Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project_Final Report
SAVE
For Upcoming Work
Session
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by
me or der .rect personal supervision and that ( am a duly
Iicen e~ si al Engineer under th~i1o~e; of (owa.
Daniel H. Lau, P.E. Date
License number~
My license renewal date is December 31, 2005.
Pages or sheets covered by this seal:
Entire Report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
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
Report Organization..............................................................................................1-10
1.6
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
Hydraulics.................................................................................................................3-5
3.4.1 Model Representation..............................................................................3-6
3.4.2 16th Street Basin and Mississippi River .................................................. 3-6
Validation................................................................................................................ 3-10
Existing Conditions Performance........................................................................ 3-11
Design Storm and Outlet Condition ................................................................... 3-11
Freeboard Criteria..................................................................................................3-12
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.4
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
Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................4-2
Alignment Development & Evaluation................................................................ 4-5
Alternative Development & Evaluation............................................................... 4-5
4.3
4.4
4.5
COM
Docum~'COO.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.6
Table of Contents
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
4.5.1 Open Channel AIternative....................................................................... 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
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 Treatrnent................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.3 Over-bank Areas .""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 5-7
Streets and Roadways """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",""...... 5-8
Crossing Structures................................................................................................ 5-11
Utilities """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""................................5-13
Geotechnical/ EnvironmentaI.......,......................................................................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
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
Estimate of Probable Cost......................................................................""""""'" 5-23
COM
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
jj
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendices
œr.t
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Terracon
Appendix 0
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Table of Contents
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
Design Criteria
Hydrologic Model Event- Critical Duration Analysis
BBCAC Meeting Protocols (9/11/2003)
BBCAC Meeting Dates
BBCAC Meeting Presentations
BBCAC Meeting Newsletters
BBCAC Meeting- Alignments and Alignment Ranking
BBCAC Chairmen- Council Letter (6/30/2004)
Index and Legend- Preliminary Plans
Channel Typical Sections- Preliminary Plans
Channel Plan and Profile Drawings- Preliminary Plans
Street Plan and Profile Drawings- Preliminary Plans
Structure Crossing Typical Sections- Preliminary Plans
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report (March 15, 2004)-
Environmental Investigation
Estimate of Probable Cost
Bibliography
Iii
rJ.
It
~
Õ
::I
...
lion
One
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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.!
1.2 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 A venue, 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.
1-1
~ N
+
~
3000 0 3000 6000 Feet
..........
~ I
~ - - ... _I
1
I ,-
~ I
rJ
~ ' 1
I 1
I
- -
1
1 -
I
I
r-
\ 1
I
...! r>
I l-
I .. -¡ I,
I II .I
~ - -".... - - - J-
,)
---"\
-...,
I
'- --I
LJ\
'1
1
~ ...-
__I
Sourçes: City of Dubuque - Drainage Basin Master Plan, Fall 2001
Dubuque Aœa Geographic InfbnnaUon Systems (DAGIS), dated May 2000
DÜ~~E,
~-Æ~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CDI\II
BEE BRANCH
DRAINAGE BASIN
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 1-1
------
8L--
- -
----- - ---
-~--
N
+
1000
0
1000 2000 Feet
CDNI
BEE BRANCH
DRAINAGE BASIN
SUBAREAS
-
. Cfty ofOubuque - Drainage Basin Master Plan, Fai/2001
Dubuque Aroa Geographic k1bnnauon Systems (DAG/S). dated May 2000
D~~~Ë
~cÆ~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
Notes:
1. Hamilton Street and Dock Stroot suti:Jasins divert into 16th Street Detention
Basin when the Mississippi River is at Stage 603.5 and 000.5 respectively.
2 8th Street subbasin diverts into the 1flh Street
Detention Basin when the Mississippi River is at Stage 598.5
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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.!
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.
I General description of Dubuque and the Bee Branch Drainage Basin from HDR, 2001.
1-4
N
Feet
~..c-,'
5~
~<Æ~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CDIVI
BEE BRANCH
SEWER AND
LOCAL SEW ERS
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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 fl.ooding 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 1O0-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.
1-6
N
+
Noles
1 Inundaled area show n represenls flooding
From Ihe Bee Branch slorm sewer
malnlme only Flooding from lribulal)' sewers
are nollncluded
2. Inundaled area shown represents completed
construction for bolh Ihe West 32nd Sireet
and the Carter Road Detention Basins
DU~~E
~ck~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CDNI
BEE BRANCH MAINLINE
EXISTING 100-YR
FLOOD INUNDATION
DATE SEPT 2004
FIGURE No. 1~4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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).
1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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.
1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CEIWI
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
1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 1
Background
preliminary design for the recommended alignment including the overall concept for
the open channel.
1-11
'J)
~
,.,
::r.
0
::I
t->
.
Ion
Two
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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.
2-1
rr>
It
::¡.
õ'
::I
'"
ction
Th ree
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œM
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
3.1
Introduction
The Bee Branch Watershed was analyzed using the hydrologic model HEC-HMsand
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 USEP A SWMM Ð<TRAN model for this Study. The DBMP XP-
SWMM model was used as a starting point for developing the Study model in USEP A
SWMM. The primary reason for re-creating the hydraulic model in EP A SWMM is its
wide availability (non proprietary) to the engineering and regulatory communities.
EP A SWMM is the public domain version of SWMM, and the algorithms and results
from EP A 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.
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic A"alysis
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 A venue 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.
3-2
------------
N
+
1000
- --
--
Legend
II""-. ----. Major Subbasn Hydrograph
~ Infk>w Locations
Sou",es.. Cfty of Dubuque - Drainage Bas;n Master Plan, Fall 2001
Dubuque Area Geographic InkJnnaüon Systems (DAGIS). dated May 2000
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
5~
~-k~
BEE BRANCH MAJOR
SUBBASIN SCHEMATIC
MJtes..
1. Hamilton Street and Dock Street su/i)asins divert into 16th Street D:>tention
Basin when the Mississippi River is at Stage 603.5 and roO. 5 respectively.
28th Street subbasin diverts into the 16th Street
D:>tention Basin ...nen the Mississippi River is at Stage 598.5
CDM
-
1000 2000 Feet
FIGURE No. 3-1
DATE: SEPT. 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 1 DO-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- 4.50
6-hour Huff Type-! 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
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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-! 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
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œM
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.
3-6
",
....
I
I
N
+
800
800 Feet
~
Legend
(<
Manholes (Nodes)
Existing Conditons Pipes
-
PIpes
CNerland Flow Paths
PU~_STA
J'\
,¿/))¡
Souroes: Dubucp. ~¡;oo~¡.,/c Inlbnn.'"" S 6toms (DAGIS). dafed May 2000
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
WB~E
~-k~
EXISTING BEE BRANCH
HYDRAULIC MODEL
SCHEMATIC
ClIVI
DATE: SEPT. æO4
RGURE No. 3-2
\
'"%
~
l
!
IŒOK1JKCT
.ERKLEY PL
"",S1
¡;
'ê
x
~
~
""""""'000<)-
0"'"", CT ffi
f
~
~
~
ow
N
+
800
800 Feet
,
Legend
~
Manholes (Nodes)
Existing Conditons Pipes
Pipes
<Nerland Flow Paths
WLOCUST"
\""'~' ,
Sou",..: Dubuque Aréa Geoglljþhlclnbrme'on Systems (DAGIS), deed May 2000
",'CU",SSI
.e-C""""SI ø
~
!!1
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
EXISTING BEE BRANCH
HYDRAULIC MODEL
SCHEMA TIC
DATE: SEPT. ¡UO4
RGURE No. 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3.3: EXTRAN Input Parameters
Parameter Unit Source(s)
Manhole Location I Invert I Feet As-Built Plans, Survey Data, DAGIS
Ground (Rim) Elevation NGVD
Storm Sewer Location - As-Built Plans. DAGIS
Pipe Length Feet As-Built Plans, DAGIS
Pipe Diameter I Size Feet As-Built Plans. DAGIS
Pipe Inverts Feet As-Built Plans, Survey Data, DAGIS
NGVD
Cross-Sections for Overland Survey Data
Flow
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 USACE documentation
(Pumps, outfalls)
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
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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 .
Figure 3.3: All Year Stage Duration Curve at Dubuque, Iowa
1939.2003 (USACE)
615
-----
§: 610
c
0
:¡¡¡ 605
~
jjj
Ii; 600
>
¡¡:
.~ 595
ïñ
..
.;¡;
~ 590
585
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceeded
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.
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
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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.
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3-4: Comparison of Reported Flooding Versus Model Results for Historical
Storms
Event Date Location Source Flooding Elevations I Depths
Reported Modeled Difference
Washington & Surveyed 609.5 610.3 +0.8 feet
24th Street HWM
Elm, between Surveyed 610.4 610.0 -0.4 feet
21st and 22"" HWM
May 16, 1999
Jackson, Telegraph 5-6 feet deep 1-4 feet deep 2-4 feet
between 20th Herald, May
and 28th 18,1999 "chest deep"
17'h and City Staff -1 foot deep 1.1 feet deep +0.1 feet
Railroad Estimate
Elm, between Surveyed 610.8 611.2 +0.4 feet
25th and 26th HWM
June 4, 2002 Washington & Surveyed 610.8 610.2 -0.6 feet
24th Street HWM
Washington & City Video 2-4 feet deep 3 feet deep +1-1 foot
22"d
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.
3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œM
Section 3
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Table 3-5: Existing Conditions Bee Branch Sewer Performance
Location Approximate Storm 100-year Existing Capacity
Sewer Capacity Conditions Flow Conveyance
(cIs) (cIs) Percentage of 1 00-
year Flow
25'h Street 320 1170 27%
24thIWashington to 230 1650 14%
24th/Elm
22"" Street 540 2730 20%
Rhomberg Avenue 360 3330 11%
Under the Packing 880 2400 37%
Plant
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 I-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.
3-12
-
~tion
Four
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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,
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 1 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 1 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
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
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.
4-3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 4-1 Evaluation Criteria, Performance Measures, Scales and Weights
BBCAC Meeting 4 March 11,2004
Rank Evaluation Performance Measure Scale Weight
Criteria
1 Preserve Number of commercial/non Assume !hat order of magnitude number of services potenlially lost are 10. Use number 2.4
commerciall commercial services lost of services lost as points (may need to adjust after number of potential lost services are
noncommercial through business identified). 10 or more services lost wouid still be 10 points.
services relocation 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 commercial properties (10 points) and lesser totals such as 9 commercial properties
receivinQ 5.6ooinls 119/16hlh
2 Minimize Number of properties that Prorate the number of residential property acquisitions to alignment with highest number. 2.1
residential must be acquired Thus if the worst alignment takes 64 residences (10 points), then an alignment affecling
property 60 residences would receive a paint total of {60/64 ).10 = 9.4.
acQuisitions
3 Minimize cost Estimated project cost Establish ranges based on how close to City's budget of $17M. $17M or less-O; 0-10% 1.8
more than $17M ($18.7M) = 1; 11-20% more !han $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 1$42MJ.
4 Preserve Number of streets !hat are Count the total number at streets that are cut off or lost and use that number; which 1.4
neighborhood obstructed by the project means that obstructing 10 or more streets gets same score
access I
connectiviIv
5 Minimize health Number of safety issues Characlerize health and safety impacts through several individual criteria: pest potential 1.4
and safety risk identified (rodents/bugslviruses) =2 pts, attractive nuisance (will it attract children) =2 pts, danger
ìdeen water. hioh velocity. steep droos}=6 ats.
6 Enhance quality Relative score of whether Scale of 0 to 10; with 0 being good and 10 being bad. This will be a qualitative and 1.3
of life alternative adds value or somewhat arbitrary judgment based on the relative quality of life enhancement between
lowers value of the alternatives
neiGhborhood
7 Protect Good or bad impacts to a Characterize environmental impacts through 10 individual criteria: air, water, soil. 1.0
environment number of environmental groundwater. flora, fauna. noise. historical/cultural. social, environmental justice. Each
parameters criterion is assessed as a 1 or O. 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.
Weights are based voting exercise at the Dec 2003 BBCAC meeting and scales are based on discussion at Jan 29, 2004 BBCAC meeting.
CDtt
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œM
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.
4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
œr.t
Section 4
Alternatives Analysis
p_c""",
Ch","",Um'"
F1oo<I Ch",o,1 .,lIom
F1oo<ICh",...,
S~,SIo..
Ow"",o'
Ow,"""
l"""Fl""Cha"" 1
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 O.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):l
(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 LincoIn 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.
4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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 outfaIIs 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., LincoIn, 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 ResuIts
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 I-foot of freeboard between the design
storm water surface profile and existing ground (22nd and Elm) will be modified in
final design to maintain I-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.
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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 ISO-ft. Figure 4-3 presents the
general cross section used for the alternative analysis of the pipe alternative.
----~;
-~- ---""1l Ç!!!II'~'!_,J !g-~ 1IYf). - ~-
'.","-o¡--~--
~~;:;
---.f-
" --~-"--¡.J'ft[TXP},
,~~
"
" .'1"""" .", \
IBik,P"hlWolkò"Poth)
T.mpo~". """"O, .
Slo,"
I
- 1-
"------""
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.
4-8
I
I
I,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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., LincoIn, 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
4.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Altematives 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
1 OO-year 2-hour storm and Mississippi River at 593.4 feet
ODen Channel Enclosed PiDe I ODen Channel
Existing Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Ground Water Flow Water Flow
Location Surface Invert Surface (cfs) Invert Surface Icfs)
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 607.0 591.10 602.70 2500 591.10 601.19 2510
railroad
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.
CDI
4-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œr.t
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.
4-11
rJ.J
'"
::¡.
õ'
::I
<II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDI
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.
5-1
I N
I +
I
I 500 0 500 Feet
Sou",e" Dubuque AIea Geogrophlc Inbrmaúon Systems (DAGIS), daled May 2(}(J{)
D~:
~~~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CDM
PREFERRED CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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.
5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
ð ....J
~ W
,,~ Z I-
ttia¡ Z 0....
õ~ « w
I<.'J IO
~¡¡¡ Oz
~ô Z 0
tti~ wO
"'5 0....
tï; 0
~
...
R
ll:
w
en
W
!;¡
0
Jg¡ I
11' tS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 40ft 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.
5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 5
Preliminary Design
Natural
Vegetation
NormalWS
Depth Varies ~
Topsoil
I
Crushed Aggregate
Base Course
Concrete
Articulated Malting
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 Example of Concrete Articulated Matting-
concrete articulated matting for this particular Carter Road Detention Basin
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.
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 sustairùng so that besides prescribed
5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 outfaIIs 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
5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Section 5
Preliminary Design
northeast side of the channel and shown on drawings ML-l 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),
5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 A venue, 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 A venue to Rhomberg A venue 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 5-1 to 5-12 which detail the street
removal and reconstruction limits.
5-9
Cul-de-sac at
Garfield Avenue
I
I
Elm Street (24th to 22nd)
I Lincoln Ave
Garfield Ave
..~. Pine Street
.. ...., Maple Street (16th to 15th)
Cedar Street (16th to 15th)
.
<!.1
~
:L
V'
I
I
N
+
&Junoes. Dubuque Area Goographic InloanaDon Systems (DAGIS), dafEd May 2000
DU~@UE:
~<k~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
STREETS AND
ROADWAYS
500
0
500 Feet
COM
DATE: SEPT, 2004
FIGURE No. 5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Section 5
Preliminary Design
5.5 Crossing Structures
The open channel solution will contain five (5) major crossing structures (Sycamore
Street, 16th Street, lC&E Railroad, Rhomberg, 22nd Street) and two (2) other substantial
headwalls (24th Street, and south of lC&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.
5-11
I N
I +
.
500 0 500 Feet
I
_fees. Dubuque Area Goographie Inlonna'on Sy;tems (DAGIS), dared May 2000
DU'~~E:
~c/N.-~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
CROSSING
STRUCTURES
CDM
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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' x48'
16th Street 435 1-11' x48'
IC& E Railroad 502 2-10'x28'
Rhomberg Ave. 435 1-11' x48'
22"" Street 435 1-11' x48'
24th Street 169 1- 10' x 20'
Iowa Department of Transportation (lOOT) 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 (AlIiant Energy). The Dubuque Area
Geographic Information System (DAGlS) 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 1. 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
5-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
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 DAGlS 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 GeotechnicaIf 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, lA) 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
5-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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.
5-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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 COM. 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
5-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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.
5-17
~ -'
~~
!(,.f ~;.
ø
~
~
J.....
!q':r
.#
!iJ
P
R
q:
~
ø~
ß
.J>
P
~
'"
~\) s~
~rp
~
Q~
fI
~
(j
\s~s~
~'2:
~ ~Ç)~y-. s~
300
,.._-----~.._-- .
N
+
300 Feet
,
Legend
Impacted Properties
Acquired - Structure Impacted
Acquired - Lot Reduction
\)P'
..-y-. Si
"ô \
SOun;es: Dubuque Area Geographic Ink}/fna~on S;slems (DAGIS), deed May 2000
DÜB~E .
~ck~
ClIVI
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
PROPERTY
ACQUISITION
DATE: SEPT. 2004
RGURE No. 5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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 COM 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 us. Army Corps of Engineers. Given
the uniqueness of this project, exact permitting requirements are not dearly defined.
In preliminary discussions with both parties, there does not appear to be any major
permitting obstacles to overcome.
A Joint Application Form for lDNR and the US. 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 US. 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 lC&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.
5-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
Section 5
Preiiminary 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 tmffic to be maintained
on at least one of the roadways at all times.
5-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
Section 5
Preiiminary 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 COM 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.
5-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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.
5-20
-
LOWELL Sr
~
~
~ ~
%1-
~".
N
+
Legend
Soun;es; Dubu(IUe Area GeoiJl"phiC Ink",na~on S;slems (DAGIS), dated May 2000
Existing Bee Branch
"'\ I Remain in Race
DÜB~Ë
~ck~
BEE BRANCH CREEK
RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY
300
Å
New Outfall to Channel
CDM
PROPOSED USAGE OF
EXISTING BEE BRANCH
Removal of Bee Branch
300
600 Feet
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE No. 5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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 LincoIn 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 LincoIn 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.
5-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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 Geographicallnformation 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).
5-23
t
ã'
Append ices
-
>
'0
'0
,.
:::
p,.
)¡'
>
dix
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
Appendix A
Design Criteria
A.I 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 I-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-I. 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
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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-I 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 lO-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-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
50'
Side B
Back Lot Line
b
LO
......
ID
c:
():.:::¡
IDÕ
"O...J
ü)ID
"0
ü)
Total Lot
7,500 SF
or
0.17 AC
in
......
ID
c:
o:.:::¡
IDÕ
"O...J
ü)ID
"0
ü)
t
Property
Boundary
- - - - . - - ~~Ed~e ~f - - - - -
XY Street Pavement (EOP)
DaZ7l~JE
~.,/(,.~
CDM
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT
STUDY
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE NO. A.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s
0
D::
--..-
.....
u
t
50'
Side B
Back Lot Line
t
r Property
/ Boundary
0
L!)
(l)
c
u:.::J
(l)Õ
"0...1
i:ñ(l)
"0
i:ñ
Total Lot
7,500 SF
or
0.17 AC
(l)
c
0:.::J
(l)Õ
"0...1
i:ñ(l)
"0
i:ñ
to
- . - . . . - '~Ed~e ~f -. - -
XY Street Pavement (EOP)
DUB@UE
~""'-~
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT
STUDY
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
STRUCTURE LOSS
CDNI
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE NO. A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
50'
Side B
Back Lot Line
t
r Property
/ Boundary
0
L!)
or-
QJ
c
u:.:J
QJÕ
"0....1
WQJ
"0
W
Total Lot
7,500 SF
or
0.17 AC
QJ
c
0:.:J
QJÕ
"0....1
WQJ
"0
W
SideA
Front Lot Line
""
La
or-
.,
.,
Ed9: a;../"
Pavement (EOP)
....,
u
XY Street
DUB~E
~ ok 5;>=
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT
STUDY
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
STRUCTURE ENCROACHMENT
CDM
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE NO. A-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S Lo
0
0:::
......
()
t
50'
à
l!)
Q)
c
U:.:J
Q)õ
"0....1
øQ)
"0
ø
Total Lot
7,500 SF
or
0.17 AC
Q)
c
o:.:J
Q)Õ
"0....1
øQ)
"0
ø
- - . - ~ Ed9~ of . - -
XY Street Pavement (EOP)
DU'~~E
~""'-~
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT
STUDY
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
LOT REDUCTION
CDIVI
DATE: SEPT. 2004
FIGURE NO. A-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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.
- Camd.,
Cho.""IIJm"
Fo" """"0' Bottom
F_Cho.",,'
s.. "'"
ow_.
"""""".
1 UM_""""OI¡
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)-Typicalj 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 Bottomf Side-slopes-
Permanent Stabilization-
A.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
Appendix A
Design Criteria
0
Channel Velocity < 6 fps- Natural vegetation only
0
Channel Velocity> 6 fps- Natural vegetation w/ open
cell concrete articulated matting or other armament
.
Topsoil: 9 inches
. Maintenance Corridor-
Permanent Stabilization-
0
Turf grass
0
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 5Oyr 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-B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CII'.t
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
0 Travel Lanes:
12 foot
0 Parking Lanes:
8 foot (includes curb flange)
0 Curb and Gutter:
30-inch (24 in. pan, 6 in. head)
0 Terrace:
3 foot (minimum)
0 Sidewalk:
w / terrace- 5 foot
w / a terrace-l0 foot (at structure crossing)
. Material and Thicknesses:
0 Pavement:
Concrete- 8 inches
0 Crushed Aggregate Base course:
Pavement areas:
8 in. %" Gravel
Sidewalk areas:
5 in - % " Gravel
0 Topsoil:
6 inches (minimum)
0 Sidewalks:
Concrete (5 inches)
0 Seeding:
Turf grass
A-10
t
\<'
c:II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
Bee Branch Creek
Restoration Alignment Study
Hydrologic Model Event - Critical Duration Analysis
Critical Duration SummarY Table
Basin Critical Duration
Locust Street 2-hour
West 32nd 12-hour
GarfieldlLincoln 2-hour
Kaufmann Avenue 2-hour
Windsor Avenue 2-hour
16th Street 2-hour
Locust Street Basin
Type Rainfall
e III 7.00
ell 6.30
I 5.25
el 4.50
Peak Flow
374.6
541.4
644.2
814.8
Event
100- r24-hr HuffT
100- 12-hr HuffT
100. 6-hr HuffT
100- r3-hr HuffT
~2'
100-yr 1-hr
West 32nd Street Basin
Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow
100.vr 24-hr HuffT e III 7.00 308.4
1~1!'ffi'; !!:ifm" 5&"11
100-vr 6-hr HuffT e I 5.25 344.5
1 OO-yr 3.hr HuffT el 4.50 355.5
100-Yr 2-hr HuffT el 4.10 344.4
100-yr 1-hr Huff Type I 3.20 195.0
I
I
Garfield/Lincoln Basin
Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow
100-yr 24-hr HuffT ype III 7.00 74.0
100-vr 12-hr HuffT ",ell 6.30 110.2
1 OO-vr 6-hr HuffT VPe I 5.25 141.4
1 OO.yr 3-hr HuffT ype I 4.50 191.2
100-yr 1-hr Huff Type I 3.20 207.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kaufmann Avenue Basin
Type Rainfall
III 7.00
ell 6.30
e I 5.25
e I 4.50
Event
100- r 24-hr HuffT
100- 12-hr HuffT
100- r6-hr HuffT
100- r3-hr HuffT
^. ~.. ;]1"
100-yr 1-hr Huff Type
Windsor Avenue Basin
Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow
100-yr 24-hr Huff Type III 7.00 172.0
100-Yr 12-hr HuffTvoe II 6.30 256.7
100-yr6-hr Huff Type I 5.25 330.4
100-yr 3-hr Huff Type I 4.50 437.8
100-yr 1-hr Huff Type I 3.20 463.5
16th St Basin
Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow
100-vr 24-hr HuffTvo elll 7.00 277.8
1O0-Yr 12-hr HuffTvoe II 6.30 402.5
100-yr6-hr Huff Type I 5.25 486.3
100-yr 3-hr Huff Type I 4.50 596.5
~;¡' :¡f". H. ^j,!¥~~;¡"
100-yr 1-hr Huff Type I 3.20 526.4
>
'0
'0
/I>
::s
Po.
>!'
¡")
ndix
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
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 rnonth, 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 rnaterials distributed prior to the meeting
. Listen courteously; respect the opinion of other BBCAC members
. Commit to attending all of the anticipated 6 BBCAC meetings
consulting. engmeeong const'uction. operations
So\20959\B" B"""hlC""\P""'m E",IAw"';,AA,,, CAG Prnt""", '.t!).O"""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 2
. 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 rneet
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
S,\2agS9\B" B""h\C;~iI\P"';m E'9IApPeodl>Mpp CAC P"'OC0l5 9,1 a,O3doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDNI
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 3
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 actionsj 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 j revisej develop media releases;
(563) 589-4151
David Harris - Advise on replacement housing options; characterize existing
housing; provide buyoutjrelocation 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.
