabled together and a similar product was used
during the construction of the Carter Road detention basin in Dubuque.
A 5-5
Section 5
Preliminary Design
Normal WS
Depth Varies
Crushed Aggregate
Base Course
Quarry Stone
Limestone
Topsoil
Concrete
Articulated Matting
Natural
Vegetation
Low Flow Channel Schematic
Figure 5-3
Concrete articulated matting is available in
both closed cell and open cell block styles
depending the design requirements and
constraints. Open cell blocks have holes in the
middle of each block for soil and gravel to
encourage vegetation and infiltration while
the closed cell blocks are solid concrete
throughout. Closed cell blocks are preferred if
limited vegetation opportunities are available.
The base of the LFC for the Bee Branch will
always be under water so vegetating the
concrete articulated matting for this particular
application will not be feasible. For the
bottom of the LFC for the Bee Branch a closed cell block, anchored to the base of the
channel, is considered the most appropriate product along the length of the channel.
The void areas between the blocks would be filled with a graded stone to produce a
fairly smooth and uniform surface for maintenance of flow and task of sediment
removal.
Example of Concrete Articulated Matting-
Carter Road Detention Basin
5.3.2 Channel Treatment
The open channel design analysis assumed that the vast majority of the channel
would be covered with natural vegetation based on the modeled flow velocities. High
energy areas which normally occur adjacent to the structures or storm sewer outlets
may include the same natural vegetation but will also need to be adequately
reinforced with a selected armoring to protect these areas from potential scour or
erosion.
Discussions with the BBCAC and City have indicated that the well kept channel is
most desirable. To accomplish this, the selected vegetation within the channel will
need to be composed off a variety of species including combinations of short and tall
vegetation which would be relatively self sustaining so that besides prescribed
A 5-6
Section 5
Preliminary Design
mowing and other invasion species control measures, the channel would not require
extensive maintenance activities. Turf-grass would be used in the short vegetation
areas along the channel while the taller vegetation would consist of very select and
specific species meant to accent and stabilize the channel.
Within the channel, the planting of woody species is discouraged based on two
factors. The first factor being that woody species not kept in control can affect the
hydraulics of the channel corridor. Secondly, controlling woody species can be more
maintenance intensive given the need to keep these areas confined and have a
tendency to catch more debris that is washed in during runoff events requiring
maintenance to clean up.
Armoring around high energy areas such as structures or storm sewer outlets was
assumed to be either riprap or concrete articulated matting. Rip-rap would be used in
areas such as storm sewer outfalls were it would not be conducive to plant natural
vegetation. On the upstream and downstream channel section adjacent to structure
crossing, channel armoring similar to concrete articulated matting or revetments
would be anticipated to prevent potential scour and erosion. These two types of
armoring with appropriate design considerations will allow for the incorporation of
natural vegetation to mask the underlying armament.
Formal development of a landscaping plan for the entire corridor will be necessary
during final design, but the preliminary design assumed that a mixture of well kept
turf grass, select prairie and ornamental grasses in localized areas, and wild flowers
would best fit the channel with the local surroundings.
Selection of the appropriate seed mixes will occur during final design once additional
feedback can be sought from project stakeholders. The estimate of probable cost
assumed that planting and armoring within the channel would be with a combination
of seed species and armoring devices that have been used in similar channel
applications.
5.3.3 Over-Bank Areas
The over-bank areas outside of the channel will be available for multiple uses. These
areas are intended to provide adequate space to access any portion of the channel for
maintenance or public safety purposes. Opportunities also exist in these areas for site
specific landscaping and recreation.
One of these opportunities is the Heritage Trail which presently is located on Kniest
Street from Garfield Avenue to 22nd Street and then proceeds on a dedicated asphalt
trail from 22nd Street to 24th Street. Construction of the Bee Branch will require
relocation of these portions of the Heritage Trail. Retaining and enhancing the trail
through the Bee Branch corridor is an important component of the open channel
solution. A proposed trail replacement and enhancement is included in the current
project with an asphalt trail running from 24th Street to Garfield Avenue on the
A 5-7
Section 5
Preliminary Design
northeast side of the channel and shown on drawings ML-1 to ML-8, in Appendix K.
Included with the preliminary trail concept (but not shown on the plans) are
groupings of benches and accent lights similar to other portions of the Heritage Trail.
The final placement and configuration of these benches and light will be a component
of the final design. An allowance has been included in the estimate of probable cost
for these items.
Landscaping in the over bank areas will consist primarily of three items: turf grass
areas, trees, and planters. Trees in the over bank area would consist of groupings of
medium to high canopy trees (examples could be ash, maple, birch) and selected
shrubs. These plantings will be of a type and scales normally associated with
residential environments and enable the channel corridor to blend into the
neighborhood. Placed largely outside of the channel, the trees would be used to
accent the banks, trail, and green space between the channel and surrounding
properties.
Other opportunities exist near street crossings where planters using ornamental
grasses, flowers and shrubs could be used to accent the structures at these locations.
These planters can be designed to streetscape the area and provide opportunities for
the local public to maintain these areas with the assistance of the City.
Development of a landscaping plan that addresses City and neighborhood desires
will be necessary during final design of the project. The preliminary design assumed
typical tree spacing ranging from 50-75 linear feet along the corridor with greater
densities north of the RR and planters at each of the corner of each crossing.
The final landscaping plan for the corridor may present additional opportunities for
enhancements including additional trail within the lower portion of the project,
increasing the amount of streetscaping and other landscaping, and park opportunities
in areas were additional real estate is available.
5.4 Streets and Roadways
Existing streets and roadways within the project corridor will be extensively impacted
by the proposed project. Preliminary design include the analysis of these impacts
which primarily focused on which streets were maintained versus abandoned as part
of the project. Street crossings along the alignments were reviewed to determine the
appropriateness to maintain existing crossings. This review included the potential
traffic impact, alternative routes, and connectivity of the neighborhood.
The conclusion of this review was that several existing street crossings could be closed
without severely impacting the flow pattern and connectivity of the neighborhood.
A total of seven (7) streets are intended to be closed/abandoned as part of this project
and include: Elm Street (between 22nd and 24th), Lincoln Avenue (north of Kniest St),
Garfield Avenue (north of Kniest St.), Pine Street (between 16th St and 20th Street),
Maple Street (between 15th and 16th Street), Cedar Street (between 15th and 16th Street),
A 5-8
Section 5
Preliminary Design
and 15th St (east of Sycamore Street). Six (6) other streets that are impacted by the
project are to be maintained and reconstructed as part of the project. Included as
Figure 5-4, is an overview of intended streets to be reconstructed as part of the project.
Street crossings to be maintained with structures across the channel are further
discussed in Section 5.5 Crossing Structures.
During the review of the street closures, significant concerns were raised with the
closures of Lincoln Street and Garfield Street. A preliminary traffic analysis of
Garfield Avenue found that there was not a substantial traffic volume and that peak
volumes in the morning would not overload the adjacent street network. Based on the
total traffic volume on Lincoln Avenue, the impact of closing this street was not
considered to have a significant impact. Lincoln Avenue however serves vehicles
dropping off students at Audubon school as well as local delivery vehicles.
Sighting this concern a meeting was held between the Consultant team, City staff, and
school officials to discuss the potential impact to Lincoln Avenue. After meeting and
discussing the issue with the BBCAC the decision was made that a new one-way
roadway could be included from Lincoln Avenue to Rhomberg Avenue on the north
side of the channel to accommodate the closing of Lincoln Avenue. This decision was
made after weighing additional property acquisition and a cost comparison was made
to construct a vehicular bridge crossing of the channel or construct a connecting
roadway from Lincoln Avenue to either 22nd Street or Rhomberg. The addition of this
one lane roadway with parking will maintain traffic flow past the school in one
direction and allow its continued use as a drop off point for the school.
Sycamore Street was also considered for closure during the initial analysis of
alignments by the BBCAC but after further review by the City was decided to be
maintained in order to provide a suitable street crossing east of the railroad. Kniest
Street has been designated to be reconstructed given it present pavement condition
and likely further deterioration during the construction of the open channel. During
the alternative analysis period, it was also decided that the total amount of property
acquisition for the new channel could be reduced if Kniest Street was converted into a
one-way thoroughfare with parking. Preliminary design of Kniest Street includes
reconstruction as a one-way street with parking provided on the west side of the
street for the local residents.
Included in Appendix L are preliminary plans S-1 to S-12 which detail the street
removal and reconstruction limits.
A 5-9
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.5 Crossing Structures
The open channel solution will contain five (5) major crossing structures (Sycamore
Street, 16th Street, IC&E Railroad, Rhomberg, 22nd Street) and two (2) other substantial
headwalls (24th Street, and south of IC&E Railroad) where the open channel will
intersect the existing Bee Branch sewer. Figure 5-5 presents the location of these
crossing structures as currently included in the preliminary design. As discussed in
Section 5.4, the street crossings to be maintained were determined after a review of all
of the streets that were impacted by the channel alignment.
Preliminary design of structures was limited to the conceptual design concept and
determination of the flow area required for each of the structures. Numerous options
exist for the construction of the structures for this project including box culverts,
precast arch, or deck and girder style bridges. Based on the total span widths required
for the structure and roadway clearance from the preliminary channel invert to
existing roadway grades, it was determined that cast-in-place box culvert or precast
arches would provide the most economical structures for this application. For the Bee
Branch, a precast arch structure with cast-in-place wing-walls and headwalls were
used for design and cost estimating purposes. Spread footings were assumed for the
roadway structures and pile supported for the railroad given the increased loading
characteristics. A typical cross section of the structures is included in Appendix L.
During final design, a secondary design of an entirely cast-in-place structure could be
provided an alternative for local contractors to bid. Based on current markets
however, the precast arch structure is more economical than an entirely cast-in-place
structure.
In developing the estimate of probable cost for these structures, all exposed cast-in-
place concrete surfaces (i.e. wing-walls, headwalls) were assumed to incorporate a
natural stone surface treatment with the use of form-liners when placing the concrete.
Numerous surface treatments (including coloring) are available commercially or can
be custom made upon the particular requirements of the City or the local residents
and are included in the estimate of probable cost.
Phased construction of the railroad structure was assumed in order to allow
continued operation of the railroad switch yard. The selection of the alignment for the
railroad crossing also took into consideration the need to phase construction.
Discussions with the City indicated that the roadway structures would not require
traffic to be maintained during construction so phased construction was not
necessary. Construction sequencing of the road structures will need to account for
traffic impacts and as a result will require staggering the construction start and end
dates to allow construction to be complete in one spot prior to the start of the next
structure.
A 5-11
Section 5
Preliminary Design
The determination of the sizing of the structures was made by the hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling of the proposed open channel conditions. Preliminary sizes for
the structures and the required flow area are included in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Preliminary Structure Sizes
Structure Location Flow Area (sq. ft.) Precast Arch Size
Sycamore Street 435 1- 11’ x 48’
16th Street 435 1- 11’ x 48’
IC& E Railroad 502 2- 10’ x 28’
Rhomberg Ave. 435 1- 11’ x 48’
22nd Street 435 1- 11’ x 48’
24th Street 169 1- 10’ x 20’
Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) preliminary design guidelines generally
use a 50-year flood for the design discharge with a free board criterion of 3 feet. Final
design of the structures requires the 100-yr flood to be considered in order to provide
the desired level of protection. The final sizing of the structures will be checked
during final design.
5.6 Utilities
A preliminary utility investigation was made into both public and private utilities
located within the project corridor. The utilities investigated the following public
utilities: sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, and City owned communications and
fiber optics. Private utilities that were investigated included gas (Aquila), fiber optic
(McLeod USA and Media Com), and electric (Alliant Energy). The Dubuque Area
Geographic Information System (DAGIS) was used as the primary source of
information and checked against utility system plans provided by the City or private
utility carriers. Independent field marking and survey were not included in the
preliminary design level of effort and will need to be field verified and checked as
part of final design.
Utilities are noted on the preliminary plan and profile plan sheets located in
Appendix K and L. The most significant utility conflict caused by the project is a
gravity sanitary sewer main which runs from approximately 24th Street and Prince
Street and continues southeasterly to 22nd and Kniest Street where it proceeds under
Kniest Street to Garfield. The City is currently reviewing relocation options for this
main; but for cost estimating purposes complete replacement from 24th and Prince
A 5-13
Section 5
Preliminary Design
Street to Garfield Avenue and Kniest Street has been assumed. Once the City has
completed its review of the relocation options, modifications to the preliminary cost
estimate may be necessary.
Overhead lines and underground gas facilities were not included in the preliminary
plan as base information did not exist in the City DAGIS system. The preliminary cost
estimate includes anticipated relocation costs for public utilities only. Utility conflicts
including: gas, electric, fiber optic, and cable are not included in the estimate as these
facilities are owned by private carriers and per City of Dubuque ordinance, relocation
of these facilities are the responsibility of the private entity for facilities within City
ROW.
5.7 Geotechnical/ Environmental
During the information gathering stage of the project, preliminary investigations were
made to determine if there were critical geotechnical or environmental obstacles that
would preclude the consideration of particular alignment alternatives. The following
is a brief summary of the finding of these investigations.
5.7.1 Geotechnical Investigations
The geotechnical work for the Bee Branch Restoration Study was limited in scope but
attempted to address the major concerns that may be encountered by the construction
of an open channel. Four primary concerns were evaluated during the geotechnical
investigation: soil types, slope stability, groundwater level, and groundwater seepage.
A limited geotechnical subsurface investigation was performed by Terracon
(Bettendorf, IA) and summarized in a “Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Report”, date March 15, 2004. A copy of the report is included in Appendix N of this
report. At the time of the investigation, a preferred alignment had not been
determined so the soil borings were located within the potential alignment corridor.
During final design, an additional Geotechnical exploration should be performed to
supplement the subsurface conditions found by the preliminary study. Additional
investigation will enable a more detailed analysis to be performed on the channel
slope stability and groundwater impacts.
5.7.1.1 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are described on the
individual boring logs included in the geotechnical report. Fill was found to be
present in all of the borings to depths of 3 to 11 feet. The native soil profile beneath
the fill consisted predominately of clay and sand soils.
Weathered limestone was encountered at one boring near the intersection of
Rhomberg Avenue and Kniest Street within the anticipated zone of excavation. This
may indicate that some rock excavation may be required to construct the channel in
this area. Observation of nearby storm sewer manholes appeared to indicate that the
A 5-14
Section 5
Preliminary Design
rock was rather limited. Inquires with the City also did not indicate a known problem
with rock in this area. Based on the currently available information, significant rock
excavation is not anticipated although provisions were made in the cost estimate to
cover a minimal amount.
5.7.1.2 Slope Stability
A detailed slope stability analysis was not performed as part of the geotechnical
investigation. Given the subsurface conditions encountered, relatively flat slopes on
the order 3 (H): 1 (V) or flatter will be required. However, given the loose fills
encountered near the surface and the potential saturation and draw down, 4(H):1(V)
slopes were generally used as the baseline slope condition and design criteria for
preliminary design. Additional slope stability analysis is recommended as a part of
final design to evaluate long term stability and design geometry of the channel.
5.7.1.3 Groundwater Levels
Groundwater was encountered in most of the borings and is anticipated that it will be
present at the anticipated excavation depths. Groundwater was encountered at
elevations ranging from EL 591.1 to EL 596.5 with a generally rising gradient the
further west of the Mississippi River. Temporary dewatering is anticipated in order to
facilitate excavation and reduce sub-grade disturbance and loss of strength during
construction. The groundwater depth that was encountered did not appear to
indicate a significant construction constraint, and if encountered, will most likely only
affect the construction of the low flow channel. Consideration of this groundwater in
the selection of materials and construction of the low flow channel will need to be
considered during final design and some general channel dewatering is anticipated.
5.7.1.4 Groundwater Seepage
A preliminary assessment was conducted to analyze the potential groundwater
mounding associated with the replacement of an existing storm sewer with an open
channel. The specific concern was the potential for development of elevated
groundwater levels near the channel during runoff events that could cause
groundwater seepage into adjacent structures.
The preliminary assessment was performed by using survey elevations on the low
water entry point of structures used in the H&H analysis to estimate approximate
basement floor elevations. These assumed basement floor elevations were then
compared to estimated peak water levels in the open channel during significant
runoff events. Several of the surveyed structures were found to potentially have
basement floor elevations that are 2 to 3 feet lower than the peak water level in the
channel. The analysis was performed using a worst case scenario which assumed the
basement wall and floors to be permeable and located within a high permeability
sand unit which is in contact with the drainage channel, with the structure being
assumed to be located 50 feet from the channel.
A 5-15
Section 5
Preliminary Design
This worst case analysis indicates that a potential exists to increase water levels
during runoff events that approach the “assumed” basement floor elevations.
Additional analysis of groundwater conditions and more sophisticated analysis of
groundwater flow in response to events should be undertaken during the final
design.
Based on these findings, groundwater seepage with an appropriate level of
investigation and analysis during final design is manageable. Several options exist
that can be employed to retard and reduce the seepage characteristics of the adjacent
channel slopes without greatly impacting the overall project budget. Options include
but are not limited to site specific material specification for topsoil and sub-grade
materials to control the permeability of the materials.
This analysis was preliminary in nature and relies on assumptions on hydraulic
properties and infiltration rates based on preliminary subsurface information and
County Soil Survey information. This analysis will need to be refined during the
detailed final design of the project to identify specific areas that may be more
susceptible to these impacts.
5.7.2 Environmental Investigation
Construction of the proposed channel will require both the acquisition and demolition
of residential and non-residential properties and the excavation of unclassified
material. Due to the potential of environmentally contaminated properties
significantly increasing the cost of channel construction, a preliminary environmental
investigation of the area encompassing the channel alignment alternatives was
conducted by CDM. The preliminary environmental review of the channel alignment
alternatives area, herein referred to as the potential impact area, is included in
Appendix O.
The preliminary investigation, which relied solely on an environmental database
search, indicated eight (8) non-residential properties within the potential project
corridor have the potential to impact construction costs of the proposed channel.
During preliminary design and the alternatives analysis, the primary environmental
concern was the Packing Plant site located on 16th Street near Sycamore Street and the
four (4) leaking underground storage (LUST) sites noted near the intersections of 20th
& Elm Street and Garfield Avenue & Kniest Street. Because of the configuration and
spacing of the LUST sites, complete avoidance of these sites was not possible by any
of the alignment alternatives and some environmental impacts are anticipated and
accounted for within the final preliminary cost estimate for the project. Routing the
preferred channel alignment to the western portion of the Packing Plant site
attempted to minimize the potential environmental concerns associated with the
Packing Plant.
Residential properties within the corridor also raise a potential environmental
concern. An inspection and inventory of all of the residential properties within the
A 5-16
Section 5
Preliminary Design
potential project corridor was not practical for a preliminary design. Asbestos-
containing materials (ACMs) are usually found in structures built prior to 1981 and
are commonly found in residential structures. Other environmental concerns that may
be present within the residential structures include but are not limited to heating oil
tanks, lead-based paint, and other household products that qualify as hazardous
materials. For cost estimate purposes, the risks associated with each of residential
properties were considered equal and included with the demolition costs of the
structures.
During final design, it will be appropriate to conduct an inventory of the residential
structures prior to their acquisition and demolition. This inventory will allow the
design documents to address proper handling and disposal of any potential
hazardous materials. A subsurface investigation may be required in those areas
identified along the channel alignment that potentially have soil and/or groundwater
contamination. The subsurface investigation would be utilized to determine the
magnitude and aerial extent of the contamination. At the time of final design,
detailed consideration would be given to the appropriate remediation of the found
contamination.
5.8 Other Considerations
In the development of the preliminary design, numerous factors in addition to those
listed previously were considered. The following are additional considerations which
were incorporated into the preliminary design and cost estimate.
5.8.1 Property Acquisition
The scope of the Bee Branch project will entail a significant impact to properties
within the project corridor. As discussed in Section 2, during the Alternative Analysis
the BBCAC weighed alignment alternatives based on a “screening” criterion to
determine if a property would need to be completely acquired “impacted” versus
other action taken. Following this screening criteria, the preliminary design identified
properties based on this criteria and have noted them on Figure 5-6.
Using these criterions, sixty-five (65) residential and fifteen (15) non-residential
properties (for a total of eighty (80) properties) were identified during preliminary
design as needing to be acquired. In addition, a total of fourteen (14) vacant properties
were identified within the project limits. These parcels appear to be a combination of
city owned or linked parcels to other properties.
A total of twenty-three (23) parcels noted on Figure 5-6 are indicated as “partial
property loss”. These properties are impacted by the project, but their structures are
not. These properties may present opportunities during final design or during
negotiation with the private properties owners to retain ownership of the property
through granting of easement or partial property acquisition. Special consideration of
these properties should be given prior to acquisition depending of the final design of
the project.
A 5-17
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.8.2 Historical Structures
The Bee Branch is located in an area with potential National Registry of Historical
Places (NRHP) eligible structures. A preliminary review was made to identify the
location of eligible structures in the Study area. The City of Dubuque assisted CDM in
the location of these properties and identification of the Five Points Comprehensive
Rehabilitation Project area in which the City secured Federal Funds. Special
consideration was given during the alternative analysis and preliminary design to
avoid these areas. The current Bee Branch alignment and corridor do not impact any
known historical sites.
