Loading...
Bee Branch Report Ltr to W Klostermann City Manager's Office 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864 (563) 589-4110 phone (563) 589-4149 fax ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org THE CITY OF (.c~ DIJBUQtJE ~<k~ January 28, 2005 Mr. Wayne Klostermann 2636 Queen Street Dubuque, IA 52001 Dear Wayne: Thank you for taking the time to review the Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study report. City staff has looked into the concerns identified in your letter dated December 18, 2004. A condensed issue of COM's report was never intentionally produced or distributed. I apologize if the original copy you received was not a complete copy. I agree with your assessment that Section 1 does not specifically present all of the questions and concerns associated with the open waterway. However, public safety has been the principal concern and driving force behind the Bee Branch Creek Restoration project. Because of the episodic basement flooding, North End and Washington Street neighborhood residents will continue to be at risk when seeking shelter in their basements during severe weather. The City staff memo to the City Council that accompanied the COM report included a discussion on citizen concerns. The first concern listed was that "many citizens assert that an open waterway is unsafe for children." One purpose of the study was to "provide a preliminary design to a level that it establishes. . . how the waterway will function before, during, and after rainstorms" (COM Report, page 1-8). In doing so, safety issues such as the depth of the water and how fast it will flow under various conditions were presented and discussed at the December 2004 City Council work session. Emergency response has also been discussed and it will be an important aspect of the final design. I assure you that the safety of citizens is the City's first priority. The petition that you mentioned did not originate or pass through City staff. It was submitted directly to the City Council. Therefore, I can only take it at face value. It states that it "is . . . for anyone who is in favor of the city's B-Line Project." You state that the North End neighborhood group was not addressed by anyone on the . task force. While City staff did make several presentations to various citizen groups during the study, only two would be considered neighborhood groups, the meeting at Service People Integrity Responsibility lnnovation Teamwork Mr. Wayne Klostermann January 28, 2005 Page 2 Fulton and the North End Neighborhood Resource Fair co-sponsored by the North End Association. The City's hope was that the Bee Branch Citizens Advisory Committee (BBCAC) members would act as a conduit for citizen input, pass information about the study to the groups and organizations that they represented and present citizen feedback to the other BBCAC members, the consultant, and the City. As you know, two North End Neighborhood Association members served on the BBCAC and City Neighborhood Development Specialist Jerelyn O'Connor's was a regular presence at North End Neighborhood meetings. You questioned COM's use of the computer models produced by HDR in conjunction with the Drainage Basin Master Plan (DBMP). COM utilized the drainage models to optimize the use of public monies. Instead of starting from scratch, COM refined the model to the level required to create a preliminary design that shows how the creek would function under various conditions. You state that the Iowa Department of Transportation (lOOT) has told Pam Jochum that the Northwest Arterial drains to the north and that COM's report says that it flows to the W. 32nd Street Detention basin. Both are correct, they are just speaking about different sections of the roadway. Figure 1-2 in the report shows the small portion just south of the soccer complex that drains to the W. 32nd Street Detention Basin. You raised some questions about the operation and abilities of the 16th Street Detention basin. As you are probably aware, it only functions as a detention basin when the floodgates are closed. The City closes the gates and turns on the pumps at river stage 13.0 when the United States Army Corp of Engineers predicts a river stage of 14.0. Therefore, at the same time the floodgates are closed, pumping starts. You asked if the existing detention basin could handle the volume of flow that the Bee Branch Creek is designed to handle. The answer is yes; the existing detention basin will be able to handle the design flow conveyed by the Bee Branch Creek both when the