5120959\B" B"oohIC"'"Pælim Eo,IAp"""IAp, CAC P'otocol' 9,1 O,03.doo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 4
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. Long Range Planning Advisory
Commission 1555 Montrose
1 Dr. Charles Winterwood 2. League of Women Voters
-Chair of CAC- 3. Sierra Club Terrace
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. Community Development
Advisory Commission
2 2. Assistant Manager of Eagle Foods 2835 Elm Street
David Shaw (1800 Elm)
3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. North End Neighborhood
3 Association representative 2636 Queen
Wayne Klostermann 2. North End resident
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
Audubon Elementary PTA
4 Dan or Rhonda Morgan (recommended by Audubon 704 Lincoln
Principal)
5 Dubuque Board of Realtors 4029 Pennsylvania
Jim Lansing representative
1. Impacted home owner
6 2. Prince Street home owner 2316 Prince Street
Michelle Harry 3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. Impacted home owner
7 2. Prince Street home owner 2259 Prince Street
David Fuerstenberg 3. North End resident
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. Impacted home owner
8 Faith Kraemer 2. Washington Street home owner 2362 Washington
3. North End resident
5\20959\B" B"oohlC;,ilIPcel;m EoglAppeod;,lApp CAC Pmloco" 9,11).03.'00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
BBCAC Meeting Protocols
September 11, 2003
Page 5
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. Impacted home owner
9 Audrey Morey 2. North End resident 2545 Elm Street
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
Owns property at:
1. Impacted property owner 2027 Elm
2006 Washington
10 2. Washington Street property 2015 Washington
John Gronen owner
3. Developer 2032 Washington
2042 Washington
2046 Washington
1. Past Chairperson of the Dubuque
11 Soil & Conservation District 817 Garfield
Richard Sullivan 2. Bee Branch Watershed resident
3. Senior Citizen
1. Sacred Heart Parish
2. North End resident
12 3. Johnson Street home owner 602 E. 22nd Street
Frank Miller 4. Bee Branch Watershed resident (22nd and Johnson)
5. Professor of Physics (Ret.)
6. Senior Citizen
1. Impacted home owner
2. Jackson Street home owner
13 Pam Jochum 3. North End resident 2368 Jackson
4. Bee Branch Watershed resident
5. State Representative
1. Impacted home owner
2. Maple Street home owner 1552 Maple Street
14 3. Impacted property owner
Irene Waltz 4. Cedar Street property owner Owns property at:
5. Bee Branch Watershed resident 1555 Cedar Street
6. Senior Citizen
1. Impacted resident
15 Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta 2. Kniest Street resident 2104 Kniest Street
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
1. Impacted resident
16 Rita Brothers 2. Elm Street resident 2130 Elm Street
3. Bee Branch Watershed resident
$120959\B,. B"ooh\Ci.illPrnlim EcglAppecd'><IApp CAC Pco"oo', 9,10'03 doc
.;-
"0
,.
::I
Q.
><'
0
ppendix
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Meeting No. 1-
. Meeting No. 2-
. Meeting No. 3-
. Meeting No. 4-
. Meeting No. 5-
. Meeting No. 6-
COM
Appendix D
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting Dates
September 25, 2003
December 4, 2003
January 29, 2004
March 11, 2004
May 3, 2004
June 24, 2004
S""'.'oo""""'a"N>"'mE",~",."",""""""",.",,,
C-l
.
8
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
~
~ 1600
! 1595
6
J
590
!
" '585
7
/'
/'
/'
/'
I
I
I
I
~-I---~-
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
A
~: j:lli'f&~ / \ .
--~I-"'t--
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
\
Ihe topogeophi' ond """ty ,ntoomo"on on this shoot" t,om th, D"b"o"e
Acea GIS and oth.. histod, sooc'" and has not b,en ",ifi,d by field
",yoy. Th, concept""' design inlacmation on this sheet is p..limina,y
and is sobjoet to change docing final design. Sanitocy sew.. system
modificotio", ace to be det..mined by the City of D"b"o"e.
615
HOH_-__nHOmn
H;-j6-fl'ISì'ÙET
::;:~:'~;f1l0!'(~!,SiÑ:
~9!rooJ
-Ô;iQi~-QI(¡.¡; .
-eem-en'
:Ji ¡¡¡:::::n
. 0 ";m_-
g 580 m~.
~ 8+00 8+20
!
t
]
'\
CD
Z
a.coIAR
Do - 19~5'55°
Do - ",,',,'
T - 74.21
. - ""'.00
~
w
w
'"
~:;;
~i¡!
~~ Z
~~ a
~: ¡:::
eO' U
¡;;:;j~
f-
VJ
Z
a
U
Ct:
a
LL
CD
(/)
/'.
/'
L - 145.50
C - 144.08
E ~ 9.04
" - a78
L{)
lD
~
..-
L{)
f-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
610
-,--
:H-rR~Q~~~~~~H.: ~:;7f;~"t~.. - :-:; Ir~~~~i~É~::.;;
605
n_',--
600
PPRO>OMAtE--DE""';W-.S-.-El&vMlQ/'!------
595
mmm_,H
, 1. ¡APPROXIMATE NORM
,-,~HA"~¡::':1Ç9WL(,,(
590
W.S. EI
- ~~ i~: ~t~i~i,y :ê~~~~,@~ ;@:~nQ~)
:M~K:-C
585
12+60
';Z. I D4ΠI ""'" I CHKO
-~.
~ ~.. ~.
-~.,~.
-~.
~re
COM ew,,¡.o.-&M"'='"L
WHKS&co,
CITY OF OUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
""""" "'.
""'"""
==1-""""""""""""""'"
-= ---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
CHANNEL
STA 8+00 TO 14+00
5/ Ml1
-=.-~-----~~
.
I
615
610
,
°
~
I 1605
~
~ 1600
! 1595
03
j
590
!
" '585
'"
"'
. 0
g 580 m
.! 8+00
!
t
\
\
I
\
~-I---~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
80. = 8+00.00 A
~ ; g~gmb~ / \
--~I-"'t--
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ \
/ \
/ I
I
Ihe topogeaphic and "blity intocmabon on this "'cot" team th, D"b"o"e
Acea GIS and othe, histo,ic 'ooem aod he, not been ",ifi,d by field
'","eYe Th' ,oocept"al de,ign infocmotion on thi, ,heel is poelimina,y
and is ,"bj,ct to chonge d",ing final dosigo. Sonitocy so... system
modificotio", oce to be d,t..mined by the City ot D"b"q"e.
/
/'
/'
/'
/'
No'rooJ
8+20
8+45
~\j'. I "'ΠI "." I """
'\
~//'
~
w
'"
~:;;
~~
~"
I-< Z
:;;~ a
;;'" ¡:::
0'0' u
~N ::J
~~ Ct:
l-
I/)
Z
a
u
Ct:
a
LL
CD
Z
CIRCUlAR
Do - "~5'55'
Do ~ 1911'17'
T = 74.21
R ~ 300.00
/'
ro
(/)
/'
L = >45.50
C = 144.08
E ~ 9.04
" - 8.78
L{)
lD
~
..-
L{)
I-
a
Z
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
BRIDGE -
--p¡;Q!,:6$~!ÜjÞj[N"
yH_~~_NEL.- :
.WLIf£R:r..
605
600
PPRO>OMAtE- -DE"GN ;WS. - El&VÂ-HQ/'! -.
595
NORM
W.S. ELI
~ ~~ i$~ ~ ié~~èA~#:(APfM~IMÁ~ ;çQ~~ n@
590
8+60
585
--(J)
--<t-
..0
(J)
"il'¡
10+00 10+20 10+40 10+60 10+80 11+00
--'" (J)
..<00
--0 '"
"~:¡:: 580
11+80 12+00 12+20 12+40 12+60 12+80 13+00 13+20 13+40 13+60 13+80 14+00
8+80
9+00
9+20
9+40
9+80
CIJI\/I 0"",. D=~ & M"'= '""
WHKS & COo
C'TY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, 'OWA
""""" '°
ACE ""E.
== I_""'........"",.,.,""',..
= _w""""--
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
CHANNEL
STA 8+00 TO 14+00
5/Ml1
"""""
-=.-~-----
. - S~E !'!..TEREPT-
-1-- ..J.-,--,--,--
\ \ ~ PROJECT UM'TS
\
\ \ -.-'
4--+-'
\ \
\
-- --
:: :: ::: ~.---r-~ - , - -
Ct:
a
lJ..
f-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
he topog,oph,c and "tilily onfotmotion on thIS ,h,et " foom ¡he D"b"q"e
Aceo GIS and oth.. hi"o'¡c so",ces and has not been v..ified by field
'"'"'yo The conoeptoo' dosign info,mation on thi, sheet is p'e\iminooy
end i, sob ject to change d",ing final design. Sonitocy "... 'ystem
modifiootions ooe to b, det..mined by th, City of O"b"o"e.
--_,--n--
--_--m,__--_--'--,___m
__'----_m--'--
. - - n t~JÍá~it\m~iJtJ
'615
610
610
605
ì I LO"Oina\~O
600
595 /oesionw
N9,,"01
605
__m__,__--------,--
---,--
:::::0::)::
600
I);ð~'fr,::-n
;[T:ó"é"C~~M9'£O,-
_!_,----
:8" SANITARY SEv.£R rAFP"Ói<¡M'\lïLÕC-=""'~N
+--m-- .pO_J'!E_RE1>'.QVED1--.
~.:.:~jÒÙ5"
595
:PPROX'MA
NPRMAL: W.S. ELEV~TION
--------'-----:::::1::::::::::;::---
590
585
~~.,~,-
== I-""""""A_""'~'
-= ---
WHKS & CO.
17+80
585
17+00
18+60
=:~'-ICDM ew,,¡.D<~&M"'='"O
'"'"fa ".
"" .....
~'ID4ŒloR."ICHKO
"".,."
-~'-
--~---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
CHANNEL
STA 13+60 TO 19+60
"w ".
-,~..~.-
-=.-~-----~~
6/Ml2
.
õ
11615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
~
~ 1600
i
! 1595
6
J
~
590
~
" '585
-, ----¡-
I I REMOVE ì I
I SHED II
I L....JI
IPRDJECT LlMITS~/1
I ,I
I-
0
Z
I¡"I~
. - . - om t e "b"o"e
Acea GIS and othee histo,i, so"coe, and has not been ",ified by field
s",vey. The ,oncept"al d"ign inlan-natian on this sheet is p..liminaoy
ond is "b ject to change d",ing final design. Sanita,y ,"wee syst,m
modifi,ations ace to be d,teemined b the Cit 01 O"b" "e.
, , , ,
--on _--00'-- -T- mnn,n--nn_-
-'--I'ROPOsi:o'OPEN"-
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:::J
w
Ct:
0..
~PROJECT LI"'TS
'--'--,--,
--,
SCAlE~
," - 40' HOR
,- - '0' VER
615
610
605
_n_--____n_--_--___m--__m--m_r_nn
..,.. :::F::--~f~Ê~~~~ç~P~í~~~~'~~
--'mnn--__mn
'-'-';';-ÃppRùXí"'Ãì'ÉökS1GN-w.S.!ätv;~;;'¡:::-~
--'__--_--n_'_m--
600
_'_--_nmn'nn--
_'__nm_n'..._m
~fQ~M :~~~~:C~P¡>~Q~~AtÎ: -J';t~~~~;'l..
595
i! APP_RO~"_AT£ NO~MAL W$.
VATION'
--
---.---:¡::~:~~E!':f~f~~~-.
590
_mnnon..n
nÒ.O5j\- C"
" 0""
- CO ---..
N o.n--
g 580 m 800
~ 18+40
!
18+60 19+86
585
t
]
21+00
WHKS & co.
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
"',""'NQ.
OLE ""'E.
CHANNEL
STA 18+40 TO 24+40
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
7/Ml3
"""""
-~
~".
-=~-.....-----~~
~\i" I D4ΠI "... I 0<""
;¡
p, St" - 28'87.82
N - 566245'.'2
E ~ 5685971.81
, - "'~J'JO'L
CIRCUlAR
O. - ""'20'
0, ~ '4~"41'
T ~ 161.17
R - 400.00
L - JO6.42
C - 2,a98
E ~ 31.25
" ~ 28.98
\
,--,--'--
-,--,--
- \.. PROJECT UMITS
-'
-
.;'
.;
.;'
.;
Y'
,~- ././
'- ./
'- '-./
'- ><..- - ' -
, '-,-/' '-
,-7'- '-J' '-
'-
SCA!£S'
': - ..0' HDR
, - ,0' \IER
-,--,--'
e topog,ophoc and """ty onto'mo"on an th" she,t " "om th, D"b"o"e
Acea GIS and oth.. hi,ta,ie so"coes and has not b,en v"ified by fie'd
s",vey. Th, can"ptoa' design info,matian on this sh,et i, p"limino,y
and is $Object to chong' d",ing final design. Sanita,y "... ,ystem
modifications ace to b, det"mined by the City of DubuQue.
uu,m-
: :~~Q~~~~Þ: :<îP~,,: ç¡'¡~~]~í.::
--_m
5
11615
f 1610
~
11605
~
~ 1600
00,0000_-
- _"~!on~9- -~'f- _~RA~Ç!! ;SJ.QRM _OE)'tR. -(~PJ~~JMNt:- _O:};E _!< _~9_t
---uummmu
,cu
ç:@!~~Lf);þ\ii;'íiC
_'uum---.u
~ 1595
j
~
i 1590
_00,---
'XIMATE NORMAL_\\'"
LEVA
._:::,:~::Dj;Q~~:u'
¡
. '585
24+20 27+40
~:;¡
..; ..--
580 m ið..
õ I 24+00
~
""""'" NO.
RLE .....0
CEIIII c_o.-&M"'= ,",.
WHKS & CO.
CHANNEL
STA 24+00 TO 30+00
==I-""""""""""""""'~'
-= .........--
:;:. I D4ΠI ORWN I CHKO
-=.-~-----~~
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
8/Ml4
/
/,
z
a
¡:::
u
~
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
a
u
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
.
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
11605
~
€ 1600
?
! 1595
6
~
~ 1590
i
" '585
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
-- -..-,--,
/'
/'
/'
\
\
\
, --'--,--,--,
,
~ LACE CONCRETE
¥C CAST-'N-P""NGWALL
-, - HEADWALL, '"
\ ,
-'-\'--'
\ \.. PROJECT U"'TS
\
\
\
\
Ct:
a
LL
r
a
z
'--,--,
>-
cr::
«
z
2
:J
w
cr::
0..
e topog,oph,c ~nd """ty info~o"on on thi, ,hoot" ,"om the D"b"q"'
Aceo GIS and othee histooic so""e' and has not been v,"ifi,d by field
s",vey. The concopt"ol dosign info,motlon on this ,heet i, pcelimlnaoy
ond i, ,"bject to 'honge docing finot design, Sonitaoy sew," ,ystem
modlfi,otions oce to be deteemined by the City of O"b"o"e.
-'---ffiOPOSEO'OPEN"-
_-CHAN"EL-
-
CAST-tN-PLACE CONCRETE
HEAOWALl/'MNGWALL
615
--C - 1'ROPosEO--COLVER
.,.--2.-~1;:;::5~¡';;Ní!n
--mOPOSEO'OPEfl-n:::: ---m'nn----
--:CHAN"EL-'-- '
610
:[ç4<:O~U<:Q~Þ::
-,---
n____m---_,n_-
----,-- nn---'-----
605
--APPRi:oo"ATE"1JESlGN'W:S:
n _00 _00--- - _m 00-
600
--00--
00'00_- __m,_n--_nn
, ' ,
--,___'__00--,-____00___'------
, ' ,
_00'_-
595
590
33+40 34+60
585
~1~
~580
35+20
~
~
~ ~U WHKS & co,
32+60
"WEe' NO.
"-",,",,
SHEET"',
t
]
== 1__..-""""""""'""
-= ---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
CHANNEL
STA 29+20 TO 35+20
9/ML5
~,~.,~.-
~~'-
~~<o~.- '
-=.-~-----~~
:z. I D4ΠI ""'" I C1<KD
"""""
--~----
.
õ
f 1615
~ 1610
~
I 1605
0;
1',00
! 1595
ö
~
~ 1590
!
.. '585
e topogoaphi' and "tility onfo,ma"an on thos sheet" ',om th, O"b"q",
Acea GIS and oth.. histo,ic SO""" and ha, nat been v.,ified by fi,'d
,",vey The con"pt""' d"ign Infa,mation an this sheet is pcetiminocy
ond is $Object to change docing final design, Sanitocy sew., system
modifications ace to b, ",'..mined by the City af O"b"o"e,
"~~!.§,~!....J~~"
, -k
_u_nnm_n_-
Ct:
a
lL.
I-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
~
g
~
~ =:o~- - WHKS & co.
-~, ~- = I-~..:=.='.' BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION CHANNEL
:.::""~- - ~ -- ALIGNMENT STUDY STA34+00T040+00
t
~
-,,"'
um,mn
-m,-s,",""'>-
-'..--APPR""'MATE-1>Esi",,-w-.s-.-
'f~~: :~~~:C~~~~~~::f~1~~1?f:'--
ONY'-
~_~~m_mn"n
, , , ,
:~:fþ~:W~~~~-.ti1~1 :t~~~~~~~E8t}~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~Þl'
'AflOl<--:mn--~
,_,___n_u----nnn-
n,n_n_n--,_u_unu
n--m----'m-
__--n_"mm_-
.. i::i f;~ §~~(~~~l~:iç~~~~q~~~~: j:QÇ~~~~)::..' j'
, , , ,
:: r~tQ3t~í~~1~~~~~~t~~~~ð~:~Ò~Á~Ó~):
._mn__':çH!'~~:~utjjWlI~~::'~--
"::i: ::::!:f~~~t~~~flðitM~~~~~':~ÓÇ~~~~è.'
"""""
10/ML6
~'il: I OAΠI ""'" I "'"'0
-=.-~-----~~
~
w
w
'"
~
on
:d
;:y' I,f,~
p
~ PROJECT UM'TS
SCAlE~
l' - 4D' HOR
" - 10' "'"
HOUSE
t 1615
¡r ~
, 605
600
595
590
--~- '----ÁPÞ-~ÕX'i.iÂ'rt--dÉšj(;N-W:S;'É[£ÝÂ'ñÎ!'---
,: l" 1f~~~~f~~~~~~~~'~g~ ;~~~ ~~ . ~t~~l~~¡ ~Þ:~r -
-'.nmmn_mm
n,mnnn_-,mn--
____,mnnn_,m__--
J::.ji":~¡';~'W<j' :$t~~: :C¡¡éÞ:~91<i,,:~j( J.:¿ÇAi1QÑj.:¡.j~ :¡jÉ: :~~MQ~¡j:__-
_.00000000__"--
'çjj~~É¡:Jió~N:~::::
--,--
_moo_"~
m,_n-- no,un
-.,mu_-
- -APPRDX'MA'It! -NORM-At-'¡"g,-£tl""'~""-'
585
41+80
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
'RWECT "'.
"" '"".
WHKS & CO.
:¡r'!D4ŒICRWNIOHKO
== ¡_"".........""",.....m.
-= ---
CHANNEL
STA 39+60 TO 45+60
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
.."'""
111 Ml7
-=.-......-----~~
z
a
¡:::
u
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
a
u
Ct:
a
LL
f-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
.
//~
I I!'
-, -~
/ ~
ì -e
/
l1'x48'-
--'--;0--
'0 '
....::~~OP~.r;;R~~;x~~:~~"'~
--n_---It,-------.
--,2Z~D:fr~.T:.:
8
i 1615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
f 1600
?
! 1595
Ii
, , ,
--"ÀisE--GROUÑjj -SURFACÉ--
-'1Il-~~9RW_G~,--<¡1¡~R.--
-ocr,
- flE>PRp!ói<Aít ii~s¡GN.w:S:¡E1£y~jjÔ¡'¡-- -.-.- ---,------ ----,-----
-T
_n---ncmnm_-,--- --n---,-mn--_-
-í.t.íN'¡ÀP~R¡;xi"'À-éiòCÃííõNr-'--------~---'-----
mDl-'----___n__'n___.__--'----------'----
1~~~ç~~E~~~Q~~:~~:~QÇ~~~Ñ):¡.:.:- --
,r:' Çii~NÑ~~: j\QWÜ~~ _:
m___nm_u-
,-___mm_,-m_--____,
_:::J:::::::::::t:;;'::~Pí'Rþjö¡,¡~ftNÍ>Rí.tAL.ydR~VA~-
-j<[
~
~ 1590
~
" '585
~
;¡
I
45+40 47+40
WHKS & CO.
CITY OF OUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
.."""""'.
OLE""",
::::.~' -I CI]NI ew,,¡. 0.- & M"'= Inc.
~,",'~'- ==1---"""""""'"
=;.:::==: -= ---
t
CHANNEL
STA 44+80 TO 50+80
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
--~---
12 I Ml8
~"ri: I D4ΠI """" I CHKO
OE.."",
-=.-~-----~~
'"
z
a
¡:::
u
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
a
LL
~
w
~
w
w
'"
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
0
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
-.
G
f 1600
! 1595
6
~
~ 1590
~
0
" '585
r- ;.ou
.. ~----
N <G----
g 580 m :3----
~ 50+40
!
t
,
g
I
I
I
I
I
'--/--
I
¡r-------
I 1
,', REMDYE I
- - / I HOUSE,!
I~-
I I
----L---f
I
I
-t--
I
,--,--
I
I
I í PROJECT UMITS
,1--,--
I ,--
--
CHANNEL STA 55+53,64
~ 24TH STREET STA 2055+53,64
SCAlES,
," - 40' HOR
," - '0' 'ÆR
---,----'
-----,-----
- -P~-òPOSEO-èOPEÑ - tHÃ~-NE[ l PR'
'O¡¡Qrn"'-!!,U'-
'KÄi_- - -- - -- n
::;Vil:~)~:Q~;¡;QçN;:ç!<jjQ¡~ç:.'
-APPROX""^T!:-D&SIGN--W,S,,
:.::::::::1::::::::::,::
-,,---Mcl£OO-FI8FR--op.l1C
"---tAPI'ROXlM^'fE-tOCA'I10"i--'---'-
:.:~f!()~:::::':t:::-:::::;::::::_m
F1:9WC["C -
"--mm--"----
-----------------
~:j;';Nj'~~,¡ M~íE'ÑO:'-~:~C:iÜ.:
:¡~I:: ~:;~~ :::j:~:~~~' ~~: j[~Mt~~o~~~~.~~~~~ ~ l.~ ~:-:-::::: ~:ì~~~1~¡ir~i:: --
,"acmaJ-
,"--------_--'_--nn
;u=--:__0,Q5'<::
50+60
J :::~j~:::-H::~::::~~; L
~+OO ~+~ ~+W ~+W ~+OO
""""""",
AU: ""'"
CllY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
WHKS & CO,
SHEET NO.
~-'~'-
--,~.-
-~.-
== ,-"".........""".....,..
-= ---
CHANNEL
STA 50+40 TO 56+40
~~. 104'" I ""'" I '"'"
---~-----~,~
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
131 Ml9
.."""'"
z
a
¡:::
u
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
a
u
Ct:
a
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
'" - I
~
SEVÆR SYSTEM~ / ~
ABANODN EXISTING BEE ~
, BRANCH STORM SEVÆR ~
\\\"'" '"
' ' , \ ,\ ' TRANSITION PROPOSED 0
\',,', ,\ ' ,\ \ í CULVERT TO EXISTINGBEE ~
~
w
~
w
w
V>
.
8
i 1615
~ 1610
1;
I 1605
~
i 1600
! 1595
6
i
~
590
~
" '585
~
EDP - 58+5',48
N - '6644'0,09
E ~ S68586',80
EXISTING BEE BRANCH STORM SEWER
/
/ -------.}/
/ /
f::::::-? /
f------J /
"X'STING BEE_BRANCH S10RM
'_""~~_'n...
n,...mm_"n
';oSTING-GROUNÖn
-,.-
-Ocioinal-Q,On
"""'an 'WS-n-
-F!
~--(APPROX"'A'æ-t'
(~"-,,";Cr}:--'"
- ~F~~/Jm"'1Xi,u
,,",ô:..,,--_m_'T-
n,';;_",o;;¡n
nn_n_Ç!lR_<E;_Y'_N_,õ_O,oo--
~;:':Ö-Ö5ot---;---FÇH~~J'LO~IIE._----'--------_'_'__n'_____-'-
;'ì1"'"
::':_nn.::'.. ....--:j~~~f~~~~f~~:~irtH
:::.~ -I CDIIII ew,,¡. 0.- & M"'= ,"C,
~-~,- ==1-""""""""""""-
-~"~'- -= ---
-~.-
WHKS & CO.
00'0- _-on _--00_""-
CQt~jN:G:ft~~~~::.:"!::::::::~
z
a
¡:::
u
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
a
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
""""""",
"LE""'~
ò '" Moon...,
~ ~::i:
g 580 m8
j 54+00
t
CHANNEL
STA 54+00 TO 57+00
--~----
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
~' I O4ΠI DRWN I '"""
"""""s
-=.-~-----~~
14/ML10
SHEET"",
dix
L
>
'tI
'tI
III
::I
Co
~.
t""
~
~
f 1615
~ 1610
~
I 1605
~
t 1600
! 1595
6
590
" r-
&
. '585
N
g 1580 tnn
~~
!
t
]
I
I
I
1
I
"t-
I
I
,.. -.
J
lSTH STREET STA 1011+22.12
~ CHANNEL STA 11+22.'2
- '" ' "---- -'
15TH
"
s.,
--1------
I
I
I
I
I
w
~
Í!O
~
~
U
>-
(/)
15TH STREET 1009+52,63
L _~~Y~M~E -=-TR~T-=-T~'~~7~ -
he topog,oph<o ond """ty infocmotion on this sheet i, f'om th, D"b"o"e
Aoeo GIS ond oth" histo,i, so"oces ond hos not been veeified by fietd
,ocvey. Th' ,oncept"ol design Info,motion on thi, sheet is p..limino,y
ond i, $Object to ,hocge d"ing final design. Sanito,y so." ,ystem
modifi,otions a.. to b, det"mined by the City of O"b"Q""
--0-
-T-
--Çi~jtRÜNt¡:@¡Ntj.?'~(jrl!t..
