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 ~
~'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\."'\."'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\.'\."'\.'\.'\.'\.~