US Army Corps of Engeineers Flood Indundation ModelingTHE CITY OF
Dui
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
band
AI -America City
r
2007 • 2012 • 2013
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: United States Army Corps of Engineers Flood Inundation Modeling
DATE: April 14, 2014
City Engineer Gus Psihoyos is transmitting information about the United States Army
Corps of Engineers' work to create engineering models to predict what might happen in
the event of a failure of the John C. Culver Floodwall that protects a portion of the City
of Dubuque from Mississippi River flooding.
Even though the United States Army Corps of Engineers considers the John C. Culver
Floodwall a hearty, tested, well maintained levee system, and even though they
estimate that the overtopping frequency is once every 5,000 years, there is always a
risk of a levee failure. Therefore, they have outlined a project management plan to
create a two dimensional model that will make predictions as to what would happen due
to the failure or overtopping of the John C. Culver Floodwall. The information provided
allows communities to understand what can be done prior to, during, and after a levee
failure to minimize the threat to citizens and property.
brilmi ,
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
kattzl
AI-Amedcacity
2007 • 2012 • 2013
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
DATE: April 14, 2014
SUBJECT: United States Army Corps of Engineers Flood Inundation Modeling
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information about the United States
Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) work to create engineering models to predict what
might happen in the event of a failure of the John C. Culver Floodwall that protects a
portion of the City of Dubuque from Mississippi River flooding.
BACKGROUND
The John C. Culver Floodwall flood protection system designed to protect the City of
Dubuque from Mississippi River floods was authorized by the federal Flood Control Act
of 1962. It consisted of the construction of levees and floodwalls along the entire
Dubuque riverfront from the upstream near USAGE Lock & Dam 11 to the downstream
end of the city near Maus Park. Construction began in 1968 and was completed in
1973. According to the USAGE, the federal cost of the project was $10,861,000; non-
federal cost was $1,330,000. The net cumulative damage prevented by the project
since it went into operation is estimated at $42,070,100. The improvements associated
with the John C. Culver Floodwall flood protection system is operated and maintained
by the City of Dubuque with USACE oversight.
Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645), and as amended, the
USACE is authorized to foster public understanding of options for dealing with flood
hazards and to promote prudent use and management of the Nation's floodplains.
Therefore, the USACE Rock Island District has begun performing engineering analyses
to illustrate what would happen as a result of levee failures. The information provided
allows communities to understand what can be done prior to, during, and after a levee
failure to minimize the threat to citizens and property.
DISCUSSION
Even though the USACE considers the John C. Culver Floodwall a hearty, tested, well
maintained levee system, and even though they estimate that the overtopping
frequency is once every 5,000 years, there is always a risk of a levee failure. Therefore,
they have outlined a project management plan to create a two dimensional (2-D) model
that will make predictions as to what would happen due to the failure or overtopping of
the John C. Culver Floodwall.
In early 2013, the USACE Rock Island District completed a similar study for the City of
Muscatine (IA). The USACE was able to answer the question, "What if the levee
between the Muscatine community and the Mississippi River was breached? Where,
how high and how fast would the water inundate the community?" To answer that
question, the USAGE created a 2-D computer model which the City of Muscatine made
available for the public. It can be found at:
http://www.muscatineiowa.qov/index.aspx?NID=745.
In addition, a USACE presentation is attached that outline the work they performed for
Muscatine along with their findings. The USACE is in the process of performing a similar
analysis for the City of Cedar Falls (IA) and they have agreed to initiate a similar
analysis for the City of Dubuque per the attached Project Management Plan.
The cost of the study is estimated at $120,000.00. The USACE has indicated that the
entire cost of the study will be funded through their program. They have $60,000.00 for
the current fiscal year to initiate the study and they are confident that the remaining
$60,000.00 will be available in the following fiscal year to complete the work.
BUDGET IMPACT
The study will be funded entirely with federal funding.
REQUESTED ACTION
There is no action requested at this time. This memo is to provide information only.
Attach.
Prepared by Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer
Cc: Don Vogt, Public Works Director
John Klostermann, Street and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer
2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rock Island District
Project Management Plan
FPMS Special Studies Interagency Non-structural Project
For
Living behind a Levee: Evaluation of Urban Flooding Scenarios to
Support Risk Communication and Evacuation Planning
Date: 24 Feb 2014
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PMP
Revision Date
Description & Location within PMP of Revision
PM Approved Signature
24 Feb 14
First PMP
2. Product. The deliverable products for this management plan include an Evaluation of Urban Levee System
Flooding Scenarios to Support Risk Communication and Evacuation Planning.