1008+40
jO08+80
1009+20
1009+60
1010+00
1010+40
1010+80
1011+20
1011+60 1012+00
CITY OF DUBUQUE
OUBUQUE, IOWA
CDI\II c.....n,.,..,,&M"'= ,",
WHKS & CO.
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
== I-...................."""..
-= ..........--
~\i" I O4ΠI ORWN I '"'"
""""'"
-=.-~-_._-~~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
- /
~ ---------~-~---
~
¡¡¡
~
-<
i5
e
z
a
¡:::
u
::::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
.,¡
~
w
~
w
w
V>
~
f-
a
z
~
~.
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
1012+40
1012+80
580
1 õí4+Oõ
1013+20
1013+60
"""'"'"°.
RU' '"""
15TH STREET
STA 1008+00 TO 1014+00
151 S1
~
..
i 1615
~ 1610
~
I 1605
~
~ 1600
! 1595
6
J
590
~
585
Q
g 1580 t
i 1110+40
t
~
I
II
SYCAMORE flEET STA 1112+16.79
~ '5TH S'Îi1EET STA 1009+52.63
~L- '"
SYCAMORE
-----------------
/...{>
4frf//
~#/
d<i,6</i{> ,
", ~..¿~.".,~ 00 "~\. ,- .. "',..
Acea GIS and oth.. histooi, SO""" and has not b,en ,..ified by field
soc"y. The eoneeptool design infa'mation on thi, sheet i, pcelimina,y
and i, sobject to 'hange '",ing final ,..ign. Sanitacy ,ew" syst'm
modification. ooe to be det..minod by th, City of D"b"o"e.
-"..
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I I
I '
I S,tAMORE STA "'5+36.2' J
= 16TH ¡;lREET STA 1425+99.75 I
i I I
I I I
¡---'------_..J
J
j}(' ~
II I
, I-
1.0
-------~
"-
"-
ì
I
I
I
I
I
I
1114+80
1115+60
1110+80
1111+60
1112+00
1112+40
1112+80
1113+20
1113+60
1114+00 1114+40
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
1115+20
1111+20
CI]NI ew"¡.",,,,=&M"'= to,
WHKS & CO.
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
SYCAMORE STREET
STA 1110+40 TO 1116+40
161 S2
== I-""........'~""""..
-= ~.......--
:z. I O4ΠI .... I '"'"
-=.-------~~
"'""""
II
II
II
II
II
II
:1
:1
I~ ,~
: ~ I
1----'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¡
SCIl£S,
,". 40' HDR
l' - 10' "'"
1116+00
580
1116+40
,...w"".
"" ..."
¡;¡
!i
-<
X
u
e
z
a
¡:::
u
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
;¡
~
w
w
x
'"
f-
a
z
I
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
....J
W
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
~
~
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
~
~ 1600
~
! 1595
6
~
~ 1590
&
~
585
N
g '580
J
t
~
I I
I I
I I
-----~ I
: r
I ~
I I
-----.....L_---_.....J
------------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f-
W
W
" 0:::
f- ~,
(f)
I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
f-- - - - - - -tr - -L - -1
I II I I
I i I I
I II
I I CEDAR
I II
I
L-----i-L
I
~
I I II
I I II
I I I
I I i I
~__L_--1~
I I I I
----1 I I
I I I I
I I I I
I . I I
---1---.J
I
J.
I
-_L-
';:R;;:;'CT i
I LIMITS "I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
he topogcophi, and "t",ty onlocmot,on on thi, ,h,et is ,"om the ""boO"'
Meo GIS ond oth.. histo,i, so"ooes ond ho, not been w,ified by field
socvey. The oonoeptool design infoomation on thi, sheet is pcelimina,y
and is sobje,t to 'honge docing finol design. Sonito,y ,ewe< syst'm
modifications oce to be dete<mined by the City of D"boo"e.
1214+00
~.IO4ŒI""",ICH""
.E""'"
1214+40
I
I
I
I
I
I
1214+80
CEDAR STREET STA 1217+68.11
~ 16TH STREET STA 1423+21.64
,-,*!~A'\í~1f't~~Q~¡~;o;tt~Qç,,:ljÞm::::::: -
1215-+20
1"215+60
1216+40
1216+80 1217+20
CRY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, 'OWA
1217+60
1216+00
CI)IIII Gomr "'- & M"'= '"'
-=I-""""""A.......~'n.
-= ---
WHKS & CO.
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
-,~-~-----~~
1218+00
CEDAR STREET
STA 1214+00 TO 1218+00
I
SCALES,
" - 40' HOR
" ~ 10' 'IER
'R""" NO.
ALE ","E.
171 S3
I
1:5
N
51
~
w
W
I
V>
z
a
¡:::
u
::::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
a
u
Ct:
a
LL
f-
a
z
w
w
V>
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
~
~
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
I 1605
~
~
i 1600
! 1595
6
ï
Æ 1590
~
~ '585
"
g '580
î
t
~
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
-------_...J
(J1
-I
I
II I
. .(J)
-I
ÃJ
fT1
fT1
-I
~' .
1316+00
1316+40
-:g. I O4ΠI 0"'" I '""
RE_S
I r--~-II I
, Ii 'GARAGE i I I
I I [I I
I --I I
I I [- ----, I I
I I!I ,
I I I' ,
I I¡GARAGE' ,
I ILl' ,
I I 'BULKHEAD EXISTING t-
STORM SEVÆR
L - -...L - -....L - - - - --L
fJ
'Z'§
[LOW fLDW CHANNEL ::¡ '" Z
CAST-'N-PLACE CONCRE1E CEN1ERLINE i3 0' a
HEAOWAll/WlNGWALL :š ~ F
------------ ;~ ~
.. ......- - . "'"
.. 2'- "" g:
- '\: - ---'- - ~ - ---'-- . w w VJ
iì5iì5z
PRoPOS£OþiANNEL ~ ~ a
CElN1ERLINE u
7+00
- -'-~R:EC~LI:' - - , - -
MAPLE STREET STA 1319+Bl.16
: '6TH STREET STA 1420+32.15
Ç~HTERlJN¡:::CI
1316+80
1317+20
1317+60
1318+00
1318+40
1318+80
1319+20 1319+60
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. 'OWA
1320+00
CDI\II ,-"=&M"'= '"C
WHKS & CO,
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
MAPLE STREET
STA 1316+00 TO 1320+00
181 S4
== 1-""""""'-""'.'
-= .........--
-=.-~-----~~
SCAtESo
," - 4<)' HDR
," - '°' VER
+WAtÈj'--';'",¡¡' :
..:.~~~~~~t,~k¡'¡;~jj¡'Ni..
,-"ã'-Vtfi:SANITÄRY-SÈW¡'R"-
..:.¡æ~RQi;¡'¡A1E;¡¡¡èA.iî¡'¡'¡j::
"'WEe' '°
ALE ""'Eo
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
.
615
i
I 1610
:¡;
11605
~
~ 1600
~
! 1595
6
J
590
~
"
585
g
g
580
î
t
ð
I
I
I
r----------
I
I PROJECT LIMITS
I
I
I PROPOSED LOCAL STORM
- --- -...L -- - - -~~~~
REMOVE STDRM SEWER
~
REMOVE & RELOCATE WATER MAIN
1420+32.'5
1319+8'-'6
i
I
i
=-_L_~~~
COMM. BLDG.
COMM. BLDG.
J422+00 1423+00
--'--~~-I "'~'---,-=",-
",,"" "" .... "" "" .... ."
1 6TH STREET
lJ
Z
fT1
:-----r-l~
I I HOUSE
I I
~ - - - - -...L -- - - --1
I I
I I
I
r PROJECT UMITS
r----: ::::: 7- T - - - - - I
-,-
I ì'-_,- I
I -'-4,-
I
I
(/)
-!
:::u
fT1
fT1
-j
he topogoaphi' ond "t"'ty onloomotion on th" shoot is ',om th, D"b"q"e
Aceo GtS and othoc histooi, SOU"" and has not boon voc;fied by field
soever Th, concept"ol d"ign info,mation on this sheet is p..limino,y
ond i, sob ject to chong' docing final design. Sonito,y so.ee syst,m
modificotio", ace to be deteemined by the City of O"b"Q"e.
nL.
, . . .
o:~"lI;ö¡ÜI~~~ :QÊ'Ìjç: í.;';Ê'PRQ1<i~i\ it. L:cîÇ¡';~~~j::
--T9--~E_~<LO!<~K~:: ::,:: .
An -
ö'
~~~w!i~!~í9~~1-:::"
-_._!,~O",9~_<D_ß-~'!!GE_.
-_CUJ_YE~t_tt'x'l8'77-Q'-,
CCENTER11NECf{A~~EL' PROF1L~':
>-
~
~~
v>~
wZ Z
ã':;;0
:;;~ ¡:::::
gje u
~'" ::::J
;J;:I Ct:
~ ~ f-
J:j J:j VJ
¡)¡¡)¡Z
w~ 0
i!ji!jU
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
,"ru,""".
nLE '"""
580
1423+20
1418+00
1418+40
1418+80
1419+20
1419+60
1420+00
'-420+40
1420+80 1421+20
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
1421+60
1422+00
1422+40
1422+80
~~~.- 'CEIIII ew,,¡.Dk=<&M"'=I"c
WHKS&co,
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
~~ c~., ~. -
== I-""""""'A-""""~'
-= .........--
--~---
16TH STREET
STA 1418+00 TO 1423+20
~= æ.'c ~.-
19/55
:g. I O4ΠI - I CHKD
~C~'-
"""""
-=.-~-_._-~~
f 1615
~ 1610
-f
11605
J 1600
! 1595
c;
~
~ 1590
~
~ '585
16TH STREET STA '423+2164
- CEDAR STREET STA '2'7+68.11
16TH STREET STA '425+99.75
~ SYCAMORE STREET STA 1115+38.21
COMM. BLDG.
'424+00
w
If""'""
,,-'"
r--------
! CJ -- ~
'-, rPROJECT LIMITS
-'-~ I
'--, I
-- --,-- I
---- '- +
---"",,-,
'pr -,
1 ~
~ " tj
- IX
~
~V1
I~
1°
J j
>-
(/)
-----------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
,mat,an an this sheet Is foam th, D"b"o"'
Acea GIS -and oth.. histook SO""" and ha, not b,en v..ifi,d by field
so"ey. The canoept"al d"ign infocmatian an this ,heel is p..liminooy
and i, sob jeot to chang' docing final d"ign. Sanitocy sew.. ,ystem
modifications a.. ta be dete,mined by the City of O"b"~"e,
L - f@.ÉRLfÑnX[sfl!':G ¡¡ÉË~ ~:RAî{cft
{AI'P*,X'MAIT-LjJGA~ON)- -
-,-
-S'-ŠÀNtTARY'Š;;Ì'iÉr<
::(AI'PRòi<iM:.\ÍÜoêATION)
~
g 1580 1m-
~~
!
t
6
1423+20
1423+60
1424+00
1424+40
1424+-80
1425+20
1425+60
1426+00
CDI\II ,_o.-&M"'='oc
WHKS & CO.
== I-....,.-._.....,~.
-= ---
:Z' O4ŒI_I"",,,
-=.-~-_-_-œ'~
¡
I
i
, ----:-----i~
1427+00 *~ 1428+00
--'-- - -+- - "'--- - .J. - '- --+ - ---'- - --'- - -"-- - -'
""0 "0" 'm" om "" ,~
. 16TH STREET
~
---'- - --'-
,r------------
/
/
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------------
=
" - 40' "DR
" - 10' ....
;~;~~;~~~~~~~~:_.
-"(APRROXIMA1<>:DCAllON)
1426+40 1426+60
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
1427+20
1427+60
1426+00
1428+40
'"0"'" "'.
AU' ""'"
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
16TH STREET
STA 1422+80 TO 1428+80
20/S6
~
~
~i
~ø
"'r
"'"'
~8 Z
:~ 0
0'0' ¡:::
Nn U
:: ::J
~~ g:
~W VJ
-1!i1!i Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
0
Z
1
>-
0:::
«
Z
2
...J
W
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
565
560
1428+80
SCALES,
" - 40' HOR
" - '0' \ÆR
~
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
,.."", "'.
AlE "",E,
-
SHm
21/S7
~
ó
f 1615
i 1610
i 1605
~ 1600
¡.
----~-----------T---~~
I /
1 ~.w'tiI!I-
RE"OVE co..". BLDG.
\
,s",oo
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
I /
PROJECT LIMITS \ 1 ,/
/(
/1
,/ I
~//I
'--,-
-,--
CAST-'N-PLACE
CONCRETE
HEADWAlJ./WiNGWALL
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
STAGE RE"OVAL AND RELAY TRACKS, BALLAST,
AND SUBGRAOE AS NECESSARY FOR BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION.
e topogoap¡;;c and "tility infa'mation on thi, sheet is foam th, O"b"o"'
Ace., GIS and athe, hi,to,ic saocm and has not been veoified by field
soc"y. The ooncept"al design info,matian on this ,h'et is pceilminooy
and is sobjeot ta change docing final de,ign. Sanitocy sow., syst'm
modifiootlons ace ta be d,t.,mlned by th, City of D"bua"'.
~ 1595
590
585
~ '580
1530+00
1530+40
1530+80
1531+20
1531+60
1532+00
1532+40
CDI\II ew,,¡. "'~ & M"'= '"<.
WHKS & CO,
1532+80 1533+20
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
1533+60
1534+00
== I-""'-""'E."m"~.
-= ..........--
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
IC&E RAILROAD
STA 1530+00 TO 1534+00
:z. I OAΠI ""'" I c.",
.E"""S
_.".-~----~-~~
§.!
~
I
-u
e
"
:I
0-
W
W
I
'"
z
0
¡:::
U
~
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
w
w
'"
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
\ \"
\ \
~':~\J
\
\ ~
------L \
----------------J
--c~~
~"'~~~
-""'~"'"-----=-""'--~","~
~--. -----.:::. ~7""=:~.
--
GARFIELD AVE STA 1632+92.21
~ KNIEST STREET STA 3034+66.20
..J
...'
... ,'" \
, ... "- PROJECT LIMITS
...
,'"
5(:"£5,
," . 40' HDR
,- . 10' VER
~
~
f 1615
¡ 1610
i
11605
~ 1600
~ 1595
ij
he topogcaphic and "tility ontoomation on thl, ,heet " team th, D"b"a"
Aceo GIS and othe, histonc so",ces and has not been ,e,ified by fi,'d
,""ey. Th, oonceptoal dosign info,motlon on this sheet is pceliminooy
and i, $Object ta change docing final design. Sanitooy sow.. syst,m
modifications ooe to be det..mined by the City of O"b"Q".
-
, , , ,
'-tk EöD"ÁÑJj-çrfn)rO\¡eù-óocmiŒ¡¡p~njNES .
v,@~t¿~&PAtJQ~¡--..;..u,..m
--la:_W~JER- 1N_(APJ'ßQ~INA1E_LD.C~nON}:u
.-!~..aE.RE:LO JElL ..:.. ---_:--- '
--,----
-T--------"----- --,----.
, , ,
~ì2~'SANIT¡(~\'-S£YiÉ~'--
..Jt:~~~~~1~~~%G~~9!<1..
590
~
585
,
g '580
1633+60
1634+00
1634+40
1634+80
1635+20
'-635+60
1636.¡--015
1633+20
I
t
1632+00
1632+40
'-632+80
~.m~.- 'CDIIII ew,,¡.Th~&M"'='",
WHKS & CO.
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE,IOWA
"""Ecr"'.
OLE ..."
"rn ~.'" ~.-
== I-~.........-"""'~.
-= ---
GARFIELD AVENUE
STA 1632+00 TO 1636+00
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
-~,."~.-
--~-~-
22/S8
~~'I"'ŒI-ICH'"
~~~.-
R""RkS
-'".-~-----~~
z
0
f=
u
::::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
::J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
.J" I I' c_----' ---
IIL_J L--T--i--
I I I I ADJUST EXISTING UTILITY I
_J- I I STRUCTURES FOR NEW I
---_J _-.J l I I I" ROADWAY GRADE I
I I I ,-- 1,1 II
I. ' I ¡-~ I Iii I
'--'1 I I I I Ii I
\ 'I: l' ,.11 g~~."s~EI 'Î.,I ~~ ~i~ j6~~~;~:~¡ i
I IL J I II Ii I
---~-=-~ -- I -~Jl I
00 , I I I I I
0 :::1/ PROJECT IliMITS I I I I \ I
:< I I I I I I
, I I I I I I r d
III _11---~I'lll..I.,I,..---_...,J--, __I, I~
I I, I Ii II I J ~
I Il [I I 'I [;- 0'
I I I i 1'1' II' II ~
I I I, II ~ I t;¡
I I IlL I II ~
1-1L-.1 II _J L~
l__~__~L_- --~~
1730+00
&-- '- ----' - --+- - --'- -
""
~---'-----'-~OMBERG
AVENUE
~
.
11615
~ 1610
i
I 1605
"
i
! 1600
! 1595
6
~
~ 1590
- -- T -- - --- - - ~- T ---- -----,
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I PROJECT LI"'TS 1
I I I
! I I~~I:;
I I I
I I II
I I II
I I I
e topogoaphi' and "'ility in o,matian on t " ,heel i, ,om th, "boo"'
Acea GIS and ath" histo,i, sou<c" and ha' not been v"ified by field
socvey. The oonceptoal design infa'mation on thi, she,t i, pcelimina,y
and is subject to chong' d",ing final d"ign. Sonitocy sew.. system
modif¡,ations a.. to be deteeminod b, the City af D"b"Q"e.
--1-----'------1--
PROPO~ OCAL I II r- l
STaR" ~ v.fR SYSTEM I : I
CONNE9¡iÎ ,~"' I' I'
[l (: I I:U
ILJI I I
I I
I I SCALES. I
I ~: : ~: t:
'-'¡¡'U'AtErÜ;iN~:C~Pþ:R'
..T9-~_E_RE.L.QC"TEO..
;~ -BWA TE~O"~A','h,lAPrRO~I"A -,
::;_.--tRE' A "
, , .
c~~ ~í~~{fol¡ft1R. (A!'f~~*I"À)),;~iJ<
_.PRQ!'.Q?E()_~RJO("_c_~~Y¡:RT--
--;.. _,__tr..",r",5J1:-c
,_,L.C:ÉNJt:~L,;.¡t.@t!NE~::P~Þ:FI~¡:..
, ' '
~
~ '585
-0-
"
g 1580
1739+20
1738+80
1738+40
1738+00
1737+60
1737+20
1736+80
1736+40
"""Ecr'"
OLE ""'E.
1736+00
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
î
t
_W~.- ICDI\II ,-o,=&M"'=I"c
WHKS & CO.
RHOMBERG AVENUE
STA 1736+00 TO 1739+20
23/S9
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
== I-""..............."""~.
-= ---
~~"'~.-
=,,~,.,~.-
--~-~--
]
~~'-
-=.-~-----~~
:g. t "'ΠI """ I CHKO
""...",
z
0
¡:::
U
::)
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
0
Z
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
::::i
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
~
11615
~ 162Q
~
I 1605
~
~
! 1600
! 1595
6
J
590
~
"
585
"
g '580
I
t
õ
w
---- - - ---- --~ ----:;::: .-'
/ /
"J 1/ "-- '- / / AOJ"UST D<19'!1NGUTILITY
ì/ j -STRDCTURES FOR NEW I
') / /-/ --I "'"'""j'l
II / / l I
/ ~--------- Y
/ / I
/ / I
/ LlNC\>LN S1REET STA 1839+S7.f
/ ~ KNI~ST S1REET STA 3040+65,9
/ / i
" / / L
~-L_------
~ "
\
LINCOLN S1REET STA '841+58.35
= NEW STREET STA 5040+55.40
.
"
"
-~--'----'----~
LI NCOLN
AVENUE
- ~~ [J- -- [~~~ U
/ I --
/ f-=~-J------ I
~- -- I _::~U:TS~
/ r------ ~
/
-~T[]L]
I I
!;- PROJEC~ LIMITS
If I
-'-I---i--'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.îÕ.6~.REk~ÇAŒO..
, , ,
., ~ci~~Ñ~t!~~fr'g'R C'fROXî"A:tÉ L~CÀ l1ON
1838+00
1838+40
1838+80
1839+20
1839+60
1840+00
1840+40
1840+80
1841+20
1841+60
1842+00
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
~~m~.-ICDNI (_Il=~&M"'='""
WHKS & CO.
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
LINCOLN AVENUE
STA 1838+00 TO 1842+00
~O~'"~.-
== I-,,",""""A""""""'~'
-= ~---
--~---
,~~"~.-
:ii'I""ŒloRWWI","
-~'-
~re
-=..~._._.~~
.E"^",,,
"""'" "O
"u: ","E.
24/ S10
~
o¡¡
¡;
e
~
,:
~
w
~
z
0
¡:::
U
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
0
Z
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
-1
W
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
~
g
116~
i 1610
~ 1605
~ 1600
[ 1595
590
¡
585
fi
580
I
t
~
22ND
STREET
.
"CO
I
¡--~-
I ~
j ¡
I i:!
~~
.
"CO-
-----1-- ---1-- - -i----T--
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I It'll I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I SCALE'" I
I I I ,. ~ 40' HOt I
'-
'-
'-
'-
PROJECT UMITS
" .AND, ,M',I[EOO"FliJER""'llC,LINF,S"", ,.,;"
.~~RQ~jMA1E.I.QCA]~), TP..6E. I'ROJ:ECT!:.q ,
~. :~~¡~: :cAifR6~j~A tt~QÇA~~~j::
1943+20
1944+00
1944+40
1944+80
1945+20
'ro
uK>
uN
0>
Uif)
1945+60
1946+00
1946+40
1946+80
1947+20
1943+60
~~~.- ICI)IIII ew"¡.o.-&M"'=',,,.
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE,IOWA
WHKS & CO.
~~ ~" ~.-
== I-""'...............~,..
-= ..........---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
22ND STREET
STA 1943+20 TO 1947+20
~,~'"~.-
--~---
~~.-
:z. I "'ΠI - I 00<0
."""'S
-=..~-_._-""~
,"WE<" ",
"" ...0
,"ŒT "",
25/ S11
z
0
¡:::
U
::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
a
z
>-
Ct:
«
z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
. .~~
, \
24TH SjREET STA 2055+53.64 " \ I 24~ 6.TREET S+A 2057+39.r4 I
~ C¡<ANNEL STA 55+53.64 I I ~ HERliAGE TRAIL S A 4054+84.95 \
PR09OSEO BRIDG~ CU.LVER~ \ I PROJECT LIMiTS \ \ I. \ ---- I-
I 10,oO-2S4 I '-,.. - Ir----' !c----l 1,-- " '. ¡j
~-~---~ ---~~ - \ I ~'" \ II \ II i 1\ I I i ~ z
--;;;;;;-...;-- -- I \ \ I I ! Ii IIG 0
- -_:~----~-', \ I RELOCATE SANITARY SEWER I, II i Ii i I ii' '" ¡:::
\ r~~~~,~~~O \ \ V ¡--RELOCATE McLEOD F1BER OPTIC I. L. \, II i ~. I II ~ u
Y PR'VA TE CARRtER) I ì I II I I ,\ i ';;] =:>
, i! I ! ~ Ct:
ABANDON EXISTING BEE ~ I I \ i 1 J I L i:i tn
BRANCH STORM SEWER L - - -< ..L---l --c=-~ x ¡¡¡ z
~,,-~ 0
U
~
..;
ll615
~ 1610
:¡;
11605
l
~ 1600
?
! 1595
ci
~
11590
~
~ '585
g
g 1580
I
t
~
I -
2058+00 24TH STREET
:: -+-- - "-- -' ="-"
rl--+f~l:
rj----r~~~~
r--------------i
I I I I
h~' t~pog",ph" and "tllity onfaoma"ao an this sheet" "am th, D"b"o"e
Acea GIS and otheo histaoic sa""" and he' not boon veoified by ",Id
,"ovey. The ooncept"al design infa,motlan on this sh,et ;, p"limina,y
and is sobje't to change docing final design. Sanitaoy ,ewe< system
modificatla", 0" ta be deteemlnod by th, City of O"b"o"e.
:z. I O4ΠI ..... I CH"
.-~~()PÖ~~D~~h~~J7-
, ' ,
1~R'iStm:R(AP¡;~9:X1¡'¡~j[ :LÓÇ:~ ~:Ó~):-;-
,ceAlEO-c _.c------' ------
2054+00
2054+40
2054+80
2055+20
2055+60
2056+00
2056+40
2056+80
2057+20
2057+60
2058+00
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
'"WEC"".
","""E,
~"W~.-ICIJNI ew,,¡."=~&M"'=I=
WHKS & CO.
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
24TH STREET
STA 2054+00 TO 2058+00
~~"~.-
~~'""O~.-
-~.-
== I..""'...............""'...
-= ---
26/ S12
--~---
"EO...."
-=.-~-----~~
Ct:
0
LL
f-
0
Z
>-
Ct:
<{
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
615
610
605
600
595
590
585
580
>
'0
~
::I
C.
><"
~
. .~~ - - ,-
~
i
'8
~
..
,
¿
-f
I
-.