floodgates are open and when the floodgates are closed. The purpose of the 16th Street Dredging Study is to determine the maintenance (excavation and dredging) required to maintain the flood protection established with the construction of the floodwall. Because a close look at the functionality of the 16th Street Detention basin was required as part of the Bee Branch Creek Alignment study, COM with WHKS were asked and are currently performing this task. Surveying was performed last fall and the results are expected by the end of February. With regard to your question about two different rainfall distributions, both HDR and COM utilized historical rainfall data to produce a hypothetical rainstorm with a 1 % chance of occurring in a given year, also know as a 1 OO-year storm. HDR produced a 100-year storm that would dispense 7.0 inches of rain over a 24-hour period. The 24- hour storm is widely used because historic rainfall data indicates the recorded inches of rainfall for a particular day. While studying the Bee Branch watershed, COM found that the specific 1 OO-year storm that produced the largest peak flow (wave of stormwater) is the 1 OO-year 2-hour storm (see Appendix B of COM report). That is a storm that would Mr. Wayne Klostermann January 28, 2005 Page 3 dispense 4.1 inches of rain over a 2-hour period. Each firm exercised its engineering judgment as to which design storm to use. Your point with regard to Table 3-5 in the report is well founded. To be consistent, each of the column headings in Table 3-5 should have stated that the values are approximate values. I understand that BBCAC members directed COM to look at options other than the open waterway solution. While there was value to provide insight into why other options fail to fully address flooding in the watershed, the City Council's decision not to study more drainage options but "establish the optimum alignment and provide a preliminary design that establishes what the waterway will look like and how it will function" was presented at the first BBCAC meeting in September of 2003. The formation of the Technical Support Committee (TSC) was discussed at the first BBCAC meeting and that BBCAC members were welcome to attend future meetings. Because of scheduling, meeting dates and times were variable. To find out the time and place of a meeting required contacting Engineering or one of the City staff personnel who regularity attended BBCAC meetings. BBCAC Chairperson, Charlie Winterwood attended most of the TSC meetings. Your point regarding the depth of the water in the Bee Branch Creek fluctuating with the river stage is correct. Water will be contained within the low flow channel about 60% of the time at Sycamore Street and about 75% of the time at 24th Street. And yes, it will be an issue that a contractor must deal with during construction. The video you speak of was taken at Washington Street and reveals the stormwater flowing down 22nd Street. At that location, the slope of 22nd Street (0.69%) is more than ten times steeper than the proposed Bee Branch Creek (0.05%). Based on the street width, slope, and observed depth of flow, the velocity shown in the video is much closer to 11 or 12 feet per second. In addition, the velocities that you site are the expected velocities through the structures. Based on the preliminary design, the average velocity of water in the creek would be 3.7 feet per second for 90% of all rainstorms and 4 feet per second for the 1 DO-year design storm. This average includes the higher velocities through structures that you cited. The vote that you are referring to was: "the BBCAC would accept the Open Channel solution as opposed to doing nothing, provided the Council has pursued timely, adequate and comprehensive funding for the Pipe Alternative". With seven votes for and eight votes against, the proposition was defeated. While the report may not include this failed recommendation, it was presented to the City Council at the work session and through several staff memos to the Council. Mr. Wayne Klostermann January 28, 2005 Page 4 The City shares your concern about standing water and mosquitoes. Due to the natural springs throughout the Bee Branch Watershed, groundwater will constantly feed flow to the Bee Branch Creek. Therefore, standing water should not be an issue. In addition, depending on the landscape plan established with the final design, a habitat for mosquito predators is a real possibility. However, the conditions would be monitored. If a problem did arise, an inexpensive larvacide could be used to control