3. Purpose. This Project Management Plan (PMP) is written for the purpose of executing a quality product on
schedule and within budget. The PMP promotes communication among the management, team members,
reviewers, and the project sponsor/customer, so that all project components are understood and agreed upon. It
is tailored to meet the specific customer and project needs of developing an Evaluation of Urban Levee System
Flooding Scenarios to Support Risk Communication and Evacuation Planning
PROJECT SCOPE
4. Autlwrity. The program's authority is provided by Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (Pl. 86-
645), as amended. Its objective is to foster public understanding of options for dealing with flood hazards and
to promote prudent use and management of the Nation's floodplains. Proper planning and the employment of
techniques for reducing flood damages provide a rational way to balance the advantages and disadvantages of
human settlement on the floodplain,
S. Project Title. Living behind a Levee: Evaluation of Urban Flooding Scenarios to Support Risk Communication
and Evacuation Planning
6, Project Location, Dubuque, Dubuque County, Iowa
Project Description. The Dubuque Flood Risk Management Project is located on the right descending bank of the
Mississippi River, at Dubuque, Iowa. The project, as designed and constructed, reduces the possibility of flooding
from the Mississippi River for a design event associated with the 200 -year recurrence event, or water surface
elevation corresponding to discharge on the Mississippi River at Dubuque of 362,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).
The City of Dubuque has many businesses and industries in this area of the community and any levee breach would
result in the flood waters backing into the city. In collaboration with City of Dubuque stakeholders, USACE will
provide hydraulic modeling and mapping analysis identifying residual risk associated with the levee protecting the
area. Study deliverables will include the analysis and documentation of failure scenarios and timing and inundation
1
mapping to serve as input for the city and other stakeholder's emergency preparedness planning, and selection of
evacuation routes and procedures.
7. Project Purpose. USACE will use of GIS data available from the Iowa LIDAR Project and the City of
Dubuque for analysis flood inundation modeling. The City and its stakeholders will partner with USACE in
order to better understand and plan for potential levee capacity exceedance or levee failure scenarios. The
issues addressed here will focus on residual risk and public safety that are significant during the occurrence of
flood events exceeding the capacity of the levee system, which includes floods that may result in overtopping
or floods that may result in system failure prior to overtopping.
S. Customer(s) and Stakeholder(s): City of Dubuque, Iowa residents, businesses, and industry.
9. Key Products: Documentation of failure scenarios and timing and inundation mapping to serve as input for the
city and other stakeholder's emergency preparedness planning, and selection of evacuation routes and
procedures.
10. Planning/Design Tools:
a. English Units. The work will be completed using Standard English units of measure to match
current data, such as the river datum, hydrologic data, and existing facilities.
b. Drawings. ARC -GIS mapping products with associated software appropriate for the purpose.
Breach analysis will be performed with HEC -RAS software. Hydraulic analysis will include
computing and displaying rates of levee system flood water inundation and flood water evacuation.
Inundation analysis will be performed with HEC -RAS 2D software.
PROJECT EXECUTION
11. Project Delivery Team: The following professionals are members of the Project Delivery Team (PDT).
Changing of members will not change quality aspects of this project.
Name
Organization Role
Jerry Skalak PM -M Project Manager
Toby Hunemuller EC -HH Hydraulic Studies
Shirley Johnson EC -HH Hydraulic Studies
Greg Karlovits EC -HH Hydraulic Studies
Tom Gambucci EC -HH Hydraulic Studies
See Appendix A for a complete list of partners with contact information.
a. Responsibilities
® See PMBP for explanation of roles
12. Critical Assumptions and Constraints:
a. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the development of the schedule, costs, and the scope of
work descriptions:
2
® Existing data such as ground surveys, LiDAR data, real estate information, and any other
existing material is accurate and accessible
® Any necessary surveys or other data collection will be able to be performed in a timely
manner
b. Constraints
This study is constrained geographically to the City of Dubuque, Iowa and financially by the
appropriated funds (100% federal).
14. Product Funding: This project is 100% Federally funded. Organizational product cost estimates were
established based on understood scope of support. If product scope changes which affect funding, the
product team will request appropriate changes. Charge codes / work items will be established consistent
with project / organization practice. Product team Principals is responsible for their respective
organization's performance and execution. Ultimately, the Project Manager is responsible for project
execution to the District Project Review Board.