~
~
€
i
6
J
CO
CASHN-PlACE
"'NGWALL/HEAOWALL
""" "ASTIC FOR"LlNER
SURFACE ffiEATMENT
CHANNEL
CENlERUNE
PROm
~
N
g
Î
t
,,","NEL CENTERLINE
PCC PAVEMENT
PRECAST ARCH OR
CASHN-PLACE ARCH
STREET CENlERLINE PRoe"
STRUCruRAL
BACKClL
SPAN H"GHT
(VARIES '0'-'1')
BRIDGE/CULVERT - TYPICAL SECTION
V~~~i~NŒRLlNE
STREET ROW - VARIES
pee 'AVEM'NT
CONCRETE
CURB. cumR
SlORE
CONCRETE
CHANNEL BOTTOM
CRUSHED ACGREGATE
BASE COURSE
TE"PORA"
CONSfRUCTION SLOPE
CRUSHED AGGREGm
BASE COURSE
BRIDGE/CULVERT - TYPICAL SECTION
~n ~'" ~.-
'"-~.-ICEJI\II c.m¡,D=~&Md'='",
==I-"""""'-"""~'
-= ..........--
WHKS & co,
-~.~.-
~
--~'-
~\;'. I "ΠI O"" I OH"
R"IN'"
I I
u_~ è~
è:uu\::: "-CONCRETE CUT-Off WALL
CASHN-'LACE
CONCRETE FOOTING
C'TY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE. IOWA
--~---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
-=..~._._.~,~
;¡CTION (:)
;!CTION C)
BRIDGE/CULVERT - TYPICAL SECTIONS
'ROJECT"",
mE ."",
z
0
¡:::
U
:::J
Ct:
f-
VJ
Z
0
U
Ct:
0
LL
f-
0
Z
I
>-
Ct:
«
Z
2
:J
w
Ct:
0..
27
, Ap
f
Do
)ë'
Z
.
IX
N
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
DUBUQUE, IOWA
Project No, 07045602
March 15,2004
Prepared for:
CAMP, DRESSER, & McKEE, INC.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Prepared by:
llërracon
Bettendorf, Iowa
.
.".m 1°'-1-87
] Érracan--..J
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 15, 2004
1 rerracon
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc,
330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1219
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
870 40th Avenue
Beltendorf, Iowa 52722
Phone 563.355.0702
Fax 563.355.4789
1MWi.terracon.com
Attention:
Mr. Michael T. Oleson, P.E.
Re:
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Dubuque, Iowa
Pr~ectNo, 07045602
Dear Mr. Oleson:
The requested preliminary subsurface exploration for the proposed Bee Branch Creek
Restoration to be located in Dubuque, has been completed. This report presents the
findings of the exploration and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations
regarding the design of the proposed storm sewer. Boring logs and a boring location sketch
are attached. We look forward to performing additional subsurface exploration(s), once the
structure's alignment will have been determined.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any
questions concerning the contents of this report, or if we may be of further service, please
call.
Sincerely,
1 ferracon
")Ollð lùJJ~Q'L ( (~)
Doug Waldeier, P.E.
Project Engineer
J&1) ~
Alex J. Bredikhin, P,E,
Iowa No. 16805
~~6-d
~ \~(.à Lhf)
Robert W. Pavlicek, P.E.
Asociate Principal
AJ8:RWP:N:\A_PROJCT1GEO\2004107045602_Poelim. Report.doc
Enclosures
Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965
More Than 60 Offices Nationwide
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .....,...........,..",.......,..,............,...................,.,........,..."...,..",.,...,.....""..........,..1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.,.....,....,...........,.,.........",....,.".........,.....,....,."......,...."..,..,.............,..1
SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ...,....".,',.....,.............,......,.,..,..,....,................."...".....,..,1
Field Exploration,......,..,...............".".....,."....,........."...................................,............,............,1
Laboratory Testing .....,.,.............,.....,...,................,................,......,.,.",.,......",..,.......,..,..,....,..2
SITE CONDITIONS ..,..,...........,...,................."...,..............,....,....,...,..."...........".....,...,........".,..2
SUBSURFACE CONDfTIONS....,..............,.",..,.,.,.........,.................,........................".......,.".,..3
Soil and Rock Conditions...........,.........,................,.........,..,................................,....................3
Groundwater Conditions.....................................,......."............,....."....,.".,.....,.........,.............3
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS """""""""""""",...............................,4
GENERAL COMMENTS.."..,...........,.....,..............."..........,............",.....................,..,.........,..,...5
APPENDIX A
Boring Location Sketch
Boring Logs
APPENDIX B
General Notes
General Notes - Sedimentary Rock Classification
Unified Soil Classification System
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
DUBUQUE, IOWA
Project No, 07045602
March 12,2004
INTRODUCTION
The requested preliminary subsurface exploration for the proposed Bee Branch Creek
Restoration to be located in Dubuque, Iowa, has been completed. This exploration was
performed in general accordance with our proposal dated April 10, 2003. Individual boring
logs and a boring location sketch indicating the approximate boring locations are included
with this report. The purposes of this report are to describe the subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide preliminary
geotechnical recommendations regarding design of the drainage improvements.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that plans are being developed for a new storm sewer between East 24th
Street and the 16th Street Basin for the City of Dubuque, Iowa. We understand that two
alternatives are currently being studied by Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. (COM) at the
30% design stage. The first alternative would include an open channel with culverts at the
four roadway crossings and the railway crossing. The second alternative would consist of
an open channel located south of the railway with a culvert at the 16th Street crossing and a
buried pipe culvert north of the railway.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Field Exploration
Six (6) borings extending to depths of about 7Yz to 24 feet below existing grades were
performed at locations proposed by Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc, (COM). Ground
surface elevations were provided by COM, Approximate boring locations were chosen by
COM and laid out in the field by Terracon, based on underground utility locations and traffic
concerns, The elevations (rounded to the nearest 1/10 foot) are shown on the boring logs.
The borings were performed with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig equipped with a hydraulic
head used for drilling and sampling operations. Continuous flight augers were used to
advance the boreholes, and soil samples were obtained using both split-barrel and thin-
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bee Branch Creek RestDration
Project No, 07045602
March 15, 2004
, Jërracan
walled tube sampling procedures. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch
0.0, split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling
a distance of 30 inches. An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel
sampler in the borings performed for this project. The number of blows required to advance
the sampling spoon the last 12 inches (or less) of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded
and used to help estimate the consistency of cohesive soils, and to a lesser degree, the
hardness of weathered bedrock. The blow counts are provided on the boring logs at their
depths of occurrence. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled seamless
steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is hydraulically pushed into the ground to obtain
relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive and moderately cohesive soils. The samples
were tagged, sealed, and delivered to the laboratory for testing and classification,
The drill crew prepared field boring logs to record visual classifications of the materials
encountered during drilling. The boring logs included with this report represent an
interpretation of the field logs, and include modifications based on laboratory observations
and testing data,
Laboratory Testing Procedures
Water contents were obtained for the samples, Where possible, dry densities were
obtained and unconfined compression tests performed on portions of the thin-walled tube
samples, A pocket penetrometer was also used to help estimate the unconfined
compressive strength of some samples, The pocket penetrometer provides a better
estimate of soil consistency than visual examination alone, The laboratory test results are
provided on the boring logs.
The soil samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture,
plasticity, and laboratory test results, The soil descriptions and estimated group symbols
presented on the boring logs for native soils are in accordance with the enclosed General
Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. A chart describing this classification system
is attached to this report.
Rock sample classifications and descriptions are in accordance with the enclosed General
Notes and are based on visual and tactile observations of disturbed samples. Core
samples and petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed site is located from East 24th street, along and east of Elm Street to East 22"0
Street, along Kniest Street to Garfield Avenue, across the railroad and along Pine Street to
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Project No. 07045602
March 15,2004
1 rerracon
East 16th Street, and then southeast from East 16th Street to the 16th Street Basin adjacent
to Highway 61 in Dubuque, Iowa. Based on the ground elevations at our boring locations,
surface elevations range from approximately 603 to 608 feet, City Datum; however, wider
elevation fluctuations have been observed at the site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Soil and Rock Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are described on the individual
boring logs. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring logs represent the
approximate depth where changes in soil and rock types occur, In-situ, the transition
between native materials is usually gradual.
Asphalt or concrete pavements with crushed stone base were present at the surface of
Borings 1, 2, and 4. A 2 to 4-inch thick surficial topsoil layer was present at the surface of
Borings 3, 5, and 6, Fill was encountered below the surficial topsoil and pavement materials
in the borings to depths ranging from about 3 to 11 feet. The existing fills materials were
comprised of gray and dark gray lean and lean to fat clay with varying amounts of sand, silt,
gravel, cinders, brick, glass, and organics. Beneath the fill at Borings 1, 3, 5, and 6, native
lean and lean to fat clay soils with varying amounts of sand were present to depths of
approximately 12 to 21 y> feet. These soils were gray and dark gray, and exhibited soft to
stiff consistencies, Boring 1 terminated in the native clay soil at 20 feet below grade, while
Borings 2, 3, 5, and 6 encountered alluvial soils comprised of fine to coarse sands with
varying amounts of gravel below the cohesive deposits. These granular deposits extended
to boring termination depths of about 20 to 24 feet. These alluvial soils were brown and
gray, and exhibited loose to medium dense relative densities, At Boring 4, apparent
grayish-tan weathered limestone was encountered at a depth of about 4 feet and extended
to auger refusal at about 7Y> feet below grade. Please refer to the boring logs for further
details.
Water level Observations
The borings were monitored during and after drilling for the presence and level of water,
Water was observed at all but Boring 4 at depths of about 10 to 15 feet while sampling.
After drilling, water was present in Borings 1, 3, 5, and 6at depths of about 102 to 13 feet.
No water was observed during or after drilling at Boring 4 or after drilling at Boring 2, Due
to the relatively low permeability cohesive soils present in some of the borings, long term
monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be necessary to accurately evaluate the
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Project No. 07045602
March 15,2004
, lërraccn
potential range of groundwater conditions on the site.
Fluctuations of the groundwater level will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of
rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed.
Groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing design and
construction plans for the project.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Fill was present in all of the borings to depths of 3 to 11 feet. The native soil profile beneath
the fill consisted predominantly of clay and sand soils, We anticipate that the majority of the
new storm water transmission system will have invert levels of about 10 to 12 feet below
grade. Properly sloped or braced excavations will be required to construct the drainage
improvements and to protect the integrity of any existing adjacent improvements.
Weathered limestone was encountered within the anticipated zone of excavation at Boring
4, located at Kniest Street. Therefore, excavation of bedrock in this area should be
anticipated. However, it should be noted that the limestone encountered in this boring may
not indicate natural bedrock at this depth in this area. The presence of bedrock at this
location and depth may be attributed to other causes, such as an abandoned building
foundation or large stone slabs, Adjacent to this boring location, an existing storm sewer
was observed at a manhole located in the street about 50 feet north of the boring location,
This storm sewer, consisting of brick walls and ceiling, was observed to extend to a depth of
approximately 12 feet below the pavement surface, well below the encountered depth of
limestone.
Based on the preliminary information obtained from the borings and our understanding of
the project, box culvert footings bearing on suitable native soils or properly compacted fill
extending to suitable native soils could be considered. However, additional borings should
be performed to facilitate more complete foundation recommendations, when more detailed
design concepts are developed, Also, additional borings should be performed to better
define the limestone encountered at Boring 4. If bedrock is encountered at this location,
excavation to the anticipated depth may not be possible without blasting or jackhammering,
Groundwater was encountered in most of the borings and it is anticipated that it will be
present at the anticipated excavation depths. When groundwater is encountered, some
form of temporary dewatering will be required to facilitate excavation and reduce subgrade
disturbance and loss of strength of the bearing soils, In cohesive soils it may be possible to
perform dewatering with sump pits and pump from within the excavation. If water-bearing
granular soils or fractured bedrock is encountered, more extensive dewatering and the use
of shallow well points may be required, Sufficient dewatering capacity should be provided to
4
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Project No, 07045602
March 15, 2004
1 rerracan
lower water levels at least 2 feet below the anticipated excavation level. Dewatering may
result in the settlement of adjacent structures, pavements or other nearby improvements.
Adjacent existing improvements should be monitored during construction. It is our opinion
that construction season timing should be chosen carefully, in order to minimize the
potential groundwater issues discussed above,
If an open channel is selected, slope stability studies should be conducted to evaluate long-
term stability and design geometry of the channel side slopes, Additional borings should be
conducted and additional laboratory testing performed to better define the properties of the
on-site soils, once the sewer alignment is further developed. Based on the data obtained
from the six borings performed for this study, it appears that relatively flat slopes, possibly
on the order of3H:1V or flatter, may be required in loose surficial fills, loose to medium
dense native sands, and soft to medium native clays to maintain long-term stability.
Potential saturation and lose of strength, due to high water levels in the channel, could be of
concern with regard to slope stability. In addition, erosion protection will need to be
implemented to avoid undercutting and scour of completed channels.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so
comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical
recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon should also be retained to
provide additional drilling and testing services once the proposed structure's alignment will
have been finalized. In addition, testing and observation during excavation, grading,
foundation and construction phases of the project should be provided by Terracon.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information
discussed in this report, This report does not reflect variations that may occur between
borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather, The nature and extent
of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction, If variations
appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental
recommendations can be provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication
any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous
materials or conditions, If the owner is concerned about the potential for such
contamination, other studies should be undertaken,
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Bee Branch Creek Restoration
Project No, 07045602
March 15,2004
, rerrac:an
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to
the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended
or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the
responsibility of others, In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the
project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes
and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.
6
1/
1/
1./
1:/
1/
I
I
I
z ---<-
r
E'
l!;
2
% 0
0 ~
~ ~
9 ....
1::11 ~ ~
fjj IS g¡
æ ;::;
-J ~ ~
0 ><
f IE
~ ~
-$-~
.'
ð
~
g
i
~ t
~~ g
.
1; ~
2 ~
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
¡;
5
~
I
:"
I" The stratification lines rep,esent the app,oximate boundaoy lines
-~ between soil and rock types: in-situ. the transition may be gradual.
- WATER lEVEL OBSERVATIONS, It
, ~~ ; 10 WS'I~ 12 A,B. 1 rerr aeon
ì Wl
(J
s
"
r
a.
"
'"
(J
CLIENT
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
SITE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
DESCRIPTION
Approx. 4" Asphalt
Approx, 14" Crushed Rock
Fill. SilTY CLAY WITH SAND. TRACE
BRICK AND GLASS FRAGMENTS,
TRACE ORGANICS
Dark Grav
Fill. SANDY ClA Y WITH SilT. TRACE
BRICK. CONCRETE AND GLASS
FRAGMENTS
Dark Gray
11
lEAN CLAY. TRACE FINE GRAVEL
Dark Gray
Medium
17.5
20
lEAN TO FAT CLAY. TRACE SAND
Gray
Stiff
BonOM OF BORING
BORING NO.1
ENGINEER
Page 1 of 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORA TION
SAMPLES TESTS
-
-
10
::
-=
- Cl 5 SS 12
-
15 PA
.¿
:r.'
>-
a.
UJ
a
6
CD
::¡
>-
C/)
C/)
"
C/)
"
-
-
-=
-
5
-
-
-
5J.
-!:
~
-
- Cl 6
20 - CH
0:
UJ
CD
::¡
"
z
.S
>-'
0:
UJ
>
UJ 0
a. u
¡: ~
PA
1
SS 14
2 SS 10
3 SS
PA
4 SS 8
PA
ST 17
: ~
.. ~
>-' >-
z -
"'UJ Z
UJ>- :;;J
>-z >-
~8 g¡R
o~
UJ-
z:I:
->-
"-c)
zz
OUJ
Uo:
z>-
:;;JC/)
';'~
>-0
0.-'
c/)CD
61
20
5
14
8
4
15
2
23
3
30
'2000
27
97
3190
'Pocket Penetromete,
"CME 140 lb. SPT automatic hammer
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 94/ FOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJB I JOB # 07045602
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
þ;
ã
ø
Iõ
~
I" The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
~ between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be goaduaL
~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft
18'. WL '? 12 ws,l:f- None AB.
ê WL y(. I~
r WL
CLIENT
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
SITE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
"
g
"
r
0.
"
a::
"
~. ~.';. Approx. 10" Concrete
L:APprox. 4" Crushed Rock
FILL. FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
GRAVEL. TRACE SILT AND CLAY
4 Brown
p Loose
I" FINE TO COARSE SAND
Brown
If Medium Dense
'.
Ii~
.:
DESCRIPTiON
:
I
12
MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND AND FINE
GRAVEL
BrõWn
LoDse
::
.;.
: 20
BOTTOM OF BORING
BORING NO.2
ENGINEER
r--
,-,
-
Page 1 of 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
SAMPLES TESTS
¿
:r:
f-
0.
LU
"
-'
0
OJ
:¡;
)-0
en
en
"
en
=>
=
-
-
a::
LU
OJ
:¡;
=>
z
.s
)-0-
a::
LU
>
W 0
a. "
¡: :;!
PA
1
5S
SP 2 5S 20
S
- SP 3 5S 14
-= PA
SP 4 5S 16
PA
10
::
-
SP 5 5S 18
15 - GP
- PA
-
-
- SP 6
20 - GP
1 rerr aeon
5T 16
6
: ~
':'~
f-Q
a....
en OJ
'iF- ~
>-" f-
Z -
a::w Z
Wf- =>
f-Z >-
;:!8 ê5'R
oR
'" -
zI
-f-
"-CJ
Zz
0,"
"a::
Zf-
=>en
'Pocket Penet,ometer
"CME 140 lb. SPT automatic hamme'
17
8
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 941 FOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJB I JOB # 07045602
8
12
5
6
13
16
6
9
16
6
12
I
I
I
.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
ë
c'
Ii
I § The stratification lines cepresent the app,oxlmate boundary lines
O~9& between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be 9,aduaL
, WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft
I~Qg: WL :¡z 15 WS,I:!- 12.5 A.B.
WL !l I~
I~ WL
'-'
S
u
r
D..
<t
'"
'-'
..
I '.
24
CLIENT
BORING NO.3
ENGINEER
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC,
SITE
Page 1 Df 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC,
DUBUQUE, IOWA
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
SAMPLES TESTS
DESCRIPTION
..J
0
CD
::;:
>-
'"
'"
U
'"
::J
¿
I'
>-
D..
W
0
Approx. 4" Topsoil
Approx. 6" Crushed Rock
FILL, SILTY CLAY WITH CINDERS,
TRACE SAND AND BRICK FRAGMENTS
Dark Gray
:
-
:
5
8.5
-
-=
- CL 4
10 - CH
-
::
-
- CL 5
LEAN TO FAT CLAY, TRACE ORGANICS
Dark Gray
Medium
12
LEAN CLAY. TRACE SILT
Gray
Stiff
:!-
'¥
15
~
-
CL 6
21.5
:
20
::
- SP
-
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, TRACE
GRAVEL
src;;:m-
BOTTOM OF BORING
1 rerr acon
'"
w
CD
::;:
::J
Z
E
>--
'"
w
>
UJ 0
D.. U
~ ii!
PA
SS 10
2
SS 14
3
SS 16
PA
SS 14
PA
ST 25
PA
ST 28
PA
7
ST 6
: ~
.. ~
>-- >-
z -
"'w z
w>- ::J
>-z >-
~8 1šR
'iii
00.
W '
zI
->-
"-,-,
Zz
Ow
U'"
z>-
::;¡'"
'1750
96
3400
':=~
>-0
D....J
"'CD
32
21
2180
'Pocket Penetrometer
"CME 140 lb. SPT automatic hammer
3
1/
5
21
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 941 FOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJBI JOB # 07045602
4
35
28
29
96
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IQ
¡;
::;
"
Ii
'"
8'1 The stratification lines 'epresent the approximate boundary lines
8?o between soil and rock types: in-situ, the t,ansition may be gradual.
.- WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, It
~ Wl ¥ None w.Sl~ None A.B.
~ WL Yl J~
ì WL
CLIENT
SITE
(J
9
u
'I'
a.
'"
lr
(J
I"
BORING NO.4
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC,
DUBUQUE, IOWA
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEER
Page 1 of 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
SAMPLES TESTS
Approx. 3 1/2" Asphalt
Approx. 7" Crushed Rock
FILL, lEAN TO FAT CLAY, TRACE SAND
Dark Gray
WEATHERED LIMESTONE
Grayish-Tan
BOTTOM OF BORING
¿
I
f-
0.
UJ
0
ë5
CD
;:¡
>
en
en
u
en
::J
:
-=
-
-
5
-
-
1 fe rr acon
'"
UJ
CD
;:¡
::J
Z
.s
>
'"
UJ
>
UJ 0
a. u
¡: ii!
PA
SS
2 SS 10
3
S8 12 5014"
':'~
f-O
0.--,
en,"
8
22
: ~
1ft ~
f-' f-
Z -
"'UJ Z
UJf- ::J
f-Z >
~8 5"[
o¡<¡,
UJ .
zI
-f-
u.CJ
Zz
OUJ
u'"
Zf-
::Jen
5
21
21
5
8
'Pocket Penetrometer
"CME 140 lb. SPTautomatic hamme,
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 94jFOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJB-' JOB # 07045602
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
~
5
0
Ii
I" The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
r between soii and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be 9,aduaL
-
r
CLIENT
BORING NO.5
ENGINEER
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
SITE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
C)
S
u
:E
0..
«
0::
C)
DESCRIPTION
Page 1 of 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE,INC.
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORA TION
SAMPLES TESTS
-
-
- OL 4 SS 14
-
10
~
-::
- CL 5 SS 12
-
15
=
-
-:
- SP 6 SS 14
20 - GP
.,;
r
>-
a.
w
0
ë5
CD
:;;
>-
"'
"'
U
"'
:::J
FILL, MIXTURE OF CLAY. SAND. AND
FRAGMENTS OF LIMESTONE, BRICK
AND CINDERS
Dark Gray
4.5
5.5 FILL. SILTY SAND
,Gray
FILL. LEAN CLAY WITH BRICK
FRAGMENTS. SAND
\Dark Gray
LEAN ORGANIC CLAY
Dark Gray
Soft
¡---
7
r-
-
~
-
-
5
=
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft
:~;:12 W.S¡;13 A.B, lrerracan
WL I
11
SANDY LEAN CLAY
Gray
Soft
'Sl-
:t
16.5
COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL
Brown
Loose
20
BOTTOM OF BORING
0::
w
CD
:;;
:::J
Z
E
>'
<r
w
>
UJ 0
a. u
¡: :g
PA
SS 18
2
SS 16
3
SS 6
PA
PA
PA
: ~
.. ~
>-" >-
z -
<rw Z
w>- :::J
>-z >-
~8 gjR
o~
UJ "
z:I:
->-
"-CJ
Zz
OW
U<r
z>-
:::J",
';:~
>-0
a.--,
",CD
20
11
8
11
30
25
4
9
63
'1000
5
21
I '500
5
12
'Pocket Penetromet"
"CME 140 lb. SPT automatic hammer
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 941 FOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJB I JOB # 07045602
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
~
5
"
z
Ii
I 0 The stratification lines represent the 8pproximate boundary lines
. i between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
Ii
.g
CLIENT
SITE
CJ
g
u
Ï
"-
<C
a:
CJ
I
112
...".
.
'-c.
.' 20
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
DUBUQUE, IOWA
DESCRIPTION
FILL, SILTY CLAY, TRACE SILT, SAND,
BRICK FRAGMENTS
LEAN TO FAT CLAY, TRACE ORGANICS
AND SAND
Gray
LEAN ORGANIC CLAY
Dark Gray
i-L- Soft
SANDY LEAN CLAY
MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND TRACE
GRAVEL
Gray and Brown
Loose
BOTTOM OF BORING
~
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, It
WL ¡;z 11.5 WS. I-!: 10 AS
WL !l. I~
WL
BORING NO.6
ENGINEER
Page 1 of 1
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
PROJECT
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
SAMPLES TESTS
"'
:i
t-
"-
UJ
D
ð
'"
:;;
>-
en
en
U
en
::J
a:
UJ
'"
:;;
::J
Z
.s
~
a:
UJ
>
w 8
~ i!!
PA
-
CL 1
SS 12
SS 14
5
CL 2
CH
OL 3 SS 18
PA
ST 22
PA
5S 9
IPA
58
7
: ~
'# ;;
t-' t-
Z -
a:UJ Z
UJt- ::J
t-z >-
<Co a:-
SU D i5.
'tñ
Dc.
UJ -
z:I:
-t-
U-CJ
Zz
OUJ
'-'a:
Zt-
::Jen
'750
'750
'Pecket Penetrometer
"CME 140 lb. SPT automatic hammer
, rerr acon
BORING STARTED 2-20-04
BORING COMPLETED 2-20-04
RIG 941 FOREMAN GR
APPROVED AJB I JOB # 07045602
r---
-
- CL 4
=
10 -
-
~
-!:
¡;z
::¡5P 5
15 -
=
-
-
-
- 5P 6
-
20
""~
t-O
"---'
en",
5
22
4
35
5
19
64
18
104 1340
5
7
6
7
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS: Split Spoon -1-3/8" 1.0., 2" 0,0., unless otherwise noted
ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" 0.0., unless otherwise nDted
RS: Ring Sampier - 2.42" 1.0.. 3" 0.0., unless otherwise noted
DB: DiamDnd Bit Coring - 4", N, B
BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample
HS:
PA:
HA:
RB:
WB:
HDilow Stem Auger
PDwer Auger
Hand Auger
Rock Bit
Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch 0.0. split-spoDn sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch
penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is cDnsidered the "Standard Penetration" Dr "N-value",
WATER lEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL: Water Level
WCI: Wet Cave in
DCI: Dry Cave in
AB: After Boring
WS:
WD:
BCR:
ACR:
While Sampling
While Drilling
Before Casing RemDval
After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the limes indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other 10catiDns across the site could vary. In pervious salls. the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater, In
low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only shDrt-term observations,
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soli classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained SDlls have
more than 50% Df their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptDrs are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand, Fine
Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are
plastic, and silts if they are slightiy plastic or non-plastic, MajDr cDnstituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportiDns based on grain size, In addition to gradatiDn, coarse-grained solis are defined Dn the basis
of their in-place relative density and fine-grained solis on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE.GRAINED SOILS
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE.GRAINED SOILS
UncDnfined
ComDressive
StrenQth, Qu, psf
<500
500 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,000
2,001 - 4,000
4,001 - 8,000
8,000+
Standard
Penetration or
N-value (55)
~
<2
2-3
4-6
7-12
13-26
26-
Relative Density
Very LoDse
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Standard Penetration
or N-value (551
Blows/Ft.