5.8.3 Permitting
Permitting of the Bee Branch will require close coordination with the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Given
the uniqueness of this project, exact permitting requirements are not clearly defined.
In preliminary discussions with both parties, there does not appear to be any major
permitting obstacles to overcome.
A Joint Application Form for IDNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need
to be submitted for the project. IDNR will review the application along with a set of
final design plans for the need for a Floodplain Construction Permit.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District will receive the Joint
Application discussed above and review it along with a set for final design plans for
the need for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. The Rock Island District will also be
involved in reviewing the project as it affects the 16th Street Detention Basin and its
discharge to the Mississippi River.
A permit will also be required from the IC&E to cross their ROW. Contact was made
with the railroad during the alternative analysis phase and preliminary design phase.
The railroad has been advised of the potential impact of the project to its facilities. A
project of this scope may require a potentially lengthy review process during final
design in order to gain “buy-off” and permitting from the railroad.
5.8.4 Project Extents/ Limits
The Bee Branch project limits are defined on the preliminary plans in Appendix K but
are generally defined as the channel corridor and facilities located within it.
Additional infrastructure improvement outside of the project limits as defined on the
plans are outside the responsibility of the project and preliminary design. This
includes the reconstruction of storm sewers identified in the DBMP or other local
sewers that may be undersized and require reconstruction in order to convey storm
water runoff to the channel. The channel has been preliminarily designed to
accommodate all project runoff for the design event but has not identified how that
water enters the channel.
A 5-19
Section 5
Preliminary Design
Within the project limits, local drainage issues are intended to be addressed to ensure
that all overland flow has an entrance to the channel and accommodations should be
made during final design to upsize storm sewer outlets to the channel as to avoid
reconstruction after the channel has been completed.
5.8.5 Existing Bee Branch Sewer
Preliminary design considered which portions of the existing Bee Branch mainline
sewer were feasible to maintain with the project. A structural analysis of the existing
Bee Branch sewer was not performed as part of this study, but discussions with the
City indicated that the sewer appeared to be in relatively good condition and could
remain in service if necessary. Portions of the existing sewer were considered for
continued operation where feasible to minimize the total amount of local storm sewer
relocation and grading required by the project. These reaches of the Bee Branch sewer
are shown in Figure 5-7. Leaving significant portions of the existing Bee Branch in
place during construction of the new channel will also lessen the need for bypass
pumping to keep storm sewer flow from the channel while it is still under
construction.
Major storm sewer inflows from the major subbasins will be reconstructed to tie into
the open channel but at locations noted on the figure. The intent is to allow existing
local drainage to continue using the existing Bee Branch sewer.
5.8.6 Project Staging
Final project staging and construction will be a component of the available funding as
determined by the City, but a general sequence and contract construction limits were
established for preliminary design. In general, the project will need to be constructed
in a “downstream-to-upstream” order to minimize the amount of bypass pumping.
The project could be divided into a total of three channel segments for construction
purposes as defined below and constructed. By dividing the project into three main
parts, it was felt that this would be the most efficient and cost effective breakdown of
the work.
5.8.6.1 Segment 1
Segment 1 is defined as the lower section from the outlet at the 16th Street Detention
Cell to IC&E Railroad (east ROW limit). Constructed first, the majority of the channel
work and structure work could be completed “in the dry”. Construction “in the dry”
versus “in the wet” is typically defined as the work being off line and exposed to high
flows during a runoff event. Dewatering operations however will be required to
handle groundwater infiltration and other inflow that may occur if significant storm
events occur during construction.
Two major bridge crossings exist on this segment (Sycamore Street and 16th Street)
which will need to have their construction sequenced to allow traffic to be maintained
on at least one of the roadways at all times.
A 5-20
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.8.6.2 Segment 2
Segment 2 is defined as the middle section from the IC&E Railroad (east ROW limit)
to approximately Lincoln Avenue. Constructed second, the majority of the channel
and structure work can also be completed “in the dry”. As with Segment 1
dewatering, operations will be required to handle groundwater infiltration and other
inflow that may occur if significant storm events occur during construction.
Two major bridge crossings exist on this segment (IC&E Railroad and Rhomberg
Ave). Completion of the Rhomberg Avenue structure would be recommended prior
to the start of channel work to allow Garfield Avenue to remain open during this
period and ease the impact to traffic within the segment. The IC&E railroad will
require a phased construction to maintain rail traffic. Due to the significant interaction
and planning that will need to occur with the railroad, this structure was
recommended to be included in Segment 2 to allow increased time within the total
project schedule for this planning to occur.
5.8.6.3 Segment 3
Segment 3 is defined as the upper section from approximately Lincoln Avenue to
24thStreet. Conflicts with the existing Bee Branch sewer from 22nd Street to 24th Street
will require a portion of this channel and structure work to be completed “in the wet”.
Bypassing operations will be required for this portion to pass the normal, dry weather
flow once the cut over takes place.
Two major bridge crossings exist in this segment (22nd Street and 24th Street).
Completion of the 22nd Street crossing prior to the start of 24th Street will minimize the
traffic impacts in this segment and also delay the cut-over (or connection) at 24th Street
into the existing Bee Branch sewer until after most of the other work is completed on
this segment.
5.8.6.4 Optional Contracts
Beside the three channel segment contracts, there are opportunities for other smaller
contracts to be let at various times in the project. Other contracts could include
specific utility relocations (water, sanitary sewer), site clearing, street reconstruction,
and landscaping. Site clearing and landscaping would appear to be the most
advantageous contracts to be let separately as the work is much less dependent on the
other channel contract work. Utility relocation, may be feasible in advance of the
channel work, but would more likely be more cost effective if handled in concert with
the channel work as all excavation work could be completed at the same time.
An optional landscaping contract, run concurrently with the channel segment
contracts and final landscaping contract should be considered as part of the project.
Allowing the landscaping work to be managed by one responsible party for all of the
vegetation and landscaping along the entire corridor will allow for better consistency
in the work and remove the dependency of one segment affecting another.
A 5-22
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.8.7 Estimate of Probable Cost
Development of the preliminary cost estimate for the open channel was based on the
design criteria established in Section 2. The preliminary cost estimate is set up in
seven (7) general categories: Property Acquisition, Utilities, Open Channel,
Roadways, Bridges/ Culverts, and Other Landscaping amenities.
Property Acquisition includes the costs associated with the buyout, removal, and
relocation of both residential and non-residential properties. The average unit costs
were derived by of the City of Dubuque. A cost was also included for an independent
consultant to assist with the acquisition process. The scope of these services will be
largely dependent upon the selected timeline for the project and will need to be
negotiated at the appropriate time.
The remaining cost categories were tabulated by quantities associated with the
preliminary design and criteria established for the project. Roadway reconstruction
costs associated with the construction of new structures were included under
Bridges/ Culvert. Earthwork quantities were based upon the existing ground surface
as provided in City of Dubuque Geographical Information Systems (DAGIS)
database.
The preliminary cost estimate for constructing an open channel along the preferred
alignment has been estimated at $26,985,000. A copy of the cost estimate is provided
in Appendix P.
Unit prices used in the cost estimate were determined by reviewing multiple sources
of data including published data, relevant flood control channel projects, and
vendors. Reviewed cost data included City of Dubuque, Iowa Department of
Transportation, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation bid tabulations and
annual cost averages. Local stone supplies and precast suppliers were contacted to
verify local market conditions of specific materials proposed for the project.
The preliminary cost estimate was developed using 2004 dollars. Appropriate cost
escalations factors should be used once the project implementation timetable has been
established. A review of Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index
(CCI) over the past 10-yrs has historically averaged approximately 2.5%. Recent
volatility in the construction market however have seen CCI indexing for 2004 in the
4.0-4.5% range (year to date).
A 5-23
A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Design Criteria
A.1 Introduction
The following design criteria were established with the assistance of the Technical
Support Committee as a method of providing consistency in the development and
analysis of alternatives, determining appropriate preliminary cost estimates, and
development of the preliminary design. The design criteria were defined in five (5)
categories: Property Acquisition, Open Channel, Crossing Structures, Utilities, and
Streets and Roadways. The following are the general design criteria that were used for
the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study.
At such time this project proceeds to final design, refinement and modification of
these preliminary design criteria will be necessary as additional information becomes
available and the project is more clearly defined.
A.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
A detailed discussion of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis is included in Section
3. The design criteria utilized to size the Open Channel and Closed Pipe / Open
Channel was the Freeboard Criteria included in Section 3.7. The SWMM model
included Open Channel and Closed Pipe cross sections below the existing ground
surface. Alternatives were sized such that 1-foot of freeboard was provided between
the design storm water surface elevation and the existing ground.
The roughness value included in the SWMM model for both the Open Channel and
Closed Pipe alternatives is summarized in Table A-1. The Manning n value
represents the surface roughness of the Open Channel and Closed Pipe cross sections.
Table A-1: Manning n Values in SWMM model
Description Manning n Value
Open Channel
Low flow channel 0.025
Flood channel 0.040
Closed Pipe
Precast Concrete Arch 0.015
A A-1
Appendix A
Design Criteria
A.3 Property Acquisition
Property acquisition was a primary driver during the analysis of the various
alignment alternatives. In order to weigh the various alignment options a set of
“screening” criteria were used to determine if a property would need to be
completely acquired “impacted” versus an easement or other agreement being sought
for which the property for analysis purposes would be considered as “not impacted”.
A conservative approach was taken for the purpose of not underestimating the total
number of properties impacted. The following are the general criteria that were used
during the alignment evaluation process for determining when a property was
considered impacted and acquisition would be necessary. Figure A-1 is an example of
a typical residential property.
Property Acquisition was assumed for the following conditions:
Structure loss- Project limits/ Maintenance corridor (Figure A-2) touches primary
or detached structure (i.e. garage) on property.
Structure Encroachment- Project limits/ Maintenance corridor within 10-ft of
primary structure on property. (Figure A-3)
Loss of Access- If the main access to the property was lost due to removal of an
adjacent roadway thereby creating an “island property” and alternate access could
not be easily obtained though use of secondary street or alley.
Property Size reduction- If the Project limits/ Maintenance corridor reduces the
property beyond the following limits:
1. Front lot line- Structure Encroachment and/or Loss of Access control.
2. Back lot line- if 15-ft or more is required to fit construction corridor
(Figure A-4).
3. Side lot line- if 5-ft or more is required to fit construction corridor.
Properties impacted by the construction corridor but not to the extent outlined above
were considered “not impacted” and would be accommodated through the use of
property easements or special access agreements to provide suitable access and use of
the property.
The final determination of the properties impacted by the preferred alignment for the
preliminary design generally used the above stated criteria in determining whether a
property was acquired.
A A-2
Appendix A
Design Criteria
A.4 Open Channel
The open channel design channel section is a compound section described using the
diagram shown as Figure A-5. The compound trapezoidal section has four main
parts: low flow channel, flood channel bottom, flood channel side-slope, and
maintenance corridor.
Project Corridor
Channel Limits
Flood Channel Bottom Flood Channel
Overbank Side Slope
Low Flow Channel
Overbank
Open Channel Schematic
Figure A-5
The following design criteria were used in the development and sizing of the open
channel:
Low Flow Channel- Maintains the normal and base flow.
Flood Channel Side-slopes- 4 (H): 1(V)-Typical/ 3 (H):1 (V)- Maximum
Maintenance Corridor- 15-ft each side
Channel Flow Velocity:
General Areas- < 4 fps (preferred), 6 fps (maximum)
Structure/ Transition Areas- < 10 fps
The following design criteria were used for preliminary cost estimating purposes:
Low Flow Channel-
• Bank Stabilization: Quarry Stone (random sizes)
• Channel Bottom: 6” Concrete Articulated matting w/ 8” crushed
aggregate base course sub base
Flood Channel Bottom/ Side-slopes-
• Permanent Stabilization-
A A-7
Appendix A
Design Criteria
o Channel Velocity < 6 fps- Natural vegetation only
o Channel Velocity > 6 fps- Natural vegetation w/ open
cell concrete articulated matting or other armament
• Topsoil: 9 inches
Maintenance Corridor-
• Permanent Stabilization-
o Turf grass
o Recreational Trail: 3 inch asphaltic pavement/ 6 inch
crushed aggregate base course sub base
• Topsoil: 6 inches
A.5 Crossing Structures
Structure crossings along the alignment were defined as either roadway or railroad.
A.5.1 Street/ Roadways
In addition to the flow area the following design criteria and standards were assumed
to govern these structures:
Applicable Standards and Codes:
Iowa DOT- Bridge Design Manual
Loading Criteria: AASHTO HS 20 (MS 18)
Minimum Cover: 4-ft recommended
Freeboard: 3-ft above 50yr flood level
Materials:
Concrete: 28- day compressive strength
Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60
The following design criteria were used for preliminary cost estimating purposes:
Culvert Structure type: Precast Concrete Arch (i.e. ConSpan)
Wing walls/ Headwalls: Cast-in-place concrete
A A-8
Appendix A
Design Criteria
Foundation: Spread footing
Railings: Cast-in-place concrete parapet
A.5.2 Railroad
In addition to the flow area the following design criteria and standards were assumed
to govern these structures:
Applicable Standards and Codes:
American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) for Railway Engineering
Iowa, Chicago, & Eastern Railroad Corporation Standards
Loading Criteria: AREA E80 (minimum)
Minimum Cover: 4-ft recommended
Materials:
Concrete: 28- day compressive strength
Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60
The following design criteria were used for preliminary cost estimating purposes:
Culvert Structure type: Precast Concrete Arch (i.e. ConSpan)
Wing walls/ Headwalls: Cast-in-place concrete
Foundation: Spread footing
Railings: Cast-in-place concrete parapet
A.6 Utilities
Significant portions of both public and private utilities will be impacted by the
project. The public utilities impacted by the project are owned by the City of Dubuque
and as such were assumed to be replaced with comparable facilities meeting all
relevant City of Dubuque Engineering Standards and Specifications and State of Iowa
Code. Private utility carriers in the City of Dubuque per City ordinance are
responsible for the relocation and expenses associated moving there own facilities.
A.7 Streets and Roadways
Local streets and roadway modifications impacted by the project are under the
jurisdiction and ownership of the City of Dubuque. Transportation facilities
reconstructed as a part of this project are intended to match existing pavement
A A-9
Appendix A
Design Criteria
materials and geometry to the maximum extent allowable. New and existing facilities
will be constructed to the following standards:
Applicable Standards and Codes:
City of Dubuque Engineering Standards and Specifications
Iowa DOT- Roadway Design Guidelines
Roadway Geometry:
Width
o Travel Lanes: 12 foot
o Parking Lanes: 8 foot (includes curb flange)
o Curb and Gutter: 30-inch (24 in. pan, 6 in. head)
o Terrace: 3 foot (minimum)
o Sidewalk:
• w/ terrace- 5 foot
• w/o terrace- 10 foot ( at structure crossing)
Material and Thicknesses:
o Pavement: Concrete- 8 inches
o Crushed Aggregate Base course:
• Pavement areas: 8 in - ¾ “ Gravel
• Sidewalk areas: 5 in - ¾ “ Gravel
o Topsoil: 6 inches (minimum)
o Sidewalks: Concrete (5 inches)
o Seeding: Turf grass
A A-10
A
Appendix B
Basin
Locust Street
West 32nd
Garfield/Lincoln
Kaufmann Avenue
Windsor Avenue
16th Street
Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow
100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.00374.6100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.00516.8
100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30541.4100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30742.3
100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25644.2100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25895.9
100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.50814.8100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.501195.1
100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.10876.5100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.101317.3
100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20783.4100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20925.8
Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow
100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.00308.4100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.00172.0
100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30357.1100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30256.7
100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25344.5100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25330.4
100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.50355.5100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.50437.8
100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.10344.4100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.10479.2
100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20195.0100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20463.5
Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow Event TypeRainfallPeak Flow
100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.0074.0100-yr 24-hrHuff Type III7.00277.8
100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30110.2100-yr 12-hrHuff Type II6.30402.5
100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25141.4100-yr 6-hrHuff Type I5.25486.3
100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.50191.2100-yr 3-hrHuff Type I4.50596.5
100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.10212.5100-yr 2-hrHuff Type I4.10632.5
100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20207.6100-yr 1-hrHuff Type I3.20526.4
Kaufmann Avenue Basin
Bee Branch Creek
Restoration Alignment Study
Hydrologic Model Event - Critical Duration Analysis
Locust Street Basin
2-hour
2-hour
2-hour
2-hour
Garfield/Lincoln Basin16th St Basin
West 32nd Street BasinWindsor Avenue Basin
Appendix B
Critical Duration
2-hour
12-hour
Critical Duration Summary Table
A
Appendix C
consulting · engineering · construction · operations S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\App CAC Protocols 9-10-03.doc
BBCAC MEETING PROTOCOLS
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
September 11, 2003
This document presents a summary of the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) protocols and is intended to establish the basic guidelines and framework
for the BBCAC.
BBCAC OBJECTIVE
To collaboratively develop, evaluate and recommend a consensus recommendation
on the Bee Branch flooding problem to the Council.
BBCAC MEETING FORMAT
The BBCAC meetings are intended to be conducted in an informal, workshop setting
that offers the opportunity for the BBCAC members to actively participate in the
discussions and decision-making process.
Meetings will be tentatively scheduled for the fourth Thursday of the month, unless a
holiday conflict requires rescheduling. Meetings will typically begin at 5:00 pm and
run until approximately 8:00 pm (this time slot includes a light working dinner at
5:00), depending on the agenda and discussion items.
The meetings will be run by the appointed Chairman or his designated replacement.
No formal meeting minutes will be prepared. However, meeting notes will be
compiled for each meeting that summarize the major conclusions, issues, unresolved
items and action items. The City will provide notebooks for meeting notes and
handout materials.
BBCAC meetings will be “open meetings” with any interested individuals welcome to
attend. However, the BBCAC meetings are intended as working sessions for those
“official” BBCAC representatives appointed and approved by the Council. The
Chairman may limit the involvement of BBCAC participants not approved by the
Council.
CODE OF PARTICIPATION/MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
BBCAC members are asked to follow certain “participation principles”:
• Review any materials distributed prior to the meeting
• Listen courteously; respect the opinion of other BBCAC members
• Commit to attending all of the anticipated 6 BBCAC meetings
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 2
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\App CAC Protocols 9-10-03.doc
• Commit to meaningful participation in each meeting
• Seek input and feedback from others in the community that may be impacted
by the Bee Branch project including local property/business owners as well as
representatives of the North End Neighborhood Association and Washington
Neighborhood Council
• Offer objective input whether representing a special interest or a personal
interest in the project
STAFF TECHNICAL SUPPORT COMMITTEE
The City has formed a Technical Support Committee (TSC) to serve as a resource to
the City’s consultant and the BBCAC. The TSC will meet to answer questions of the
Chairman and CDM in preparation for BBCAC meetings. The TSC will meet
periodically in support of the BBCAC and will attend BBCAC meetings as needed.
TSC meetings generally will correspond to the BBCAC meeting schedule. BBCAC
members are welcome to attend these meetings and are encouraged to contact any of
these representatives with questions or the need for additional information.
The membership of the TSC is as follows:
Dan Lau – Overall project manager for City’s consultant, CDM; primary CDM
contact; Co-Facilitator of BBCAC; (414) 290-7702
Jeff Wickenkamp – Lead engineer; day to day CDM contact; lead production
engineer; technical assistance for BBCAC; (312) 251-8486
Tony Zelinskas – Office manager for local consultant WHKS, a CDM team
member; local contact for BBCAC members; Lead Facilitator of BBCAC;
Technical presentations at neighborhood meetings; (563) 582-5481
Gus Psihoyos – Assistant City Engineer; primary City project representative;
(563) 589-4275
Deron Muehring – City project engineer; day to day contact person for CDM;
(563) 589-4276
Dr. Charles Winterwood – BBCAC Chair; lead BBCAC; interface with long-
range planning commission; interface between City and BBCAC; interface
between CDM and BBCAC; assist in development of BBCAC agenda and
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 3
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\App CAC Protocols 9-10-03.doc
meeting approach; assist in management of BBCAC; assist in interpreting
technical materials to BBCAC; (563) 588-2783
Jerelyn O’Connor – Neighborhood Specialist; provide guidance on technical
level for neighborhood information distribution; guidance on neighborhood
group communication; (563) 589-4326
Bill Baum – Economic Development; advise on funding opportunities and
funding eligibility; input on impact of actions/alternatives on economics of the
area; provide guidance on potential commercial/ industrial redevelopment;
(563) 589-4393
Laura Carstens – Planning; input on long term planning vision and initiatives
of the City; input on potential redevelopment perspectives and other project
opportunities (Downtown and school redevelopment); “planning” perspective;
(563) 589-4210
Cindy Steinhauser – Assistant City Manager; communication conduit to
Manager; provide manager’s office perspective; advise on major policy issues;
answer other “manager’s” office questions; (563) 589-4110
Susan Gwiasda – Public Relations Officer; facilitate public information
activities beyond BBCAC; review/ revise/ develop media releases;
(563) 589-4151
David Harris – Advise on replacement housing options; characterize existing
housing; provide buyout/relocation package details; (563) 589-4239
Don Vogt/John Klostermann – Comment on impacts to City O&M for various
options/alternatives; quantify existing O&M concerns; assist in defining existing
flooding problems; (563) 589-4250
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
The BBCAC will prepare an “advisory” recommendation to present to Council at the
conclusion of the project. The recommendation does not have to be unanimous, but should
represent the majority opinion of the membership. A minority opinion can also be presented,
if desired by the BBCAC. Representatives of the BBCAC will present the recommendation to
Council at the conclusion of the project.