15. Product Schedule. The product development schedule includes dates for all reviews. Changes to the
schedule are initiated by the Product team and approved by the Project Manager with concurrence from the
District Project Review Board for major milestones
Task<°-
FY14
FY15
Total
PM -P
2,000
2,000
4,000
PM -M
3,000
3,000
6,000
EC -HH
55,000
55,000
110,000
Total
60,000
60,000
I20,000
15. Product Schedule. The product development schedule includes dates for all reviews. Changes to the
schedule are initiated by the Product team and approved by the Project Manager with concurrence from the
District Project Review Board for major milestones
Task<°-
Start Date .' ,..
End -date
1.Project Scoping
April 2014
May 2014
2.Data Gathering
May 2014
August 2014
3.Develop Hydraulic Models
August 2014
October 2014
4.Delineate Inundation and identify
critical structure impacts
October 2014
December 20I4
5.Draft Report Complete
December 2014
January 2015
6.District Quality Control (DQC)
December 2014
February 2015
7.Respond to Comments/Finalize Report /
Transmit to Stakeholders
March 2015
May 2015
*schedule may vaiy based on availability of funds
16. Quality Management: Quality control is the process employed to ensure the performance of a task
meets the agreed upon requirements of the customer as well as appropriate laws, policies, and
technical criteria. This process also ensures that products are delivered on schedule and within
budget.
This project will undergo standard Rock Island District Quality Control (DQC). DQC is an
internal review process focused on fulfilling the project quality requirements defined in the Project
Management Plan (PMP). For this study, products will be reviewed by:
® Project Management
® Hydraulic and Hydrologic Engineering
The DQC checklist and comment summary form are attached as Appendix C. Reviewers will
3
review products and enter any substantive comments into the comment summary form. Once all
comments are resolved, the reviewer will sign off on the checklist. Once DQC is complete, the
District Commander will review the products and sign a memorandum as the final step of
approval. ATR is not required for this project and will not be performed.
17. Acquisition Strategy. No construction or acquisition will be completed during this planning project.
18. Risk Analysis. Potential project implementation risks are considered Moderate to Low. See Appendix B,
Risk Register.
19. SOH Hazard Analysis and Monitoring. The PDT members and reviewers will coordinate with Project
Engineer and Project Manager to make site visits as needed and as funds allow. The PDT members
required to visit the proposed site must be aware that the site itself could contain potentially hazardous
conditions. Hazards could include working near the water and walking on uneven ground. Thus all PDT
members will follow the standard set in the EM 385 1-1.
20. Change Management Plan. If the total project cost should increase above 10% of the baseline project
cost, any changes will have to be approved by the PDT. At a meeting with the PDT, the study manager
may direct the team to make changes to the plans. All PDT approved changes will be communicated to the
local sponsor and the affected Division Chiefs and Supervisors.
21. Communications Plan: Communication between all team members and external partners will be
maintained throughout the study to ensure acceptability of products and satisfactory resolution of
problems.
Communications occur in two main arenas: internal and external to the Corps. The following
describes how communications will be managed in this project.
a. Internal Communication
• Project Delivery Team (PDT): Project delivery team members will meet periodically as
necessary to discuss technical issues, milestones, budget, and team progress. Meeting minutes
will be provided to the entire team and will be kept on file for reference. The PM will be
responsible for organizing meetings and keeping other team members updated on requirements
and study progress.
• Project Documents: Electronic copies of all documents related to this project will be
available to the PDT and stored in the project directory located in ProjectWise.
b. External Communication
® Project Partners: External communication with the non -Federal partners will flow tluough
the PM. Meetings with non -Federal partners will occur once a month (more or less often as
necessary) and will consist of tracking study progress and working out schedule or scope
issues.
• Public Involvement: There will be an opportunity for public input and awareness as
coordinated by the City of Dubuque, IA. The City of Dubuque, IA will be responsible for
communication with the public and conveying information as necessary.
4
The Upper
Mississippi River
Rock Island
District
USACE Disaster Operations
Public Law 84-99
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
1
Preparedness
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act establishes
an emergency fund for preparedness for emergency
response to natural disasters; for flood fighting and rescue
operations; for rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane
protection structures. Disaster preparedness activities
include coordination, planning, training and conduct of
response exercises with local, state and federal agencies.