0-3
4-9
10-29
30-49
50-
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Sliff
Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Malor CDmponent
of Sample Particle Size
Descriptive Term(s) Df other
constituents
Percent Df
~
Trace
With
Modifier
< 15
15-29
>30
BDulders Over 12 in, (300mm)
Cobbles 12 in, to 3 in, (300mm to 75 mm)
Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
Sand #4 tD #200 sieve (4,75mm to Q,075mm)
Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Descriptive Term(s) of other
constituents
~
Dry WeiQht
Im:!J1
Non-plastic
Low
Medium
High
Plasticity Index
Trace
With
MDdifiers
<5
5-12
> 12
0
1-10
11-30
30+
.
.corm 106-9.00
1 rerrac:on -
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'm 10'-6-85
GENERAL NOTES
Sedimentary Rock Classification
DESCRIPTIVE ROCK CLASSIFICATION:
Sedimentary rocks are composed of cemented clay, silt and sand sized particles,
The most common minerals are clay, quartz and calcite. Rock composed primarily
of calcite is called limestone; rock of sand size grains is called sandstone, and rock
of clay and silt size grains is called mudstone or claystone, siltstone, or shale,
Modifiers such as shaly, sandy, dolomitic, caicareous, carbonaceous, etc, are used
to describe various constituents. Examples: sandy shale; calcareous sandstone,
LIMESTONE
light to dark colored, crystalline to fine-grained texture, composed of CaCo" reacts
readily with HC/.
DOLOMITE
light to dark colored, crystalline to fine-grained texture, composed of CaMg(CO,)"
harder than limestone, reacts with HCI when powdered.
CHERT
light to dark colored, very fine-grained texture, composed of micro'crystalline quartz
(SiD,), brittle, breaks into angular fragments, will scratch glass,
SHALE
Very fine-grained texture, composed of consolidated silt or clay, bedded in thin layers,
The unlaminated equivalent is frequently referred to as siltstone, claystone or
mudstone.
SANDSTONE
Usually light colored, coarse to fine texture, composed of cemented sand size grains
of quartz, feldspar, etc. Cement usually is silica but may be such minerals as calcite,
iron-oxide, or some other carbonate,
CONGLOM ERATE
Rounded rock fragments of variable mineralogy varying in size from near sand to
boulder size but usually pebble to cobble size ('/2 inch to 6 inches). Cemented
together with various cementing agents. Breccia is similar but composed of angular,
fractured rock particles cemented together.
DEGREE OF WEATHERING:
SLIGHT
Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change.
MODERATE
Some decomposition and color change throughout.
HIGH
Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken,
Cla5sification of rock materials has been estimated from disturbed samples.
Core samples and petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types.
] ferracon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Crlte,ia fo' Assig"ing GoouP Symbols and G"up Names Usi"g Laboratmy Tesls'
Coaese-Goained Solis
Mo'e thso 50% retained on
No. 200 sieve
Goayels
Mo'e Iha" 50% 01 coaese
fraclio" retai"ed on
No.4 ,ieve
Cleso Goa"els
Less thso 5% finesc
Goavel' with Fine'
More than 12% tines"
Sands
50% 0' mme 01 coaese
traclion passes
No, 4 sieve
Clean Sands
Less than 5% lines'
Sands wilh Fines
Mme than 12% lineso
Fine.Goained Soils
50% Dr more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit less than 50
inorganic
organic
Silts and Clays
Liquid limil 50 00 mooe
inorganic
ooganic
Cu e 4 and I S Cc s 3'
Cu < 4 andlor 1 > Cc > 3E
Fines c'assily as ML 00 MH
Fines claasily as CL or CH
Cu eo 6 and I s Cc S 3E
Cu < 6 and/o' 1> Cc > 3E
Fines claaslty as ML or MH
Fines classify as CL or CH
P' > 7 and plots 0" Dr above "A" IineJ
PI < 4 0' p'ots below "A" IineJ
Liquid limit - oven d,ied
< D,)5
LIquid limil - not dried
PI plots on or above -'A" line
P' p'ots below "A" line
Liquid limit - oven d,ied
< D.75
Highly organic seils
Liquid limit - not dried
P,imaolty o'ganic malter, daok in color, and "ganlc odor
Soli Classillcation
G,oup
Symbol
GW Welf-graded g,ayel'
GP Poorly g,aded gravel'
GM Silty gravel" G, H
GC Clayey gravel"O,H
Group Name'
SW Well-graded sand'
SP Poor'y graded sand'
SM Silty sandG, H, ,
SC Clayey sando, H,'
CL Lean clay~' M
ML SiItK.L, M
OL O'ganlc clayK, eM, N
Organicsilt~L,M,o
CH Fatclay~'M
MH Elastic slitK, L, "
OH O'ganlc clay~' ", P
Organic silt~'"'O
PT Peat
'Cu - DoaID" Cc ~ ~
0" x 0"
'If soil contains e 15% sand, add "with 'and" to
gooup name.
°If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual ,ymbol GC-
GM, or SC-SM.
Hif fine' are o'gsoi~ add "with o'ganic lines" to
gooup name,
'If soil contains e 15% goavel, add "with gravel" to
g'oup name,
Jif Atterbe'g IImiis plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-
ML, silty clay.
Kif soit conJains 15 to 29% Dlus No. 200, add
"wilh sand" 0' "with g,ayel'; whicheve, Is
p,edominant-
Lif soli contains", 30% plus. No. 200
predominantly sand, add "sandy" to 900uP
name,
"If soil contains '" 30% plus No, 200,
predominantly goavel, add "9,.,elly" to g"up
name.
Npi '" 4 and plots on Dr above "A" Ii"e-
°P' < 4 0' piots below "A" line.
'P' plots on 00 above "A" line.
°PI p'ots below "A" line.
'Based on the mate,ial passing the 3.in.
175-mm} sieve.
all field sample contained cobbles 0'
bouldees, 00 bOlh, add "with cobbles 00
bouldees. 0' both" 10 group name.
cGravels with 5 to 12% fines ,eQui,e duaJ
symbo's:
GW.GM wall-goaded gravel wilh slit
GW-GC well-goaded gravel with clay
GP.GM poorly goaded goavel with silt
GP-GC pomly g,aded graval with clay
eSands with 5 to 12% lines ,equi,e dual
symbols:
SW-SM well-graded sand with silt
SW-SC well-graded sand wilh clay
SP-SM poorly goaded sand with silt
SP-SC poony goaded sand with clay
60
i?;
><
W
0
Z
For classification of Iine-9ralnad solis
and flne.gralned fraction of coarsa-
50 grained soils
EQualion 01 "A" - line
Horizontal at PI - 4 to LL - 25.5,
then PI - 0.73 ILL - 20}
40 Equation of "U" - line
Ve"'cal at LL ~ 16 to P' - 7
then PI - 0.9 ILL - B) ,
I
>-
....
Ü
¡:::
CfJ
«
..J
a.
3D
20
MH OR OH
10
30
40
50 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
9D
16 20
60
100
110
] lerracon
>-
"d
"d
no
::s
þ.
;¡"
0
pendix
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
œM
Appendix 0
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
0.1 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 0-1.
0-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Appendix 0
Preliminary Environmental investigation
0.2 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 0-1 below and shown in Figure 0-2.
Table 0-1: Database Listings Within Potential Impact Area
Interstate Brands Corp.
Sunshine Mart
5-Point Mart
Coastal Service
Unidentified
Farmland Foods Inc.
16th SI. Amoco
FDL Foods
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
501 Garfield Ave.
430 Rhomberg Ave,
405 Rhomberg Ave.
400 Rhomberg Ave.
529 E. 19th SI.
701 E.16thSI.
1215E.16thSI.
16th SI. & Sycamore SI.
Intersection
UST, lUST
UST, LUST
UST. lUST
UST, lUST
UST
ERNS, RCRAGN
UST
UST
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 0-2. 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
0-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Appendix 0
Preliminary Environmental investigation
/
/
Figure 0-2
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 contailling 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
0-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM
Appendix 0
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
roofing materials, siding, ceiling and wall panels, acoustical plasters, and piping and
building insulations.
0.3 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 baImed 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.
0-4
>
"0
"0
III
::I
Q.
>:('
."
ppendix
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~,~~:~i:~:'kRs¡¡¡¡;a,~nment~1== =i=:::.::t::::=~=-_:=--==-t-- ~- Se~
E='J'ate of Probable Cost- Open Channe'-A1="lOË-:-:!:=:_=-==t==-'--+-=::---
-j't~",-..------E~=t:\I-""+=_.JJ.n~~tl,,=tlL~ Item Cost --
p, "Islt'an ---:=~--+=_~3==F"::=--=-- -f==-=---j--==--==
EACH, $100,000.00' 65,0, $ 6,500,000
,,-_'-: ,~-=+=.::t =:-::::i=:=--=Í::==-==-
- " - ,E--LEA~,HL~1S00"j__- 14I'01~- 2,100,000
'Assls""s =1=== i SF I J--
=+=,éon"ltingS",ViCSS ~=="-,,,S--, :=-,',- $600, ,,000,00>---,' - -',0 $, -"~600,000
- ~-- j=-=-t-' JÚBTOtÄL --is - 9,200,000
Utilities ~
~¡b..O~'cCommoni"tion ' -==-r=-.~ ~- I,:::==:
- Cond"1I r-_-",-:::+:-- $3D0,00! 600,01 $160,000.00
, - L 1,=\=' $6 I I $ 000
- . ConnectiOnfD"co"eotion" ",--1--""" , ,~D!!L-,-~~O 12, .00
Wet"""", ~
--, " Di'me,"~, 6' -h, ,L~ " ,', }ls,oo -=--, 1.450,4-, --
. t--~F I $45,00 250,0
~-:'=~ff-~~:::JΠ=.~.::.J-= - ~:
$= D~me"~,,',' --'- '__LF , --- $4s:oof- __1,100.0,-------$
12 LF I 200,0 1
-~-~-- 3D -CF- - 200.0
. ~36 ' LF '50.0,
~-'- 42~[F --$ ---','00,0
-~,nita~W"'Menhole ~, _4.--:-1-, ,ÑO,,- ~$2,:=--'-;.0
s. +NO $2, '.0 300.00
S~--~' -=t--'::¡----:-=+-- -
" D"",",,ilinch~') 15:--i,,:::t:F4=-:S60001, =:--~!--- $31, -
,----~- ~~~-, ~g ,- $',.~
-t~== -::h, ~ ~~11=.:: ' rill._- 1~!ii=*~~~
Sto<m Sew" 4 ft 'NO $1,500.00' IS.0 $22,500,00
'~_tom> Sews, , flnl'" t=, =:::t," .-' NO, ' t-, haoooo I :==. ,-~~ , - o46,aoo"oo
Slom> Sews' "'-¡¡¡--
"',fficContml " '
- r=-~~_=-==~n~~"~+- =l~:- -;=-- ",$3500 ¡ -= -, ,,~~ ==~;52~:~0
: , Roed CI","m' DAY I $10,00' I,SOO,O! $15,000,00
;=tE~;~~¡~=-=-=:::-~ E~;I;LS~fi~o O;:~~ ~~~i=_~~':~;
, I
CDM
c,",'---"""".",Co.'
",.t.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O~i:~~: - ~;aY~ =+~~=-+tt=~~~_~-==1!{-~';!~"'91
~ ~t r1i.-=L: $5,00 '29.4
~" ~:Y,:~~~=--, "l':l,-~,,-=--,- :f=-,':=,::',::::i,' '=:,-~1'Boa"Q9'OO
. iE"aY~J§I>ec~IWaste)__~ ....--Ly- --- -"~T-~...!6Æ24 -- -- SS62,520,Q<>
E"aYatlon ROCkL_- ~_--L--"Y - _..!!a,oo,- - _4,~~~__~ $72,324,00
AIt','Fabri'",'aY) -, -- '"SY_, -"-,$24-, ~L.__53'.416,67
EOO.""'::"'~~-~ CO,on"tCOi, -- SY "":=-~:::::-=-¡¡;496:it=--- ,44
--- Madl'mlugh1 I §~--I-"--' " 12,545,",[__-
TON $1 2,110,0
-C- -' ~j='.::-.=:-=(ir - =~ ::::-;w:J- .
-=,,-'-=:--- Channel ,=t=s~~-- $1,251:=,=,~-~
I__----"~-"""-----t- SY ,-~ - 13,316.7, .~-
_~~ASPhaltM» ~~= $15~~TAL 2'466~==5;372'2;
R~-: PCC , ..,' i= t=~= ~-:-t" -;_:'~'533f:',-, ' -~
t=~ $12.ooL 2'72°iO
-- -- SY ~oo, '--627,a - 53
_-+"-as"o~:. '===t= f-SY ¡-=$1250E= 3',3.":3" -,=-- $4-
--+- ~ +-.-- -~AL ,$ 194,B40
=:::r::=---, - --=: t--+-==, =:=J.-_==r::===- -,
Br '-t---- I $V , J--- r
-====+--=_KI- - $4.~+--- .B ---. ,11
-+---:j::*,-+------S:~:-- ,0 ---:
) ---t_~ CY =t - S1o~==- ,67
~-----+--- --T-gf--~--'-¥'~~-- 612.4 ,,-
-~-===t::'-=:'_t-,EA L=--- ~oÕ'ÕÕi-::......, :>~ÓL --
--+-- U': $16,50 ~
--, - -+----t---<:Y:,CY -t----=- -,==-~j--,-, -
---:-,' -!--=C§r., - ~~ -=- -=-- ::;;;k-~
~ 901,9:
, t--¥-,,- '- ---=~i75:ól "
eon"eteA<Ch -~--' ---T~+_1é,9OD,OO:-___..E!>L-
.-+-__-Wldlhof,O e,'n FT) '10'20+" LF-l '$1,ÓDO,O~,' ,,_200.t=:=:
10,28 ,LF $1,200,00 520,0
- -~---'----r'--¡j'i4a"-¡--LF- ,-T2,'¡¡¡¡¡:~ -VO:°F'--'
=f.",ne !,ontalwl ..t"P (one week onJïLj.==:=L, WK-,r~O,.9..-----",L= =---~
Roadwa'-. ' -----I ,+.-+--
- -,~ '-~+---'-_J=SL- ----:= $34cm ==--- 5,15~_~'=- $175,,02.00
- C~-~T--,~~-t=- ~--- ;:::~:-- $:;;::~:
--t~ng'n.~ngt.~!l"'QIT1II_Ad-"'\"/I>.rmittJn!lI"-O-'-in~CqUiSitiO")1--- 1S.0% - ' $- -- ' Y'~.5'I
---------...._u_-..--------' I -----,- ---- - "~---- 1=
¡Grand Total 20D4 Dollars ,- - - $---26.983,247
CÐM
c..,."o""-""",....."",,
""""
;I>
'0
'0
~
::I
Q.
><
IC
pendix
Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 Ganuary 15, 2002).
Jacobsen, James E. Phase III Architectural and Historical Survey Report, Downtown
Dubuque Gune 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 Ganuary 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 Frequenaj Study
Ganuary 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 of2, (April29,
1966).
S:\20959\Bee Branch\Civil\PreIim Eng\BibIiography,doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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. (April29,1966)
5:\2O959\Bee Branch\Civil\Prelim Eng\Bibliography.doc
dix
E
~
"I;
11>
::I
Q.
>('
/!1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
."'" "'"
i_,
~
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
September 25, 2003
Meeting Objectives
. Understand the role of BBCAC
. Understand the drainage system
. Understand the plannlngJdec'slon process
. Obtain BBCAC perception of
problems/potential solutions
History of the Bee Branch
. Enclosuce h'story (h'stor'c map)
. Major Rainlflood events
. FEMA damage numbers from June 2000
. Chronology of
ma'ntenance/engineer'ng/councll actions
Agenda
. Introduction
. History of the Bee Branch
. 'ntroductlon to the Drainage Basin
. Overview of the Project
. P'annlng/Decis'on Process
. Project Objectives
. CAC Projact Issues
. Mlss'on Statement
. Planned Public Outreach
. Project Schedule
. Problems/Solutions
Introduction
. BBCAC Introductions
. BBCAC Protocois
. Mootl"g Fannat
. Moatl"g Schod"'o
. Roles and Responsibllll'os
. BBCAC Objectlve/Purposa
- U"d",""d.""""m., ...... ,"".""tlM
-So.""""","
-C~,tI",~~"..tlM
- SONon o",,~...no~, poln'fo, .,0'10 o,,~,o
Dubuque's Stormwater Management
Recent History
E",s;on cent"" or
g,ading policy/ordinance:
No (twice)
Detention Basin ,equirements: (1993)
StOm'1Water Management Plan: (1997)
Hire "Stormwater Enginee~: (1998)
I
I
I
lill.
IIY.lj
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Development
I
I
I
Pilot Studv:
NORTH FORK
CATFISH CREEK
I
I
May 16, 1999
Disaster Strikes!
I
"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
I
"We had points where water was chest deep."
I
I
- Dubuque Fire Chief Dan Brown
(Tele9raph Herald - May 18, 1999)
I
I
May 16,1999
Disaster Strikes!
I
I
Basement
Flooding
I
I
I
May 16,1999
Disaster Strikes!
"On Sunday and MDnday, the (fire) department
received more than 100 calls for (basement)
pumping assistance,"
Telegraph Herald - May 18, 1999
"It was evacuate the tornado shelter or drown.
Our freezer was just bobbing. Three men and a
boy couldn't have picked that up."
- Mike Hillaod, Washin9ton St,eet 'asident
Telegraph Herald - May 20, 1999
May 16,1999
Disaster Strikes!
FEMA Damage Estimates
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Bee Branch Analysis
liJ.
(~:""~\
I
* '-----",
oem"'" ~
~. rJ
\~"'J\ /<)/
'J
.
111'1
DrainagB Basin Master Plan
W32nd Street Detention Basin
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Implementation
Winter 2001: City Council Adopts Plan
Winter 2001: Proposed 5-year CIP Budget
Includes:
1) The Formation of a Stormwater
Utility and
2) Design Services for the Bee
Branch Creek Restoration
Ali9nment Study
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Carler Road Detention Basin
@~
Estimate $875,000
IIYlJ
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Bee Branch Estimate
Bee Branch Basin ImDrovements
Carter Road Detention Basin
W32nd Street Detention Basin
$875,000
$4,023,000
$6,900,000
$10,200,000
$21,998,000
Channel from 16~ to Garfield
Channel from Garfield to 24th
Drainage Basin Master Plan
Adopted FY 2003 Budget
March 2002:
Portion of the open channel Is
removed from the adopted Drainage
Basin Master Plan
5-year CIP Budget Includes:
1) The Formation of a Stormwater
Utility and
2) Desi9n Services for the Be<>
O,B..oL Creel' ReotefBtloA
AlIgA",eAI £1.eI\ re-study of the
Bee Branch Watershed
March 2002:
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 3. 4, 2002
Disaster Strikes!
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stormwater Management Plan
Development
I
March 2003: Bya 6-1 vote the City CDuncii
adopts ordinance establishing a
stormwater utility and sets the
billing rate at $1.29 per SFU.
I
March 2003:
Bya 6-1 vote the City Council
adopts FY04 CIP budget that
includes funding for the Carter
RDad & W32nd Street detention
basins.
I
I
I
June 3. 4, 2002
Disaster Strikes!
June 3. 4,2002
Disaster Strikes!
"The fire department
received requests to
help remove water
from 123 homes
to 4 p,m, Many
cleaned out the muck
and assessed
property damage :'
Telegraph Herald
(June 5, 2002)
Stormwater Management Plan
Bee Branch Re-Study
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.
4
I
I
I
I
Stormwater Management Plan
au 6rll..(.I. Rð Sttldy
Bee Branch Alignment Study
October 2002: The City Council voted 5-2 NOT to
hire another consultant to study more drainage
Dplions.
December 2002: City Council work session with
HDR and IIW to discuss the original Drainage
Basin Master Plan.
December 2002: RFP for an alignment study was
presented to the City Council and authorization
was granted to solicit proposals for the study.
I
I
I
I
~
Bee Branch Alignment Study
BBCAC Characteristics
WHKS&Co
I
Collectively, the sixteen-member
committee has the follow;ng background:
I
Impacted ,esidents: Impacted home owners: North
End Neighborhood Association: Wash'ngton
Neighborhood residents: Sacoed Heart Parish: Eim,
Washington, Jackson, Prince, and Johnson St,eet
residents: Impacted businegges: Dubuque Board of
Realtors: Develope" State Representative: Sieora
Club; league of Women Voters: Senior Citizens; and
long Range Planning and Community Development
Advisory Commiggions.
I
I
I
Bee Branch Mainline Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stormwater Management Plan
Bee Branch Alignment Study
March 2003: The City Council approves the RFP
for the allgnmenf study.
The Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment
Study will:
1) Estabiish the optimum alignment;
2) Pmvide a preliminary design that establishes what
the wate<way will look like and how it will function;
and
3) Work with impacted ""idents in the fo,," of a
citizen advisory aommittee.
Introduction to the Drainage Basin
. Watershed characleristlcs
. land use
. Flooding areas
. Capacity versus flow
. 16'" Slreel Basin
Bee Branch Watershed
5
I
I
I
Bee Branch Watershed land Use
I
.~
~.
I
I
I
I
Bee Branch Capacity (With Improvements)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Development of an acceptable solution
for the Bee Branch relies on CDM the
City, and the Citizen Advisory
Committee.
I
. COM
.WHKS
. C~H~"'O"
0""0 Forum
.T.~=
I
I
I
I
16th Street Basin
. asdf
. Dock and Hamilton Subbasins diverted under
high river stages
. Land use
. Flooding areas
. Capacity versus flow
. 16" Stree' Basin
Define a solution that meets
engineering, economic, and
community requirements.
;.-
6
I
I
I
~g Criteria
I
. Adequate channel capac'ty
. Freeboard
. Resilient channe' treatment
. Low maintenance
. Utility relocation
. Safety
. Traffic patterns
I
I
I
I
~ Constraints
I
. CiP Budget
. Federa' Funding
Opportunities
. Reliable Cost
Estimates
. Gambling Revenue
. Current Budget
Constra'nts
3,SOD mu
"3000
]2:500
E2,ooo
i::::
~ SOD
" 0
2004 200S2O06 2007 2008
y",
I
I
I
t2 Food' ,noc",""b'" """'" c-
I
I
. Alignment
. S"e
. r...tment
. M""',",e?
. ...the"os
I
I
I
I
I
~YVaIUeS
. Mlnlm'.e
acquisition
. Prese"'e
ne'ghborl1ood
. Eliminate flood'ng
. Multl-ob ective
so'ut'on?
Overview ofthe Project
. Whe.."aweat, when.owe neodta go?
Planning Process
.-.--
......---
:::;:..--:;::-
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Planning/Decision Process
BBCAC Project Issues
. Input from BBCAC
Planned Public Outreach
C;ty Coundl and
Public Meetings
Webs"e
Newsletle",
Open House
Project GoalslObjectives
. Develop objectives as group
Mission Statement
. Develop mission statement from
project objectives
Public Involvement Tools
p .::~~~:~~~
u Co""lIo
.'"d""""
B -oo'do""
L .~~~~Ow"o~
I .Gono~""bllc
. Boo B~"oh
C :'::~':~-:
8
I
I
I
Planning Schedule
I
I
I
m.--
""""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ProblemslSolutions
. What are the problems?
. What are the cause of the prob'ems?
. What are the potential solutions?
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...'..,.
i~ \.
, ,
~
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
December 4. 2DD3
Meeting Objectives
. Agree on Project Objectives
. Review/amend Project Opportunities
. Understand existing probiems in the
draInage system
. Delennlne options that will be ana'yzed for
feasibility
a Make flrst pass at cr'ler'a weighting
a D'scuss public survey
a D'scuss moratorium
Project Objectives
a Solve the Bee Branch flooding problems
a Mln'mlze acquisitions
a Maintain safety
a Maintain pedestrian crossings
a Maintain basic commercial services
a Address flow from the subwatersheds
. Prov'de recreation (greenway/parkway/bike trail)
a Ellminatestagnantwaler
. Preserve Comiskey Pack
a Preventioss of jobs
a Be affordable (wlth'n budget allocation)
Agenda
a Introduction
a Project Objectives and Project Opportunities
. Mode' Validation and existing System
Performance
a Potential Options to Solve Fiood'ng
a Alternative Eva'uatlon Criteria
a Cr'terta Weighting
a Public Survey and Survey Resu'ts
. Moratorium
Introduction
a News'eller
a Meeting notes
a Information requests
a Individual meetings with CDMIWHKS
a BBCAC Survey results
Objectives from Meeting Notes
" Safety
z. Prese",e Comiskey Park
,. Loss of jobs
4. Walk bridge
s. Malnta'n pedestr'an walkway
e. Park ..II'ng
7. Greenway/parkway
a. No stagnant water, Bee Branch shou'd have a
constant flow of water
g. Con..",ation practices imp'emented 'n a
watershed; I.e" reduction of 'mpe",lous areas
10. Erosion control
11. Maintain "bas'c" cammeeeial sa",¡ces; I.e.,
grocery stores
I
I
I
I
Project Opportunities
I
. BelermiRe sIal." of Eagle Oreee" at t81h aRd
-Elm-
. H & WTrucking (30th and Jackson)
. F've Points Revi""zallon Plan (20th and Elm)
. Downlown Schoo' re'ocallon
. Rec..allon opportunilies
. Packing Plant Redevelopmenl
. Housing Replacemenl (equal cosl of
ownership, Roosevell Road)
I
I
I
Historical Events
I
. May 16, 1999- Over 3.5 Inches In 4 hours
(5.63 'nches In 24 hours)
I
. June 4-5, 2002 - Approx. 5 inches In 6 hours
(5.72 Inches 'n 48 hours)
I
I
. Ju'y 6, 1993 Event - 3.2 Inches In 24 hours
I
Drainage Basin Master Plan
W. 32nd & Carter Rd. Detention Basins
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modeling Validation and Existing
System Performance
. Hlslorical Evenls
. Crillcal Duralion Rain Evenl
. Capacity versus flow
. Syslem Performance
. F'ooding Areas
Critical Duration Rain Event
. 1O0,y", D",..I~M "OS" P..k "'ow "01
¡..p....ntatlvo Bo"", .."'..."n)
~.." ,~~.