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 4
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\App CAC Protocols 9-10-03.doc
SUMMARY BBCAC DOCUMENT
CDM will facilitate the development of a Summary BBCAC Document that presents
the BBCAC process to develop its conclusions and recommendations regarding the
Bee Branch. The Summary Document will be prepared jointly between CDM and the
BBCAC. The Summary Document will include the BBCAC membership, with
potential endorsements by each BBCAC member of the conclusions and
recommendations. The Summary Document will serve as the primary written
product of the BBCAC.
BBCAC MEMBERSHIP
Name Association/Background Address
1 Dr. Charles Winterwood
-Chair of CAC-
1. Long Range Planning Advisory
Commission
2. League of Women Voters
3. Sierra Club
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1555 Montrose
Terrace
2 David Shaw
1. Community Development
Advisory Commission
2. Assistant Manager of Eagle Foods
(1800 Elm)
3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2835 Elm Street
3 Wayne Klostermann
1. North End Neighborhood
Association representative
2. North End resident
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2636 Queen
4 Dan or Rhonda Morgan
Audubon Elementary PTA
(recommended by Audubon
Principal)
704 Lincoln
5 Jim Lansing
Dubuque Board of Realtors
representative 4029 Pennsylvania
6 Michelle Harry
1. Impacted home owner
2. Prince Street home owner
3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2316 Prince Street
7 David Fuerstenberg
1. Impacted home owner
2. Prince Street home owner
3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2259 Prince Street
8 Faith Kraemer
1. Impacted home owner
2. Washington Street home owner
3. North End resident
2362 Washington
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 5
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\App CAC Protocols 9-10-03.doc
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
9 Audrey Morey
1. Impacted home owner
2. North End resident
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2545 Elm Street
10 John Gronen
1. Impacted property owner
2. Washington Street property
owner
3. Developer
Owns property at:
2027 Elm
2006 Washington
2015 Washington
2032 Washington
2042 Washington
2046 Washington
11 Richard Sullivan
1. Past Chairperson of the Dubuque
Soil & Conservation District
2. Bee Branch Watershed resident
3. Senior Citizen
817 Garfield
12 Frank Miller
1. Sacred Heart Parish
2. North End resident
3. Johnson Street home owner
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
5. Professor of Physics (Ret.)
6. Senior Citizen
602 E. 22nd Street
(22nd and Johnson)
13 Pam Jochum
1. Impacted home owner
2. Jackson Street home owner
3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
5. State Representative
2368 Jackson
14 Irene Waltz
1. Impacted home owner
2. Maple Street home owner
3. Impacted property owner
4. Cedar Street property owner
5. Bee Branch Watershed resident
6. Senior Citizen
1552 Maple Street
Owns property at:
1555 Cedar Street
15 Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
1. Impacted resident
2. Kniest Street resident
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2104 Kniest Street
16 Rita Brothers
1. Impacted resident
2. Elm Street resident
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
2130 Elm Street
A
Appendix D
Appendix D
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting Dates
Meeting No. 1- September 25, 2003
Meeting No. 2- December 4, 2003
Meeting No. 3- January 29, 2004
Meeting No. 4- March 11, 2004
Meeting No. 5- May 3, 2004
Meeting No. 6- June 24, 2004
A C-1
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Appendix\app mtg dates.doc
A
Appendix E
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment StudyBee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory CommitteeBee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
September 25, 2003September 25, 2003
AgendaAgenda
Introduction
History of the Bee Branch
Introduction to the Drainage Basin
Overview of the Project
Planning/Decision Process
Project Objectives
CAC Project Issues
Mission Statement
Planned Public Outreach
Project Schedule
Problems/Solutions
Meeting ObjectivesMeeting Objectives
Understand the role of BBCAC
Understand the drainage system
Understand the planning/decision process
Obtain BBCAC perception of
problems/potential solutions
IntroductionIntroduction
BBCAC Introductions
BBCAC Protocols
Meeting Format
Meeting Schedule
Roles and Responsibilities
BBCAC Objective/Purpose
–Understand problems, issues and solution
–Select solution
–Council recommendation
–Serve as advocates/focal point for public outreach
History of the Bee BranchHistory of the Bee Branch
Enclosure history (historic map)
Major Rain/flood events
FEMA damage numbers from June 2000
Chronology of
maintenance/engineering/council actions
Erosion control or
grading policy/ordinance:No (twice)
Detention Basin requirements :(1993)
Stormwater Management Plan:(1997)
Hire “Stormwater Engineer”:(1998)
DubuqueDubuque’’s Stormwater Managements Stormwater Management
Recent HistoryRecent History
2
Pilot Study:
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
DevelopmentDevelopment
NORTH FORK
CATFISH CREEK
Telegraph Herald
(May 17, 1999)
“The National Weather Service
reported that 5.63 inches of rain
fell near the Mississippi River in
Dubuque in a 24-hour period.”
May 16, 1999May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
Presidential disaster is declared for Dubuque County
“In Dubuque, water 5 to 6 feet high was reported
between the 20th and 28th blocks of Jackson,
Washington and White Streets.”
Telegraph Herald –May 18, 1999
“We had points where water was chest deep.”
-Dubuque Fire Chief Dan Brown
(Telegraph Herald –May 18, 1999)
May 16, 1999May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
“On Sunday and Monday, the (fire) department
received more than 100 calls for (basement)
pumping assistance.”
“It was evacuate the tornado shelter or drown.
Our freezer was just bobbing. Three men and a
boy couldn’t have picked that up.”
Telegraph Herald –May 20, 1999
Telegraph Herald –May 18, 1999
-Mike Hillard, Washington Street resident
May 16, 1999May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
Basement
Flooding
May 16, 1999May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
FEMA Damage Estimates
May 16, 1999May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
3
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
Bee Branch AnalysisBee Branch Analysis
Outfall
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
Carter Road Detention BasinCarter Road Detention Basin
Eisenhower
Elementary
Wahlert
C arter R oad
J
F
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
Marywood Dr.
A
r
b
o
r
O
a
k
s
Estimate $875,000
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
W32nd Street Detention BasinW32nd Street Detention Basin
Pe
r
u R
o
a
d
W 32ndStreet
Saunders Street
U
S
5
2
-
C
e
n
tr
a
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Estimate $4,023,000
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
Bee Branch EstimateBee Branch Estimate
Bee Branch Basin Improvements
W32nd Street Detention Basin
Carter Road Detention Basin
Channel from 16th to Garfield
Channel from Garfield to 24th
$875,000
$4,023,000
$21,998,000
$10,200,000
$6,900,000
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
ImplementationImplementation
Winter 2001:City Council Adopts Plan
Winter 2001:Proposed 5-year CIP Budget
Includes:
1)The Formation of a Stormwater
Utilityand
2)Design Services for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration
Alignment Study
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
Adopted FY 2003 BudgetAdopted FY 2003 Budget
March 2002:5-year CIP Budget Includes:
1)The Formation of a Stormwater
Utilityand
2)Design Services for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration
Alignment Studyre-study of the
Bee Branch Watershed
March 2002:Portion of the open channel is
removed from the adopted Drainage
Basin Master Plan
4
Telegraph Herald
(June 5, 2002)
“Residents struggled to save people and
homes from muddy waters as a record
rainfall -31/2 inches in 24 hours -
challenged the city's storm sewers and
detention cells; Dubuque rainfall of nearly
6 1/2 inchesover 2 days sets records.”
June 3June 3 --4, 20024, 2002
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
Presidential disaster is declared for Dubuque County
June 3June 3 --4, 20024, 2002
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
22nd & Washington.
US 52 (North)
June 3June 3 --4, 20024, 2002
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
June 3June 3 --4, 20024, 2002
Disaster Strikes!Disaster Strikes!
Telegraph Herald
(June 5, 2002)
“The fire department
received requests to
help remove water
from 123 homes prior
to 4 p.m. Many others
cleaned out the muck
and assessed
property damage .”
March 2003:
Stormwater Management PlanStormwater Management Plan
DevelopmentDevelopment
By a 6-1 vote the City Council
adopts ordinance establishing a
stormwater utility and sets the
billing rate at $1.29 per SFU.
March 2003:By a 6-1 vote the City Council
adopts FY04 CIP budget that
includes funding for the Carter
Road & W32nd Street detention
basins.
Stormwater Management PlanStormwater Management Plan
Bee Branch ReBee Branch Re--StudyStudy
March 2002: City Council budgets funds to hire a
consultant to re-study the Bee Branch watershed
basin.
July 2002: The RFP for the re-study was
presented to the City Council and authorization
was granted to solicit proposals for the re-study.
5
Stormwater Management PlanStormwater Management Plan
Bee Branch ReBee Branch Re--StudyStudy
October 2002: The City Council voted 5-2 NOTto
hire another consultant to study more drainage
options.
December 2002: City Council work session with
HDR and IIW to discuss the original Drainage
Basin Master Plan.
Bee Branch Alignment Study
December 2002: RFP for an alignment study was
presented to the City Council and authorization
was granted to solicit proposals for the study.
Stormwater Management PlanStormwater Management Plan
Bee Branch Alignment StudyBee Branch Alignment Study
March 2003: The City Council approves the RFP
for the alignment study.
The Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment
Study will:
1)Establish the optimum alignment;
2)Provide a preliminary design that establishes what
the waterway will look like and how it will function;
and
3)Work with impacted residents in the form of a
citizen advisory committee.
Bee Branch Alignment StudyBee Branch Alignment Study
BBCAC CharacteristicsBBCAC Characteristics WHKS & Co.WHKS & Co.
Collectively, the sixteen-member
committee has the following background:
Impacted residents;Impacted home owners;North
End Neighborhood Association;Washington
Neighborhood residents;Sacred Heart Parish;Elm,
Washington, Jackson, Prince, and Johnson Street
residents; Impacted businesses; Dubuque Board of
Realtors; Developer; State Representative; Sierra
Club;League of Women Voters; Senior Citizens; and
Long Range Planning and Community Development
Advisory Commissions.
Introduction to the Drainage BasinIntroduction to the Drainage Basin
Watershed characteristics
Land use
Flooding areas
Capacity versus flow
16th Street Basin
Bee Branch Mainline MapBee Branch Mainline Map
16th Street
Basin
West 32nd
Basin
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
a
i
n
li
n
e
Washington
Subbasin
Windsor
Subbasin
Dock
Subbasin
Hamilton
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
K
A
N
E S
T
SAUNDERS ST
VALERIA ST
W LOCUST ST
E
L
M S
T
MADISON ST
7T H S T
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
THOMAS PL
W
H
IT
E S
T
S T O L T Z S T
ASPEN DR
BERKLEY PL
NAPIER ST
W 2 8T H S T
E DI S ON S T
EUCLID ST
PIN
A
R
D S
T
DAVIS AVE
E
LLIS
S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L S
T
HARLAN ST
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
1 2 TH S T
C LA RK S T
O'NEILL ST
WIL LIAMS ST
ANDREW CT
TIMBERLINE ST
DORGAN PL
CO
X
S
T
RI ES ST
E
L
M S
T
W 2 3 R D S T
E 1 1T H S T
FENGLER ST
BEL LEVU E ST
22ND ST
H
EE
B
S
T
PIERCE ST
F
R
A
NCIS S
T
E
A
G
L
E S
T
K IN G S T
ANN ST
CLARKE DR
WIN
D
S
O
R A
V
E
R UB Y A V E
M
A
R
QUE
T
T
E P
L
OAK CREST DR
N MAIN S
T
HAROLD ST
F
UL
T
O
N S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
W
O
O
D
D
R
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
G A Y S T
LIE B E S T
W
A
S
HIN
G
T
O
N
S
T
LINK ST
KU
HN LN
T
DOCK ST
R E G E N T
MAI
N
K IR K W O O D S T
EDITH ST
VIOLA ST
E 1 2 TH S T
KEOKUK CT
GREENWOOD CT
PRIMROSE CT
FINK ST
D IA M O N D S T
LINCOLN AVE
PUTNAM ST
SH
E
L
B
Y S
T
PRESCOTT ST
KERPER CT
W 32 N D S T
W 3 0T H S T
FARRELL CT
FOYE ST
Q UI GLE Y LN
E 1 6 TH S T
FARLEY ST
E 13 TH S T
COTTAGE PL
E 1 4 TH S T
HEMPSTEAD ST
E 20 TH S T
E 2 8 T H S T
B
A
L
K
E S
T
SAC ST
A N G E LL A S T
S CHL EG E L ST
E 2 9 T H S T
GARFIELD AVE
E 22 N D S T
W 1 5TH S T
KNIEST ST
N
MA
P
L
E S
T
A
R
G
Y
L
E S
T
DUNHAM DR
MI L W A U K E E S T
E 1 5 TH S T
SPIRES CT
N
C
E
DA
R
S
T
E 1 9 TH S T
E 18 TH S T
KLINGENBERG TER
V
E
N
T
U
R
A D
R
WOODWORTH ST
MERZ S T
RHOMBERG AVE
BLAKE
ST
L
A
C
E
Y
C
T
CUSHING ST
WHITTIER ST
SCHILLER ST
HEDLEY ST
E 2 7 T H S T
KER
PER BLVD
BROADWAY ST
CHAPEL CT
SCHROEDER ST
B
U
R
D
E
N
S
T
DIAGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF ST
GOLD S
T
LINCOLN AVE
LOBO LN
MARSHALL ST
E 2 4 T H S T
CLI NTON ST
SU T TER S T
E 3 0 T H S T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R S
T
FAIRVIEW
MUSCATINE ST
E 3 2N D S T
LINDBERG TER
G O E T H E S T
HE NNEPIN ST
DECATUR ST
L ORAS B LV D
COLUMBIA ST
CARROLL ST
SEWARD ST
BURLINGTON ST
EDWA RD S ST
HAMILTON ST
N S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E S
T
GROVELAND PL
W 2 4TH S T
PFO T ZE R S T
S T R A U S S S T
E 21 S T ST
HODGDON ST
D
IVISION
S
T
E 1 7T H S T
P
I
N
E
S
T
ASPE
N C
T
WINDSOR AVE
MONTCREST ST
ROSALINE ST
KURT CT
BUENA VISTA ST
CLARK CREST CT
PRIM ROS E ST
B
R
U
N
S
WIC
K S
T
E 2 6 T H S T
PROVIDENCE ST
MO N R OE S T
E 18 TH S T
U.S. H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
STAFFORD ST
DAVENPORT ST
Mississippi River
Bee Branch WatershedBee Branch Watershed
16th Street
Basin
West 32nd
Basin
Mississippi River
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
a
in
li
n
e
Washington
Subbasin
Windsor
Subbasin
Dock
Subbasin
Hamilton
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
West 32nd
Street Basin
Locust Street
Basin
Central Business
District Basin
Kauffman
Avenue Basin
Future Carter
Road Basin
N
2000020004000Feet
6
Bee Branch Watershed Land UseBee Branch Watershed Land Use
Streets, 10%
Residential, 40%
Institutional, 14%
Open Space, 26%
Industrial/
Commercial, 11%
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
W. 32nd & Carter Rd. Detention BasinsW. 32nd & Carter Rd. Detention Basins
1,155 Homes/Businesses990 Homes/Businesses
Existing Conditions With Improvements
100-year flood
inundation
Washington
Subbasin
Windsor
Subbasin
Dock
Subbasin
Hamilton
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
2 4 t h S t r e e t
West 32nd
Basin
16th Street
Basin
Bee Branch Capacity (With Improvements)Bee Branch Capacity (With Improvements)
Pipe Flow
Total Flow
1,200 cfs
2,310 cfs
1,430 cfs
3,920 cfs
3,210 cfs
6,040 cfs
700 cfs
960 cfs
1616thth Street BasinStreet Basin
asdf
Dock and Hamilton Subbasinsdiverted under
high river stages
Land use
Flooding areas
Capacity versus flow
16th Street Basin
Development of an acceptable solution Development of an acceptable solution
for the Bee Branch relies on CDM the for the Bee Branch relies on CDM the
City, and the Citizen Advisory City, and the Citizen Advisory
Committee.Committee.
Bee Branch
Citizens Advisory
Committee
(BBCAC)
ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION for
the Bee Branch Restoration
Alignment Study
CDM
WHKS
Conservation
Design Forum
Terracon
The CDM Team
Define a solution that meets Define a solution that meets
engineering, economic, and engineering, economic, and
community requirements.community requirements.
ENGINEERINGENGINEERING
CRITERIACRITERIA
ECONOMIC ECONOMIC
CONSTRAINTSCONSTRAINTS
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
VALUESVALUES
Formulation and
Evaluation of
Appropriate
Alternatives
Acceptable Acceptable
Bee BranchBee Branch
SolutionSolution
7
Engineering CriteriaEngineering Criteria
Adequate channel capacity
Freeboard
Resilient channel treatment
Low maintenance
Utility relocation
Safety
Traffic patterns
Community Values Community Values
Minimize
acquisition
Preserve
neighborhood
Eliminate flooding
Multi-objective
solution?
Economic ConstraintsEconomic Constraints
CIP Budget
Federal Funding
Opportunities
Reliable Cost
Estimates
Gambling Revenue
Current Budget
Constraints
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0CI
P
B
u
d
g
e
t
(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
$
)
Year
$2
,
0
9
4
,
0
0
0
$2
,
3
9
4
,
0
0
0
$2
,
6
9
3
,
0
0
0
$3
,
2
7
1
,
0
0
0
$2
,
7
1
4
,
0
0
0
Funds allocated to Bee Branch Creek
Overview of the ProjectOverview of the Project
Where are we at, where do we need to go?
Channel ConfigurationsChannel Configurations
Alignment
Size
Treatment
Multi-use?
Aesthetics
Planning ProcessPlanning Process
Meeting 1
“Introduction”
Sept. 25, 2003
Meeting 2
“Basis for
Evaluation”
Nov. 20, 2003
Meeting 3
“Alternatives
Evaluation”
Jan. 29, 2004
Meeting 4
“Additional
Alternatives
Evaluation”
Feb. 26, 2004
Meeting 5
“Optimize Preferred
Alternative”
March 25, 2004
Meeting 6
“Recommendations”
May 27, 2004
4Document concerns
& objectives
4Understand watershed
4Develop mission statement
4Understand modeling approach
4Develop evaluation criteria
4Screen and develop alternatives
4Identify project opportunities
4Scoring of initial alternatives
4Formulation/further
development of alternatives
4Elimination of infeasible
or unacceptable options
4Confirmation of evaluation criteria
4Additional alternative
modifications
4Alternative alignments
4Recommend final alternative
4Finalize summary statement
4Volunteers for City Council
meeting presentation
4Scoring of alternatives
4Optimize preferred alternative
4Develop draft recommendations
for City Council
8
Planning/Decision ProcessPlanning/Decision Process
Objectives Evaluation
Criteria
Alternative
ScoringWeights
Preliminary
Alternative
Ranking
Project Goals/ObjectivesProject Goals/Objectives
Develop objectives as group
BBCAC Project IssuesBBCAC Project Issues
Input from BBCAC
Mission StatementMission Statement
Develop mission statement from project objectives
Planned Public OutreachPlanned Public Outreach
Newsletters
City Council and
Public Meetings Website
Open House
Public Involvement ToolsPublic Involvement Tools
Summary Newsletters
Public Meetings
Neighborhood Group
Meetings
Open House Meeting
City Council Meetings
CDM Team/
BBCAC
With
Assistance
from City
P
U
B
L
I
C
Neighborhood
Associations/
Councils
Individual
Residents
Impacted
Property Owners
General Public
Bee Branch
Watershed
Residents
9
Planning SchedulePlanning Schedule
Preliminary
Engineering
Optimize
Preferred
Alternatives
Develop and
Evaluate
Alternatives
Screen
Alternatives
Field Survey and
Expand Existing
Models
BBCAC Meetings
JuneMayAprilMarchFebJanDecNovOctSept
In Progress
Meeting
Problems/SolutionsProblems/Solutions
What are the problems?
What are the cause of the problems?
What are the potential solutions?