Funding for USACE emergency response under this
authority is provided by Congress through the annual
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act.
BUILDING STRONG®
Response Activities
PL 84-99 allows the Corps of Engineers to supplement State and
local entities in flood fighting urban and other non-agricultural
areas under certain conditions.
All flood fight efforts require a Project Cooperation Agreement
signed by the Public Sponsor and a requirement for the Sponsor
to remove all flood fight material after the flood has receded.
PL 84-99 also authorizes emergency water support and drought
assistance in certain situations and allows for "advance
measures" assistance to prevent or reduce flood damage
conditions of imminent threat of unusual flooding.
LJ.
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
2
Rehabilitation
Under the authority of PL 84-99, an eligible flood protection system
can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event. The flood system
would be restored to its pre -disaster status at no cost to the Federal
system owner, and at 20% cost to the eligible non -Federal system
owner.
All systems considered eligible for PL 84-99 rehabilitation
assistance have to be in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program
prior to the flood event. Acceptable operation and maintenance by
the public levee sponsor are verified by levee inspections conducted
by the Corps on a regular basis.
kill
•
BUILDING STRONG®
USACE conducts
Two types of levee inspections
Using a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) / Global
Positioning System (GPS) -based inspection tool that
incorporates a standard levee inspection checklist. Levee
sponsors are encouraged to be part of the inspection team.
Routine Inspection
(annually)
Periodic Inspection
(every 5 years)
Data Collection / Field Inspection / Final Report
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
3
Inspection Ratings
Both Routine and Periodic Inspections result in a final
inspection rating for operation and maintenance. The rating
is based on the levee inspection checklist, which includes
125 specific items dealing with operation and maintenance
of levee embankments, floodwalls, interior drainage, pump
stations, and channels. Each levee segment receives an
overall segment inspection rating of Acceptable, Minimally
Acceptable, or Unacceptable.
A levee sponsor must maintain the levee to at least the
minimally acceptable standard to remain eligible for federal
rehabilitation assistance through the USACE Rehabilitation
and Inspection Program (PL 84-99).
lifill
•
BUILDING STRONG®
Muscatine Urban Levee System
Emergency Planning Assistance
US Army Corps
of Engineers -
Flood Plain
Management Services
City of Muscatine
Assistance Request
FY09
Special Studies
Federal Funding
FY12 and FY13
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
4
Muscatine Urban Levee System
Evaluation of Flooding Scenarios
Engineering
Studies /Analyses
► Scope, Stakeholders, Feedback
► Structural / Geotechnical Evaluation
► GIS / LIDAR Data
► Hydraulic Modeling / Mapping
► Report w/ Technical Appendix
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
5
System Evaluation
Residual Risk and Public Safety
► Periodic and Annual Inspection Reports
► Emergency Response Plan
► System Capacity Exceedance Provisions
► Critical Levee Failure Locations
BUILDING STRONG,
Flood Wave Progression
Hydraulic Modeling Products --
Identify threat to human life and safety
characterized by flood wave progression
and rapid increases in water depths.
mi.
BUILDING STRONG,
5/28/2013
6
City of Muscatine - Muscatine Island
Levee District — Louisa Co. D. D. #13
Federally authorized / Non -federally operated &
maintained urban flood protection project, designed to
withstand flood flows of a .5% chance flood event.
The flood protection main features are:
• Sand and Earthen levees (approximately 15 miles)
• Floodwalls at upstream railroad closure
• Interior drainage system
• 2 Closure Structures
• 1 Pump Station
• 14 Gatewells
Mit
BUILDING STRONG,
City of Muscatine —
Muscatine Island Levee District
Muscatine and Louisa Counties
Mississippi River Mile 455 to 442 --
approximately 15 miles of levee.
The levee system protects approximately
30,000 acres of developed industrial,
agricultural, and residential land.
mi.
BUILDING STRONG,
5/28/2013
7
National Levee Database
Rock Island District
Upper Mississippi River
33 Main -stem levee systems
440 miles field surveyed
BUILDING STRONG,
- N1)11 FVFF
- 10043
®ia
.tirJ1.,J.14"N.i
304.
JULY 22 2011
BUILDING STRONG® I
5/28/2013
8
Upper Mississippi River System
Flow Frequency Study Area
Upper Mississippi River
815 River Miles
Hydraulic Model
One dimensional HEC -RAS
Basis for FLO2-D
BUILDING STRONG.