In) .~.
"
, "
, "
. "
" "
~ "
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Critical Duration Rain Event
¡~
¡~
'.
Screening Criteria
. So'ves flooding problem
. Affordable
. Preserves/Enhances Quality of Life
. Minimizes Residential Property Acquisitions
Major Tributary Inflows
Potential Options to Solve Flooding
. Open Channel
. Buyouts
. Local/Reg'onal Storage
. Relief Pipe
. Levee
. Floodprooflng
. Stormwater Reduction Pract'ces
. Pipe Efflc'ency Improvements
. Street Lowering
. Pumping
. AI'gnm.nt
'51"
. T~tmo"t
Open Channel
. M"It'"",,?
. Aostho""
.;i;'i"~¡ii~i
'~.,"".. II
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Buyouts
Relief Pipe
Floodprooflng
Levee I Floodwall
Reduction Practices
Stormwater
. Ra'e "'".,.
. Pan>", P"'mon!
. G",on Roof
. G",on Pe""eo Lo"
. Re'e Ge"'",
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pipe Efficiency Improvement
Pumping
Constraints
. Is the estimated project cost w;th;n the budget
allocation ($17.1M)?
. Does the alternative solve the flooding along the
ma'nstem Bee Branch?
. Preserve Com'skey Pari<
. Incorporates a factor of safety
Street lowering
Constraints and Criteria
. Constraints will be a condlt'on that can be
answered yes or no for each altemative
. Examp'"' Does the all..nativ. solve the flooding
a'ong the ma'nst.m B.. B<anch?
. Crlter'a will be used to evaluate the project and
can be measured on some type of scale
. Examp'.' N"mb., of Acquisitions requ'red
Evaluation Criteria
. Minimize 'oss of jobs
. Minim'ze cost
. Preserve neighborhood access/connectivity
. Protect environment
. Restore Bee Branch Creek
. Preserve commercial/non-commerc'a' serv'ces
. Minimize health and safety r'sk
. M'n'mlze res'dentla' p,operty acquisitions
. 'ncorporate "Opportunlt'es"
. Provide multi-objectlva components
. Enhance quality of life
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Planning Process
I
I
I
I
I
Planning/Decision Process
Public Survey
. Sample Questions
:=...:::::=-
'-----
,----
,..---
",---
':=:-::::::.-.
Criteria Weighting Exercise
. Crite,ia can be we'ghted to establish re'atlve
priorities
Moratorium
Next Meeting
. "Alternatives Evaluation"
. S,or'ng of 'nitla' altamatlves
. Farm"'atlanlfurther
development of alternatives
. Elimination of infeasibte
or "nao:ceplab'e options
. Conflnnatlon of eva'oatlon criter'a
. January 29, 2004 - 5:30PM
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii"""""
1M'
IJUBI1Q!!;
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch C'tlzen Advisory Comm'ttee
January 29.2004
Meeting Objectives
+ Eliminate infeasible or unacceptable options
through discussion of the option fact sheets
a Formu'ate preliminary alternatives from the
feaslb'e options
a Conduct execeise to explore potential open
channel alignments
a Confirm prioritized evaluation criteria
a D'scuss measur'ng scales for each of the
evaluation criteria lif time permits)
Review and Screening of Expanded Options
a Rev'ew Options from Meeting 2
a Rev'ew and discuss fact sheets
a D'scuss Screening Criteria (Boards)
Agenda
a 'ntroductlon
a Rev'ew and Screening of Expanded Options
a Elimination of Infe..'ble or Unacceptable
Options
a Fom1U'ation of Preliminary Alternatives
a Possible Open Channel Alignments
a Confirmation of Evaluation Criteria
a Evaiuatlon Criteria Measuring Sca'es
Introduction
a News'etter2
a ind'v'dua' meetings with CDMIWHKS
Options "Kept" in Meeting 2
¡a Local Sto,age
Storagennflltrat'on a Reg'ona' Storage
+ Stormwater Reduction Practices
Conveyance
J a Open Channel
\ a Relief Pipe
Mechan'ca'
! a Pumping
a P'pe Effic'ency Improvements
I
I
I
I
Conveyance versus Storage
1 DO-year, - 2-hou' Storm
I
,~
!,~
I
I
..
,-,~,
I
I
Local Storage
Summary:
I
Storage that would be provided adjacent to the
channe' would require the acqu'sitlon of 7 blocks
of property. The project would be expected to cost
approximately to $4D million.
I
I
Local storage Is infeasible due to the high number
acqu'sJtlons (170 homes) and high cost.
I
I
Regional Storage
Summary:
I
I
LImited suitable and available property wou'd
result 'n the need to acquire at 'east 21 acres (13D
homes) to provide the requ'red storage.
Depend'ng on storage method, construction cost
of at least $3D million.
Moderately h'gh cost and high acqu'sitions make
th's option infeasib'e.
I
I
I
Local Storage
. Storage facilities
constructed adjacent
to the channel
. Would require at
least 21D acre-feet of
storage
. 7 blocks of
acquisitions
(approx, 170 homes)
. Approximately
$40 million
Regional Storage
. Storage facilities
constructed In the
subwatershed areas
. Would require 210
acre-feet of storage
or more depending
on location
. limited, ifany,
suitable sites
. 21 acres of
acquisition (13D
homes)
. $3D million
Stormwater Reduction Practices
. p..,Um '001".0:
. Ra'n ..~I.
. C,.t,m.
. Ra'OG""M
. Pooo" P",m."
. LimO.. """,t on 100-
y....".,nt
. Ama.."..'n,,".noo
.,."',.".."'",
"0,."" woo,. "o"d.
'...Ihooa%ofth.
ceo"".. 010"'.
818
.11
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stormwater Reduction Practices
Summary:
Stonnwator reduction practices are effective at
controlling runoff from small rainfall events and at
Improv'ng the water quality of stonnwater runoff.
However, they could not slgnlflcantly Impact or
improve the Bae eranch flooding problems,
Stonnwater reduct'on practices are Infeasible
because they could not solve the Bee Branch
flooding problem,
Open Channel
Summary:
The open channel option cou'd solve the Bee
Branch flooding problems, A reletlvely moderate
amount of acqulsmons would be requ'red. Various
opportunities exist to create amenities as part of
th's option. The estimated cost Is $17 million.
The open channel option Is rated good or fa'r for
the four screening criteria and warrants further
consideration.
Relief Pipe
Summary:
The relief pipe option could solve the Bee Branch
flooding problems. Acqu'sitiDns are mlnim'zed and
the changes to the neighborhood will bellmlted,
however the costs are approx'mate'y $50 million.
The ,elief pipe option's rated good for all the
screening criteria except for cost. The relief pIpe
option may be v'ab'e as a pmject component to
limit acqu's'tlons or improve ne'ghborhood
connectiv'ty,
Open Channel
. Romove ,ed ..p~ce Bee
B..nch with ,e open
channo' bolow 24" 51.
. Chaeeeitap w'dlh of will
bo150Ia"Ofoot.
. Requ'r.. ,ppoox'motoly
70 ocq"'sltlons ,"bJoct
1o the deve'opmeet of ,n
,lIgement
. Moot,ffam,blesa'utlon
.
Relief Pipe
. Canst,"" ,ddltlo""p'peo to "p,nd the <:ap'c'ly of the
e,'stlng Boo B..noh
. Co~oy'ncelmpcoveme""'egeham7footby30feet
no" 25' S"eet to 12 fo.. by 90 fe.. ,lthe amt.. (pro"ded
'en"mbe'ofp'pos).
. Red"es property 'CO"""ons 150 homes)
. Costs '" 'ppro"mote'y $50 million
Pumping
. Con","cl two pomp
stations to pomp wator
thro"gheow
co~oyonc.",""oc"
tatheo"tI..
. P"mpotatlons"e.e"
"'"e sod oonst,"ctlae
co" ostlmoled to be
$60mlllloe
3
I
I
I
I
Pumping
Summary:
The pumping option couid soive the Bee Branch
flooding probiems. There will be a modest amount
of acquisitions and some neighborhood 'mpacts.
The project costs are estimated at $60 million.
I
The pump'ng option has a high cost Other
screening criteria are rated good or fair,
I
I
I
I
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
Summary:
The pipe efficiency improvements is essentially a
version of the pumping option, Using a "jet pump"
would be less effic'ent than traditional pumps to
move the stormwater runoff at the required rate.
I
I
I
I
I
Th's option is a iess faasibie (techn'cally more
d'fficult and more costly) vers'on of the pump'ng
option.
Formulation of Preliminary Alternatives
. Feaslbie options (or comb'natlons of
options) will become project alternatives
. Agree on prellm'nary alternatives that wlli be
presented and eva'uated in Meeting 4
. Deveiop (for Meeting 4):
. Required component.
. AI'gnments
. Casts
I
I
I
I
I
Pipe Efficiency Improvements
. U.e ""no"'" prlnc'p'e
to Improve pipe
,,",'enoy(e..entlo'lyo
ietp"mp)
. Uses pomp. to <"ole
the Jet,"" elfl,'ent
then d',"<t pump'ng of
the oIa""","r
Review and Consensus on
Viable Options
Possible Open Channel Alignments
Deve'op open channel alignment. in groups
(t5 minute e.ere'se)
,. Use tape to mark possibie alignment on map
,. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of
your alignment
3. Summarize your approach to the BBCAC
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Confirmation of Evaluation Criteria
. C,ileria Weighting Exercise Results
. Eva'ualion Criteria Scales
Planning Process
BBCAC Evaluation Criteria
.""",tlan Cr"on. 'onorm.oce Mo.."", See.. W.,ht
P~'No,~m","" N'mb"'O/~_'œt~ro,," 53 2.4
"'"-~~'".t b","œ,m'=t',"
""'"œ
M,"'m".~'dontl" N"mb~,f~..oc~""'m,. " 2'
prop.rty""".,~ """"'0'
M'",m"o=' E'tlm""proj~'=' 40 "
,~- notgh",,",OOO N,mb~"."""""m 31 1.4
"ce"'=n"'i'" ""'N."""'oproi~t
"",m'æ"~"","d N,m"',o/~foty"'"" 31 1.4
~foty"" Ido""'"
Enh,"œ""",fllf. R""'...oomo/wh.'", 29 '.3
,It~,.,."".~,",oo'~,"
~,""f""~.h""mood
Pro""""'""m,,,' N"m"""'""'ro"m,,,'" 22 1.,
",oomet~"""m",,~.y
,mo"t"
Next Meeting
. "Allemallves Evaluation 2"
. Eva'uate Alternative,
. Add'Uo.a' AllornaUve Mod;flcoUons '.e'uding
Allem.tlvo Alignments
. Rev'salUpdate Eva'",tlon Crller'a and/or
Me.",'.g Sea'..
. Confirm next meeting dale
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....."..
.< .
/' \
OUB~
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Comm'tte.
Me.ting #4
Alternatives Eva'uat'on 2
March 110 2004
COM
Introduction I Primary Objectives
. Ident'fy any outstand'ng Items from Meeting #3
. F'nallze Evaluation Criteria
. Review CDM modifications to alignments
. Rev'ew two alternatives developed from the
alignments
. Select an allgnment/altamatlve to develop further
and evaluate for the next meeting
~:;':~:~':";,'::.".:..'---_W"'.
----
-
-.
~--
"0'
,...- "0'_.
..
. -- .. ...
-. -.. -'.
-..
.::...
,-.-.. - -- .-
:=. ;,-....:¡;.-:;.:-:: ::.-=;;:.....,.., ..=--=.,.
--- ..--
Agenda
. Int,oductlon' Meeting Objectives
. F'nallze Alternative Evaluation Grlter'a
. Alignments
. Alternative Development
. Alternative Evaluation
. Alignment/Alternative
modifications/optimization by BBCAC
. Alternatives for Next Meeting
Finalize Alternative Evaluation Criteria
(Performance criteria: scales & measures)
. Review the changes made to Alternative
Evaluation Criteria per discussion from
Meeting #3
. Reach agreement on these criteria 'n order to
apply them to evaluate our alternatives
Alignments
. CAG Alignments from Meeting 3
. A"gn~nI' 1,2.3 chason by""""",, or BBCAC
. Align~t, 4ond5(hybrtdsotBBCAC "',nmonts)
. CDM Modifications to BBGAC AI'gnments
. Minoo"'on9"""d,to"'gn~ntst,,,
- ~~~~ ~~ """.ngs,nd oonn"'tions to ,,¡stin, Bee
- "",d pe"nont b"in","'"tilUi"
- ""int"n into""y of ',"'ng Plon"to
. Alignment Eva'uatlons
. '6t).faotOponCh'nn.Coo"doo""'"dtocomp"""gn~n.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Typical Cross Section
Open Channel
'..~, ~-?Ii
Property Acquisition. Protocol
. Construction Corridor touches primary or detached
structure
. Construction Corridor encroaches within 1D,ft of
pr'mary structure
. Ma'n access is iost due to construction co,,'dor
and secondary access cannot be easily established
. Front Lot line: if any port'on lost (assumes loss of
access)
. Back Lot line: 10-ft loss or more
. S'de Lot LIne Encroachment: 1D.ft loss or more
Alignment 1 Modifications
. A"gftmoftt~,.'"""".htlyta",..'p,,,"ad""'"
to ",..to to mln'm'" ~O "oo""" 'mp"".
. At tho ""moct',," 01 29thlRhombo",IG."",O. tho
.lIgnmont w., ,hlf1eO ta tho o..t to av~d Imp.ctlftg
tho",s ,Iotlan.nd tho E.glo g'=°'Y,to~.
. N'" the ..,klng ",,' tho .lIgftmo'" w.. ohlf1ed to
follow P'ftoSu..tta~lntaln tho Ift"g"1y 01 tho ,'"
ImM"~Om'opmo"'.
. AttholntoBoctionof1Sth"OSy",ma",.1f1e
.'~nm.ont~' ohlft'" tatho north of 1Sth ta ovo'O tho
..n"'Y ,,-, ,1ft station.
Typical Cross Section
Pipe
Ã
~~m,~~".,..."-",.
.;'"-.' M'~.'~.)
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alignment 2 Modifications
. Aligoment w.. .","', sllgblly to "ass p",>on","'"
to s...1s to m'nlm'.. .os' "ass'og'm,ocls.
. N..'th'PocklngP~o'lh,.lIgomeolw..shlftodto
follow P'", S""01 to ",,'n"'otho ""gnty afth, ""
foeM"",'ovo,.,m,,'-
Alignment 3 Modifications
. Op"'hsO",' bog'"' j...tsa"'h af24lh SI"" wIllI n,w
coon...ao P'PO '00"""'" to ",mavo '0 'eg'" b,n".
. AJlgnm"'",s.I""'dsllghllyto'ms'p","O'Ic"~'to
s.,els to m'o'ml.. mod ".ss'OO Im""Is.
. Th,.lIgnmentw.. shlflod 10 b,.'aog Ihe "","'n' of Elm
S""01 betw..n 24th.nd 22od Ins".' af.l.n .ng" to svo'd
'm,.ctlng "",,'s.n W..h'ngtao SIIeo'-
. Th,po"'ons""hof220'St.'sshlftedlo.voldlh"h""hsn'
g.. s""on prop'.""
. S,,'lon 'ownst~maflh' "lIn,.' ""ksw....""'" to NO
.I.ng P'n, s"..I. "... "nd" 16th SI",,-sod Ih,n .ng'e
shs",lytolh,"sllo'vaidthe..n""Ys_,,""s""oo.
Ã
~~m~~~:"" ..-.,
.."_....",,"' "
.- Initial Ranking Table
--
- -- - - -- --, -- - .-- --.
- ... .- -- .- - - -
- - - -
- . " n. ,.. '.. ..
'-
- .. " D.' no ... ..
..
- .. " n. ... ,.. .,
..
-. .. .. .. ... ,.. n. ...
.. " ". .' ... ...
- .. .. ..
- --- -.-
... ..
Â
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Development of Two Alternatives
. Open Channel
. Pipe Alternative
Design Criteria- General
. 1 OO-yr Protection
. Freeboard (Design Flood EI, To Top of Bank)
0 1-fttotopafbank
. Side slopes.
0 Pennanenl- 3 (H), , (V) - max'm"m
0 Tempora,>,,'.s, ,- assumed
Constraints/lssues
. Deve'opment Opportunities
0 Pack'ng Planl
. Development Constraints
0 Existing Gas Station
0 Major B"sines..s
. Groundwater
. Heritage Trail
. San'tary Lift Station
Alternative Development
. Design Criteria
. Constraints
. OpportunItIes
. 'ss"es
. As"mptlons
Design Criteria- General (contI
. Maintenance Access
0 OpenChannel-15ft(bolhs'des)
0 Pipe Chan,,'.'5 It (both sides)
. Channel Treatment
0 M'n'm'ze maintenance costs
. Accossible (mainlanancel eme..ency)
0 Aesthetica'ly acceptable (Nal"ralized
Channe'I
. Reuse port'on Existing Bee Branch Sewer
. M'nlm'ze Standing Water
Alternative Development
Pipe/Open Channel Concept (lyplea' eroos ",lIonoJ
. What type of channe' 'pipe 's appropriate?
aoon Channal Co"eol,
Low now chonno'
Graosyavo",ow
channa'
-,
Doub'o bav typo sI,""",,
Un.orgro"nd wlthopon
grassy area on top of tho
P'pos
4
I
I
I
I
Open Channel Treatments
Typical Cross Section
Open Channel
I
I
I
I
I
I
Open Channel
Typical Cross Section
Pipe
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pipe Photo
Alternatives 1 & 2
I
I
. Open Channel
Alternatlve
am. on Hyb<l. "
AlIgnm.nt4
'",t"d.. oppmxl~t.1y
',100 I.et of open ,hon,,'
, b"dg..
'",odolo,"".
. .'pe Alternatlve
au... an Hyll". 2,
Angnmont5
Ino'ud.. oppoaxlm".'Y
2,7401,,1 01 doub'. box
"Iv.n. wh'oh 0" 10 fool
foil ond YO,> befweon 28
ond'2feotwideop~co
1,36Df.ot 01 open
ohonnel
1 b'~g.
2 '°0. c'os"e.
I
5
I
I
I
I
Open Channel
. Op,o chaoo,' b,'ow ""
51.
. Chaon,ltopw'dthof180
f..t
. R',"",. opp,o,'matoly
7' OC,""'Uon. ,ublocl
toth,."",'opm",ofoo
o"gom,nt
. Ac,",.II'on of a7 """"
on. 12 bus'.....,
I
I
I
. Co,'ofS21.Ota$2'.8M
I
I
Relief Pipe
. Ca..truct od.II'anol p'P" to "pond the copoclty ofth,
",.tlng B.. B"neh
. 10' "" .o"b', boo vo",'ng'",m two 2a' w,., 10 two 42'
w,..
. Op,n chaon,' dow.....m of """'0. ,",ok.
. Acqu'."'on of" h"".. ond 18 bus'n.....
. Co... om opp",'matoly $30.4 10 $42.0 m""on
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate- Base Assumptions
. Property Acquislt'on (inc, acqu'slt'on. demo. reloc.)
. R..'d,ntio'- $100,000
. Nan-Ros'dentlo'- $150,0000
. Conlingency-35%lotal
. Eng'n.."ng- Design! Con.t Mgml. Penn'tt'ng.15%
. Coool,"ctian Co.t.- 20%
I
I
I
I
I
Ã
Ã
Cost Comparison
C.logo", Op" Ch"n,' "p'
G..",I $644,000 $6",000
Ac,"'."'aos $a,500,000 $8,200,000
{7"c,.1 {740".1
ulml". $788,000 $760,000
Chaon,' $6,$99,000 $3,897,000
51,"ctu"oJ"P8 $5,627,000 $16,917,000
'-----,-cc
5"btalo' $21,SOa,000 $30,433,000
Contlng,nc, $a,182,000 _~
Tolol $2',750,000 $41,'98,000
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative Evaluation
(tab'ewlth rankings)
. Preserve CommercIal/Noncommercial Services
. Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
. M'n'mlze Cost
. Preserve Neighborhood AccesslConnectiv'ty
. M'nlmlze Health and Safety R'sk
. Enhance Quality of Life
. Protect Env'ronment
Alignment/Alternative
modlfications/optimization by BBCAC
. Receive feedback from the BBCAC as to the
most favorab'e alternative
. D'scu.. potential modifications or
adjustments that CDM can cons'der for
Meeting 5
. Group or full committee modifications?
Alternatives for Meeting 5
. Pr'mary Objectives beloce Meet'ng 5
- Got .,..,1100 from BBCAC 00 wh"h ,1t.~lIv.
shoo'. b. "'""."'. f"nhor
- Whot modllicollo", oc "apllm"'nB" of th"
,Itomotlv. CDM sho"'. "'"".or '0 p..pa"lIoo
for Meello" 5
Alternative Evaluation Ranking
_Mto 1-Ch"M' ""Mto7-".
w.,......... w......",,"
__~"'h"- 15,2 20.2
"_a__""'"'- 2'.4 17.7
""~a~' 12_a 18.0
__~'_~M_' 11.' 8.4
"-a~'~"""'- 11,2 5.6
~_._~.~ '2.6 0.0
~_'"R- -1.0 1.0
TOTAL 61.9 10.9
RANK 1 2
: :::=:-=
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Involvement Activities
Construction Timeline
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
_....,-c,",,", A"'M""""
00- w.,.. R.w'o'~ woio"" ...So". w."",
So,~ &".
.'"'m...
Rw""" 2.1 67 20.4 58 17.7
"""",.".
. P",...ted to a maximum of 69
Next Meeting
. Next Meeting - "Optimize Prefer...d Alternative"
. April 2004
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Preserve CommerciaUNoncommercial
5
ervlces
A"'M.H,",,", _M"-Pl..
_. W.I,. "ws.~ w.o..., ... ,~~ w."""
s.~ s~~
,~-
c_"" 2.4 12 15.2 16 20.2
50_.
. Prorated to a maximum of 19
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize Cost
A"'M.H,",,", ","~'2-';..
Obj.",w w.o,.. "w'o". W.I,.... R.w~~ w.....
&". s~~
"""ouc.. 1.8 7.1 12.8 10 18
. Channel cost: $29.8 million
. Pipe cost: $42.0 million
8
I
I
I
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Preserve Neighborhood
Access/Connectivity
...,....'-C,"'MI A"'M"-'"
0- W..,. ...,- W.I,- R..S~~ W.I,-
..~ ~
,,-~
,."""..., 1.4 8.5 11.9 6 8.4
""-
I
I
I
. loss of a fuil road is the same as a road with
a new dead-end
I
I
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Enhance Quality of Life
I
I
A'"'M.H,",,", ""M""""
o.""w w.." ,..s",. w.,- ,_s- w.O-
s~~ s~~
"""~. 1.3 -2 -2.6 0 0
0...."."",
-.,
~,-"
-,
I
I
I
I
Property Acquisition
Screening Criteria -
Structure Loss
. Construction co"ldor
touch.. p"ma.. or
.'lac"",, "root",
I
I
I'
I
II
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Minimize Health & Safety Risk
""",,1-0,",,", ""M"'-Pl..
0....... w.", ,..50.~ w.o,..... ,..,o~ w.O'"
s~~ so~
MI,o....
,.""'&s...., 1.4 s 11.2 4 5.6
RI.>
'-~o.
Alternative Evaluation Ranking:
Protect Environment
"',""'-C,"'M' A""M""""
00""" W.I,. ,..5- W.I,- ...s.~ woO""
So.~ s-
,,- 1.0 -1 -1 1 1
.'"'..~..
....,-,
~_.
-"
Property Acquisition
Screening Criteria -
Structure
Encroachment of
Culvert
. ConstructIon co,,'.or
,"coo"h,. with'" 10
f..t 01 p"ma",
"root",
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Acquisition
Screening Criteria -
Structure
Encroachment of
Open Channel
. Construction comdor
enc","che, within 10
feeJ of prlmaoy
structuoe
Typical Property-
Example
~:;'-:::~";~;-
Alignment Considerations
. Street Crossings
. T..ffic Impacts
. Neighborhood Connectivity
. Stroctu" Length
. Crossing Angle
. Utility Conflicts
. Constructabillty
Property Acquisition
Screening Criteria -
Parcel Reduction
Co"~'."
,."~
. Construction co,,'do,
coe,tes loss of 10 feet
or mo"from back or
side lot lOne
""=
~-
Alignment Considerations
. Site Conditions
. Topog..phy
. Geotechnical
- Gro,ndwator
- SolOcomposUion
- Bed,ock
- Slope stability
. Maintenance
. Constroctlon (temp), '5' (OpenV 30. (Pipe)
. Pennanen" 15' (both)
Open Channel Treatments
10
I
I
I
I
Pipe Photo
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cost Estimate- Base Assumptions
(cont.)