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment StudyBee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory CommitteeBee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
December 4, 2003December 4, 2003
AgendaAgenda
Introduction
Project Objectives and Project Opportunities
Model Validation and Existing System
Performance
Potential Options to Solve Flooding
Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Weighting
Public Survey and Survey Results
Moratorium
Meeting ObjectivesMeeting Objectives
Agree on Project Objectives
Review/amend Project Opportunities
Understand existing problems in the
drainage system
Determine options that will be analyzed for
feasibility
Make first pass at criteria weighting
Discuss public survey
Discuss moratorium
IntroductionIntroduction
Newsletter
Meeting notes
Information requests
Individual meetings with CDM/WHKS
BBCAC Survey results
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
Solve the Bee Branch flooding problems
Minimize acquisitions
Maintain safety
Maintain pedestrian crossings
Maintain basic commercial services
Address flow from the subwatersheds
Provide recreation (greenway/parkway/bike trail)
Eliminate stagnant water
Preserve ComiskeyPark
Prevent loss of jobs
Be affordable (within budget allocation)
Objectives from Meeting NotesObjectives from Meeting Notes
1.Safety
2.Preserve ComiskeyPark
3.Loss of jobs
4.Walk bridge
5.Maintain pedestrian walkway
6.Park setting
7.Greenway/parkway
8.No stagnant water. Bee Branch should have a
constant flow of water
9.Conservation practices implemented in a
watershed; i.e., reduction of impervious areas
10.Erosion control
11.Maintain “basic”commercial services; i.e.,
grocery stores
2
Project OpportunitiesProject Opportunities
Determine status of Eagle Grocery at 18th and
Elm
H & W Trucking (30th and Jackson)
Five Points Revitalization Plan (20th and Elm)
Downtown School relocation
Recreation opportunities
Packing Plant Redevelopment
Housing Replacement (equal cost of
ownership, Roosevelt Road)
Modeling Validation and Existing Modeling Validation and Existing
System PerformanceSystem Performance
Historical Events
Critical Duration Rain Event
Capacity versus flow
System Performance
Flooding Areas
Historical EventsHistorical Events
May 16, 1999 –Over 3.5 inches in 4 hours
(5.63 inches in 24 hours)
June 4-5, 2002 –Approx. 5 inches in 6 hours
(5.72 inches in 48 hours)
July 6, 1993 Event –3.2 inches in 24 hours
16th Street
Basin
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
ington
basin Dock
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
VALERIA ST
OCUST ST
E
L
M
S
T
M
A
DISO
N ST
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
THOMAS PL
W
H
IT
E
S
T
NAPIER ST
W 2 8 T H S T
E DI S O N S T
PI
N
A
R
D
S
T
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L S
T
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
1 2 T H S T
C LA R K S T
D OR GA N P L
C
O
R I E S S T
E
L
M
S
T
W 2 3 R D S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
PIERCE ST
F
R
A
N
CIS
S
T
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
K IN G S T
ANN ST
CLARKE DR
W
IN
D
S
O
R A
V
E
M
A
R
Q
U
E
T
T
E
P
L
N
MA
I
N
S
T
HAROLD ST
F
U
L
T
O
N S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
S T
W
A
S
HI
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
DOCK ST
R E G E N T
K IR K W O O D S T
VIOLA ST
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
FOYE ST
Q UI G L E Y L N
E 1 6 T H S T
FARLEY ST
4 T H S T
HEMPSTEAD ST
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 8 T H S T
A N G E L L A S T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
W 1 5 T H S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
KLINGENBERG TER
V
E
N
T
U
R
A
D
R
M E R Z S T
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
SCHILLER ST
E 2 7 T H S T
K
ER
PER
B
LV
D
BROADW
AY ST
CHAPEL CT
SCHROEDER ST
DIAGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF ST
GO
L
D
S
T
LINCOLN AVE
MARSHALL ST
E 2 4 T H S T
C LI NT O N ST
S UT TE R S T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
LINDBERG TER
HE NNEP IN ST COLUMBIA ST
CARROLL ST
E D W A R D S S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 TH S T
P FO T ZE R ST
E 2 1 S T S T
HODGDON ST
D
I
VI
SI
O
N
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
P
I
N
E
S
T
ROSALINE ST
S
W
IC
K S
T
E 2 6 T H S T
PROVIDENCE ST
ROE S T
E 1 8 T H S T
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
STAFFORD ST
Mississip
Historical Events (May Historical Events (May ’’99 and June 99 and June ‘‘02)02)
<1
2+
3+
3+
2+
1+
1+
1+
Drainage Basin Master PlanDrainage Basin Master Plan
W. 32nd & Carter Rd. Detention BasinsW. 32nd & Carter Rd. Detention Basins Critical Duration Rain EventCritical Duration Rain Event
100-year Durations versus Peak Flow Plot
(representative Basin: Kaufmann)
Kaufmann Avenue Peak Outflow
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
12361224
Duration (hours)
Fl
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
7.024
6.312
5.36
4.53
4.12
3.21
Inches
of Rain
Duration
(hrs)
3
Critical Duration Rain EventCritical Duration Rain Event
100-year, 2-Hour
Hydrographs Plot
100-year 2-hour Watershed Outflow Hydrograph
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
050100150200250300
Time (min)
Fl
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
West 32nd
Windsor
Kaufmann
Garfield/Lincoln
Locust
Washington
Subbasin
Windsor
Subbasin
Dock
Subbasin
Hamilton
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
2 4 t h S t r e e t
West 32nd
Basin
16th Street
Basin
Major Tributary InflowsMajor Tributary Inflows
360 cfs
10%
880 cfs
24%
1,320 cfs
36%
480 cfs
13%
210 cfs
6%
200 cfs
5%
100-yr, 2-hr event
(with future Carter Rd.
and 32nd St.
detention basins)
16th Street
Basin
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
M
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
ington
basin Dock
Subbasin
Upper Kerper
Subbasin
VALERIA ST
OCUST ST
E
L
M
S
T
MADIS
ON ST
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
THOMAS PL
W
H
IT
E
S
T
NAPIER ST
W 2 8T H S T
E D I S O N S T
PI
N
A
R
D
S
T
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L S
T
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
1 2 T H S T
C L A R K S T
D OR GA N P L
C
O
R I E S S T
E
L
M
S
T
W 2 3 R D S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
PIERCE ST
F
R
A
N
CI
S
S
T
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
K I N G S T
ANN ST
CLARKE DR
W
IN
D
S
O
R
A
V
E
M
A
R
Q
U
E
T
T
E
P
L
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
HAROLD ST
F
U
L
T
O
N S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
S T
W
A
S
HI
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
DOCK ST
R E G E N T
K IR K W O O D S T
VIOLA ST
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
FOYE ST
Q U I G L E Y L N
E 1 6 T H S T
FARLEY ST
4 T H S T
HEMPSTEAD ST
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 8 T H S T
A N G E L L A S T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
W 1 5 T H S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
KLINGEN BERG T ER
V
E
N
T
U
R
A
D
R
M E R Z S T
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
SCHILLER ST
E 2 7 T H S T
K
ER
PER
B
LV
D
BROADW
AY ST
CHAPEL CT
SCHROEDER ST
DI AGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF ST
GO
L
D
S
T
LINCOLN AVE
MARSHALL ST
E 2 4 T H S T
CL I NT O N ST
S U T TE R S T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
LINDBERG TER
HE NNEP IN ST COLUMBIA ST
CARROLL ST
E D W A R D S S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 T H S T
P F O T ZE R S T
E 2 1 S T S T
HODGDON ST
D
I
VI
SI
O
N
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
P
I
N
E
S
T
ROSALINE ST
S
W
IC
K S
T
E 2 6 T H S T
PROVIDENCE ST
R O E S T
E 1 8 T H S T
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
STAFFORD ST
Mississip
Bee Branch CapacityBee Branch Capacity
100%
20%
50%
30%
20%
100-yr, 2-hr event
(with future Carter Rd.
and 32nd St.
detention basins)
Potential Options to Solve FloodingPotential Options to Solve Flooding
Open Channel
Buyouts
Local/Regional Storage
Relief Pipe
Levee
Floodproofing
Stormwater Reduction Practices
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
Street Lowering
Pumping
Screening CriteriaScreening Criteria
Solves flooding problem
Affordable
Preserves/Enhances Quality of Life
Minimizes Residential Property Acquisitions
Open ChannelOpen Channel
Alignment
Size
Treatment
Multi-use?
Aesthetics
4
BuyoutsBuyouts
Buyout Eligible Properties
Due to Repetitive Flooding
Local / Regional StorageLocal / Regional Storage
Relief PipeRelief Pipe Levee / FloodwallLevee / Floodwall
FloodproofingFloodproofing Stormwater Reduction PracticesStormwater Reduction Practices
Rain Barrels
Porous Pavement
Green Roof
Green Parking Lots
Rain Gardens
5
Pipe Efficiency ImprovementPipe Efficiency Improvement Street LoweringStreet Lowering
PumpingPumping Constraints and CriteriaConstraints and Criteria
Constraints will be a condition that can be
answered yes or no for each alternative
Example: Does the alternative solve the flooding
along the mainstemBee Branch?
Criteria will be used to evaluate the project and
can be measured on some type of scale
Example: Number of Acquisitions required
ConstraintsConstraints
Is the estimated project cost within the budget
allocation ($17.1M)?
Does the alternative solve the flooding along the
mainstemBee Branch?
Preserve ComiskeyPark
Incorporates a factor of safety
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
Minimize loss of jobs
Minimize cost
Preserve neighborhood access/connectivity
Protect environment
Restore Bee Branch Creek
Preserve commercial/non-commercial services
Minimize health and safety risk
Minimize residential property acquisitions
Incorporate “Opportunities”
Provide multi-objective components
Enhance quality of life
6
Planning/Decision ProcessPlanning/Decision Process
Objectives Evaluation
Criteria
Alternative
ScoringWeights
Preliminary
Alternative
Ranking
Criteria Weighting ExerciseCriteria Weighting Exercise
Criteria can be weighted to establish relative
priorities
High Importance
Moderate Importance
Low Importance
Public SurveyPublic Survey
Sample Questions
MoratoriumMoratorium
Planning ProcessPlanning Process
Meeting 1
“Introduction”
Sept. 25, 2003
Meeting 2
“Basis for
Evaluation”
Dec. 4, 2003
Meeting 3
“Alternatives
Evaluation”
Jan. 29, 2004
Meeting 4
“Additional
Alternatives
Evaluation”
Feb. 26, 2004
Meeting 5
“Optimize Preferred
Alternative”
March 25, 2004
Meeting 6
“Recommendations”
May 27, 2004
4Document concerns
& objectives
4Understand watershed
4Develop mission statement
4Understand modeling approach
4Develop evaluation criteria
4Screen and develop alternatives
4Identify project opportunities
4Scoring of initial alternatives
4Formulation/further
development of alternatives
4Elimination of infeasible
or unacceptable options
4Confirmation of evaluation criteria
4Additional alternative
modifications
4Alternative alignments
4Recommend final alternative
4Finalize summary statement
4Volunteers for City Council
meeting presentation
4Scoring of alternatives
4Optimize preferred alternative
4Develop draft recommendations
for City Council
Next MeetingNext Meeting
“Alternatives Evaluation”
Scoring of initial alternatives
Formulation/further
development of alternatives
Elimination of infeasible
or unacceptable options
Confirmation of evaluation criteria
January 29, 2004 –5:30PM
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
January 29, 2004
Agenda
Introduction
Review and Screening of Expanded Options
Elimination of Infeasible or Unacceptable
Options
Formulation of Preliminary Alternatives
Possible Open Channel Alignments
Confirmation of Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Measuring Scales
Meeting Objectives
Eliminate infeasible or unacceptable options
through discussion of the option fact sheets
Formulate preliminary alternatives from the
feasible options
Conduct exercise to explore potential open
channel alignments
Confirm prioritized evaluation criteria
Discuss measuring scales for each of the
evaluation criteria (if time permits)
Introduction
Newsletter 2
Individual meetings with CDM/WHKS
Review and Screening of Expanded Options
Review Options from Meeting 2
Review and discuss fact sheets
Discuss Screening Criteria (Boards)
Options “Kept”in Meeting 2
Conveyance
Local Storage
Regional Storage
Stormwater Reduction Practices
Open Channel
Relief Pipe
Pumping
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
Storage/Infiltration
Mechanical
2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
Time (hrs)
Fl
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
Existing Capacity
Conveyance Solution
Conveyance versus Storage
210 ac-ft
100-year, 2-hour Storm Local Storage
Storage facilities
constructed adjacent
to the channel
Would require at
least 210 acre-feet of
storage
7 blocks of
acquisitions
(approx. 170 homes)
Approximately
$40 million
16th Street
Basin
E
LM S
T
VALERIA ST
E
LM S
T
MADISON ST
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
THOMAS P
W
HIT
E S
T
NAPIER ST
W 28TH S T
EDISON S T
NA
R
D S
T
ELLIS ST
J
AC
K
SO
N ST
12 TH ST
CLA RK ST
C
E
NTR
AL AV
E
DORGAN PL
CO
X S
RIES ST
W 23RD S T
TH ST
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
E
E
B ST
PIERCE ST
FRANCIS
S
T
E
AGL
E ST
KING S T
ANN ST
CLARKE DR
WINDSOR AVE
M
AR
QUE
TTE P
L
N MAIN S
T
HAROLD ST
LTON ST
P
RINC
E ST
WAS
HINGTON S
T
DOCK ST
R EG E NT
RK WO OD S T
VIOLA ST
TH ST
LINCOLN AVE
SHEL
B
Y ST
KERPER CT
FOYE ST
QUIGLEY LN
FARLEY ST
T
E 14TH ST
E 1 7TH ST
ST
E 20TH ST
A NGELLA ST
E 21 ST ST
N W
HIT
E ST
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2ND S T
W 1 5TH ST
KNIEST ST
N MAP
LE ST
E 15TH ST
N CEDAR STE 16T H ST
KLINGENBERG TER
V
E
NTU
R
A D
R
MERZ ST
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
SCHILLER ST
KERPER BLVD
HENRY S T
CHAPEL CT
SCHROEDER ST
Q
U
EE
N ST
DIAGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF ST
GOLD ST
LINCOLN AVE
SHALL ST
E 26T H S T
E 27T H S T
CLINTON ST
SUTTE R ST
E 2 5T H S T
E 28TH ST
CARR ST
F
LINDBERG TER
E 19T H ST
HENNEPIN ST
C AR R O LL ST
EDWARDS ST
N S
YC
AMORE ST
W 24TH ST
PFOTZER ST
E 18TH STERCHANTS LN
DIVISION S
T
PIN
E ST
ROSALINE ST
PL EA SA N T VIE W D R
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 24TH ST
EL
M ST
PAUL ST
GR
E
ELE
Y S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
TRA
UT TER
PLEASANT ST
U.S. HW Y 61 & 1 51
16TH ST
JA
C
KS
ON ST
WASHIN
GT
ON S
T
Bee Branch Mainlin
e
Mississippi
Local Storage
Summary:
Storage that would be provided adjacent to the
channel would require the acquisition of 7 blocks
of property. The project would be expected to cost
approximately to $40 million.
Local storage is infeasible due to the high number
acquisitions (170 homes) and high cost.
Regional Storage
Storage facilities
constructed in the
subwatershed areas
Would require 210
acre-feet of storage
or more depending
on location
Limited, if any,
suitable sites
21 acres of
acquisition (130
homes)
$30 million 16th S
Bas
KAN
E ST
ELM S
T
SAUNDER
VALERIA ST
WLOCUSTST
E
LM ST
MADISON ST
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
THOMAS PL
W
HITE ST
STOL TZ S T
NAPIER ST
W 28TH ST
EDISON ST
PINAR
D ST
E
L
JAC
KSON STC
E
NTR
AL A
VE
RIES ST
W 23RD S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
HEEB ST
FRANCIS S
T
EA
GLE S
T
KING ST
ANN ST
CLARKE DR
WINDSOR AVE
MARQUETTE PL
N MAIN S
T
HAROLD ST
FULTO
N ST
PR
INCE
ST
GAY ST
W
AS
HIN
G
TO
N ST
LINK ST
DOCK ST
R EG EN T
NST
VIOLA ST
PRIMROSE CT
LINCOLN AVE
PUTNAM ST
SHELBY ST
PRESCOTT S
KERPER CT
W 30T H S T
FOYE ST
FARLEY ST
E 17TH ST
HEMPSTEAD ST
E 20TH ST
BALK
E ST
E 2 1ST ST
E 29TH ST
N W
HITE S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 22ND ST
KNIEST ST
N MA
N CEDAR16TH ST
KLINGENBERG TER
SABULA ST
VE
NTU
RA DR
MERZ ST
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
SCHILLER ST
ST
HENRY ST
BROADWAY ST
CHAPEL CT
SCHROEDER ST
DEN S
T
QUEE
N ST
DIAGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF ST
GOLD ST
LINCOLN AVE
MARSHALL ST
E 26T H S T
E 27TH S T
CLINTON ST
SUTTER ST
E 25TH ST
E 28T H S T
CA
R
R ST
MUSCATINE ST
LINDBERG TER
E 19TH ST
HENNEPIN ST
DECATUR ST
C AR R O LL ST
BURLINGTON ST
EDWARDS ST
HAMILTON ST
N SYCAMORE ST
W 24T H ST
PFOTZER ST
E 1 8TH ST MERCHANTS LN
ST RA U SS ST
DIVISION S
T
PINE ST
RAVENWOOD CT
ROSALINE ST
UENA VISTA ST
PLEA SA NT VIEW DR
PRIMROSE ST
B
RUN
S
WICK S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
MONROE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 24TH S T
EL
M S
T
PAUL ST
GRE
ELEY ST
HUMBOLDT ST
DAVENPORT ST
TR
A
U
T TER
LAW
HODGDON ST
PLEASANT ST
GREENFIELD ST
ST
ASCENSION ST
SPRINGGREEN CT
JACKSON S
T
WASHIN
GTON ST
Bee Branch Mainlin
e
Regional Storage
Summary:
Limited suitable and available property would
result in the need to acquire at least 21 acres (130
homes) to provide the required storage.
Depending on storage method, construction cost
of at least $30 million.
Moderately high cost and high acquisitions make
this option infeasible.
Stormwater Reduction Practices
Practices include:
Rain Barrels
Cisterns
Rain Gardens
Porous Pavement
Limited impact on 100-
year event
A modest rain garden on
every residential
property would provide
less than 8% of the
required storage
3
Stormwater Reduction Practices
Summary:
Stormwater reduction practices are effective at
controlling runoff from small rainfall events and at
improving the water quality of stormwater runoff.
However, they could not significantly impact or
improve the Bee Branch flooding problems.
Stormwater reduction practices are infeasible
because they could not solve the Bee Branch
flooding problem.
Open Channel
Remove and replace Bee
Branch with an open
channel below 24th St.
Channel top width of will
be 150 to 170 feet.
Requires approximately
70 acquisitions subject
to the development of an
alignment
Most affordable solution
Open Channel
Summary:
The open channel option could solve the Bee
Branch flooding problems. A relatively moderate
amount of acquisitions would be required. Various
opportunities exist to create amenities as part of
this option. The estimated cost is $17 million.
The open channel option is rated good or fair for
the four screening criteria and warrants further
consideration.
Relief Pipe
Construct additional pipes to expand the capacity of the
existing Bee Branch
Conveyance improvements range from 7 feet by 30 feet
near 25th Street to 12 feet by 90 feet at the outlet (provided
in number of pipes).
Reduces property acquisitions (50 homes)
Costs are approximately $50 million
Relief Pipe
Summary:
The relief pipe option could solve the Bee Branch
flooding problems. Acquisitions are minimized and
the changes to the neighborhood will be limited,
however the costs are approximately $50 million.
The relief pipe option is rated good for all the
screening criteria except for cost. The relief pipe
option may be viable as a project component to
limit acquisitions or improve neighborhood
connectivity.
Pumping
16th Street
Basin
VALERIA ST
EL
M S
T
MADISON ST
TH ST
ALMOND ST
LOWELL ST
EDI SON ST
EL
LIS ST
12TH ST
C LA RK S T
DORG AN PL
W 2 3 RD ST
E 11TH S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
EE
B ST
F
RA
NCIS ST
S T
CLARKE DR
WIN
DSOR AVE
T
E P
L
N MAIN ST
P
RIN
C
E ST
R E G E N T
MAIN S
T
T
E 12TH ST
LINCOLN AVE
S
HELB
Y ST
KERPER CT
FOYE ST
QUIGLE Y L N
FARLEY ST
E 13TH S T
E 1 4T H S T
E 1 7T H S T
E 2 0T H S T
EL LA ST
E 21ST ST
N WHITE S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 ND ST
W 15 TH ST
KNIEST ST
N
MA
PLE S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N C
ED
AR STE 16T H S T
KLINGENBERG TER
MERZ ST
RHOMBERG AVE
CUSHING ST
SCHILLER ST
KERPER BL
VD
HE NRY S T
CHAPEL CT
Q
UEE
N ST
DIAGONAL ST
HIGH BLUFF S
LINCO
E 2 6 TH S T
E 2 5 T H S T
CA
R
R S
T
FAIRVIEW
E 1 9 T H S T
LORAS BL VD
L ST
ED WA RD S S T
N SYC
AMO
RE ST
W 2 4 T H ST
E 1 8T H S T
W
DIVISIO
N ST
PIN
E S
T
ROSALINE ST
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
ELM S
T
PAUL ST
HUMBOLDT ST
T
RAU
T T
ER
U.S. H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
16TH ST
JA
CKS
ON S
T
W
ASHINGT
ON S
T
Bee Branch Mainlin
e
Construct two pump
stations to pump water
through new
conveyance structures
to the outlet
Pump stations are very
large and construction
cost estimated to be
$60 million
4
Pumping
Summary:
The pumping option could solve the Bee Branch
flooding problems. There will be a modest amount
of acquisitions and some neighborhood impacts.
The project costs are estimated at $60 million.
The pumping option has a high cost. Other
screening criteria are rated good or fair.