Stakeholder
Work Group
Muscatine County Stakeholders
Louisa County Stakeholders
inil
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
9
Breach Location
✓ Location population/census data (life/safety)
✓ Critical Infrastructure (Power Plants, etc)
✓ Transportation (Airport, Highways)
✓ Manufacturing Facilities (workforce/equipment)
✓ Hazardous Material (Chemicals, Petroleum)
BUILDING STRONG,
Breach Characteristics
• Location of breach
• Depth of breach
Width of breach
Time for breach to fully form
BUILDING STRONG,
5/28/2013
10
Muscatine Island Urban
Levee System Study
Breach Analysis
Muscatine Island Levee,
Iowa
Flood Plain Management Services Special Study
Section 206 (PL 86-645) of the 1960 Flood Control Act asAmended
2 -Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling Results
•
BUILDING STRONG®
sa
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
11
Ground Elevations
Resampled from
1m LIDAR
Legend
Q itinto'M Ma
Nn. 1....
rpm um
UOAR nw.tlon (RI
N9. 611
ow W2
•
BUILDING STRONG®
I McKee Button Company_
atipe W➢CP
t (11)Agri Grein Marketing
(1) Bnl, n T
- (17)Hahn Ready,- '
111) Grandview Well Field))) i_ 1 +
-•{191 Northern Gavn
-
Kent Corporation
orts Ligltng
)42. Power Plant (MPV)
„fill) CK Pmcessmg
,,,/
*opal
Progress Park. M� Ipl River Trading Company
.v
�VI M.-etme Mqopal Airport -
(7(K.A.Steel Chemical Company
no) A tions l Guard (14)Agmfia rice
(1s) City of Fruitland
onsanto Corpoaeo
•
Critical Facilities
c6 1
Legend
Critical Facility N
US Hig6way61
River Mile
Levee Stations
NLD Protected Area
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
12
4
US 61 and Business Route 61
Road Elevations
NAVO 88 (ft)
Legend
r.. • — n,..,n.
.d�.aa yr ,.xe
,. I.,..,
5011.55.9
1.540
N—er'...::
r
BUILDING STRONG,,
Time to Depth Summary
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
13
Time From Breach Initiation to 1 ft Water Depth (Hours)
For Official UseOnly
n1 un
ti1111.0•1« maa
mwr.M.n* W.ar
110
n •� -'
nyEgm, .."�,
an. /tel .•. . (1w
u�.lrr w.0
414 wn7 1 •1 .�n•1.Y,.,,•0
.dear of10..YM
Critical Facilities
Ort
7
Name
ID
Number
Breach Breach Breach
Locl Loc2 Loci
CK PROCESSING
MUSCATINE POWER& WATER
UNION TANK CAR COMPANY
MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING
KENT CORPORATION
MCKEE BUTTON COMPANY
K.A STEEL CHEMICAL COMPANY
RIVER TRADING COMPANY
MUSCATINE MUNICIPALAIRPORT
US ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
AGRI GRAIN MARKETING
MONSANTO
GRANDVIEW AVE WELL FIELD
(MPW)
AGRILIANCE
CITY OF FRUITLAND
PROGRESS PARK
HAHN READY M D(
Legend a MUSCATINE WPCP
o«rr.wr N NORTHERN GRAVEL
la«ur
1....5.1•10..
=110.0
RaN..1N M.
1 43 7 25
2 83 40 186
3 21 15 32
4 62 35 47
5 63 37 59
6 64 39 110
7 57 7 25
8 56 7 24
9 69 36 33
10 92 38 37
11 57 38 62
12 58 7 22
13 28 16 31
14 73 9 24
15 79 36 30
16 59 32 31
17 103 45 211
18 18 24 36
19 93 37 171
•
BUILDING STRONG®
Breach Location 1
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
14
12 HR
t were w..
12 Hour Flow Depth (fq
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft
fol.
BUILDING STRONG®
24 HR
Legend
24 Hour Flow Depth (It)
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft
N
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
15
36 HR
Legend
•
1=t6Ot..mw..
36 Hour FIOw Depth (II)
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft
11.1
Mu a
INV
fol.
BUILDING STRONG®
48 HR
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft 1
Leven.
46 Hour Flow Depth )It)
_ 1 9
- ». +1
= 13 is
11111 vs • I
Is • 77
11.1 u
-:5 )I
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
16
60 HR
Legend
OSwot«..ewe.