mosquitoes. With regard to BBCAC recommendations, all of the BBCAC recommendations in the letter from BBCAC Chairperson Charlie Winterwood, the letter from Pam Jochum and yourself dated September 13, 2004, and the letter from you dated October 26, 2004 have been presented to the City Council. The final design normally addresses specific materials and construction methods such as the reconstruction of the Heritage Trail with asphalt concrete, porous asphalt concrete, block pavers, etc. This issue actually extends beyond stormwater management. For example, is a rough surface acceptable for the intended uses of the Heritage Trail? But it highlights one of the complexities of best management practices; when and where does their use make sense? There would be no benefit of a pervious trail right next to the creek in terms of peak flow reduction - flood protection. The only potential benefit would be in terms of water quality. However, even this benefit is diminished because of the grassed buffer between the proposed trail and the low flow channel. Justifying the construction of a more expensive pervious trail surface should not be based on stormwater management fundamentals alone. One of the main goals of the preliminary design stage is to identify potential roadblocks to a project. As you note, Terracon performed a geotechnical study to that end. You might recall that HDR originally proposed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) side slopes. One of reasons that the preliminary design calls for 4:1 side slopes is because of the potential slope instability sited in Terracon's report. It is CDM's professional judgment that slope stability, groundwater seepage and other similar issues will be further addressed during the final design stage of the project when the creek will be designed, foot by foot, parcel by parcel, and the materials and construction methods specified. Thanks for pointing out the typographical error on Figures A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4. The only reason to label the square footage is to give the typical size of residential structures. As I stated previously, emergency response was discussed in conjunction with the project. For instance, the closing of Lincoln Avenue just north of Kniest Street will not impact the ability to respond to an emergency situation at Audubon School. Although there are no concerns with accessing properties in the vicinity of the proposed creek, emergency response will be considered further as an important part of the project's final design. With regard to the loss of jobs, one of the project objectives identified by the BBCAC and listed in the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study Newsletter#1 was to prevent the loss of jobs. In addition, both Newsletter#2 and Newsletter#3 listed the criteria Mr. Wayne Klostermann January 28, 2005 Page 5 ranked highest by the BBCAC as to determine the project alignment: the preservation of local businesses and services. As you note, the width of the project alignment varies as shown in the preliminary design. From 22nd Street to 24th Street the actual creek corridor (low flow channel, overbank area, and side slopes) is 130-feet wide. Between 22nd Street and the proposed railroad bridge just south of Garfield Ave. the creek corridor is 150-feet wide. From the railroad bridge to the 16th Street Detention Basin the creek corridor is 160-feet wide. The average creek width is approximately 150 feet. The ROW also varies depending upon the location along the project corridor. Both the necessary creek and ROW widths were determined as part of the preliminary design phase. In closing I would like to thank you again for investing your time in this very important project. Identifying and dealing with problems is a sign of progress. Your insightful comments and concerns continue to help the City move towards the resolution of the flooding that continues to plague hundreds of Dubuque residents. Si"OOffil~ Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:gd .0 Klostermann 2636 Queen Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 rt:~!Pt December 18, 2004 Re: CDM BEE Branch tinal report Honorable Mayor and City Council After a number of calls to the Engineering Department, to receive a copy of the report prepared by CDM for the BBCAC. I received a condensed issue of the report. I would like to thank Councilman Markham for providing me with the full copy. It was rather interesting to note what was omitted from the report that I received. After review of the report, there are some errors and omissions in the report I feel must be brought to your attention. On page 1-6 where the citizens concerns are expressed, one major concern was omitted, that one being safety. On page 1-8 they indicate that a petition was submitted that supported the open waterway. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I am enclosing a copy of page one of the petition for review that I received from the City Clerk. Page 1-9 states that the task included conducting meetings, with neighborhood groups, to gather input and provide progress updates. The North End neighborhood group was nol addressed by anyone from the task force. Section 3. 3.1 CDM referred to the DBMP as the starting point of for their models than "modifications were done to meet the requirements of the Bee Branch Restoration Alignment Study" The question is what modi.fications and whal were the requirement that had to be met. Were they a predetermined requirement? Section 3.3.1 the report states the Northwest Arterial drains into the 32nd Street Detention Pond. The IDOT has told Pam Jochwn that the Arterial drains to the North, and is not the cause of the flooding in the City. This additional area would cause the model to have some margin error that would affect the outcome of the project model. The reJ,'ort states that the subbasins drain into the river under normal conditions and into the 16 street basin under flooding conditions. Operations and Maintenance has the responsibility to divert the subbasins and information as to the river stage when this takes place is in the report. The question is are the pumps turned on then to drain down the basin to handle the addition volume at that time or is the basin allowed to fill before pumping? There has been some discussion as to the volume, and the ability of the basin to handle the volume, as iris constructed now. That question has Dever been fully answered. The answer has been, as still is, there will be a study on the 16th basin, as of yet no study. To this date no RFP has been sent, but engineering tells us the funding is there. Section 3.3.2.1 CDM used a different rain fall distribution chart and table that the DBMP. The question is what distribution chart and table is correct. Engineering is supposed to be a science, both can't be correct, can they? What was the reason for the two different rain fall distribution charts? Section 3.7 Table 3-5 CDM states the approximate existing storm sewer capacity but is indicating that the capacity conveyance percentage is an exacting number and, that, is a mathematical impossibility. Section 4.1 states that the BBAC were to reach a consensus on the following "Acceptable alignment for flood control solutions between 24 th Street and the l61h Street detention Basin Recommended flood control solution"' It became apparent as the meetings progressed that the only control solution that was going to be accepted was the open ditch. That was predetermined well before the BBACC was ever convened. Discussions of other options were very short lived as we were informed that would not work but could be included in the recommendations. That was said to pacify some of the committee members, myself included, as will be pointed out below. Section 4.2 Makes the statement that "several neighborhood meeting were held during the process" Once again it is my undcrstanding no mceting(s) were held with the North End Neighborhood Association. One public meeting was held at Fulton school Section 4.2.2 BBCAC members were welcome to attend the Technical Support Committee meeting. Some ofus may have attended if we would have been informed as to when and where the meetings were taking place. Section 4.5.1.1. I. The low flow chromel is 4' deep as shown in figure 4-3. By the City engineers own estimate the low flow charmel will be full at 22nd when the river is high, but not at flood stage. This information can be verified by the operators that cleaned the Bee branch when the river was high but not at flood stage. According to Mr. Portzen the river was a problem the entire time they worked cleroung out the Bee branch. The flows range from 5.5 to 8 ft/s as the channel transitions through structures at crossings. I would ask you to review the video that City Engineering has from the last major rain event. This video will provide you with a visual idea of the turbulence that can be expected as the water transgresses down the ditch over articulated concrete matting. Section 4.6.2 the final recommendation was for the pipe alternative, which is correct. Pressure was placed on the BBAC following the council work session. What was omitted from the recommendation was that on a 12-3 (taken before the work session), the BBAe voted if the pipe alternative was not selected the opinion was to leave the Bee branch as it now functions between 24th. Street and the milroad tracks. 