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
Use Bernoulli principle
to improve pipe
efficiency (essentially a
jet pump)
Uses pumps to create
the jet, less efficient
than direct pumping of
the stormwater
Source: Russell Hoffman
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
Summary:
The pipe efficiency improvements is essentially a
version of the pumping option. Using a “jet pump”
would be less efficient than traditional pumps to
move the stormwater runoff at the required rate.
This option is a less feasible (technically more
difficult and more costly) version of the pumping
option.
Review and Consensus on
Viable Options
Formulation of Preliminary Alternatives
Feasible options (or combinations of
options) will become project alternatives
Agree on preliminary alternatives that will be
presented and evaluated in Meeting 4
Develop (for Meeting 4):
Required components
Alignments
Costs
Possible Open Channel Alignments
Develop open channel alignments in groups
(15 minute exercise)
1.Use tape to mark possible alignment on map
2.Identify the advantages and disadvantages of
your alignment
3.Summarize your approach to the BBCAC
5
Confirmation of Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Weighting Exercise Results
Evaluation Criteria Scales
BBCAC Evaluation Criteria
Number of environmental
parameters that are adversely
impacted
Relative score of whether
alternative adds value or lowers
value of the neighborhood
Number of safety issues
identified
Number of streets that are
obstructed by the project
Estimated project cost
Number of residences that must
be acquired
Number of services lost through
business relocation
Performance Measure
22
29
31
31
40
46
53
Score
1.3Enhance quality of life
1.4Minimize health and
safety risk
1.4Preserve neighborhood
access/connectivity
1.8Minimize cost
2.1Minimize residential
property acquisitions
2.4Preserve commercial/
non-commercial
Services
1.0Protect environment
WeightEvaluation Criteria
Planning Process
Meeting 1
“Introduction”
Sept. 25, 2003
Meeting 2
“Basis for
Evaluation”
Dec. 4, 2003
Meeting 3
“Alternatives
Evaluation”
Jan. 29, 2004
Meeting 4
“Additional
Alternatives
Evaluation”
Feb. 26, 2004
Meeting 5
“Optimize Preferred
Alternative”
March 25, 2004
Meeting 6
“Recommendations”
May 27, 2004
4Document concerns
& objectives
4Understand watershed
4Develop mission statement
4Understand modeling approach
4Develop evaluation criteria
4Screen and develop alternatives
4Identify project opportunities
4Scoring of initial alternatives
4Formulation/further
development of alternatives
4Elimination of infeasible
or unacceptable options
4Confirmation of evaluation criteria
4Additional alternative
modifications
4Alternative alignments
4Recommend final alternative
4Finalize summary statement
4Volunteers for City Council
meeting presentation
4Scoring of alternatives
4Optimize preferred alternative
4Develop draft recommendations
for City Council
Next Meeting
“Alternatives Evaluation 2”
Evaluate Alternatives
Additional Alternative Modifications including
Alternative Alignments
Revise/Update Evaluation Criteria and/or
Measuring Scales
Confirm next meeting date
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment StudyBee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory CommitteeBee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting #4Meeting #4
Alternatives Evaluation 2Alternatives Evaluation 2
March 11, 2004March 11, 2004
A
AgendaAgenda
Introduction / Meeting Objectives
Finalize Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Alignments
Alternative Development
Alternative Evaluation
Alignment/Alternative
modifications/optimization by BBCAC
Alternatives for Next Meeting
Introduction / Primary ObjectivesIntroduction / Primary Objectives
Identify any outstanding items from Meeting #3
Finalize Evaluation Criteria
Review CDM modifications to alignments
Review two alternatives developed from the
alignments
Select an alignment/alternative to develop further
and evaluate for the next meeting
Finalize Alternative Evaluation CriteriaFinalize Alternative Evaluation Criteria
(Performance criteria: scales & measures)(Performance criteria: scales & measures)
Review the changes made to Alternative
Evaluation Criteria per discussion from
Meeting #3
Reach agreement on these criteria in order to
apply them to evaluate our alternatives
Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, Scales and Weights
BBCAC Meeting 4 March 11, 2004
Rank Objective(Evalua
tion Criteria)
Performance Measure Scale Weight
1 Preserve
commercial/
noncommercial
services
Number of commercial/non
commercial services lost
through business relocation
Assume that order of magnitude number of services potentially lost are 10. Use number of
services lost as points (may need to adjust after number of potential lost services are
identified). 10 or more services lost would still be 10 points.
Once the alignments were selected – all the alignments but one affected more than 10
commercial properties. Thus the points were prorated, with the worst alignment affecting
16 commerical properties (10 points) and lesser totals such as 9 commercial properties
receiving 5.6 points [(9/16)*10].
2.4
2 Minimize
residential
property
acquisitions
Number of properties that
must be acquired
Prorate the number of residential property acquisitions to alignment with highest number.
Thus if the worst alignment takes 64 residences (10 points), then an alignment affecting 60
residences would receive a point total of (60/64)*10 = 9.4.
2.1
3 Minimize cost Estimated project cost Establish ranges based on how close to City’s budget of $17M. $17M or less=0; 0-10%
more than $17M ($18.7M) = 1; 11-20% more than $17M ($20.4M) = 2; 41-50% ($25.5M) =
5; 91-100% ($34M) = 10. Once costs were finalized, the pipe alignment was greater than
100% ($34M), so points were pro-rated to the higher cost estimate ($24M).
1.8
4 Preserve
neighborhood
access /
connectivity
Number of streets that are
obstructed by the project
Count the total number of streets that are cut off or lost and use that number; which means
that obstructing 10 or more streets gets same score
1.4
5 Minimize health
and safety risk
Number of safety issues
identified
Characterize health and safety impacts through several individual criteria: pest potential
(rodents/bugs/viruses) =2 pts, attractive nuisance (will it attract children) =2 pts, danger
(deep water, high velocity, steep drops)=6 pts.
1.4
6 Enhance quality
of life
Relative score of whether
alternative adds value or
lowers value of the
neighborhood
Scale of 0 to 10; with 0 being good and 10 being bad. This will be a qualitative and
somewhat arbitrary judgment based on the relative quality of life enhancement between
alternatives
1.3
7 Protect
environment
Good or bad impacts to a
number of environmental
parameters
Characterize environmental impacts through 10 individual criteria: air, water, soil,
groundwater, flora, fauna, noise, historical/cultural, social, environmental justice. Each
criterion is assessed as a 1 or 0. 0 if no significant adverse impacts. 1 if significant impacts
are perceived. An enhancement could be given a -1. Impacts to endangered species will
not be scored but will “kill” the project, unless acceptable mitigation is possible.
1.0
Weights are based voting exercise at the Dec 2003 BBCAC meeting and scales are based on discussion at Jan 2004 BBCAC meeting.
AlignmentsAlignments
CAC Alignments from Meeting 3
Alignments 1, 2, 3 chosen by subgroups of BBCAC
Alignments 4 and 5 (hybrids of BBCAC alignments)
CDM Modifications to BBCAC Alignments
Minor changes made to alignments to:
–simplify road crossings and connections to existing Bee
Branch pipe
–avoid pertinent businesses/utilities
–maintain integrity of Packing Plant site
Alignment Evaluations
180-foot Open Channel Corridor utilized to compare alignments
2
Typical Cross SectionTypical Cross Section
Open ChannelOpen Channel
1150’
Typical Cross SectionTypical Cross Section
PipePipe
150’
Property Acquisition Property Acquisition --ProtocolProtocol
Construction Corridor touches primary or detached
structure
Construction Corridor encroaches within 10-ft of
primary structure
Main access is lost due to construction corridor
and secondary access cannot be easily established
Front Lot line: if any portion lost (assumes loss of
access)
Back Lot line: 10-ft loss or more
Side Lot Line Encroachment: 10-ft loss or more 16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
INGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
backLower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 1 (North Table)
Existing Bee Branch
BBCAC Alignment 1
(North Table)
Adjusted Alignment
(Maximizes Fulfillment of Project Objectives)
Roadway Culvert
(Typ.)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Alignment 1 ModificationsAlignment 1 Modifications
Alignment was altered slightly to cross perpendicular
to streets to minimize road crossing impacts.
At the intersection of 20th/Rhomberg/Garfield, the
alignment was shifted to the east to avoid impacting
the gas station and the Eagle grocery store.
Near the Packing Plant, the alignment was shifted to
follow Pine Street to maintain the integrity of the site
for future development.
At the intersection of 15th and Sycamore, the
alignment was shifted to the north of 15th to avoid the
sanitary sewer lift station.16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Roadway Culvert
(Typ.)
Existing Bee Branch
backLower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 2 (Middle Table)
BBCAC Alignment 2
(Middle Table)
Adjusted Alignment
(Maximizes Fulfillment of Project Objectives)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
3
Alignment 2 ModificationsAlignment 2 Modifications
Alignment was altered slightly to cross perpendicular
to streets to minimize road crossing impacts.
Near the Packing Plant, the alignment was shifted to
follow Pine Street to maintain the integrity of the site
for future development.
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
T
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 3 (South Table)
March 11, 2004
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
backLower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Existing Bee Branch
Roadway Culvert
(Typ.)
BBCAC Alignment 3
(South Table)
Adjusted Alignment
(Maximizes Fulfillment of Project Objectives)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Alignment 3 ModificationsAlignment 3 Modifications
Open channel begins just south of 24th Street, with new
connection pipe constructed to remove 90 degree bends.
Alignment was altered slightly to cross perpendicular to
streets to minimize road crossing impacts.
The alignment was shifted to be along the centerline of Elm
Street between 24th and 22nd instead of at an angle to avoid
impacting parcels on Washington Street.
The portion south of 22nd St. is shifted to avoid the church and
gas station properties.
Section downstream of the railroad tracks was selected to run
along Pine Street, cross under 16th Street, and then angle
sharply to the east to avoid the sanitary sewer lift station.
Initial Ranking TableInitial Ranking Table
54.8
47.4
56.4
56.3
56.4
Total for
Initial
Screening
Prorated to highest
acquired (69)
Prorated to highest
acquired (19)
Description
1.42.12.4Weight
212.620.721.591768Hybrid 25
111.920.415.28.51267Hybrid 14
412.619.824.091965
South
Table
3
312.621.022.791869
Middle
Table
2
412.619.824.091965
North
Table
1
Initial RankPreserve
Neighborhood
Access
Minimize Property
Acquisitions
Preserve Commercial /
Non-Commercial
Services
Roads Lost
or Dead
Ended
Commercial
/ Industrial
ResidentialBBCAC
Table /
Name
Alignment
No.
Weighted RankingRoadsAcquisitions
180-ft Channel Corridor
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
VI
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Existing Bee Branch
backLower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 4 (Hybrid 1)
Roadway Culvert
(Typ.)
Alignment 4 (Hybrid 1)
(Maximizes Fulfillment of Project Objectives)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Roadway Culvert
(Typ.)
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 5 (Hybrid 2)
March 11, 2004
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
backLower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Existing Bee Branch
Alignment 5 (Hybrid 2)
(Maximizes Fulfillment of Project Objectives)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
4
Development of Two Alternatives Development of Two Alternatives
Open Channel
Pipe Alternative
Alternative Development Alternative Development
Design Criteria
Constraints
Opportunities
Issues
Assumptions
Design CriteriaDesign Criteria--GeneralGeneral
100-yr Protection
Freeboard (Design Flood El. To Top of Bank)
1-ft to top of bank
Side slopes-
Permanent-3 (H): 1 (V) –maximum
Temporary-1.5: 1-assumed
Design CriteriaDesign Criteria--General (cont.)General (cont.)
Maintenance Access
Open Channel-15 ft (both sides)
Pipe Channel-15 ft (both sides)
Channel Treatment
Minimize maintenance costs
Accessible (maintenance/ emergency)
Aesthetically acceptable (Naturalized
Channel)
Reuse portion Existing Bee Branch Sewer
Minimize Standing Water
Constraints/ IssuesConstraints/ Issues
Development Opportunities
Packing Plant
Development Constraints
Existing Gas Station
Major Businesses
Groundwater
Heritage Trail
Sanitary Lift Station
Alternative DevelopmentAlternative Development
Pipe/Open Channel Concept (typical cross sections)
What type of channel /pipe is appropriate?
Open Channel Concept:
-Low flow channel
-Grassy overflow
channel
Pipe Concept:
-Double box type structure
-Underground with open
grassy area on top of the
pipes
5
Open Channel TreatmentsOpen Channel Treatments
Typical Cross SectionTypical Cross Section
Open ChannelOpen Channel
1150’
Open ChannelOpen Channel Typical Cross SectionTypical Cross Section
PipePipe
150’
Pipe PhotoPipe Photo Alternatives 1 & 2Alternatives 1 & 2
Open Channel
Alternative
-Based on Hybrid 1,
Alignment 4
-Includes approximately
4,100 feet of open channel
-4 bridges
-4 road closures
Pipe Alternative
-Based on Hybrid 2,
Alignment 5
-Includes approximately
2,740 feet of double box
culverts which are 10 feet
tall and vary between 28
and 42 feet wide a piece
-1,360 feet of open
channel
-1 bridge
-2 road closures
6
Open ChannelOpen Channel
Open channel below 24th
St.
Channel top width of 180
feet.
Requires approximately
79 acquisitions subject
to the development of an
alignment
Acquisition of 67 houses
and 12 businesses
Cost of $21.6 to $29.8M
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
open channelLower Reach
Open Channel
Preliminary Alternative 1
Open Channel
March 11, 2004
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Railroad Culvert
Road Culvert
(Typ.)
Existing Bee Branch
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Open Channel
Relief PipeRelief Pipe
Construct additional pipes to expand the capacity of the
existing Bee Branch
10’tall double box varying from two 28’wide to two 42’
wide
Open channel downstream of railroad tracks
Acquisition of 58 houses and 16 businesses
Costs are approximately $30.4 to $42.0 million
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADISO
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
A
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
T
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
VI
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T 16th Street
Basin
Existing Bee Branch
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary Alternative 2
Pipe Upper Reach
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Pipe
Pipe Outfall
to Open Channel
open channelLower Reach
Open Channel
Cost EstimateCost Estimate --Base AssumptionsBase Assumptions
Property Acquisition (inc. acquisition, demo, reloc.)
Residential -$100,000
Non-Residential-$150,0000
Contingency –35% total
Engineering-Design/ Const. Mgmt, Permitting-15%
Construction Costs-20%
Cost ComparisonCost Comparison
$41,998,000$29,750,000Total
$11,565,000$8,182,000Contingency
$30,433,000$21,568,000Subtotal
$16,917,000$5,027,000Structures/Pipe
$3,897,000$6,599,000Channel
$760,000$788,000Utilities
$8,200,000
(74 acq.)
$8,500,000
(79acq.)
Acquisitions
$659,000$644,000General
PipeOpen ChannelCategory
7
Alternative EvaluationAlternative Evaluation
(table with rankings)(table with rankings)
Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial Services
Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
Minimize Cost
Preserve Neighborhood Access/Connectivity
Minimize Health and Safety Risk
Enhance Quality of Life
Protect Environment
Alternative Evaluation RankingAlternative Evaluation Ranking
21RANK
70.967.9TOTAL
1.0-1.0Protect Environment
0.0-2.6Enhance Quality of Life
5.611.2Minimize Health & Safety Risks
8.411.9Preserve Neighborhood Access
18.012.8Minimize Cost
17.720.4Minimize Residential Acquisitions
20.215.2Preserve Commercial Services
Weighted ScoreWeighted Score
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
Alignment/AlternativeAlignment/Alternative
modifications/optimization by BBCACmodifications/optimization by BBCAC
Receive feedback from the BBCAC as to the
most favorable alternative
Discuss potential modifications or
adjustments that CDM can consider for
Meeting 5
Group or full committee modifications?
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADISO
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
V
E
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
VI
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
open channelLower Reach
Open Channel
Preliminary Alternative 1
Open Channel
March 11, 2004
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Railroad Culvert
Road Culvert
(Typ.)
Existing Bee Branch
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Open Channel
Alternatives for Meeting 5Alternatives for Meeting 5
Primary Objectives before Meeting 5
–Get direction from BBCAC on which alternative
should be considered further
–What modifications or “optimizing”of this
alternative CDM should consider in preparation
for Meeting 5
Planning ProcessPlanning Process
Meeting 1
“Introduction”
Sept. 25, 2003
Meeting 2
“Basis for
Evaluation”
Dec. 4, 2003
Meeting 3
“Alternatives
Evaluation”
Jan. 29, 2004
Meeting 4
“Additional
Alternatives
Evaluation”
Mar. 11, 2004
Meeting 5
“Optimize Preferred
Alternative”
TBD
Meeting 6
“Recommendations”
TBD
4Document concerns
& objectives
4Understand watershed
4Develop mission statement
4Understand modeling approach
4Develop evaluation criteria
4Screen and develop alternatives
4Identify project opportunities
4Scoring of initial alternatives
4Formulation/further
development of alternatives
4Elimination of infeasible
or unacceptable options
4Confirmation of evaluation criteria
4Additional alternative
modifications
4Alternative alignments
4Recommend final alternative
4Finalize summary statement
4Volunteers for City Council
meeting presentation
4Scoring of alternatives
4Optimize preferred alternative
4Develop draft recommendations
for City Council
8
Public Involvement ActivitiesPublic Involvement Activities Next MeetingNext Meeting
Next Meeting -“Optimize Preferred Alternative”
April 2004
Construction TimelineConstruction Timeline Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial
ServicesServices
20.21615.2122.4
Preserve
Commercial
Services
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
Prorated to a maximum of 19
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize Residential Property AcquisitionsMinimize Residential Property Acquisitions
17.75820.4672.1
Minimize
Residential
Acquisitions
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
Prorated to a maximum of 69
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize CostMinimize Cost
181012.87.11.8Minimize Cost
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
Channel cost: $29.8 million
Pipe cost: $42.0 million
9
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Preserve Neighborhood Preserve Neighborhood
Access/ConnectivityAccess/Connectivity
8.4611.98.51.4
Preserve
Neighborhood
Access
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
Loss of a full road is the same as a road with
a new dead-end
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize Health & Safety RiskMinimize Health & Safety Risk
5.6411.281.4
Minimize
Health & Safety
Risk
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
1
2
Attractive Nuisance (2)
21Alternate 2 -Pipe
42Alternate 1 -Channel
Safety Concerns (6)Mosquitoes (2)
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Enhance Quality of LifeEnhance Quality of Life
00-2.6-21.3Enhance
Quality of Life
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
-1
0
Recreational Potential
01Alternate 2 -Pipe
-1-1Alternate 1 -Channel
Property Value IncreaseAesthetics
Good: -1
No Effect: 0
Bad: 1
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Protect EnvironmentProtect Environment
11-1-11.0Protect
Environment
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
0
-1
Fauna
1
1
Social
Scored
0
0
Other
(all zero)
0
-1
Flora
0
1
Groundwater
0Alternate 2 -Pipe
-1Alternate 1 -Channel
Water
Good: -1
No Effect: 0
Bad: 1
Property AcquisitionProperty Acquisition
Screening Criteria Screening Criteria ––
Structure LossStructure Loss
Construction corridor
touches primary or
detached structure
Property AcquisitionProperty Acquisition
Screening Criteria Screening Criteria ––
StructureStructure
Encroachment ofEncroachment of
CulvertCulvert
Construction corridor
encroaches within 10
feet of primary
structure
10
Property AcquisitionProperty Acquisition
Screening Criteria Screening Criteria ––
StructureStructure
Encroachment ofEncroachment of
Open ChannelOpen Channel
Construction corridor
encroaches within 10
feet of primary
structure
Property AcquisitionProperty Acquisition
Screening Criteria Screening Criteria ––
Parcel ReductionParcel Reduction
Construction corridor
creates loss of 10 feet
or more from back or
side lot line
Typical PropertyTypical Property --
ExampleExample Alignment ConsiderationsAlignment Considerations
Site Conditions
Topography
Geotechnical
–Groundwater
–Soil composition
–Bedrock
–Slope stability
Maintenance
Construction (temp): 15ft (Open)/ 30 ft (Pipe)
Permanent: 15ft (both)
Alignment ConsiderationsAlignment Considerations
Street Crossings
Traffic Impacts
Neighborhood Connectivity
Structure Length
Crossing Angle
Utility Conflicts
Constructability
Open Channel TreatmentsOpen Channel Treatments
11
Pipe PhotoPipe Photo Pipe PhotoPipe Photo
Cost EstimateCost Estimate --Base Assumptions Base Assumptions
(cont.)(cont.)
Structure Crossings
Precast Arch Culverts
Cast-in-place-head and wing walls
Concrete channel beneath culvert
Recreation Path-24th Street to Garfield
Open Channel
Low Flow Channel-25ft
Riprap bottom
Quarry Stone banks
Residential Acquisition AssumptionsResidential Acquisition Assumptions
$50,000-$60,000 per home for purchase
$15,000-$20,000 per home for relocation
$10,000-$20,000 per home for demolition and
cleanup
Total: $75,000-$100,000 per home (City Cost)
City pays difference between current
structure value and comparable home
purchase
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment StudyBee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory CommitteeBee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting #5Meeting #5
Optimize Preferred AlternativesOptimize Preferred Alternatives
May 3, 2004May 3, 2004
A
AgendaAgenda
Introduction / Meeting Objectives
Public Meeting Summary
Alignments
Alternative Refinement
Open Channel Alternative
Pipe Alternative
Open Channel Concept
Alternative Ranking
Discussion of Refined Alternatives
Preferred Alternative for Preliminary Design
Introduction / Primary ObjectivesIntroduction / Primary Objectives
Identify any outstanding items from Meeting #4
Discuss Public Meeting comments
Review selected alignment
Select preferred alternative for Preliminary Design
Public Meeting SummaryPublic Meeting Summary
Discuss Public Meeting held March 30, 2004
Outcome
–Discussions with public were positive
–BBCAC role
Future Public Meeting Ideas
–Was the format effective?