60 Moor Flow Depth (n)
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft
fol.
BUILDING STRONG®
72 HR
Legend
•
•
12 Mo,. Flo:, Depth In)
Breach Location 1
Full Depth
Final Width 1763ft
-..•
•
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
17
Legend
nu mi. 2Hours
Levee oos _ <1
• sosiainaotty 11-20
_21-
Road3.
s P.ardoaAla =31-40
=141-50
51-60
-70
▪ 51 =a,_sa
=01-155
N ▪ >,na
' '."reach Location 1
Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
y5 O
Legend
m m ne 4Hours
Levee stations = <10
• critical nitotty 11-20
=n-
Quw 01000000404®- 31 -45
=u50 -
51-60
o 61-70
\ =01-0.0
N 1-00
=01-155
,o«
"$reach Location 1
Full Depth Breach
,'Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
18
Legend
ibier m fie 6 Hours
Levee stools _ <1t
• n m ea* _11 -
Roads _21-
Onwararaeeam _31-40
IM —
a 31.50
_
_r, -so
=01-105
N _ 4155
+."reach Location 1
Depth Breach
Flow Depth (ft)
Legend
a in. 6Hours
Levee ms _ <1t
n m entry _11 -
Roads _21 -
CRIB Protected kes _31-40
=41-55
51-60
_01-s0
00
-0
_01
oioo
;reach Location 1
Full Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
19
Legend
ner mi. 10 Hours
1-077.51011000 _<10
CritcalFeably _11 -
Roads _21-
011warar0eea66 _31-40
41-
51-60
a =171-55_s,
s,_sa
so
_51,05
N _ <100
:14,344each Location 1
FuI,I Depth Breach
- , ;Flow Depth (ft)
Legend
rvs 12 Hours
Levee Stations _ <10
C100001700015 11-
- Roads =71-3-0
I=
21-
I= araraed0000 _31-40
_41-50
51-60
\ _-
=01-00
N =01-100
>100
"$r -each Location 1
FuI,I Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
20
Legend
n40 Mile 14 Hours
Lovao5101005 _ <1n
• n m e45y _11 -
Roads _21-
Onw01040044Area _31-40
al41-
a 01.00
_
N _▪ 4100
."reach Location 1
—Ful,l Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
0
R/,
44.14
JE•
Legend
na Mile 16 Hours
ms <1
•
Love.
11-p
=0
-
_„-30
OMW P1 010 4am =31-40
=14
51-60
=▪ 01-00
N=>10ft
'Breach Location 1
Full Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
21
Legend
,er M. 18 Hours
LeveeStations - <1n
CntealFaably =11-20
Roads =01-3.
5101111001104 Area =31-40
1=41-50
51-60
61-70
=01-00
=0,100
N =>ma
Breach Location 1
'/ Full Depth Breach
;Flow Depth (ft)
r - Legend
••� T 'e/ 2Y Hours
lover ions
i•w y � � cn 10 For zo
— l \ 9. Orvw armeee= 3 40
5 60
6 70
�r.
▪ 0.
▪ ,00
oA
4 Breach Location 1
ti
Full Depth Breach
" ,:'Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
22
Legend
Wel M. 22Hours
er« ions =21 a
Cr., ftashlY =11-20
=21-35
Orv�armaeee m_ 31-40
! 41-50
51-60
61-70
=01 -aa
met -so
N ='1-105
,ma
reach Location 1
ill Depth Breach
Flow Depth (ft)
Miles
Legend
parer mu' 24 Hours
Cots. Faulty -20
Roads =21-30 P,aeded<,« - 31-40
u-
51-60
61-70
=01 -en
Looft\
=aysu
N =-1-105
,ma
preach Location 1
` Full Depth Breach
a :1Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
23
Breach Location 2
•
BUILDING STRONG®
4HR
Breach Location 24 ' .`
r.
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
o os r a 1F
Legend
4 Hour Flow DupDU (11)
sa
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
24
Legend
8 Hour Flow Depth On
Breach Location 2
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
Breach Location 2
Legend
• o«.. r..,
Q wo nM.tl...W.
12 Hour Now Depth (n)
of
�"
_ t). 15
_ • 1,
5/28/2013
25
Breach Location2
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
Legend
•
G�.il ti
Oll O Ro.d.d M.