. Structure Crossings
. Precast Areh Culverts
. Cast-in-place- head and wing walls
. Concrete channel beneath culvert
. Recreation Path- 24"' Street to Garfield
. Open Channel
. Low Flow Channel-25ft
. Rlprap bo.om
. Qua"" Stone banks
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Residential Acquisition Assumptions
. $50,000-$60.000 per home for purchase
. $'5,000-$20,000 per home for relocation
. $'0,000-$20.000 per home for demolition and
cleanup
. Total: $75000-$'00 000 Der home (City Cost!
. City pays difference between current
structure value and comparable home
purchase
11
I
I
I
."'..."..,.
¡~\
IJUIJUQ!!J>
I
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
I
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
Optimize Preferred Alternatives
I
May 3. 2004
COM
I
I
I
I
Introduction I Primary Objectives
. Identify any outstanding Items from Meeting fI4
. Discuss Public Meeting comments
. Review seiected alignment
. Select preferred alternative for Preliminary Design
I
I
I
I
Alignments
. Discuss BBCAC Alignments selected from Meeting 4
, 0..' C"",","'.m"',,
, PI"""'MU,,
I
. Discuss outcomes of discussions with the railroad
and Audubon School
I
I
. Reach consensus on alignment
I
I
Agenda
. Introduction / Meeting Objectives
. Pubilc Meeting Summary
. Alignments
. Alternative Refinement
. Open Channel Altemative
. Pipe A'ernative
. Opeo Channel Concept
. Alternative Ranking
. Discussion of Relined Alternatives
. Preferred Alternative for Preliminary Design
Public Meeting Summary
. Discuss Public Meeting held March 30. 2004
. Outcome
- D.cosSions with p,bllc wore pos'tlve
- aBCAe 'ole
. Futu", Public Meeting Ideas
- WasthefonnAt"ectlve?
- How well did It seNe the p,bllc Ina'endance?
- Sho,ld w, cond," the n"t p,bllc meeting the
seme way when a profe_,ltematlve has
bee. ,eleoted?
. Comfortable with current alignment?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Preliminary Open Channel Concept
VIew looking Northwest from 22'" Street Crossing
Existing Conditions
P'OpoSOd Cbe"nel
Alternative Refinement ($25M)
The refined Open Channel Alternative along the
preferred alignment includes:
> 4,I00feetofopenchannel,12-14feetde..
> Abodges
> Road CIoSUÆS" LIncoln, Ge"'eld, Syoamo,e, Elm, and
con'e"'ng Knlosf St. to a one-way _et w,th ""'ng
> ",w one~'y sfreet with .."Ing Llnco'n Ave. to Rhombe'g
Ave. for A,dubon School.
> Lowflowcbennel"d"edfo'wldthof15le"'nth.,eech
upsfre'm of ""'oed.
, 13 comm..c'a'; 65 ,..'d,"tlal,cqulsIUons
> Some add'tlonel plOpe"'os 10' ACqu'sWonsleasemems
Â
Alternative Refinement ($41M)
The Pipe Alternative has been reflned from Meeting 4
to follow the preferred alignment and Includes:
> 2,740 feet of double box culvert
> ',360 feet of open channei
> 'bridge
> Road closures at Elm and Sycamore, and
modlflcatlon of Knlest Sl to one-way with parking.
> Double box culverts 'o feet tall: 28 and 42 feet
wide a piece.
> Open channel section downstream of the railroad
tracks same as the channel alternative discussed
previously.
, '4 commercial: 64 residential acquisitions
> Some additional properties/easements
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Preferred Alternative for Preliminary
Design
. Get direcUon from BBCAC on "preferred"
alternative Prellmlna." Oeslgn
I
. Work with BBCAC to develop the recommendation
wording that can be sent to Council.
. Refine the prefe"ed alternative in preparation for
final Meeting #6
I
I
. Prepare a summa." of the allgnmentlallernatlve
evoMlon p,o.ess.
I
Alternative Evaluation
I
. Preserve CommerciailNoncommerclal Services
. Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
. Minimize Cost
. Preserve Neighborhood Access/Connectivity
. Minimize Health and Safety Risk
. Enhance Quality of life
. Protect Environment
I
I
I
I
I
Ã
Alternative Ranking
. Revised ranking criteria as per BBCAC comments
at Meeting 4
. Provide new ..nklng with final two alleroatives
. Discuss ..nklng outcome and scoring
Property Acquisitions
Acquisitions fo, both the Open Channel aod P'pe Altemotlvos a"
.e.,,"mll..
A""'M"-C",",' A""'~'2-"..
0"- w.,.~ ,-'OO~ W.I,..., ".,o~ w."""
~~ s-
.~-
C~-,'" 2.4 13 22.3 14 24.0
"M~
M"'m... I
"""'ml., 2.1 65 21.0 64 20.7
Ao",I'.OM
3
I
I
I
Cost Comparison
I
Origlnai HDR estimate =$'7 million
Open Channel Alternative Cost = $25 million
Pipe Alternative Cost =$4' million
I
I
I
I
BBCAC Discussion of Evaluation
Results
I
. 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?
I
I
I
I
I
Potential Schedule (based on $17
million)
I
. Design - 2005
. PropeOty Acquisition Begins- 2005-2007
. Construction Complete - 20'3
. Subject to Council Approval and
Identification of required funding
I
I
I
I
Alternative Evaluation Ranking
A",'M.H..",I "'~'2-"..
W'O""S~~ W.I._S~"
~-~_...,-- 22.3(13) 24.0(14)
.",,"a"""'.M~.~", 21.0 (65) 20.7(64)
O"""'Coo' 10.8 (S25M) 18.0 ($41M)
~,..--_. 10.5 8.4
.",,"a'_""_~u 112 5.6
"~-"'.",'~ 0.0 -2.6
~,~-_. -1.0 1.0
TOTAL 74.7 75.1
RANK 1 2
Cost Impacts
. Original budget: $'7 million
. $5M revenue from ORA-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 shortfaJi
Decision Point
. Given the cost constraints, is there
consensus on an Open Channel or Pipe
Alternative?
. What additional issues must be resolved?
4
I
I
I
Discussion of Refined Alternatives
I
. Acquisition. companson
. Cost effectivene.s and funding Idea.
. Desired time frame for completion of
preferred alternative
. Any lingering concern. with aitematives
. Way. to make the alternative. more
acceptable to BBCAC
I
I
I
I
Tradeoffs of each Alternative
I
+Affordability
+Constructability (Implementation)
+schedule
+An "acceptable" solution YS- an
"ideal" solution
I
I
I
I
I
Recommendation Options
I
+Recommend one alternative
+Recommend a alternative, with
minority opinion
+ ~gn':;~s"'u~e~~~~ ~~i\ c:~~~~3~~~gse
I
I
I
I
LIkes and Dislikes
. list characteristics of each alternative that
the BBCAC like.
. list characterl.tlcs of each alternative that
the BBCAC does not like.
Decision Point
. Is there consensus on an Open Channei or
Pipe Alternative?
. Any other recommendation. to Council?
Recommendation Wording
. The BBCAC recommends.......
, -The BBCAC recommends the Council Identify
funding to construct the Pipe Alternative as the
preferred alternative.
The BBCAC prefers the Pipe Alternative becau.e it
preserves neighborhood accessibility, presents
fewer health and safety n.k., and enhances the
quality of life.
2- The BBCAC wouid accept the Open Channel
solution as oppo.ed to doing nothing provided
the Council has pursued timely, adequate and
comprehensive funding for the Pipe Alternative.
5
I
I
I
BBCAC Summary Document
Downstream Potential Alignment
I
. Executive Summary of BBCAC Meeting
. Overview of decision process
. Presentation of recommendation
. Signature/Comment section for BBCAC members
I
I
I
I
Upcoming Meetings
I
I
. Council Work Session - May 17"
. Future Public Meeting -July?
. Final BBCAC Meeting - July? - Final
Recommendations and Preliminary Design
. Final Recommendations to Council- August
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
I
I
I
I
~/-".,_."
¡~\
~
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
I
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting #6
Review of Preliminary Recommendations
I
June 24, 2004
CDM
I
I
Meeting Objectives
I
. Deveropfinal recommendations
. Discuss apparent Council position and reaction to
preliminary recommendations
. Identity 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
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Council Observations (paraphrased)
I
. "...we will do something: the question is
what"
. "...the pipe solution will never fiy because of
the high cosf'
. "We need to do something: but we can't stop
to study It again: we need to keep things
moving"
. "If the extra $'6M 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]ustlty the pipe
I
I
I
I
Agenda
. Meeting Objectives
. CouncJJ Work Session Summary
. Final BBCAC Recommendations
. Revised Alignment Downstream of Gartleid
. Moratorium Extension
. Outstanding Issues
Council Work Session- May 17th
. Background
. CDM Observations
. BBCAC Observations/Interpretations
. Consensus on likely Council Direction
BBCAC Council Observations
I
I
I
Development of Final BBCAC
Recommendations
I
. Review Previous Recommendations
. Shouid Previous Recommendation be
Revised?
. Options for Modifying Recommendations
. Finalize Recommendations
I
I
I
I
Previous Recommendations
I
. Project Alignment- Elm! Kniest Alignment
(regardless of channel or pipe alternative)
. Preferred Alternative-
"The BBCAC recommends the Council identify
funding to constroct the Pipe Alternative as
the preferred alternative. The BBCAC prefers
the Pipe Alternative because' p,e....es
neighborhood accessibility, presents fewer
health and safety risks, and enh'ncee the
quality of life:'
I
I
I
I
I
Potential Outcomes for Pipe Recommendation
I
. Council takes pipe recommendation. buJids
pipe
. Council takes pipe recommendation, but
delays project until funding available
. Council determines pipe soiutlon 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
I
I
I
I
BBCAC Recommendation Wording
. Tho BBCAC recommends.......
1-
Revised Alignment-16th to Garfield
. BBCAC input on Revised Alignment
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Â
-"~"~"~"oo"""m~"~.
",..'~~~"'"
BBCAC Downstream Alignment
Recommendation
Downstream Potential Alignment
Options
Evaluation Criteria
. Preserve Commercial/Noncommercial Services
. Minimize Residential Property Acquisitions
. Minimize Cost
. Preserve Neighborhood Access/Connectivity
. Minimize Heaith and Safety Risk
. Enhance Quality of life
. Protect Environment
Moratorium
. BBCAC Recommendation
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ã
Next Steps
. BBCAC Formai 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
Ã
~~:;~.:;:~,,::.~.~"'.."m~"~.
4
endix
F
:>
"0:1
"0:1
",
::I
C.
><"
"!1
-
-
-
-
-
-
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
NEWSLETTER#1
December 1,2003
~
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the first issue of the Bee
Branch Restoration Alignment Study
newsletter. You are receiving this
newsletter because your home or
business is located in an area that may
be affected by flooding.
In August 2003, the Dubuque City
Council formed the Bee Branch Citizen
Advisory Committee (BBCAC) to work
with the engineering consulting firm
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM),
along with the local engineering firm
WHKS & Co. to determine the location
and preliminary design of a means to
channel water out of the North End and
Washington Street neighborhoods.
The citizen committee members have
been appointed to represent the needs
and views of impacted residents in
seeking a solution to the flooding
problem. Collectively, the BBCAC
represents the locations, interests, and
viewpoints in the following areas:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BBCAC MEETINGS
At the first BBCAC meeting in
September, discussion included project
objectives and constraints such as
solving the (Bee Branch) flooding
problem, minimizing acquisitions,
maintaining safety, preserving
. Comiskey Park, and preventing the loss
of jobs. These objectives and
. .... constraints will be finalized at the next
meeting and will form the basis for
developing and evaluating Bee Branch
flooding solutions.
FIoocIInghla1lie"e~
Elm Street property owner
. Prince Street property owner
. Washington SI. property ownef
. Johnson Street property owner
. Jackson Street property owner
. Cedar Street property owner
. Maple Street property owner
. Business owner
Business manager
Developer
Realtor
Kniest Street resident
Elm Street resident
. Senior citizen
Flooded resident
School PTA
. Church
. Soil and Conservation District
(See back for BBCAC members)
BBCAC
MISSION STATEMENT
The Citizen Committee will work
with the engineering consultants to
develop and recommend a
preliminary design and alignment
for the proposed open waterway
and other components to solve
flooding between the 16th Street
Detention Basin and 24th Street.
The solution should best meet the
engineering criteria, community values
and economic constraints identified by
the BBCAC.
The BBCAC is scheduled to meet five
more times over the next 12-month
period. During this time, the committee
will form a consensus on where the Bee
Branch flood flows come from, how
floodwater flows through the North End
and Bee Branch area, what kinds of
potential solutions may be considered,
what the impacts of these solutions may
be, how those solutions and alternatives
will be evaluated, where any potential
improvement should be located; and
what the final solution will look like, who
it will impact and how those impacts will
be minimized.
§' '.."" "",.." ,'..'.., '" "" ",'.." '" """'" ""'š:
~ E-Mail ANY of your stormwater ~
~ related questions or comments to: ~
~ ~
~ Stormwater@cityofdubuque.org ~
~ ""'" '" "" """"'" """"" """"~
-
-
-
-
-
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
The Bee Branch Creek Advisory
Committee is made up of some of
your neighbors and their goal is to
represent your interests as they help
determine the details of the solution
to alleviate flooding in the Bee
Branch area. They may seek your
input on potential solutions or issues
associated with developing a Bee
Branch flooding solution. You should
feel free to contact them if you have
questions or if you would like to
convey concerns or provide input.
BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
David Shaw
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
David Fuerstenberg
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kraemer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
-
&
~'~!'Ý'~;
E-MAI L
stormwater@cityofdubuque. 0 rg
-
-
-
"O~
O~
en",
~
r-
0
c:
en
....
0
s:
m
::u
-
OCJ1]
",0
g~
.c '" .
"'-
~~ ~
:Þ 9' ('"
RJen
8æ- r
~( ) .
~- .
CD .
~
-
-
"UOC
mcen
::oCJ"U"U
s:CO::O
-Oenen
-Ic:-i::tl
zm;Þ:-I
o:..~en
~o -I
~~~O
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
Everyone is welcome to attend Bee
Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) meetings to learn more about the
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
solutions, and how the BBCAC works.
Upcoming BBCAC meetings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park,
for the following dates:
Dec. 4, 2003:
Jan. 29, 2004:
Feb. 26, 2004:
Mar. 25, 2004:
May 27, 2004:
Basis for Alternative Evaluation
Alternatives Evaluation
Alternatives Evaluation
Preferred Alternative
Recommendations
If you wish to attend, please contact City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A number of other public outreach/input
activities will take place as part of the project
including public meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public surveyor
open house.
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Questions or input can be directed to any of
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Proiect Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus Psihoyos (City of Dubuque) at 589-4275.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
NEWSLETTER#2
~ January 2004
c¿ c¿ INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the second issue of the Bee
Branch Restoration Alignment Study
newsletter. You are receiving this
newsletter because your home or business
is located in an area that may be affected
by flooding.
The Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee (see back for members) has
been established to voice the needs and
views of impacted residents as the
community seeks a solution to the flooding
problem.
The solution should best meet the
engineering criteria, community values
and economic constraints identified by the
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee.
BBCAC MISSION STATEMENT
The Citizen Committee will work
with the engineering consultants to
develop and recommend a
preliminary design and alignment
for the proposed open waterway
and other components to solve
flooding between the 1f1h Street
Detention Basin and 24th Street.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BBCAC MEETING NOTES
At the second BBCAC meeting in
December, the committee members
established the following project objectives
(in no particular order):
1. Solve the flooding problem
2. Minimize property acquisitions
3. Preserve public safety
4. Preserve pedestrian crossings
5. Preserve basic commercial services
6. Manage upstream flow
7. Enhance recreation (park areas)
8. Prevent standing water
9. Preserve Comiskey Park
10. Prevent the loss of jobs
11. Find an affordable solution
What will solve the flooding problem?
Engineers are needed to help answer this
question. Committee members have asked
the engineers to show the potential benefits
of the open channel, more detention basins,
a bigger storm sewer, runoff reduction
controls, stormwater pumping, and various
improvements to the existing sewers.
Since then, engineers have put together a
computer model to try and reproduce the
flooding witnessed in the North End and
Washington Street neighborhoods. You
might have noticed a survey crew recording
elevations and other data used to build the
model. The committee members were
shown that the model generally reflects the
flooding they saw in 1999 and in 2002. Now
the engineers will use the computer model
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
to show how each potential solution would
get rid of, or reduce the flooding problem.
Where will the project be built?
Every solution listed above will affect the
area. Part of this study is to identify how
and where. To help answer these two
questions the citizens on the committee
listed the top seven items (in order of
importance):
1. Preserve local businesses & services
2. Minimize residential property
acquisitions
3. Find an affordable solution
4. Preserve neighborhood
access/connectivity
5. Minimize health and safety risks
6. Enhance the quality of life
7. Protect the environment
The City Council asked the Committee
about a possible building permit
moratorium. Following the Committee's
recommendation, the City Council
established a moratorium on building
permits for the construction of new homes
or commercial properties. The moratorium
will expire on May 29, 2004. That is the
likely date that the study will end.
~" '.."" """"""""""""'" """"'~
~ E-Mail ANY of your stormwater ~
~ related questions or comments to: ~
~ ~
~ . ~
~ Stormwater@cltyofdubuque.org ~
~" '" "'" "" '" """""""""""""~
-
-
-
-
-
-
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
The Bee Branch Creek Advisory
Committee is made up of some of
your neighbors and their goal is to
represent your interests as they help
determine the details of the solution
to alleviate flooding in the Bee
Branch area. They may seek your
input on potential solutions or issues
associated with developing a Bee
Branch flooding solution. You should
feel free to contact them if you have
questions or if you would like to
convey concerns or provide input.
BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
David Shaw
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
David Fuerstenberg
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kraemer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
à
~Ï!i8~!'V:llryone
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.erg
-
-
-
"tI:!J
O~
tnf )
~
ï
0
C
tn
-I
0
3:
m
:::0
-
-
001J
<:0
g~
..c '" .
<: -
~w ~
» :T r'
~~ r
~C1) .
J,. - .
00 .
~
-
tr1
\)OC
mCcn
::tJ1JJ\)\)
s;:cO::tJ
-Ocncn
-IC,-!::tJ
zm»-I
O--~cn
~O -I
~~~O
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone is welcome to attend Bee
Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) meetings to learn more about the
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
solutions, and how the BBCAC works.
Upcoming BBCAC meetings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park,
for the following dates:
Jan. 29, 2004: Alternatives Evaluation
Feb. 26, 2004: Alternatives Evaluation
Mar. 25, 2004: Preferred Alternative
May 27, 2004: Recommendations
If you wish to attend, please contact City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A number of other public outreach/input
activities will take place as part of the project
including public meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public surveyor
open house.
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Questions or input can be directed to any of
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Chariie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Proiect Contacts:
Tony Zeiinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus Psihoyos (City of Dubuque) at 589-4275.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
NEW5LETTER#3
~ February 2004
~
"" INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the third issue of the Bee
Branch Restoration Alignment Study
newsletter. You are receiving this
newsletter because your home or business
is located in an area that may be affected
by stormwater flooding.
The Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee, or BBCAC, was appointed by
the City Council to voice the needs and
views of impacted residents as the
community seeks a solution to the Bee
Branch flooding problem.
The solution should best meet the
engineering criteria, community values
and economic constraints identified by the
BBCAC (see back for members).
BBCAC MISSION STATEMENT
The Citizen Committee will work
with the engineering consultants to
develop and recommend a
preliminary design and alignment
for the proposed open waterway
and other components to solve
flooding between the 16th Street
Detention Basin and 24th Street.
-
-
-
-
-
-
What can be done to stop the flooding?
Engineers are needed to help answer this
question. Committee members have asked
the engineers to show the potential benefits
of the open channel, more detention basins,
a bigger storm sewer, runoff reduction
controls, stormwater pumping, and various
improvements to the existing sewers.
BBCAC MEETING NOTES
At the third BBCAC meeting in January, the
committee members met with the City's
engineering consultant to evaluate potential
options and alignments.
BBCAC members David Fuerstenberg. Laurie Bariolotta.
and Frank Miller identify a possible alignment.
50 how do you find the best solution?
In order to rank potential solutions, the
Committee established seven criteria to
establish a grade for each potential
solution. In order of importance, they are:
preservation of local businesses and
services, minimization of property
acquisitions, affordability, preservation of
neighborhood access and connectivity,
minimize health and safety risks, impacts to
quality of life and the environment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Committee members dismissed the use of
upstream detention basins because they
would require the removal of over 130
homes. Rain gardens, rain barrels, cisterns,
and porous pavement were considered. But
because of limited benefits, they are
suitable only as a component of the final
recommendation. Pumping and pipe
efficiency improvements proved to be too
costly with estimated costs of $60 million.
What options deserve a closer look?
The Committee is leaning towards the open
channel option from just south of Garfield
(near the railroad tracks) to the 16th Street
Detention Basin. Between Garfield and 24th
Street, the Committee is considering either
an open channel or an underground sewer.
Where will the improvements be built?
Both the open channel and underground
sewer would require the removal of homes.
Part of this study is to identify how many
and precisely which homes. The Committee
identified three preliminary locations
(alignments) for the drainage
improvements. The BBCAC will take a
closer look at the alignments at the next
meeting (see back for meeting times and
locations ).
~""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
~ E-Mail ANY of your stormwater ~
~ related questions or comments to: ~
~ ~
~ . ~
~ 5tormwater@cltyofdubuque.org ~
~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
-
-
-
-
-
-
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
The Bee Branch Creek Advisory
Committee is made up of some of
your neighbors. and their goal is to
represent your interests as they help
determine the details of the solution
to alleviate flooding in the Bee
Branch area. They may seek your
input on potential solutions or issues
associated with developing a Bee
Branch flooding solution. You should
feel free to contact them if you have
questions or if you would like to
convey concerns or provide input.
BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
Sue Denlinger
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
David Fuerstenberg
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kramer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
Irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
E-MAIL
storrnwater@cityofdubuque.org
-
-
-
"'D~
O~
(J)ø
~
r-
0
c
(J)
-t
0
s:
m
:::c
-
-
-
OO'1J
c:O
g-~
.D. '" .
c: -
~w ~
»:;:
RJ~ 1:
g¡¡¡
£~ .: 1m
:?2
"UOC
mC(/)
;u1JJ"U"U
s:co;u
-O(/)(/)
-ic:-i;U
Zj11~-i
O-m(/)
......0 -i
~~~O
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone is welcome to attend Bee
Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) meetings to learn more about the
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
solutions, and how the BBCAC works.
Upcoming BBCAC meetings are tentatively
scheduled for 6:00 p.m, at Comiskey Park,
for the following dates:
DATE
Mar. 11, 2004:
To Be Announced:
May 27,2004:
MEETING TOPIC
Alternatives Evaluation
Preferred Alternative
Recommendations
If you wish to attend. please contact City
Engineering at 589-4270 to verify the
meeting times and dates.
A number of other public outreach/input
activities will take place as part of the project
including public meetings, neighborhood
meetings, and possibly a public surveyor
open house.
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Questions or input can be directed to any of
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Chariie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Proiect Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Gus Psihovos ICilY of Dubuoue) at 589-4275.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
NEWSLETTER#4
~. ~~ March 2004
llc~
'II INTRODUCTION
You are receiving this newsletter because
your home or business is located in an area
that may be affected by flooding.
The Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee, or BBCAC for short, has been
meeting since September. Appointed by the
City Council, the goal of the committee is to
help determine the best location to
construct the drainage improvement to
solve the flooding problems in your area.
BBCAC MEETING NOTES
At the fourth BBCAC meeting in March, the
committee members continued to discuss
the underground sewer and open channel
options. Both received similar grades
based on the committee's scoring method.
Where will the improvements be built?
Both the open channel and underground
sewer options require the removal of
homes. Part of this study is to identify
precisely which homes.
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULED
TE On Tuesday, March 30th,
there will be a public
meeting in the Fulton
Elementary School Gym.
- Enter gym from White Street -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The goal of the public meeting is to provide you with information, answer your
questions, and allow you to voice your concerns. To achieve that goal, an agenda for
the meeting has been established. However, feel free to attend all or part of the
meeting.
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
6:00 pm to 6:30 pm: Open House
Walk around the gym and look at displays, handouts, and past newsletters. Forms will be
available for your written questions and comments, Feel free to take the comment card with
you and fill it out after the meeting.
6:30 pm to 7:00 pm: Project Background (Presentation)
View a presentation by Project Manager Dan Lau to see what the project is all about and what
has been done to date. After the short presentation, Dan will present answers to frequently
asked questions about the project.
7:00 pm to 8:00 pm: Question & Answer Period
You can visit each one of the information booths to discuss your
questions and concerns with the engineers and City staff. Every attempt
will be made to answer your questions. Your specific comments or ideas
will also be recorded and presented to the BBCAC.
ø
You will have the opportunity to step up to the microphone ana express your thoughts,
opinions, concerns, and ideas. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak, a time
limit may be established. Your questions and comments will be recorded and presented to the
BBCAC.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, jot down your questions or
comments, along with your name and address, and send them to:
~
('01 (}//eslìo/1S'
8:00 pm to 9:00 pm: Public Input Period
ENGINEERING - BEE BRANCH
50 W.13TH STREET
DUBUQUE, IA 52001
or in an e-mail to
s(ormwa(e r@Gi(vordubuque.om
or simply return them with your utility bill payment
-
-
-
-
-
-
What is the Bee Branch Creek
Advisory Committee (BBCAC)?