–How well did it serve the public in attendance?
–Should we conduct the next public meeting the
same way when a preferred alternative has
been selected?
Comfortable with current alignment?
AlignmentsAlignments
Discuss BBCAC Alignments selected from Meeting 4
–Open Channel Alternative
–Pipe Alternative
Discuss outcomes of discussions with the railroad
and Audubon School
Reach consensus on alignment
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M S
T
M
ADISO
N ST
MOND ST
LOWELL ST
E D I S O N S
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
1 2 T H
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
W
I
N
D
SOR
A
V
E
N
M
A
IN
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
S T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
L N
ARLEY ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
IT
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
W 1 5 T H S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
KLINGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
SCHILLER ST
K
E
R
P
E
R
B
L
V
D
CHAPEL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
ONAL S T
H
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E D W A R D S S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
DI
V
IS
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
PAUL ST
HUMBOLDT ST
T
R
A
U
T
T
E
R
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N
Open Channel
Between Railroad and Basin
Open Channel or Pipe Alignment
Between 24th and 22nd
Open Channel or Pipe
Alignment Corridor
Between 22nd and Railroad
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
4000400800Feet
Alignment Corridor Limits
Existing Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Legend
Bee Branch Alignment Study
Possible Alignments Corridor
March 30, 2004
Public Meeting
2
16th Street
Basin MADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
GENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WINDSOR AVE
E
L
M
S
T
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Pipe Alternative
4/26/2004
A & WHKS & Co.
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
May 3, 2004
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Pipe Alternative
DRAFT
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Railroad Culverts
Roadway Crossings
at Cross Streets
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Pipe Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts / Pipes
Legend
Alternative Refinement ($25M)Alternative Refinement ($25M)
The refined Open Channel Alternativealong the
preferred alignment includes:
4,100 feet of open channel, 12-14 feet deep
4 bridges
Road closures at Lincoln, Garfield, Sycamore, Elm, and
converting Kniest St. to a one-way street with parking
New one-way street with parking Lincoln Ave. to Rhomberg
Ave. for Audubon School.
Low flow channel reduced to a width of 15 feet in the reach
upstream of railroad.
13 commercial; 65 residential acquisitions
Some additional properties for acquisitions/easements
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
MADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R GAN P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
L CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WINDSOR AVE
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000FeetExisting Bee Branch
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
4/26/2004
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
DRAFT
Railroad Culverts
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
1-Way Road
With Parking
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
INGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Upper Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Existing Bee Branch
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
Buyouts / Easements DRAFT
__
Buyouts / Easements
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
_
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
Preliminary Open Channel ConceptPreliminary Open Channel Concept
View Looking Northwest from 22View Looking Northwest from 22ndnd Street CrossingStreet Crossing
Existing ConditionsProposed Channel
Alternative Refinement ($41M)Alternative Refinement ($41M)
The Pipe Alternativehas been refined from Meeting 4
to follow the preferred alignment and includes:
2,740 feet of double box culvert
1,360 feet of open channel
1 bridge
Road closures at Elm and Sycamore, and
modification of Kniest St. to one-way with parking.
Double box culverts 10 feet tall; 28 and 42 feet
wide a piece.
Open channel section downstream of the railroad
tracks same as the channel alternativediscussed
previously.
14 commercial; 64 residential acquisitions
Some additional properties/easements
3
16th Street
Basin MADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
I
N
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
GENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WINDSOR AVE
E
L
M
S
T
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Pipe Alternative
4/26/2004
A & WHKS & Co.
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
May 3, 2004
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Pipe Alternative
DRAFT
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Railroad Culverts
Roadway Crossings
at Cross Streets
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Pipe Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts / Pipes
Legend
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Upper Reach
Pipe Alternative
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000FeetExisting Bee Branch
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Pipe Alternative
Buyouts / Easements
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
DRAFT
Railroad Culverts
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
__
Buyouts / Easements
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
_
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts / Pipes
Legend
Preferred Alternative for Preliminary Preferred Alternative for Preliminary
DesignDesign
Get direction from BBCAC on “preferred”
alternative Preliminary Design
Work with BBCAC to develop the recommendation
wording that can be sent to Council.
Refine the preferred alternative in preparation for
final Meeting #6
Prepare a summary of the alignment/alternative
evolution process.
Alternative RankingAlternative Ranking
Revised ranking criteria as per BBCAC comments
at Meeting 4
Provide new ranking with final two alternatives
Discuss ranking outcome and scoring
Alternative EvaluationAlternative Evaluation
Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial Services
Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
Minimize Cost
Preserve Neighborhood Access/Connectivity
Minimize Health and Safety Risk
Enhance Quality of Life
Protect Environment
Property AcquisitionsProperty Acquisitions
Acquisitions for both the Open Channel and Pipe Alternatives are
very similar
24.01422.3132.4
Preserve
Commercial
Services
20.76421.0652.1
Minimize
Residential
Acquisitions
Weighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeighted
ScoreRaw ScoreWeightObjective
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
4
Original HDR estimate ≈$17 million
Open Channel Alternative Cost ≈$25 million
Pipe Alternative Cost ≈$41 million
Cost ComparisonCost Comparison Alternative Evaluation RankingAlternative Evaluation Ranking
21RANK
75.174.7TOTAL
1.0-1.0Protect Environment
-2.60.0Enhance Quality of Life
5.611.2Minimize Health & Safety Risks
8.410.5Preserve Neighborhood Access
18.0 ($41M)10.8 ($25M)Minimize Cost
20.7 (64)21.0 (65)Minimize Residential Acquisitions
24.0 (14)22.3 (13)Preserve Commercial Services
Weighted ScoreWeighted Score
Alternate 2 -PipeAlternate 1 -Channel
BBCAC Discussion of Evaluation BBCAC Discussion of Evaluation
ResultsResults
What do these results mean?
Why are the results so similar?
Should the evaluation criteria be revised?
Is there a preference by the BBCAC?
What are the important considerations that
should be discussed prior to a decision?
Cost ImpactsCost Impacts
Original budget: $17 million
$5M revenue from DRA –will not materialize
Open Channel costs approx $8 million more
than budget
Pipe Alternative costs approx $24 million
more than budget
Additional revenue sources will be required
for the budget shortfall
Potential Schedule (based on $17 Potential Schedule (based on $17
million)million)
Design –2005
Property Acquisition Begins–2005-2007
Construction Complete -2013
Subject to Council Approval and
identification of required funding
Decision PointDecision Point
Given the cost constraints, is there
consensus on an Open Channel or Pipe
Alternative?
What additional issues must be resolved?
5
Discussion of Refined AlternativesDiscussion of Refined Alternatives
Acquisitions comparison
Cost effectiveness and funding ideas
Desired time frame for completion of
preferred alternative
Any lingering concerns with alternatives
Ways to make the alternatives more
acceptable to BBCAC
Likes and DislikesLikes and Dislikes
List characteristics of each alternative that
the BBCAC likes
List characteristics of each alternative that
the BBCAC does not likes
♦Affordability
♦Constructability (Implementation)
♦Schedule
♦An “acceptable”solution vs. an “ideal”solution
Tradeoffs of each AlternativeTradeoffs of each Alternative Decision PointDecision Point
Is there consensus on an Open Channel or
Pipe Alternative?
Any other recommendations to Council?
♦Recommend one alternative
♦Recommend a alternative, with minority opinion
♦No recommendation (can’t develop consensus) –Council should choose
Recommendation OptionsRecommendation Options Recommendation WordingRecommendation Wording
The BBCAC recommends…….
1 -The BBCAC recommends the Council identify
funding to construct the Pipe Alternative as the
preferred alternative.
The BBCAC prefers the Pipe Alternative because it
preserves neighborhood accessibility, presents
fewer health and safety risks, and enhances the
quality of life.
2-The BBCAC would accept the Open Channel
solution as opposed to doing nothing provided
the Council has pursued timely, adequate and
comprehensive funding for the Pipe Alternative.
6
BBCAC Summary DocumentBBCAC Summary Document
Executive Summary of BBCAC Meeting
Overview of decision process
Presentation of recommendation
Signature/Comment section for BBCAC members
Downstream Potential AlignmentDownstream Potential Alignment
Upcoming MeetingsUpcoming Meetings
Council Work Session –May 17th
Future Public Meeting -July?
Final BBCAC Meeting -July? -Final
Recommendations and Preliminary Design
Final Recommendations to Council -August
1
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment StudyBee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory CommitteeBee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting #6Meeting #6
Review of Preliminary RecommendationsReview of Preliminary Recommendations
June 24, 2004June 24, 2004
A
AgendaAgenda
Meeting Objectives
Council Work Session Summary
Final BBCAC Recommendations
Revised Alignment Downstream of Garfield
Moratorium Extension
Outstanding Issues
Meeting ObjectivesMeeting Objectives
Develop final recommendations
Discuss apparent Council position and reaction to
preliminary recommendations
Identify potential Council actions and project
outcomes
Think about:
What is best for the community
Trade-offs and consequences
What the BBCAC can do to make a solution
happen
Council Work SessionCouncil Work Session--May 17thMay 17th
Background
CDM Observations
BBCAC Observations/ Interpretations
Consensus on Likely Council Direction
CDM Council Observations (paraphrased)CDM Council Observations (paraphrased)
“…we will do something; the question is
what”
“…the pipe solution will never fly because of
the high cost”
“We need to do something; but we can’t stop
to study it again; we need to keep things
moving”
“If the extra $16M made a big difference in
the number of acquisitions or the benefits,
we should consider the pipe; but since the
acquisitions and benefits are essentially the
same, we can’t justify the pipe
BBCAC Council ObservationsBBCAC Council Observations
2
Development of Final BBCAC Development of Final BBCAC
RecommendationsRecommendations
Review Previous Recommendations
Should Previous Recommendation be
Revised?
Options for Modifying Recommendations
Finalize Recommendations
BBCAC Recommendation WordingBBCAC Recommendation Wording
The BBCAC recommends…….
1-
Previous RecommendationsPrevious Recommendations
Project Alignment-Elm/ KniestAlignment
(regardless of channel or pipe alternative)
Preferred Alternative-
“The BBCAC recommends the Council identify
funding to construct the Pipe Alternative as
the preferred alternative. The BBCAC prefers
the Pipe Alternative because it preserves
neighborhood accessibility, presents fewer
health and safety risks, and enhances the
quality of life.”
Potential Outcomes for Pipe RecommendationPotential Outcomes for Pipe Recommendation
Council takes pipe recommendation-builds
pipe
Council takes pipe recommendation, but
delays project until funding available
Council determines pipe solution cost
unfeasible-Asks BBCAC for additional input
on open channel to make more acceptable
Council decides to build open channel-Does
not ask BBCAC for input
Council puts project on hold-As Pipe option
is too expensive and Open Channel
unacceptable to BBCAC
Revised AlignmentRevised Alignment--1616thth to Garfieldto Garfield
BBCAC Input on Revised Alignment
3
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R GAN P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E
S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
L CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
VI
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WINDSOR AVE
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000FeetExisting Bee Branch
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
4/26/2004
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
DRAFT
Railroad Culverts
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
1-Way Road
With Parking
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
Downstream Potential Alignment Downstream Potential Alignment
OptionsOptions
16th Street
Basin
1 2 T H S T
LINCO KERPER CT
E 1 4 T H S T
GARFIELD AVE
EST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
RHOMBERG AVE
K
E
R
P
E
R
B
L
V
D
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
N
Scale: 1 inch = 400 feet
2000200400600800Feet
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
Lower Reach Modified DRAFT
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
+75 ft
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial Services
Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
Minimize Cost
Preserve Neighborhood Access/Connectivity
Minimize Health and Safety Risk
Enhance Quality of Life
Protect Environment
BBCAC Downstream Alignment BBCAC Downstream Alignment
RecommendationRecommendation MoratoriumMoratorium
BBCAC Recommendation
4
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M S
T
MADISO
N ST
MOND ST
LOWELL ST
E D I S O N S
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
1 2 T H
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
S T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
W
I
N
D
SO
R
A
V
E
N
M
A
IN
S
T
P
RIN
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
S T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
L N
ARLEY ST
E 1 4 T H S T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
W 1 5 T H S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
KLINGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
SCHILLER ST
K
E
R
P
E
R
BL
V
D
CHAPEL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
O NAL ST
H
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
E D W A R D S S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
IV
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
PAUL ST
HUMBOLDT ST
T
R
A
U
T
T
E
R
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N
Open Channel
Between Railroad and Basin
Open Channel or Pipe Alignment
Between 24th and 22nd
Open Channel or Pipe
Alignment Corridor
Between 22nd and Railroad
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
4000400800Feet
Alignment Corridor Limits
Existing Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Legend
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
ELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R GAN P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
NGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
LCT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
VI
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WINDSOR AVE
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000FeetExisting Bee Branch
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
4/26/2004
Pipe Connection to
Existing Bee Branch
Upper Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Roadway Culverts
(Typical)
DRAFT
Railroad Culverts
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
1-Way Road
With Parking
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
16th Street
Basin
E
L
M
S
T
M
ADIS
O
N ST
WELL ST
E
L
L
I
S
S
T
C L A R K S T
D O R G A N P L
W 2 3 R D S T
22ND ST
H
E
E
B
S
T
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
P
R
IN
C
E S
T
R E G E N T
LINCOLN AVE
S
H
E
L
B
Y
S
T
KERPER CT
E 1 7 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 2 1 S T S T
N
W
H
I
T
E
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E 2 2 N D S T
KNIEST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
TE 1 6 T H S T
INGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
EL CT
Q
U
E
E
N
S
T
E 2 5 T H S T
C
A
R
R
S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
W 2 4 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
PROVIDENCE ST
STAFFORD ST
E 2 4 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
HUMBOLDT ST
T
T
E
R
J
A
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
Lower Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Upper Reach
Open Channel Alternative
Existing Bee Branch
N
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
25002505007501000Feet
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
Buyouts / Easements DRAFT
__
Buyouts / Easements
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
_
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
16th Street
Basin
1 2 T H S T
LINCO KERPER CT
E 1 4 T H S T
GARFIELD AVE
EST ST
N
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
1 5 T H S T
N
C
E
D
A
R
S
T
RHOMBERG AVE
K
E
R
P
E
R
B
L
V
D
N
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
U .S . H W Y 6 1 & 1 5 1
1 6 T H S T
N
Scale: 1 inch = 400 feet
2000200400600800Feet
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
& WHKS & Co.A
Open Channel Alternative
Lower Reach Modified DRAFT
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low Flow Channel
Edge of Construction / Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Legend
+75 ft
Next StepsNext Steps
BBCAC Formal Recommendation on Alignment
and Alternative to Council
BBCAC Formal Recommendation on Extension
of the Moratorium
Completion of Preliminary Engineering
Council Action
Future Public Meeting -Final Alignment
A
Appendix F
BE
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
S
T
OR
A
T
I
O
N
AL
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S
T
U
D
Y
NE
W
S
L
E
T
T
E
R
#
1
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
0
3
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
We
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
i
s
s
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
.
Y
o
u
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
o
r
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
in
a
n
a
r
e
a
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
be
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
In
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
3
,
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
il
f
o
r
med
t
h
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
B
B
C
A
C
)
t
o
w
o
r
k
wi
t
h
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
i
r
m
Ca
m
p
D
r
e
s
s
e
r
&
M
c
Ke
e
,
I
n
c
.
(
C
D
M
)
,
al
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
f
i
r
m
WH
K
S
&
C
o
.
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
p
r
e
l
i
m
in
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
a
m
e
a
n
s
t
o
ch
a
n
n
e
l
w
a
t
e
r
o
u
t
o
f
th
e
N
o
r
t
h
E
n
d
a
n
d
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Th
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
be
e
n
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
an
d
v
i
e
w
s
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
te
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
se
e
k
i
n
g
a
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
ely
,
t
h
e
B
B
C
A
C
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
vi
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
:
•
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
•
Pr
i
n
c
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
p
r
o
p
er
t
y
o
w
n
er
•
Wa
sh
i
n
gt
o
n
St
.
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
wne
r
•
Jo
h
nso
n
S
t
r
e
et
p
r
o
p
e
rt
y
o
w
n
e
r
•
Ja
ck
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
et
p
r
o
p
e
rt
y
o
w
n
e
r
•
Ce
d
ar
S
t
r
e
e
t
pr
o
p
er
t
y
o
w
n
er
•
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
pr
o
p
er
t
y
o
w
n
er
• B
u
s
i
n
e
ss
ow
n
e
r
• B
u
s
i
n
e
ss
ma
na
g
e
r
• D
e
v
e
l
o
pe
r
• R
e
a
l
t
o
r
• K
n
i
e
s
t
St
r
e
e
t
re
s
i
de
n
t
•
El
m
S
t
r
e
e
t
r
e
si
d
e
nt
• S
e
n
i
o
r
ci
t
i
z
e
n
• F
l
o
o
d
e
d
re
si
d
en
t
• S
c
h
o
o
l
PT
A
• C
h
u
rch
•
So
i
l
a
n
d
C
o
nser
v
a
t
i
o
n D
i
st
r
i
c
t
(S
e
e
b
a
c
k
f
or
B
B
C
A
C
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
)
BB
C
A
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
S
At
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
B
B
C
A
C
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
i
n
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
,
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
so
l
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
(
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
)
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
,
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
a
c
quisitions,
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
Co
m
i
s
k
e
y
P
a
r
k
,
a
n
d
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
o
s
s
of
j
o
b
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e finalized at the next
me
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
f
o
r
m
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
uating Bee Branch
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
B
B
C
A
C
i
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
f
i
v
e
mo
r
e
t
i
m
e
s
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
1
2
-
m
o
n
t
h
pe
r
i
o
d
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
,
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
wi
l
l
f
o
r
m
a
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
o
n
w
h
e
r
e
t
he Bee
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
d
f
l
o
w
s
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
,
h
o
w
fl
o
o
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
N
o
r
th End
an
d
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
a
r
ea, what kinds of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
olu
t
i
o
n
s
m
ay be considered,
wh
a
t
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
be
,
h
o
w
t
h
o
s
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
b
e
e
v
al
u
a
t
e
d
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
y
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
;
a
n
d
wh
a
t
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
will look like, who
it
w
i
l
l
i
m
p
a
ct
a
n
d
h
o
w those impacts will
be
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
ed.
BB
C
A
C
MI
S
S
I
ON
S
T
A
T
E
M
EN
T
Th
e
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
C
o
m
m
it
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
w
o
r
k
wi
t
h
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
o
p
e
n
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
nen
t
s
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
1
6
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
De
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
a
n
d
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
Th
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
v
a
l
u
e
s
an
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
th
e
B
B
C
A
C
.
E-
M
a
i
l
A
N
Y
o
f
y
our stormwater
re
l
a
t
e
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
:
St
o
r
m
w
ater@cityofdubuque.org
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
m
a
d
e
u
p
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
f
yo
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
or
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
ir
g
o
a
l
is
t
o
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
e
lp
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f t
h
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
Be
e
Br
a
n
c
h
a
r
e
a.
T
h
e
y
m
ay
s
e
e
k
y
o
ur
in
p
u
t
o
n
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
pin
g
a
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
di
n
g
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n.
Y
o
u
sh
o
uld
fe
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
co
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
m i
f
y
o
u
h
a
ve
questions or if you would like to
onvey concerns or provide input.
c BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
David Shaw
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
erg
David Fuerstenb
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kraemer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Ba
olotta
rt
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.org
Ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
is
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
a
t
t
en
d
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
vi
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(B
B
C
A
C
)
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
olutions, and how the BBCAC works.
s Up
c
o
m
i
n
g
B
B
C
A
C
me
e
t
ings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park,
or the following dates:
f Dec. 4, 2003:
Basis for Alternative Evaluation
Jan. 29, 2004:
Alternatives Evaluation
Feb. 26, 2004:
Alternatives Evaluation
Mar. 25, 2004:
Preferred Alternativ
ay 27, 2004:
Recommendations e
M
If
y
o
u
w
i
s
h
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
t
act City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
o
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
ac
h
/
i
n
p
u
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
ies
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
ce
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
ublic meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public survey or
pen house.
o
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r i
n
p
u
t
ca
n
be
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
to
a
n
y
o
f
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Project Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus Psihoyos (City of Dubuque) at 589-4275.
BE
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
S
T
OR
A
T
I
O
N
AL
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S
T
U
D
Y
NE
W
S
L
E
T
T
E
R
#
2
Ja
n
u
a
r
y 2
0
0
4
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
We
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
co
n
d i
s
s
u
e
o
f
the
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
.