2 1. d ~/r-T-QCC_C"QC .1101'.... .0" ..........,... ..........._ T T ..... ........... .:. . . -. :-. ......= .. 5.3.1 Low Flow ChatUlel one very important note to be made is" The base of the LFC for the BEE Branch will be under water so vegetating the concrete articulated matting for this particular application will not be feasible" The important part is "will be under water" meaning that it not just be a small charge of moving water to keep the mosquitoes down as CDM would like us to believe. 5.3.3 Over -Bank Area One of the recommendations of the BBAC was to use conservation practices ie. Pervious pavement etc. within the water shed. Yet CDM is recommending asphalt for the trail from 24th Street to Garfield Ave. 1 can not understand, why the recommendation of the BBCAC was discarded when it comes to conservation practices. They were not even noted in the summary to the council 5.7.1.3. Ground Water Levels. As a point ofreterence the EI of953.7 is equal to a trail water river stage of 5.5' In section 5.7.1.4 Ground water Scepage, a lot of assumptions were made for the worst case scenario. One assumption that is not mentioned is the increase of hydro pressures that could result in the failure of the below surface walls, and as a result, a collapse of the structure. Another assumption that wa, made, but dircctly stated, was that the homes will not stay dry during a 100 year event. This is den ved from the geotechnical report by Terracon. The borings tell the tail. Sand seams in the side slope ofthe ditch that can pose a problem during dewatering can also pose a problem after the ditch is constructed. Water can move laterally and infiltrate the ba,ements of existing structures. Once the seam is opened during dewatering the water has a place of least resistance to flow and it will follow that path for now and forever. A.3. Reference figure A-I, A-2, A-3, A-4. Depicts drawings reference property acquisition. Either J don't understand what there trying to convey, or their math is extremely bad. A primary structure that is 30x40 is not 120 sq. ft Jt is 1,200 ft sq. The same applies for the detached structure. The correct square footage is 1,000 ft. sq. Is the rest of the math correct? We know they assumed other munbers and presented the answer as fact, as was noted above. I would like to draw your attention to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by Terracon of Bettendorf Iowa. On page 5 of that report they state" Dcwatering may result in the settlement of adjacent structures, pavement, Or other nearby improvements. Adjacent existing improvements should be monitored during construction" Terrocon also warns of slope stability issues due to high water levels and the potential of soil saturation. I beg to ask the question, are we rcady for another lower Main Street event and cost? Or do we take a chance? It is my opinion the ditch is not worth the gamble to damage structures that never had a water problem before to dig a ditch. I would ask that any decision on this matter be tabled until all the items listed above have been answered, not only to my satisfaction but to the satisfaction of all parties involved, fellow progressive 8 members, property owners outside the proposed ditch that will be 3 --. -. -. - . ... affected by road closing, lose of services, increased travel time for police and tire, the possibility of structure failure, the list goes on and on One group that is forgotten is the worker that will lose his, or her, job because the ditch is going through there place of employment. Some business will not relocate simple because they would have to try to establish a new trade area and new clients. Or the owner will retire. During this entire process We were informed that the ditch would be 150' wide than it grew to 180' to aceommodate 4/1 slopes. In the information 1 received from Councilman Markham it grew again this time to 212' ROW Garfield to Rhomberg, Lincoln to 22nd.Street Than it grew again to 237.5 ROW Rhomberg to Lincoln Avenue. Thank you for taking your time to read my concerns. I can't speak for all of the "progressive eight", just Pam and Audrey, but I am coniident, if you asked them, they would concur with my thought process and concerns. If after review, you have any questions, please contact me and we can review. Thank you, Wayne Klostermann 4 _.