16 Hour Flow Depth On
o -i
NM '0
0
-o '
20 HR
Breach Location
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
0 . • 1 T f r-
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
26
24 HR
Breach Location 2
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
Legend
a•y
OWO Prcea<M�
24 Hour Plow Depth On
_ J ).1
a„
" N
,9 r
_n•:i
fol.
BUILDING STRONG®
Breach Location 2\
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
"[ • .�2 3 ` -.... -.
Legend
• OK4Faary
O KO Ra"wa M"
se Hour now Depth On
9.3
Cti 1
."}
_ ,3 ,S
�w n
5/28/2013
27
Legend
92 Hour Flow Depth Iltl
Breach Location 21
Full Depth
Final Width 1588ft
Legend
12 Hours
rose snows _ <10
• rnwerawe _11-.
=21-
0 um aroraeee ee um 31-40
1-70
71 SO
41-90
91-10
- 1a -11▪ 1-12
� >12e
breach Location 2
' FuI,I Depth Breach
,; Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
28
Legend
14 Hours
rose stators _ <15
IF Cote,Foods =11-20
Roads _21-30
oM.P.adaa ''._31-
_41_
=51-00
61-70
0
_1-
a _s,soe
= 101-110
_,,,_„o
N _ >1za
Legend
Roo ufir 16 Hours
reser Steals _ <15
• nm aolry =11-20
=21-35 ea _ 31-45
=41-55
61-70
71-60
_01-
_s,soe
= 101-110
_,,,_„o
N _ >1za
Breach Location 2
Full Depth Breach
, Flow Depth (ft)
5/28/2013
29
Legend
18 Hours
Levee Stations _ <1t
TCnecalFaality _ -20
.
_-
oMWnP,00e0ea =31-40
_41-
_51.00
70
60
a 01-_
1_1
_,0,-,1
o
„_„o
N _>12a
Breach Location 2
Full. Depth Breach
,'Flow Depth (ft)
Legend
aarermie 20 Hours
• onticalFaohly _11 20
_n3.-
ual ProtededArea_%1
r 41 00
01 EC
El 70
71 40
a
_10
=111 120
_>120
!Breach Location
Full. Depth Breac
''\ ,'Flow Depth (ft
5/28/2013
30
Legend
anomie 22 Hours
cnticalFacluty _11 z
_n32 -
0L0wmm•e 00_31-ao
.
_4150 -
so
so To
To so
so
a _10,_-10
_101110
_1111=0
N _ >122
Breach Location 2
kFuI,I Depth Breach
Flow Depth (ft)
Legend
anomie 24 Hours
• cut., Facaty _v-2.0
_n-
Qx2P4Weae4 00_31-.
r 2 -.
El EC
El 70
81-50
21-100
=12
-
_10 -
_n1-120
F Breach Location 2
Full Depth Breach
PI" it 1 Fklow Depth (ft)
Miles
5/28/2013
31
Breach Location 3
•
BUILDING STRONG®
4HR
Breach Location 31
Full Depth
Final Width 1546ft
sa
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
32
8 HR
Breach Location 3
Full Depth
Final Width 1546ft
Legend
C,4W,41ey
wnl
=MD 0.4e011G /wa
8 Hour Flow DepMM (11)
•
BUILDING STRONG®
16 HR
18 Hour flow Depth(n)
0-t
6
MIr-9
_10 • 10
111111 ,r
_ 14 14
-1171
_n .4
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
33
Breach Location 3 4\1
Full Depth
Final Width 1546ft
Reeds
Q/AD ROW. Mt
24 Hour Flow Depth (n)
0.1
9
)9
_ 10.
32HR
Breach Location 3
Full Depth
Final Width 1546ft
0 9'. , 2 I( `4
IA
Legend
Gz F.wr
Rea0,
110 aaMN Mr
32 Hour Flow Depth (n)
0-t
• 6
_ -9
_ 10 V
_ 1{- ,t
_ 1t. 01
_n)9
•
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
34
Conclusions
The study was not initiated because of any known imminent
risk of failure to the levee protecting Muscatine Island.
Study deliverables include the analysis of failure scenarios,
timing, and inundation mapping to serve as input for
stakeholder's emergency preparedness planning, and
selection of evacuation routes and procedures. Tables
show time to 'I ft and 2ft depth (in hours) for identified
critical facilities.
MI
BUILDING STRONG®
Questions?
• Contacts:
r Randy Hill
Muscatine Public Works Director
rhill a@muscatineiowa.gov
BUILDING STRONG®
5/28/2013
35