Y
o
u
ar
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
b
eca
u
s
e
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
o
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
is
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
t
ha
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
by
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
s
e
e
b
a
c
k
fo
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
)
h
a
s
be
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
v
o
i
c
e
t
h
e
n
e
e
ds
a
n
d
vi
e
w
s
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
se
e
k
s
a
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
BB
C
A
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
At
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
B
B
C
A
C
me
e
t
i
n
g
i
n
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
,
t
h
e
c
o
mm
i
t
t
e
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
bjec
t
i
v
e
s
(i
n
n
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
o
r
d
e
r
)
:
1.
So
l
v
e
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
2.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
3.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
ty
4.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
ss
i
n
g
s
5.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
b
a
s
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
6.
Ma
n
a
g
e
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
7.
En
h
a
n
c
e
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
p
a
rk
a
r
e
a
s
)
8.
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
9.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
C
o
mi
s
k
e
y
P
a
r
k
10
.
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
e
lo
s
s
o
f
j
o
b
s
11
.
Fi
n
d
a
n
a
f
f
o
rd
a
b
l
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
Wh
a
t
w
i
l
l
so
l
v
e
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
?
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
re
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o h
e
l
p
a
n
sw
e
r
t
h
i
s
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
.
C
omm
i
t
t
e
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
s
k
e
d
th
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
rs
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
of
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
,
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
ba
s
i
n
s
,
a
b
i
g
g
e
r
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
,
r
u
n
o
f
f
r
e
du
c
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
,
s
t
o
rmw
a
t
e
r
p
u
mp
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
va
r
i
o
u
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
men
ts
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
s
.
Si
n
c
e
t
h
e
n
,
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
p
u
t
t
o
ge
t
h
e
r
a
co
m
p
u
t
e
r
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
t
r
y
an
d
r
e
p
r
o
d
uc
e
t
h
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
n
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
E
n
d
a
n
d
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
Y
o
u
mi
g
h
t
h
a
v
e
no
t
i
c
e
d
a
s
u
rv
e
y
c
r
e
w
r
e
co
r
d
i
n
g
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
nd
o
t
h
e
r
d
a
t
a
u
s
e
d
t
o
b
uil
d
t
h
e
mo
d
e
l
.
T
he
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
ee
m
e
mb
e
r
s
w
e
r
e
sh
o
w
n
t
h
a
t
t
he
m
o
d
e
l
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
y s
a
w
i
n
1
9
9
9
a
n
d
i
n
2
0
0
2
.
N
o
w
th
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
t
he
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
m
o
d
e
l
to
s
h
o
w
h
o
w
e
a
c
h
p
o
t
ential solution would
ge
t
r
i
d
o
f
,
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
f
looding problem.
Wh
e
r
e
w
il
l
t
he
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
?
Ev
e
r
y
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
bove will affect the
ar
e
a
.
P
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
y is to identify how
an
d
w
h
e
r
e
.
T
o
h
e
l
p
answer these two
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
he
c
i
t
i
z
e
ns on the committee
li
s
t
e
d
t
h
e
t
op
s
e
v
e
n
i
t
e
m
s
(
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
)
:
1.
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
l
o
c
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s & services
2.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
perty
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
ion
s
3.
Fi
n
d
a
n
a
f
f
o
rd
a
b
l
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
4.
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ac
c
e
s
s
/
co
n
n
ectivity
5.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
ety risks
6.
En
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
i
f
e
7.
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
Th
e
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
a
s
k
e
d
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
ab
o
u
t
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
building permit
mo
r
a
t
o
r
i
u
m
.
F
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g the Committee’s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
at
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d a
m
o
r
a
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
th
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
ction of new homes
or
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s. The moratorium
wi
l
l
e
x
p
i
r
e
o
n
M
a
y
2
9
,
2
0
0
4
.
T
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
li
k
e
l
y
d
a
t
e
t
h
at
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
w
i
l
l
e
n
d
.
Th
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y v
a
l
u
e
s
an
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
c
o
n
str
a
i
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
t
h
e
Bee
Bra
n
c
h
Cit
i
z
e
n
Adv
i
s
o
r
y
Com
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
BB
C
A
C
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
T
A
T
E
M
E
N
T
Th
e
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
C
o
m
m
it
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
w
o
r
k
wi
t
h
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
o
p
e
n
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
nen
t
s
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
1
6
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
De
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
a
n
d
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
E-
M
a
i
l
A
N
Y
o
f
y
our stormwater
re
l
a
t
e
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
:
St
o
r
m
w
ater@cityofdubuque.org
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
m
a
d
e
u
p
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
f
yo
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
or
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
ir
g
o
a
l
is
t
o
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
e
lp
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f t
h
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
Be
e
Br
a
n
c
h
a
r
e
a.
T
h
e
y
m
ay
s
e
e
k
y
o
ur
in
p
u
t
o
n
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
pin
g
a
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
di
n
g
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n.
Y
o
u
sh
o
uld
fe
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
co
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
m i
f
y
o
u
h
a
ve
questions or if you would like to
onvey concerns or provide input.
c BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
David Shaw
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
erg
David Fuerstenb
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kraemer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Ba
olotta
rt
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.org
Ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
is
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
a
t
t
en
d
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
vi
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(B
B
C
A
C
)
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
olutions, and how the BBCAC works.
s Up
c
o
m
i
n
g
B
B
C
A
C
me
e
t
ings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park,
for the following dates:
Jan. 29, 2004:
Alternatives Evaluation
Feb. 26, 2004:
Alternatives Evaluatioe
n
Mar. 25, 2004:
Preferred Alternativ
ay 27, 2004:
Recommendations
M
If
y
o
u
w
i
s
h
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
t
act City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
o
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
ac
h
/
i
n
p
u
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
ies
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
ce
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
ublic meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public survey or
pen house.
o
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r i
n
p
u
t
ca
n
be
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
to
a
n
y
o
f
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Project Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus Psihoyos (City of Dubuque) at 589-4275.
BE
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
S
T
OR
A
T
I
O
N
AL
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S
T
U
D
Y
NE
W
S
L
E
T
T
E
R
#
3
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y 2
0
0
4
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
We
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
t
h
e
t
h
i
r
d
i
s
s
u
e
o
f
t
he
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
.
Y
o
u
ar
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
b
eca
u
s
e
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
o
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
is
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
t
ha
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
by
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
er
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
,
o
r
BB
CA
C,
w
a
s
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
b
y
th
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
un
c
i
l
t
o
v
o
i
c
e
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
vi
e
w
s
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
se
e
k
s
a
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
di
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m.
Wh
a
t
c
a
n
b
e d
o
n
e
t
o
st
o
p
t
h
e
f
l
oo
d
i
n
g
?
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
re
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o h
e
l
p
a
n
sw
e
r
t
h
i
s
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
.
C
omm
i
t
t
e
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
s
k
e
d
th
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
rs
t
o
s
h
o
w
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
of
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
,
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
ba
s
i
n
s
,
a
b
i
g
g
e
r
s
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
,
r
u
n
o
f
f
r
e
du
c
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
,
s
t
o
rmw
a
t
e
r
p
u
mp
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
va
r
i
o
u
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
men
ts
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
s
.
BB
C
A
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
At
t
h
e
t
h
i
r
d
BB
C
A
C
m
e
et
i
n
g
i
n
Ja
n
ua
r
y
,
t
h
e
co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
me
t
w
i
t
h
t
he
C
i
t
y
’
s
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
t
o e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
p
ote
n
t
i
a
l
op
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
.
BB
C
A
C
m
e
m
b
e
rs
D
a
v
i
d
F
u
e
r
s
t
en
b
e
r
g
,
L
au
r
i
e
Ba
r
t
o
l
o
t
t
a
,
an
d
F
r
a
nk
M
i
l
l
e
r
i
de
n
t
i
f
y a
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
.
So
h
o
w
d
o
you
f
i
n
d
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
?
In
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
r
a
n
k
p
o
t
e
nti
a
l
s
o
lu
t
i
o
ns,
t
h
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
s
e
v
e
n
c
rit
e
r
i
a
t
o
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
g
r
a
d
e
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
I
n
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
,
t
h
ey
a
r
e
:
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
ca
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
sse
s
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
ati
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
ion
s
,
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y,
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
r
i
s
k
s
,
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
qu
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
d
i
smissed the use of
up
s
t
r
e
a
m
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
sins because they
wo
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
o
v
e
r
1
3
0
ho
m
e
s
.
R
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
r
ain barrels, cisterns,
an
d
p
o
r
o
u
s
pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
B
u
t
be
c
a
u
s
e
o
f l
i
m
i
t
e
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
,
t
hey are
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
o
n
l
y
a
s
a
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
at
i
o
n
.
P
u
m
p
i
n
g
a
n
d pipe
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
ments proved to be too
co
s
t
l
y
w
i
t
h
e
sti
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
sts of $60 million.
Wh
a
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
d
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
c
l
o
s
e
r
l
o
o
k
?
Th
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
te
e
i
s
l
e
a
n
i
n
g towards the open
ch
a
n
n
e
l
o
p
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
j
u
st south of Garfield
(n
e
a
r
t
h
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
)
t
o
t
h
e
1
6
t
h Street
De
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
.
B
e
t
w
e
en Garfield and 24th
St
r
e
e
t
,
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ing either
an
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
nn
e
l
o
r
a
n
u
nderground sewer.
Wh
e
r
e
w
il
l
t
he
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
?
Bo
t
h
t
h
e
o
pe
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
se
w
e
r
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
val of homes.
Pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
y
i
s
t
o
identify how many
an
d
p
r
e
c
i
s
e
ly
w
h
i
c
h
h
o
m
e
s
.
T
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
th
r
e
e
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
l
o
cations
(a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
men
ts
.
T
h
e
B
B
C
A
C
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
cl
o
s
e
r
l
o
o
k a
t
t
h
e
a
l
i
g
nments at the next
me
e
t
i
n
g
(
se
e
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
s
a
n
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
).
Th
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y v
a
l
u
e
s
an
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
c
o
n
str
a
i
n
t
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
t
h
e
BB
C
A
C (s
e
e
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
)
.
BB
C
A
C
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
T
A
T
E
M
E
N
T
Th
e
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
C
o
m
m
it
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
w
o
r
k
wi
t
h
t
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
o
p
e
n
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
nen
t
s
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
1
6
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
De
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
a
s
i
n
a
n
d
2
4
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
E-
M
a
i
l
A
N
Y
o
f
y
our stormwater
re
l
a
t
e
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
:
St
o
r
m
w
ater@cityofdubuque.org
Ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
is
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
a
t
t
en
d
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
vi
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(B
B
C
A
C
)
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
olutions, and how the BBCAC works.
s Up
c
o
m
i
n
g
B
B
C
A
C
me
e
t
ings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park,
for the following dates:
DATE
MEETING TOPIC
Mar. 11, 2004:
Alternatives Evaluatio
d:
e
n
To Be Announce
Preferred Alternativ
ay 27, 2004:
Recommendations
M
If
y
o
u
w
i
s
h
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
t
act City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
o
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
ac
h
/
i
n
p
u
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
ies
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
ce
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
ublic meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public survey or
pen house.
o
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r i
n
p
u
t
ca
n
be
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
to
a
n
y
o
f
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Project Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus
Psihoyos
(City
of
Dubuque)
at
589-4275.
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
m
a
d
e
u
p
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
f
yo
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
or
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
e
lp
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f t
h
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
Be
e
Br
a
n
c
h
a
r
e
a.
T
h
e
y
m
ay
s
e
e
k
y
o
ur
in
p
u
t
o
n
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
pin
g
a
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
di
n
g
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n.
Y
o
u
sh
o
uld
fe
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
co
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
m i
f
y
o
u
h
a
ve
questions or if you would like to
onvey concerns or provide input.
c BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
Sue Denlinger
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
erg
David Fuerstenb
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kramer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Ba
olotta
rt
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.org
BE
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
S
T
OR
A
T
I
O
N
AL
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S
T
U
D
Y
NE
W
S
L
E
T
T
E
R
#
4
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
0
4
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Yo
u
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
n
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
yo
u
r
h
o
m
e
or
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
is
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
th
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
,
o
r
BB
C
A
C
fo
r
s
h
o
r
t
,
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
i
n
ce
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
e
d b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f t
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
t
o
he
l
p
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
t
he
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
men
t
t
o
so
l
v
e
t
h
e
f
l
o
od
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
ms
i
n
y
o
u
r
a
r
e
a
.
BB
C
A
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
At
t
h
e
f
o
u
r
t
h
B
B
C
A
C
m
e
et
i
n
g
i
n
M
a
r
c
h
,
t
h
e
co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
t
o
d
i
s
c
u
ss
th
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
op
t
i
o
n
s
.
Bo
t
h
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
g
r
a
d
e
s
ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
’
s
s
c
o
r
ing
m
e
t
h
o
d
.
Wh
e
r
e
w
il
l
t
he
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
?
Bo
t
h
t
h
e
o
pe
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
se
w
e
r
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
ho
m
e
s
.
P
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
i
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
pr
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
w
h
i
c
h
h
o
m
e
s
.
PU
B
L
I
C
M
EETING SCHEDU
L
ED
Tuesday, March 30
On
th
,
-
E
n
t
e
r
g
th
e
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
p
ublic
me
e
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
F
u
l
t
on
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
G
y
m
.
ym f
r
o
m
W
h
i
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
6:
0
0
p
m
t
o
6
:
3
0
p
m
:
nd
o
u
t
s
,
a
n
d
p
a
s
t
n
ewsletters. Forms will be
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
(
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
)
ll about and what
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
y
o
u
r
th
e
m
i
c
r
o
p
h
o
n
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
y
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
s
,
Th
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
i
s
t
o
p
r
ov
i
d
e
y
o
u
w
i
t
h
i
n
f
o
r
mation, answer your
PU
B
L
I
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
A
G
E
N
D
A
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
w
y
ou
t
o
v
o
i
c
e
y
o
u
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
T
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
a
t
g
o
a
l
,
a
n
a
g
e
n
d
a
f
o
r
th
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
e
s
ta
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
H
o
w
e
v
er,
fe
e
l
f
r
e
e t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
l
l
o
r
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
Op
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
Walk around
t
h
e
g
y
m
a
n
d
l
o
o
k
a
t
di
s
p
l
a
y
s
,
h
a
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
F
e
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t card with
yo
u
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
i
t
o
u
t
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
:30 pm to 7:00 pm:
6 View a presentation by Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
D
a
n
L
a
u
to
s
e
e
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
ct is a
ha
s
b
e
e
n
d
o
n
e
t
o
d
a
t
e
.
A
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
s
ho
r
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
D
a
n
w
i
l
l
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
n
s
w
e
r
s
t
o
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
as
k
e
d
q
u
e
s
t
ion
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
he
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
7:00 pm to 8:00 pm:
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
&
A
n
s
w
e
r
P
e
r
i
o
d
You can visit each one
o
f
t
h
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
o
o
t
h
s
t
o
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
nd
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
n
gi
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
Ci
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
.
Ev
e
r
y
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
wi
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e t
o
a
n
s
w
e
r
yo
u
r
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
ns.
Y
o
u
r
sp
ec
i
f
i
c
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
ideas
wi
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
r
eco
r
d
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
t
o t
h
e
B
B
C
A
C
.
8:00 pm to 9:00 pm:
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
p
u
t
P
e
r
i
o
d
You will have the opportunity to step up to
op
i
n
i
o
n
s
,
c
o
nc
e
r
n
s
,
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
.
D
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
wish to speak, a time
li
m
i
t
m
a
y
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
she
d
.
Y
o
u
r
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
co
mm
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
and presented to the
BB
C
A
C.
If you
a
r
e
u
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
t
h
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
j
o
t
d
o
w
n
y
o
u
r
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
in an e-mail to dubuque.org
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
y
o
u
r
n
a
m
e
an
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
s
e
n
d
t
h
e
m
t
o
:
EN
G
I
NE
E
RIN
G
–
B
E
E
B
RAN
C
H
50
W
.
1
3
TH
ST
R
E
E
T
or
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
,
IA
52
0
0
1
stormwater@cityof
r si
o
mply return them with
y
o
u
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
p
a
y
me
n
t
.
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
A
d
v
i
s
o
ry
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
m
a
d
e
u
p
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
f
yo
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
or
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
e
lp
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f t
h
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
to
a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
i
n
th
e
Be
e
Br
a
n
c
h
a
r
e
a.
T
h
e
y
m
ay
s
e
e
k
y
o
ur
in
p
u
t
o
n
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
pin
g
a
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
f
l
o
o
di
n
g
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n.
Y
o
u
sh
o
uld
fe
e
l
f
r
e
e
t
o
co
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
m i
f
y
o
u
h
a
ve
questions or if you would like to
onvey concerns or provide input.
c BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
Sue Denlinger
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
erg
David Fuerstenb
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kramer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
Other Project Contacts: 5481 or
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-
City Engineering at 5
9-4270.
8
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.org
Ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
is
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
vi
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(B
B
C
A
C
)
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
olutions, and how the BBCAC works.
s Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
a
l
i
gn
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
at
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
B
B
C
A
C
meeting
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on April 8th at Five
Flags, in the Majestic Room.
WE WANT YOUR
QUESTIONS AND INPUT
A
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
ha
s
b
e
e
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
6
P
M
o
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
M
a
r
c
h
3
0
th
in the gymnasium
at Fulton Elementary School, (SEE
NSIDE FOR DETAILS)
I In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
wi
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
p
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
o
r
vi
s
i
o
n
,
h
e
ar
i
n
g
,
o
r
s
p
e
e
c
h
im
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
s
p
ec
i
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
an
c
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
City Engineering at 589-4270 or TDD 690-
6678 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
16th Street Basin
E L M S T
LOWELL ST
E
D
I
S
O
N
S
W
2
3
R
D
S
T
FENGLER ST
22ND ST
H E E B S T
F R A N C I S S T
W I N D S O R A V E
N M A I N
P R I N C E S T
R
E
G
E
N
T
LINCOLN AVE
S H E L B Y S T
KERPER CT
ARLEY ST
E
1
7
T
H
N W H I T E S T
S
T
E
2
0
T
H
S
T
E
2
1
S
T
S
T
GARFIELD AVE
E
2
2
N
D
S
T
KNIEST ST
KLINGENBERG TER
RHOMBERG AVE
SCHILLER ST
K E R P E R B L V D
CHAPEL CT
Q U E E N S T
O
N
AL
S
T
H
E
2
5
T
H
S
T
C A R R S T
E
1
9
T
H
S
T
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
S
T
N S Y C A M O R E S T
W
2
4
T
H
S
T
E
1
8
T
H
S
T
D I V I S I O N S T
P I N E S T
PROVIDENCE ST
FFORD ST
E
2
4
T
H
S
T
E L M S T
STA
PAUL ST
HUMBOLDT ST
T R A U T T E R
U.S. HWY 61 & 151 16TH ST
J A C K S O N S T
W A S H I N G T O N S T
N Open Channel Between Railroad and Basin
Open
Ch
an
nel
P
ip
e A
lignm
en
t
Bet
wee
n
2
4t
h
d
2
2
nd
or
an
Open
C
han
n
el
or
P
ipe
Alig
nm
en
t C
o
rridor
Betwee
n
2
2nd
a
nd
Ra
ilroad
Pipe C
onnecti
on t
o
Ex
is
ting
B
e
e B
r
anch
4000400800Feet Alignment Corridor Limits Existing Bee Branch Mainline Existing Buildings Detention BasinsLegend
BE
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
S
T
OR
A
T
I
O
N
AL
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S
T
U
D
Y
NE
W
S
L
E
T
T
E
R
#
5
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
0
4
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Yo
u
a
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
n
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
yo
u
r
h
o
m
e
or
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
is
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
th
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
.
Th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
,
o
r
BB
C
A
C
fo
r
s
h
o
r
t
,
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
e
S
e
p
t
em
b
e
r
o
f
2
0
0
3
.
Ap
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
,
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
th
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
i
s
t
o
h
e
l
p
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
he
b
e
s
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o c
o
n
s
t
r
u
ct
t
h
e
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
men
t
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
in
y
o
u
r
a
r
e
a
.
BB
C
A
C
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
At
t
h
e
f
o
u
r
t
h
B
B
C
A
C
m
e
et
i
n
g
i
n
M
a
r
c
h
,
t
h
e
co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
t
o
d
i
s
c
u
ss
op
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
so
l
v
e
t
h
e
B
ee
B
r
a
n
c
h
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
i
s
un
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
,
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
cqu
i
s
i
t
ion
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
A
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
nt
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
i
s
to
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
a
n
d
b
usi
n
e
s
s
e
s
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
mm
e
n
d
e
d
f
loo
d
i
n
g
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
On
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
B
B
C
A
C
i
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
i
s
a
c
omb
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
a
n
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
.
Th
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
fr
o
m
2
4
th
&
E
l
m
t
o
t
h
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
rac
k
s
a
t
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
.
T
h
e
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
nn
e
l
w
o
u
l
d
be
b
u
i
l
t
fr
o
m
t
h
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
a
t
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d
t
o
t
h
e
16
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
n
.
W
i
t
h
a
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
c
o
s
t
e
sti
m
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
r
oa
c
h
e
s
$4
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
,
t
h
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
uir
e
t
h
e
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
ion
o
f a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
el
y
7
4
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
tw
o
p
i
p
e
s
,
ea
c
h
1
0
f
e
e
t h
i
g
h
a
n
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
28
a
n
d
4
2
f
e
e
t
w
i
d
e
.