-._- .- ~~ ~~n ~i:i::J-~B2:-44el ". .~.fIX. ~U, ".~':ij ~t\~ Utl~U _"." p_2 r. VI -. _' 4....oJr- MA"-14-04 FRI 12:40 PH ----. -----." " 0.,;>1 COb .;:)'--11111 ~ LJ \:. DUBUQUE CITY CLERK ~~~" PtnTUOl-J FOR nre NEW 13-1.T...,'13 WATE:"R RHLl'.ASE I'Ro.mcr 'lJtj~ pcti{ioa is beiug JQS'SCd aJ.'Glo.1d f;"r W"o:Y.7Ju,c 't\"llo is in. f~>or or the city'S: B;.:Ji,~ P\IIt;;c.:1 I" b:: put ji.\ CD! ndsbl~fh\)o.:1 tt) pCl:'cn1 fur1bl"."1' Jlaoding of DUt properties... 'fiea,s(l. sii'";l i.J! 1'W1\C1 addcc~.:$. aud Flt~ ill. t:"!e ;'lr~ b.;.l(lw~ You JI~.ay Dnl1 si:.n yauf 01\'t\ Sir.n>w1"t if y'''' how nf oil""" ~ Pl"'lSC COW.:!. thcrll lIIld. make 1hem "r.r<e or this .Pcsi'ltolJ... I .:,1D 1":lC 1'(.nrocd .n.t 582.-8."$0. Thaak lQ(t {Of)lO\IT tj'tlkC.. N."'''''~ ,~=6-<1:p;: 2 tJi!&~~,:~,_~ T '--"-~- 4 3_~tM.il ,_~....43.. -1/.1" _~~:::.-___ ~~-'h"'tJ.if~4", Jl3.a~~~- 5. ' .' ~<<-:: :7:'- ,d3/6 0<-;"'~----""It_____. ,._.. /1: J, -il3f1~~L "Z - C'7"!.:t_?J;U"'-"-.z.::~ . .:J.,?"?<:;'J;L.,!'-'"-. ~r s.~..v~;1f0!fm: - rJ-ll~ 'L ~,Q-'l?:L~+- ~.J.."l!;3..q.~.t: ,":. ef ~,J.-Lt;{-..t::j,_bt~..-S:[:' logli.(~~ ~ H.~__C.l..-/h- S-f- lj#~!:;'.t~~ff~-t- f)t6D g..eh''':~.f:_ J2::...P.."?......~Jf!;I ~.rl:ff.~;;'-j.J J3.'~ ,_~ .:<Y? ~?:1_::J~/'~PA \~~:~)~~"~~Lf,~07-- _M2~~C(.gtlf1. ~"q 15.--:.[Q"&.._~~ _1:IJ_<Ll:./.LYLdtJL - ,IG,--/I)l.flL\i:-('~-~7 _d-,3J:?> -\\,g~~ 174~/Jf'i-{j!7ljj'1 -2-tjJ~~-- ~-_._,----~ -_._-_.._~ ---- . 19J'i..,~}~~\j.~ __~b_.~E:;"!_,Q'N'CG:.-_____ A))rnu:;:i;S ---..- O' ,f?.:?. ') 1J./1~.'J/;'tL...__ .3..rO .c..d.!L:-/l____ ma-ID ..5~- /..?h2~~ ..5" ./"A-,3- /....3_0 ~~--3~'? 9'..?~ .r;~~-r6rbl Off.;L ,H/"sa ..i:56.-7617 . --2TJi.:S~~ ,I)~r: - 'l1z':3 A 5Y__:L!i..3J:1.t6-" 1t!..-. .ss'7 - r '/ ) f. ib-'J- ;):l.g.3 L.f;l -.Pu.f i.___~_ ~-7.57.Y ;-5'~ a jl/;",- L2.. . _ _-;""":-.. -1i" 1" 8 ~ 'f 'l2z... .!!%>-_::J31:..f~ ,.-17,,"_ -17'W - 55' b t/:f8fY _.56.3_- 5:k:_~ \ ~_._ H____'_' ,,-d R?,F;T-q~~-Rq~ weL.l'>1..Jej..J uL.lor "'65:01 VO 02 :Jacr Section 3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis I Iii I i:' I I I,: i'l: il I: Ii ~ i Table 3-5: Existing Conditions Bee Branch Sewer Performance Locatio n Approximate Storm 1 DO-year Existing Capacity Sewer Capacity Conditions Flow Conveyance lets) lets) Percentage ot 1 00- year Flow 25th Street 320 1170 27% 24th/Washington to 230 1650 14% 24th/Elm 22"" Street 540 2730 20% Rhomberg Avenue 360 3330 11% Under the Packing 880 2400 37% Piant 16th Street 1200 2500 48% Two 100-year level of protection scenarios were evaluated to determine the worst case situation for desi~. 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. I I I!I ':1 Ijll Ilf I., Ilil Illi: ii" Itl 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. <DIll 3.12 Stormwater Management Plan B....." 81 ,fi..~h R, SttuJy Bee Branch Alignment Study October 2002: The City Council voted 5-2 NOT to hire another consultant to study more drainage options. December 2002: City Council work session with HDR and JlW 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. Bee Branch Alignment Study BBCAC Characteristics (~.:l'd WHl<S & Co Collectively, the sixteen-member committee has the following background: Impacted residents; Impacted home owners; North End Neighborhood Association; Washington Neighbortlood residents; Sacred Heart Parish; Elm, Washington, Jackson, Prince, and Johnson Street residents: Impacted businesses; Dubuque Board of Realtors; Developer; State Representative; Sierra Club; League of Women Voters: Senior Citizens; and Long Range Planning and Community Development Advisory Commissions. Bee Branch Mainline Map -\ \ Stormwater Management Plan Bee Branch Alignment Study March 2003: The City Council approves the RFP for the alignment study. The Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study will: 1) Establish the optimum alignment; 2) Provide a preliminary design that establishes what the waterway wi1llook like and how it wilt function: and 3) Work with impacted residents in the form of a citizen advisory committee. Introduction to the Drainage Basin . Watershed characteristics . land use . Flooding areas . Capacity versus flow . 16th Street Basin Bee Branch Watershed I f I 'II ,II il i I, 'I II ,I ,t I' I 5 11'1 ! " r t 50' t II! Side B !, 'I, Back Lot Line Ii Property , I Boundary II, "I ;.- "::l "::l III ::l c- ~. >< = -r1 ;.