The Bee Branch Creek Advisory
Committee is made up of some of
your neighbors, and their goal is to
represent your interests as they help
determine the details of the solution
to alleviate flooding in the Bee
Branch area. They may seek your
input on potential solutions or issues
associated with developing a Bee
Branch flooding solution. You should
feel free to contact them if you have
questions or if you would like to
convey concerns or provide input.
BBCAC MEMBERS
Dr. Charles Winterwood (Chair)
Jim Lansing
Audrey Morey
Sue Denlinger
Michelle Harry
John Gronen
Wayne Klostermann
David Fuerstenberg
Richard Sullivan
Dan Morgan
Faith Kramer
Frank Miller
Pam Jochum
irene Waltz
Rita Brothers
Laurie or Joseph Bartolotta
Other Proiect Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
City Engineering at 589-4270.
E-MAIL
stormwater@cityofdubuque.org
-
-
~ .~.."".~.'...'.....\
::! t' .....',..
C)
m
0
'"T1
"'C
C
CJ
r-
Õ
s:
m
m
::!
z
G')
-
"tJ~
O~
en¡z
~
ï
(')
c:
en
-I
0
s:
m
:::tI
-
-
-
0'" d~
gi J t~
~ ~ . OJ"
- ~ i,.
~~ rr'
°'" .
t~ .' trJ
~
ïJOC
mC(/)
;oa:JïJïJ
;¡:co;o
-O(/)(/)
-ic:-i;o
zm»-i
o--~(/)
~o -i
~~~O
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone is welcome to attend Bee
Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) meetings to learn more about the
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
solutions, and how the BBCAC works.
Alternatives and alignments will be
discussed at the next BBCAC meeting
scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on April 8th at Five
Flags, in the Majestic Room.
WE WANT YOUR
QUESTIONS AND INPUT
A public meeting
has been scheduled for 6 PM on
Tuesday, March 30ih in the gymnasium
at Fulton Elementary School, (SEE
INSIDE FOR DETAILS)
Individuals with limited English proficiency or
vision, hearing, or speech impairment
requiring special assistance should contact
City Engineering at 589-4270 or TOO 690-
6678 at least 48 hours prior to the meetinQ.
-
-
-
-
-
-
BEE BRANCH RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
NEWSLETTER#5
~ April 2004
iii INTRODUCTION
You are receiving this newsletter because
your home or business is located in an area
that may be affected by flooding.
The Bee Branch Citizen Advisory
Committee, or BBCAC for short, has been
meeting since September of 2003.
Appointed by the City Council, the goal of
the committee is to help determine the best
location to construct the drainage
improvement to solve the flooding problems
in your area.
BBCAC MEETING NOTES
At the fourth BBCAC meeting in March, the
committee members continued to discuss
options to solve the Bee Branch flooding
problem. Although the total number is
uncertain, property acquisitions will be
necessary. A significant part of this study is
to identify the homes and businesses
impacted by the recommended flooding
solution.
One alternative that the BBCAC is
considering to solve the Bee Branch
flooding problem is a combination of an
underground sewer and an open channel.
The underground portion would be built
from 24th & Elm to the railroad tracks at
Garfield. The open channel would be built
from the railroad tracks at Garfield to the
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16th Street detention basin. With a
preliminary cost estimate that approaches
$42 million, this option would require the
acquisition of approximately 74 properties.
The underground portion would consist of
two pipes, each 10 feet high and between
28 and 42 feet wide. A 150-foot wide
corridor would be required to construct the
underground sewers. That is reason for the
high number of property acquisitions.
To construct the underground alternative, a
150-foot wide area is required.
N
A
400
800 Feet
Legend
~.omro' Com"', Urn"
""."gBæB'~hMa">~
The map above shows the two drainage improvements mentioned earlier and the area where the
improvements might be constructed. The map is available on the web at:
www.cityofdubuque.org/index.cfm?pageid=887
-
-
-
-
-
-
~ I What is the Bee Branch Creek
C Alignment Study?
0
OJ
=- The purpose of the study is to
~ determine where and what should
:; be built to control stormwater in the
:; North End along Washington, Elm,
<; Prince, Jackson, and White
~ Streets. Many of your neighbors
'< have been appointed to serve on
~. the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory
"'!' Committee (BBCAC). Their goal is
~ to represent your interests as they
s: help determine the details of the
~ solution to alleviate flooding in the
m Bee Branch area.
cr
ifJ
¡;.
f!i.
What would an open channel
look like? The BBCAC has been
asked this question. One option
includes a smaller low-flow channel
20 I in the middle with an upper grassy
'ð overflow channel on each side.
D:
C
cr
C
..0
C
m
"
.g,
::J
0-
m
X
¡-,
3'
.",
1:)
OJ
(Q
m
Q
II
(D
(D
w
~
-
-
-
"tJ~
O~
eng:
~
,...
0
c
en
-I
0
s:
m
::0
-
-
-
f~J ~,~
- ~ ~
~: rl"
0<1> .
:¡;: ~ .' trJ
~
\JOC
mc(/)
::o1D\J\J
;¡:co::o
-o(/)(/)
-ic:-I::O
z.rn~-i
~õm~
~;;::;¡z°
»0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone is welcome to attend Bee
Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
(BBCAC) meetings to learn more about the
Bee Branch flooding problem, potential
solutions, and how the BBCAC works.
Upcoming BBCAC meetings are scheduled
for 6:00 p.m. at Comiskey Park, for the
following dates:
DATE
May 3, 2004:
June TBA
MEETiNG TOPIC
Preferred Aiternative
Recommendations
What do you think?
A Bee Branch flooding display will be
staffed at the upcoming Neighborhood
Resource Fair sponsored by the North
End Neighborhood Association. The
event is to be held on Thursday, April 29
from 6 to 8 p.m. at Audubon School.
Come and bring your thoughts and
questions.
QUESTIONS OR INPUT
Questions or input can be directed to any of
your neighbors on the BBCAC, including
Charlie Winterwood (BBCAC Chair) at 588-2783.
Other Proiect Contacts:
Tony Zelinskas (WHKS) at 582-5481 or
Deron Muehring (City of Dubuque) at 589-4276.
>
'0::1
'0::1
",
::I
Q.,
>;"
C')
-
VELL ST
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 1 (North Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 2 (Middle Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
- ~----'
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
NG~BERG TER
fELL ST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11,2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 3 (South Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ,
0
- - - - -
N
A
250 500 750 1000 Feet
~
<¡þ
<P",
,GENBERG TER
'ELl ST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Hybrid Alignment 1
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
INGE'N6ERG TER
VELL ST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11,2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 1 (North Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
- ~-~
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
NGE'N6ERG TER
fELL ST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 2 (Middle Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
NGE'N6ERG TER
fELL ST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Alignment 3 (South Table)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
~
~
d'"
<GE'N6ERG TER
'ELLST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11,2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Hybrid Alignment 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
-
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
~
~
d'"
JGE'N8ERG TER
'ELLST
Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study
BBCAC Meeting 4
March 11, 2004
Preliminary
Open Channel Alignments
Hybrid Alignment 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>.
"co>
E"
"':';;:
~~g
E-N
"" .
,,)II> ~
=E~
<"",
g~~
",-::E
~ '"
0)=
,,"¡:
,,-
0)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~~~:
.
-§,¡;;-
"'o"'"",.,~~';-
"'N"'~~N:;;æ
f=
æ
~~
H
~~-
iU
P"
~ ô ~
H;
~~i5
~H
EliS
Æ~~
~h
§ô"Ì5
!§@
Iii
E;; E
"'~ro
~!~
in
~ii5"Ì5
ÆI
UH
OIm«
w
0
a
ø
h
§~~
"'~~
H~
:;¡" ô
un
8øEiii
r~8&
6
'"
0
'"
õ
~
0
a
ro
ã
8
.
~ -"
Æ ~
~ -"
~ ~
11. N
~ ¡
,2' 0
~ !f
~~~~
¡II!
:;;'"
" "
0 0
-¡;~iì5
~~~~
'S
~
~~iì5~
Ô
()
'"
0
'"
w
.
u
~ "
U]
EI ~-
~I~ ~
~Ig :;¡
::0:"8
,§ 2 ~
Ui!
8H
~H
. E .
~ '0 ~
0::;;0:
~
'"
'"
.
a
¿,¡
jij
~
"
li
~
:s
~
è
~
~
.,
~
Œ
~
oc
~
~
Æ
ftJ
-
-
-
N
A
-
-
-
0
250
500
750 1000 Feet
- -----"
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
(\)
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Open Channel Alignment
Edge of Low FkJw Channel
Edge of Construction I Buffer Zone
Culverts
Road
Open Channel Alternative
4/26/2004
DRAFT
CDM & WHKS & Co.
May 3, 2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
-
-
-
0
250
500
750 1000 Feet
- "
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
~J
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
<;:;~
-.¡! 'i.~<ß'
~
\
~
d'A
I I
Detention Basins
Pipe Alignment
Edge of Low FkJw Channel
c-,.
\
<?
d'"
Edge of Construction I Buffer Zone
Culverts I Pipes
3ENBERG TER
'LLST
'%
~
;L.
Pipe Alternative
4/26/2004
DRAFT
CDM & WHKS & Co.
May3,2004
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bee Branch Alignment Study
Alternative Ranking
May 3, 2004
Channel Pi e
Rank Ob'ective Wei ht Raw Score Weiohted Score Raw Scare Wei hted Score Comment Score Breakout
Preserve
Commercial
1 Services 2.4 13 22.3 14 24.0 Prorated to maximum of 14
Minimize
Residential
2 ACQuisitions 2.1 65 21.0 64 20.7 Prorated to maximum of 65
3 Minimize Cast 1.8 6 10.8 10 18 $24.5Mand$41M
Preserve
Neighborl1ood
4 Access 1.4 7.5 10.5 6 8.4 Road lass same as dead end
Channel = 2+2+4,
Mosquitos (2), Attractive Pipe = 1+1 +2 with
Minimize Health Nuisance (2), Safety Concerns downstream
5 and SafetY Risk 1.4 8 11.2 4 5.6 6\ channel section
Poor Aesthetics (3), Law
Enhance Quality of ~~o::~"v:~~~~~~~~~~ ~~all Channel 0+0+0,
6 Life 1.3 0 0.0 -2 -2.6 Pioe = 0-1-1
Water, groundwater, flora, Channel = -1 + 1+-
Protect fauna, social scored, rest are 0 1+-1+1,Pipe=0
7 Environment 1.0 -1 -1.0 1 1 for both alternatives +0+0+0+1
Total 74.7 75.1
Rank 1 2
Bee Ranking 4-30-04 Final.xls.xls
Measures
-
-
>
1
ø.
\<'
:I:
dix
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 30, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, lA 52001-4864
Subject:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project
Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee Recommendations
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Over the course of the past ten months the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC) has
met six times with City staff and the City's consultant to discuss the Bee Branch watershed drainage
problems and evaluate alternatives and alignment options. The objectives of the BBCAC were to:
Establish the optimum alignment;
Provide input on what the waterway will look like and how it will function; and
Select an acceptable solution which reflects the overall desire of the community
Alie:nment Recommendation
By unanimous vote, the BBCAC has established the preferred alignment (see attachment) as starting
just north of the intersection of 24'" Street and Elm Street and proceeding southeasterly along Elm
Street to 22"" 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, there
are twO' alignment optioru;: Alternative alignment 2 (west and south of the meat packing facility); and
an alternative alignment suggested by a Council member (north and east of the old Dubuque Packing
Company /FDL buildings).
The BBCAC is comfortable with City staff evaluating and selecting the optimum alignment between
the railroad and the 16'" Street Detention Basin. The BBCAC's preferred alignment is to the north and
east of the "Pack" unless cost, environmental, or future development considerations make this
alignment less advantageous as the previously selected alignment to the south. The BBCAC preferred
alignment would have less impact on residences and existing local services. The BBCAC deferred the
alignment decision to City staff City staff and the Consultant anticipate being able to make a
recommendation on this portion of the alignment within 2 months.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 2
Moratorium Recommendation
While City staff and the Consultant are evaluating this alignment alternative, the BBCAC recommends
that a moratorium be established for both alignments until July I, 2005. Once the evaluation of the
lower alignment has been completed, the moratorium should be revised to reflect the [mal prefelTed
alignment.
Draina!!e Improvement Recommendation
The BBCAC met on June 24, 2004 to review and evaluate the preliminary recommendations presented
to the City Council at the May 17, 2004 Work Session. There was considerable discussion about the
impacts of the open channel solution compared to the high costs of the pipe solution. The BBCAC
voted 8-6 to make the previous recommendation "final". Note that the previous vote, prior to the City
Council work session, was 12-3. The recommendation is as follows:
"The BBCAC recommends the Council identify funding to construct the Pipe
Alternative as the prefelTed alternative. The BBCAC prefers the Pipe Alternative
because it preserves neighborhood accessibility, presents fewer health and safety
risks, and enhances the quality of life."
Minority Draina!!e Improvement Recommendation
The minority recommendation was made given the understanding that the pipe solution is prefelTed but
may not be affordable for the City. Something must be done to address this problem and the open
channel alternative is a better option than doing nothing. The minority recommendation from the
BBCAC is as follows:
. "The pipe alternative was prefelTed but the open channel alternative should be constructed if
the pipe alternative is deemed too expensive."
Construction Timetable Recommendation
The prefClTed Bee Branch drainage improvement should be constructed as soon as possible.
Erosion Control Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City Council enact an Erosion Control Ordinance.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 3
Multi-iurisdictional Watershed Mana2ement Recommendatiou
The BBCAC recommends that the City pursue comprehensive multi-jurisdictional watershed
management planning for the drainage basins that across jurisdictional boundaries.
Runoff Reduction Best Mana2ement Practices Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City encourage Best Management Practices for runoff reduction for
development and redevelopment within the City.
In general, the BBCAC agreed that there is a pressing need for something to be done with the Bee
Branch and that the City must give it a high priority. The BBCAC recognizes that the [mal decision on
the Bee Branch rests with the City Council, but feels that it is in the best interest of the community to
resolve the ongoing bealth and safety risks that exist with the current flooding situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Council in resolving this major issue that affects the City of
Dubuque.
v cry truly yours,
Q1l~~~,~....,./
Charlie Winterwood
Chainnan
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
En<:: - Preferred Alignment Site Plan- 6/2412DD4
cç: BBCAC Members
CDM
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineering
-
-
tfI
A
-
-
-
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
(\J
Bee Brarch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Channel Alignment
(\.) Centerline
(\j Edge of Construction I Buffer Zone
D Culverl Connection
BBCAC Preferred
Alignment Corridor
aJM & WHKS & Co,
June 24, <ÐO4
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study
City of Dubuque, Iowa
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 30, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
Subject:
Bee Branch Creek Restoration Project
Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee Recommendations
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Over the course of the past ten months the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC) has
met six times with City staff and the City's consultant to discuss the Bee Branch watershed drainage
problems and evaluate alternatives and alignment options. The objectives of the BBCAC were to:
Establish the optimum alignment;
Provide input on what the waterway will look like and how it will function; and
Select an acceptable solution which reflects the overall desire of the community
Alil!:nment Recommendation
By unanimous vote, the BBCAC has established the preferred alignment (see attachment) as starting
just north of the intersection of 24th Street and Elm Street and proceeding southeasterly along Elm
Street to 2200 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, there
are twq alignment options: Alternativ~ ~lgnment .2 (west 4IDd south of the meat packing facility); and
an alternative alignment suggested by a Council member (north and east of the old Dubuque Packing
Company /FDL buildings).
The BBCAC is comfortable with City staff evaluating and selecting the optimum alignment between
the railroad and the 16th Street Detention Basin. The BBCAC's prefeITed alignment is to the north and
east of the "Pack" unless cost, environmental, or future development considerations make this
alignment less advantageous as the previously selected alignment to the south. The BBCAC preferred
alignment would have less impact on residences and existing local services. The BBCAC defeITed the
alignment decision to City staff.City staff and the Consultant anticipate being able to make a
recommendation on this portion of the alignment within 2 months.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
June 30, 2004
Page 3
Multi-jurisdictional Watershed Manal!ement Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City pursue comprehensive multi-jurisdictional watershed
management planning for the drainage basins that across jurisdictional boundaries.
Rnnoff Reduction Best Manal!ement Practices Recommendation
The BBCAC recommends that the City encourage Best Management Practices for runoff reduction for
development and redevelopment within the City.
In general, the BBCAC agreed that there is a pressing need for something to be done with the Bee
Branch and that the City must give it a high priority. The BBCAC recognizes that the [mal decision on
the Bee Branch rests with the City Council, but feels that it is in the best interest of the community to
resolve the ongoing health and safety risks that exist with the CUITent flooding situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Council in resolving this major issue that affects the City of
Dubuque.
v cry truly yours,
Q'I ~ ~~, ",-j
Charlie Winterwood
Chainnan
Bee Branch Citizen Advisory Committee
En<:: - Prererred Alignment Site Plan- 6/24/2004
cç: BBCAC Members
CDM
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineering
(\J
N
A
0
250 500 750 1000 Feet
Scale: 1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
Bee Branch Mainline
Existing Buildings
Detention Basins
Channel Alignment
{\J Centerlile
(\j Edge of Construction I Buffer Zone
D Culvert Comection
BBCAC Preferred
Alignment Corridor
a:1M & WHKS & Co.
June 24, 2JO4
dix
I
z
V1
<!
f- CD
W
Wz
""0
f--
V1f-
Z
Iw
f-f-
<DW
~o
'0< ",W'ld'S 'mU'I'O
. "W'"'I!J wd9<'1 - >ooz
0\">6<\6560<\.0
10-01\"""""'0\0'"
"""'8\>OOZ-
~
i
1i
~
.!
f
~
~
~
!
I
ö
J
i
N
g
I
g
CI)NI c.m¡, D<- & M""= In'
-=I"""'"""",,""""~'fl'
-= ---
~
';iiI' I "'IT I""" I CH"
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXiSTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING TCI FBER OPTIC
EXISTING McLEOD FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING CITY OF DUBUQUE FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE/ROW
EXISTING GAS MAIN
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
WATER MAIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
STREET/CHANNEL CENTERLINE
LOW FLOW CENTERLINE
SLOPE INTERCEPT
PROJECT LIMITS
UTILITY REMOVAL
UTILITY ABANDON
PROPOSED PAVEMENT REMOVAL
PROPOSED NEW STREET PAVEMENT
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAIL
PROPOSED CHANNEL EXCAVATION
PROPOSED BRIDGE CULVERT
EXISTING STORM SEWER
APPROX. SIZE DEPICTED BY WIDTH
WHKS & CO.
---------------------------
-",
",-
-----------------
- --- -- - - -- - --- ---- - - - - ---
---------------------
--,-- --,--,--,--,--,-- -- --,--,-
~jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj/jj/jjjjjj/jjjj-
~XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
-
--
" "---~..~-=--~-~-~
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
LEGEND
-=.-~----~w'"""
'"'""" RO.
ALE ...",
z
0
¡::
u
::::>
0:::
I-
UJ
Z
0
U
0:::
0
u..
I-
0
Z
I
>-
0:::
«
Z
:2
::J
w
0:::
(L
2
ndix
J
EX>STING BLDG
">STING 'N"ST ROW
EXISTING ROW
EXISTING ROW "DTH
VAR"S (55' TYe)
".
,,' mAVEL
LANE
flOOD CHANNEL S<DE SLOPE
BUFfER ZONE
15' TYP
flOOD CHANNEL - "DE SLOPE
VARIES
í
i
¡¡
$
~
f
~
I
~
I
ij
BUFFER ZONE
,,' TYP
FLOOD CHANNEL - S<DE SLOPE
VAR"S
BASE CHANNEL
VAR"S (9'-"" TYe)
~
;¡
I
~<'ro~.- ICDNI ~1""",,,&"""=I=.
,~~,."~.-
-=I""""""""A",,",,"""~'
-= ........--
,~'"'"~.-
~'I"'TEI-I,"'"
--~.-
"""R'"
TDTAL "D1}j ",'-
ADDmO"L ROW AQU,"TION - 1'" TYP
PROPOSED EDGE OF ROW
FLOOO CHA"EL - VA",ES 1"0' ne)
FLOOD CHANNEL BOTTO"
VAR"S (S'-45')
LOW FLOW CHANNEL
OS' TYP
BASE CHANNEL
VA"'ES (9'-11" TYP)
l..
LOW FLOW CHANNEL
" TYP
FLOOD CHANNEL BOTTO" T~ FLOOD CHANNEL "DE SLOPE
VAR"S (S'-"')
~ ~ BUFFER ZONE
1S' (TYP)
VA"'ES (,.1 TYP) . l
I ~I~" ~2¡
PROPOSED REC~EATIONAL mAlLl
;;CTION 0
GARFIELD AVE TO RHOMBERG AVE
LINCOLN AVENUE TO 22ND STREET
PROJECT CORR"OR - VA",ES ("D' TYe)
FLOOD CHANNEL - VAR"S (ISO' TYP
LOOO CHANNEL BOTTOI
VAR"S (65' TYP)
LOOD CHANNEL
BOTTOM VAR"S
(5'-"')
LOW FLOW
CHANNEL
IS' TYP
BASE CHANNEL
VA",ES (9'-,," TYe)
l..
LOW FLOW CHANNEL
" TYP
LOOD CHANNEL
BOTTOM VAR"S
(S'-ZS')
IC&E RAILROAD TO GARFIELD AVENUE
PROJECT COR"DOR - VAR"S (190' TYP)
LOOO CHANNEL - VAR"S ("0' TYP
LOOD CHANNEL BOTTOI
VAR"S (75' m)
LOOD CHANNEL
BOTTOM VAR"S
(S,-,,')
LOW FLOW
CHANNEL
". TYP
l..
LOW FLOW CHANNEL
" TYP
LOOD CHANNEL
BOTTO" VAR"S
(S.-,,')
FLOOD CH,"NEL - "DE SLOPE
VA"ES
BUFfER ZONE
". TYP
SLOPE "TERCEPT
;;CTION 0
FLOOD CeANNEL - "DE SLOPE
VAR"S
BUFFER ZONE
'" TYP
SLOPE INTERCEPT
VAR"S I" TYe)
I
SECTION 0
~
16TH STREET DETENTION TO IC&E RAILROAD
WHKS & co.
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
,"WEcr ".
"Li ""'<E.
--~---
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
TYPICAL SECTIONS
-=.-~----~~~
z
0
¡:::
U
::::J
CL:
f-
UJ
Z
0
U
CL:
0
lL.
f-
0
Z
I
>-
CL:
<t
Z
2
......J
W
CL:
0...
3
PROJECT CORR'DOR
LOW FLOW CH'NNEe
fLOO~oi~t..:mEe~FLOOO CH'NNEe SIDE SLOPE iBUFFER ZONE
I TOPSO"
I 6' m> \ --===- ASPH'LTIC CONCRETE PA"'MENT
B"
FLOOD CHANNEL - TYPICAL SECTION
PROJECT COR",OOR - VARIES ("0' T\1')
LOOO CHANNEL - VARIES (130' TYP
000 CHANNEe Borm
VARIES (4S' TYP)
BUFFER ZONE
"'TYP
FLOOO CHANNEL - S>DE SLOPE
VARIES
LOOO CH'NNEe
BOTTOM VARIES
(5'-25')
LOW FLOW
CHANNEe
15'T\1'
FlOOD CHANNEe - S'DE SLOPE
VARIES
LOOO CHANNEe
BOTTOM VARIES
(S'-2S')
SLOPE INTERCEPT
BASE CHANNEL
VA"," (9'-11" TYP)
VARIES (4. I TYP)
..i
LOW FlOW CHANNEe
4' m>
22ND STREET TO 24TH STREET
EXISTING KNIEST ROW
EXISTING ROW
EXISTING ROW ,",OTH
VARIES (6S' TYP)
TOTAL ,",OTH 237.5"
ADDITIONAL ROW ACOUISITION 172.S' - TYPICAL
,,'
FLOOD CHANNEL - VA",ES (ISO' TYP)
FLOOO CH'NNEe BOTTOM
VARIES (5'-45')
LOW FLOW CHANNEL
IS' TYe
FLOOO CHANNEL BOTTOM -c F.LOOD CH'NNEL SIDE SLOPE
VARIES (5'-45')
V'RIES (4 T TYP)
~
BASE CHANNEe
VARIES (9'-11" TYP)
..i
LOW FLOW CH'NNEe
,'TYP
RHOMBERG AVE TO UNCOLN AVENUE
~'~'~.-ICI)NI c.mr"'_&M"""'~'
WHKS & co,
CITY OF DUBUQUE
DUBUQUE, IOWA
~,",.,~.-
-=I""""""""'A"""""'T~'
-= ........--
BEE BRANCH CREEK RESTORATION
ALIGNMENT STUDY
-~,.,~.-
--~---
:g. I ~"E I ORWN I OHKD
~~~'-
RÐ<AA'"
-~.-~"--~"=~
~~TAIL ð
BUFFER ZONE
IS' TYe
~PROPOSED
RECREATIONAL TIVAIL
;;CTION C9
z
a
¡:::
u
::J
0::
f-
If)
Z
a
u
0::
a
LL
f-
a
z
>-
0::
<{
Z
2'
--.J
W
0::
CL
PROPOSED STREET
LINCOLN TO RHOMBERG
REFER"CE UNE PROPOSED
APPROX. PARCEe BOUNDARY EDGE DC ROW
(AUDUBON SCHOOL/ OTHER)
40.5'
17'~
4' 10' " ,,' TRAVEL
4" 2.0' 4.0 LAr
MIN ~^xlMIN 2." MIN
PROP:-SED REC;:'TIONAL ;;;:, -
CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
PROPOSED >DEWALK
;';CTION ð
TYPICAL SECTIONS
'ROJ'" NO.
ALE I",".
4