A
1
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
s
t
ruc
t
t
h
e
un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
e
w
e
r
s
.
T
h
a
t
i
s
r
e
a
s
o
n f
o
r
t
h
e
hi
g
h
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
ion
s
.
To
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
ound alternative, a
15
0
-
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
a
r
e
a
i
s
r
e
q
uired.
Th
e
m
a
p
a
b
o
v
e
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e
t
w
o
d
r
a
i
n
ag
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
men
t
s
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
and the area where the
im
p
r
o
v
e
men
ts
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
c
o
n
str
u
c
t
e
d
.
Th
e
ma
p
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
the web at:
ww
w
.
c
i
t
y
of
d
u
b
u
q
u
e
.
o
r
g
/
i
n
d
e
x
.
c
f
m
?
p
a
g
e
i
d
=
8
8
7
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Alignment Study?
Th
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
tud
y
i
s
t
o
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
d
w
h
at
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
b
u
i
l
t
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
No
r
t
h
E
n
d
a
l
o
n
g
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
E
l
m
,
Pr
i
n
c
e
,
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
,
a
nd
W
h
i
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
s
.
M
a
ny
o
f
y
o
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
ha
v
e
b
e
e
n
ap
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
t
o s
e
r
v
e
o
n
th
e
B
e
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
ns
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
B
B
C
A
C
)
.
T
he
i
r
g
o
a
l
i
s
to
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
st
s
a
s t
h
e
y
he
l
p
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
solution to alleviate flooding in the
Bee Branch area.
Wh
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
n
o
p
e
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
lo
o
k
l
i
k
e
?
Th
e
B
B
C
A
C
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
as
k
e
d
t
h
i
s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
.
On
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
sm
a
l
l
e
r
l
o
w
-
f
l
o
w
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
in the middle with an upper grassy
verflow channel on each side.
o
Ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
is
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
B
e
e
Br
a
n
c
h
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
A
d
vi
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(B
B
C
A
C
)
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
m
o
r
e
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
olutions, and how the BBCAC works.
s Up
c
o
m
i
n
g
B
B
C
A
C
m
e
etings are scheduled
for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park, for the
following dates:
DATE
MEETING TOPIC
May 3, 200
Preferred Alternativ
ne TBA
Recommendations
4:
e
Ju
What do you think?
A
B
e
e
B
r
an
c
h
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
d
i
s
pla
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
st
a
f
f
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
F
a
i
r
s
p
o
n
s
or
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
N
o
r
t
h
En
d
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
ev
e
n
t
i
s
t
o
b
e
h
e
l
d
o
n
T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
p
r
i
l
2
9
from 6 to 8 p.m. at Audubon School.
Come and bring your thoughts and
questions.
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r i
n
p
u
t
ca
n
be
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
to
a
n
y
o
f
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Project Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Deron Muehring (City of Dubuque) at 589-4276.
A
Appendix G
Be
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
In
i
t
i
a
l
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Ma
r
c
h
1
1
,
2
0
0
4
18
0
f
t
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
o
a
d
s
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
No
.
BB
C
A
C
T
a
b
l
e
/
Na
m
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Ro
a
d
s
L
o
s
t
or
D
e
a
d
En
d
e
d
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
N
o
n
c
o
m
m
er
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
/
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
f
o
r
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
Sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
Initial Alignment Rank
1
N
o
r
t
h
T
a
b
l
e
6
5
1
9
9
2
4
.
0
1
9
.
8
1
2
.
6
5
6
.
4
4
2
M
i
d
d
l
e
T
a
b
l
e
6
9
1
8
9
2
2
.
7
2
1
.
0
1
2
.
6
5
6
.
3
3
3
S
o
u
t
h
T
a
b
l
e
6
5
1
9
9
2
4
.
0
1
9
.
8
1
2
.
6
5
6
.
4
4
4
H
y
b
r
i
d
1
6
7
1
2
8
.
5
1
5
.
2
2
0
.
4
1
1
.
9
4
7
.
4
1
5
H
y
b
r
i
d
2
6
8
1
7
9
2
1
.
5
2
0
.
7
1
2
.
6
5
4
.
8
2
We
i
g
h
t
2
.
4
2
.
1
1
.
4
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
aq
u
i
r
e
d
(
1
9
)
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
aq
u
i
r
e
d
(
6
9
)
18
0
f
t
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
H
o
m
e
a
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
f
1
8
0
f
t
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
p
l
u
s
1
5
f
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
t
o
u
c
h
e
d
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
r
c
a
m
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
f
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
I
n
d
u
s
r
i
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
f
1
8
0
f
t
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
p
l
u
s
1
5
f
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
t
o
u
c
h
e
d
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
r
c
a
m
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
f
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Ro
a
d
s
L
o
s
t
o
r
D
e
a
d
E
n
d
e
d
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
d
e
a
d
e
n
d
o
f
r
o
a
d
c
o
u
n
t
s
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
l
o
s
s
o
f
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
o
a
d
,
0
.
5
f
o
r
l
o
s
s
o
f
l
a
n
e
i
n
o
n
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
io
n
o
n
l
y
.
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
2
M
i
d
d
l
e
T
a
b
l
e
18
0
f
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
A
f
f
e
c
t
s
P
r
o
r
a
t
e
d
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
S
c
o
r
e
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
/
N
o
n
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
8
=
(
1
8
/
1
9
)
*
1
0
=
9
.
5
=
9
.
5
*
2
.
4
=
2
2
.
7
2
2
.
7
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
6
9
=
(
6
9
/
6
9
)
*
1
0
=
1
0
=
1
0
*
2
.
1
=
2
1
.
0
2
1
.
0
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
/
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
9
N
o
n
e
=
9
*
1
.
4
=
1
2
.
6
1
2
.
6
To
t
a
l
S
c
o
r
e
5
6
.
3
A Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
R
a
n
k
3
-
1
1
-
0
4
F
i
n
a
l
.
x
l
s
-
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
w
i
t
h
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Page 1 of 1
Be
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
A
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
Ma
y
3
,
2
0
0
4
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
P
i
p
e
Ra
n
k
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
R
a
w
S
c
o
r
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
S
c
o
r
e
R
a
w
S
c
o
r
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
S
c
o
r
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
S
c
o
r
e
B
r
e
a
k
o
u
t
1
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2.
4
1
3
2
2
.
3
1
4
2
4
.
0
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
4
2
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
2.
1
6
5
2
1
.
0
6
4
2
0
.
7
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
6
5
3
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
C
o
s
t
1.
8
6
1
0
.
8
1
0
1
8
$2
4
.
5
M
a
n
d
$
4
1
M
4
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
1.
4
7
.
5
1
0
.
5
6
8
.
4
Ro
a
d
l
o
s
s
s
a
m
e
a
s
d
e
a
d
e
n
d
5
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
an
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
R
i
s
k
1.
4
8
1
1
.
2
4
5
.
6
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
s
(
2
)
,
A
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
Nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
(
2
)
,
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
(6
)
Channel = 2+2+4, Pipe = 1+1+2 with downstream channel section
6
En
h
a
n
c
e
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
Li
f
e
1.
3
0
0
.
0
-
2
-
2
.
6
Po
o
r
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
(
3
)
,
L
o
w
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
3
)
,
S
m
a
l
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
(
4
)
Channel = 0+0+0, Pipe = 0-1-1
7
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
1.
0
-
1
-
1
.
0
1
1
Wa
t
e
r
,
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,
f
l
o
r
a
,
fa
u
n
a
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
c
o
r
e
d
,
r
e
s
t
a
r
e
0
fo
r
b
o
t
h
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Channel = -1 + 1+ -1 + -1 + 1, Pipe = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1
To
t
a
l
7
4
.
7
7
5
.
1
Ra
n
k
1
2
Be
e
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
4
-
3
0
-
0
4
F
i
n
a
l
.
x
l
s
.
x
l
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
A
Appendix H
A
Appendix I
A
Appendix J
A
Appendix K
A
Appendix L
A
Appendix M
A
Appendix N
A
Appendix O
Appendix O
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
O.1 Scope
The construction of the proposed channel will require acquisition and excavation of
properties along the proposed channel alignment. The evaluation of channel
alignment alternatives included cost of construction, along with several other factors.
Due to the potential of environmentally contaminated properties significantly
increasing the cost of channel construction, a preliminary environmental review of the
area encompassing the channel alignment alternatives was conducted by CDM. The
preliminary environmental review of the channel alignment alternatives area, herein
referred to as the potential impact area, was limited to a review of an environmental
database compilation report completed by FirstSearch Technology Corporation
(FirstSearch) on February 6, 2004. CDM did not conduct a site reconnaissance of the
potential impact area to verify the information presented in the FirstSearch
environmental database report. The potential impact area that was included in the
environmental database search report is shown in Figure O-1.
Figure O-1
Potential Impact Area
A O-1
Appendix O
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
O.2 Summary of Preliminary Environmental
Investigation
CDM's review of the environmental database report completed by FirstSearch
identified eight properties within the potential impact area that could affect the cost of
channel construction for various reasons. The eight properties, their locations and
database listings are identified in Table O-1 below and shown in Figure O-2.
Table O-1: Database Listings Within Potential Impact Area
Site Name Site Address Database Listing
Interstate Brands Corp. 501 Garfield Ave. UST, LUST
Sunshine Mart 430 Rhomberg Ave. UST, LUST
5-Point Mart 405 Rhomberg Ave. UST, LUST
Coastal Service 400 Rhomberg Ave. UST, LUST
Unidentified 529 E. 19th St. UST
Farmland Foods Inc. 701 E. 16th St. ERNS, RCRAGN
16th St. Amoco 1215 E. 16th St. UST
FDL Foods 16th St. & Sycamore St. Intersection UST
Database Listing Key:
UST – Underground Storage Tank
LUST – Leaking underground Storage Tank
ERNS – Emergency Response Notification System
RCRAGN – Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Large, Small, and Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generators
Those sites identified by solely the UST database may increase construction costs due
to the removal of the UST and the permitting requirements associated with the tank
removal. As the sites are not identified by the LUST database, a release of the tank
has not been reported to the State of Iowa. Though these sites have not been
identified by the LUST database, release from the UST may be discovered at the time
of the tank removal.
Each of the LUST sites identified by the FirstSearch environmental database report
could increase the cost of construction through tank and contaminated soil disposal,
site dewatering, and regulatory agency coordination.
The Farmland Foods Incorporated site is commonly referred to as the Packing Plant.
The location of the Packing Plant is shown on Figure O-2. The database listings of the
Packing Plant, which included ERNS and RCRAGN, do not indicate a highly
contaminated site from CDM's experience. However, based on operations often
executed during meat packing, several environmental concerns are related to the
Packing Plant. Based on aerial photography, the Packing Plant maintains a lagoon,
which is assumed by CDM to be utilized for animal waste. In addition to the
environmental concerns surrounding the management of animal waste from the
Packing Plant, demolition of the Packing Plant structure also poses an environmental
A O-2
Appendix O
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
Figure O-2
Location of Sites Having Potential to Impact Construction
concern. Based on information obtained from the Dubuque County Assessor, most of
the Packing Plant structures were built prior to 1960. Asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) are usually found in structures built prior to 1981. Federal regulations (29
CFR 1926.1101) define presumed asbestos containing materials (PACM) as installed
thermal system insulation and sprayed-on and troweled-on insulation material in
buildings constructed no later than 1980, and asphalt and vinyl flooring materials
installed no later than 1980. Though not defined by 29 CFR 1926.1101 as PACM,
several types of construction materials have historically contained asbestos, including
A O-3
Appendix O
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
roofing materials, siding, ceiling and wall panels, acoustical plasters, and piping and
building insulations.
O.3 Other Considerations
Though the scope of the preliminary environmental investigation included primarily
the review of the FirstSearch database report, other inherent environmental
conditions may be present within the potential impact area. Construction of
residential structures has historically included three major environmental concerns:
1. Asbestos: As previously discussed, asbestos was utilized in many construction
materials prior to the late-1970's. Demolition of residential structures that
were constructed prior to 1980 warrants an asbestos inspection of the structure
to ensure the proper disposal of the construction materials and safety of
construction workers.
2. Fuel Oil Tanks: Fuel oil tanks are often found in homes that have yet to
convert from fuel oil to natural gas or another energy source. The installation
of fuel oil tanks varies from aboveground within a lower floor (i.e. basement)
to underground outside the residential structure. Due to the residential use of
the tanks and the relative small size, the tanks are not required to be registered
with the State of Iowa.
3. Lead-Based Paint: The use of lead-based paint was banned in the United States
in 1978, however, prior to the mid-1970's, lead-based paints were widely used.
Prior to 1950's, lead-based paints contained higher concentrations of lead than
those paints used between 1960 and 1978. Further investigation of local
disposal regulations and landfill construction debris acceptance policies will
be required if it is found that a considerable number of residential homes are
found to potentially contain lead-based paint.
A O-4
A
Appendix P
City of Dubuque Sep-04
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
Estimate of Probable Cost- Open Channel Alternative
ItemSizeUnitUnit CostQuantityItem Cost
Property Acquisition
Residential
Property Acquisition
Structure Demolition
Relocation
Commercial/ Industrial
Property Acquisition
Structure Demolition
Relocation
Assistance SF
Consulting ServicesLS$600,000.001.0600,000$
SUBTOTAL9,200,000$
Utilities
Fiber Optic Communication
ConduitLF$300.00600.0$180,000.00
Connection/DisconnectionEA$6,000.002.0$12,000.00
Watermains
Diameter (inches)6LF$45.001,450.0$65,250.00
8LF$45.00250.0$11,250.00
10LF$50.00250.0$12,500.00
12LF$55.00250.0$13,750.00
20LF$125.00250.0$31,250.00
Sanitary SewerLF
Diameter (inches)8LF$45.001,100.0$49,500.00
12LF$55.00200.0$11,000.00
30LF$125.00200.0$25,000.00
36LF$150.00950.0$142,500.00
42LF$175.001,100.0$192,500.00
Sanitary Sewer Manhole4 ftNO$2,700.0011.0$29,700.00
5 ftNO$2,700.009.0$24,300.00
Storm Sewer
Diameter (inches)15LF$60.00528.0$31,680.00
30LF$130.0072.0$9,360.00
54LF$225.00180.0$40,500.00
72LF$400.0024.0
84LF$495.0024.0$11,880.00
6' x 3' HELF$500.00150.0$75,000.00
Storm Sewer Manholes4 ftNO$1,500.0015.0$22,500.00
Storm Sewer Catch Basin / InletsNO$1,800.0026.0$46,800.00
Storm Sewer FES
15NO$1,500.0033.0$49,500.00
30NO$1,700.002.0$3,400.00
54NO$2,100.001.0$2,100.00
72NO$2,500.001.0$2,500.00
84NO$2,500.001.0$2,500.00
Adjustments
Catch basinsEA$175.0016.0$2,800.00
ManholesEA$200.0010.0$2,000.00
Watermain Valve BoxesEA$150.0010.0$1,500.00
Misc Utilities (Allowance)LS$40,000.001.0$40,000.00
Electric
BES (Street Lighting)LF$6.004,600.0$27,600.00
SUBTOTAL1,172,120$
General
Pumping
Channel dewateringLS$100,000.003.0$300,000.00
Storm sewer LS$30,000.003.0$90,000.00
Traffic Control
Lane ClosureDAY$35.001,500.0$52,500.00
Road ClosureDAY$10.001,500.0$15,000.00
Erosion ControlLS$70,000.003.0$210,000.00
SUBTOTAL667,500$
EACH$100,000.006,500,000$ 65.0
EACH$150,000.0014.02,100,000$
A
Cost Estimates - Appendix.xls - Costs Page 1 of 2
Open Channel
Pavement Removal (Roadway)SY$4.0016,035.0$64,139.91
Pavement Removal Misc.SY$3.5039,173.4$137,106.90
Recreation Path RemovalSY$3.001,265.3$3,796.00
Sidewalk RemovalSY$5.00929.4$4,647.22
Clear and GrubSY$0.5060,590.4$30,295.22
Excavation (Common)CY$10.00180,810.0$1,808,100.00
Excavation (Special Waste)CY$35.0016,072.0$562,520.00
Excavation (Rock)CY$18.004,018.0$72,324.00
Filter Fabric (Heavy)SY$2.5015,766.7$39,416.67
Erosion Fabric
Coconut CoirSY$5.0044,496.7$222,483.44
Medium/ LightSY$2.5012,545.0$31,362.53
Heavy RiprapTON$100.002,170.0$217,000.00
Quarry StoneTON$135.007,670.4$1,035,504.00
Concrete Articulated MattingSY$50.0013,200.0$660,000.00
TopsoilCY$20.0018,097.1$361,941.83
Seeding
ChannelSY$1.2557,041.7$71,302.12
Over banksSY$1.0013,316.7$13,316.67
Recreation Path (Asphalt typ.)SY$15.002,466.7$37,000.00
SUBTOTAL5,372,257$
Roadways
Pavement, PCCSY$34.002,533.3$86,133.33
Curb and GutterLF$12.002,720.0$32,640.00
SidewalkSY$54.00627.8$33,900.00
Base courseSY$12.503,373.3$42,166.67
SUBTOTAL194,840$
Bridges/ Culverts
Pavement RemovalSY$4.006,307.8$25,231.11
Sidewalk RemovalSY$5.002,250.0$11,250.00
Rail removalLF$10.001,320.0$13,200.00
Excavation (Common)CY$10.0036,557.6$365,575.67
Excavation (Special Waste)CY$35.003,249.6$113,734.65
Excavation (Rock)CY$18.00812.4$14,623.03
Steel PilingEA$800.00260.0$208,000.00
Temporary SheetingLF$16.5010,000.0$165,000.00
Structural BackfillCY$12.5021,492.1$268,651.39
Concrete FootingsCY$250.001,622.2$405,555.56
Concrete Channel BottomSY$80.003,322.2$265,777.78
Concrete Wing wallsCY$315.00901.9$284,106.67
Form liner- Surface TreatmentSY$5.0012,176.0$60,880.00
Wall ColorizationEA$5,000.0012.0$60,000.00
Concrete Arch
Width of Opening (FT)10 x 20LF$1,000.00200.0$200,000.00
10 x 28LF$1,200.00520.0$624,000.00
11 x 48LF$2,400.00270.0$648,000.00
Crane Rental w/ setup (one week only)WK$60,000.007.0$420,000.00
Roadway
Depth of Concrete (inches)8SY$34.005,153.0$175,202.00
Curb and GutterLF$12.002,690.0$32,280.00
SidewalksSY$54.002,445.6$132,060.00
Railings / WallLF$150.001,370.0$205,500.00
Revetment/ Concrete Articulated MattingSY$50.009,583.3$479,166.67
Rail ReplacementLF$100.001,320.0$132,000.00
Rail SwitchEA$25,000.002.0$50,000.00
TopsoilCY$20.00120.0$2,400.00
SodSY$5.00500.0$2,500.00
SUBTOTAL5,364,695$
Other Landscaping Amenities
PlantingsLS65,000.01.0$65,000.00
BenchesLS20,000.01.0$20,000.00
LightingLS30,000.01.0$30,000.00
SUBTOTAL115,000$
Grand Subtotal 22,086,411$
Construction Contingency (not incl. acquisition)20.0%2,577,282$
Engineering/ Const. Mgmt/ Admin/ Permitting (not incl. acquisition)15.0%2,319,554$
Grand Total (2004 Dollars)26,983,247$
A
Cost Estimates - Appendix.xls - Costs Page 2 of 2
A
Appendix Q
Bibliography
Dubuque, City of. Dubuque Area Geographic Information System (DAGIS). 2000.
HDR Engineering, Inc. Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP). Fall 2001.
Huff, F. A. and J. R. Angel, 1989. Frequency Distribution of Heavy Rainstorms in Illinois
(Circular 172). Illinois State Water Survey.
Huff, F. A. and J. R. Angel, 1992. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest (Bulletin 71).
Illinois State Water Survey.
Iowa Department of Transportation. Summary of Awarded Contract Prices for English
Units. (March 2003- April 2004)
Iowa Department of Transportation. Guidelines for Preliminary Design of Bridges and
Culverts. (April 2000)
Jacobsen, James E. Dubuque - The Key City. The Architectural and Historical
Resources of Dubuque, Iowa, 1837-1955. Phase I Architectural and Historical
Report (January 15, 2002).
Jacobsen, James E. Phase III Architectural and Historical Survey Report. Downtown
Dubuque (June 19, 2003).
Naumann, Molly M. and J. E. Jacobsen, Dubuque - The Key City. The Architectural
and Historical Resources of Dubuque, Iowa, 1837-1955. Phase II Architectural and
Historical Report (January 15, 2002).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds. Technical Release 55, Second Edition. (1986).
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Rock Island. Operations and Maintenance Manual for
Complete Flood Protective Works, Dubuque Iowa. (August 1974)
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study
(January 2004).
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Rock Island. Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency
Study Hydrology and Hydraulics Appendix C Mississippi River (August 2003).
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Mississippi River Dubuque, Iowa Local Flood Protection
Design Memorandum #1 General Design Memorandum, Binder 1 of 2. (April 29,
1966).
A 1
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Mississippi River Dubuque, Iowa Local Flood Protection
Design Memorandum #1 General Design Memorandum, Rock Island Exhibit 1
Hydrology and Hydraulics. (April 29, 1966)
A 2