- Total Lot "::l Q) Q) "::l c C III ()::J 7,500 SF 0::J ::l c- o - - ~. Q) 0 or Q) 0 >< l!) ~..J ~..J n ,,- U)Q) 0.17 AC U)Q) "0 "0 i:i5 i:i5 . . ., ., . , i Ln ,,- XY Street - -~Ed~e~f - - - Pavement (EOP) ~~B~JE ~'""'-~ BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CDIVI DATE: SEPT. 2004 FIGURE NO, A.1 . BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY NEWSLETTER#1 December 1, 2003 Q ~~ 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. (COM), 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: ~c..;: __.b~..~i.6 )J x!puaddy BBCAC MEETINGS At the first BBCAC meeting in September, discussion included project objectives and constraints such ,as solving the (Bee Branch) ~I~~dlng problem, minimizing acqUlsltlo~s, 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 ,." . '. . ...' \ti'ol flooding solutions. F~lng~u"*'.v.~nef , " ." .;",' " 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. . Elm Street property owner Prince Street property owner Washington SI. property owner 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 PT A 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 "ooding 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. ~'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.~ ~ E-Mail ANY of your stormwater ~ ~ related questions or comments to: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Stormwater@cityofdubuque.org ~ ~ ~ :s..'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.~ , , , f xIPuaddv ." -, 'n',C-'_='.::::"-:~-~"-''', . .' ~__ · . H X!puaddy . I X!Puaddy & j ~ x!puaddy - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~...., BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY NEWSLETTER#2 January 2004 CJ ,~~~ 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 "ooding between the 16th 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 cornrnents to: ~ ~ ~ ~ Stormwater@cityofdubuque.org ~ ~'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.,,'\.,,'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.~ Appendix B Bee Branch Creek Restoration Alignment Study Hydrologic Model Event - Critical Duration Analysis Critical Duration Summarv Table Basin Critical Duration Locust Street 2.hou. West 32nd 12-hou. Garfieldllincoln 2-hour Kaufmann Avenue 2-hour Windsor Avenue 2-hour 16th Street 2-hour Locust Street Basin Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow 100.yr 24-h, Huff Tvoe III 7.00 374.6 1OG-yr 12-h, Huff Type II 6.30 541.4 1 Oo-v' 6,h, HuffTvoe I 5.25 644.2 100-1" 3-h, Huff Tvoe I 4.50 814.8 10lJ,.yr2-hr,'}fHuf(;T_h,..C(S,. ',... '.4JO '876.5, 100-1" 1-h, IHuff Type I 3.20 783.4 West 32nd Street Basin Ever_~ Type Rainfall Peak Flow 100-yr 24-h, Huff Tvpe III 7.00 30804 1QQ'vr12'hr HUflTvb,,;lb' ' " 6,30' ""'357.1'" 100,1" 6-h, HuffTvoel 5,25 344.5 100-yr 3-h, Huff Tvpe I 4.50 355.5 100-v,2.h, Huff Tvoe I 4.10 344.4 100-1" 1-h, Huff Type I 3.20 195.0 Garfield/Lincoln Basin Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow 100-v' 24-h, Huff Tvpe III 7.00 74.0 100-vr 12-h, Huff Tvpe 11 6.30 110.2 100-V' 6-h, Huff Tvpe I 5.25 141.4 100-yr 3-h, Huff Type I 4.50 191.2 100-vr2-lk'c Htllf;Fvbe' ." '....ii,.,'.. c. 4.:10..,' 21.25 100-1" 1.h, Huff Type I 3.20 207.6 Kaufmann Avenue Basin Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow 1 OO-yr 24-h, Huff Tvoe III 7,00 516.8 100-yr 12-h, HuffTvne 11 6.30 742.3 1 OO-v, 6-h, Huff Tvpe I 5.25 895.9 ~3-h' Huff Tvoe I 4.50 1195.1 12-h. HUffT ,.i. 100-1" 1-h, Huff Type I 3.20 925,8 I. I II , Ii II ;. "0 "0 rc ~ E ~ )< r Windsor Avenue Basin Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow 1 OO,vr 24-h, Huff Tvne III 7.00 172.0 100-yr 12-h, Huff Tvpe II 6,30 256.7 1 OO-v, 6-h, Huff Tvoe I 5.25 33004 1 OO-yr 3-h, HuffTvoe I 4,50 437.8 100-\0' 2-h' Huff T"""I...."....0,..;. '479;2 100-yr 1-h' Huff Type I 3.20 463,5 '--':1 16th St Basin Event Type Rainfall Peak Flow 100,yr 24-h, Huff Tvoe III 7.00 277.8 100-v, 12-h, Huff Tvoe II 6.30 402.5 100-yr 6-h, HuffTvoe I 5,25 486.3 1 OO-v' 3-h, Huff Tvpe I 4.50 596.5 too'"" 2~hr. Huff:rvoe ",. ,',,2 Cc" ..r 4.10.'" .632.lU" 1 OO-yr 1-h, Huff Type I 3.20 526.4 , , II I, ,. Ii .-.---------------.. BEE BRANCH RESTORATION ALIGNMENT STUDY NEWSLETTER#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 "ooding 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, So 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). ~'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\."'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'S: ~ E-Mail ANY of your stormwater ~ ~ related questions or comments to: ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ Stormwater@cltyofdubuque.org ~ ~'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\."'\."'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\."'\.'\.'\.'\.~