HomeMy Public PortalAbout2013 Flood Protection Study - Introduction to Section 2
Flood Protection Study
City of Parkville, Missouri
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract No: W912DQ-08-D-0048
December 2013
Flood Protection Study
City of Parkville, Missouri
USACE Contract No.: W912DQ-08-D-0048
Task Order: 0020
Prepared for:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District
601 East 12th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Prepared by:
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
9200 Ward Parkway, Suite 500
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
December 2013
Table of Contents
Report Synopsis .................................................................................................................................................... RS-1
Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Authority ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 City of Parkville Historical Flood Information .................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Section 2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Data from USACE ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Data from City ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Data from SEMA ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 FEMA Data ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 Data from Flood Protection Vendors .................................................................................................... 2-2 2.6 Site Visit Material ........................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Section 3 Flood Protection Technologies and Technology Evaluation ................................................ 3-1 3.1 Flood Protection Technologies Considerations ................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Aspects Considered .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Aspects Not Considered ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Flood Protection Technologies ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Evaluation Parameters ................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Determination of Flood Protection Height and Width ...................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Review Federal Design Standard ............................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 Interview Comments ....................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.4 Internet Research Results ............................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3 Evaluation of Technologies ....................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1 Concrete Walls ................................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2 Fabric Membrane Dams ................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.3 Metal Panels ........................................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.4 Water-Inflated Tubes ....................................................................................................................3-10 3.3.5 Water-Inflated Baffled Bladders ...............................................................................................3-11
Section 4 Flood Protection Plan and Cost Estimate for Downtown Parkville ................................... 4-1 4.1 Downtown Parkville Flood Protection Alignment .......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Determination of Recommended Downtown Flood Protection Technology ....................... 4-1 4.2.1 Flood Protection Technology Maintenance ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Flood Protection Technology Installation .............................................................................. 4-3 4.2.3 Flood Protection Technology Cost ............................................................................................. 4-3 4.3 Recommended Flood Protection for Downtown Parkville .......................................................... 4-6
Section 5 Flood Protection Plan and Cost Estimate for English Landing Park.................................. 5-1 5.1 Park Flood Protection Planning Considerations .............................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Park Flood Protection Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.1 Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................................................... 5-3
i
Table of Contents-Parkville.docx
Table of Contents • Parkville Flood Protection Study 5.2.2 Level of Protection ............................................................................................................................ 5-3 5.2.3 Berm Structure Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5-4 5.2.4 Cost Analysis of Flood Protection Options ............................................................................. 5-9 5.2.4.1 Background to Recommendation Analysis Approach: Historical Flood Analysis at Park .................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3 Recommendation for Flood Protection of English Landing Park ........................................... 5-16
Appendices Appendix A Flood Technology Vendor Information Appendix B HEC-RAS Analysis of Flood Wall – Parkville (November 20, 2012) Appendix C Conceptual Plan and Profile of Park Flood Protection
List of Tables RS-1 Summary of Flood Protection Technologies Evaluated for Downtown Flood Protection .. RS-2 RS-2 Estimated Costs Summary for Flood Protection of English Landing Park ................................. RS-9 2-1 Data Provided by USACE .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Data Provided by City .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 3-1 FEMA Freeboard Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 3-2 Concrete Floodwalls Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................ 3-7 3-3 Fabric Membrane Dam Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................................................... 3-8 3-4 Metal Panel Advantages and Disadvantages .............................................................................................. 3-9 3-5 Water-Inflated Tubes Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................................................... 3-10 3-6 Water-Inflated Baffled Bladders Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................. 3-11 4-1 Downtown Flood Protection Heights including Freeboard Requirements .................................. 4-3 4-2 Flood Protection Technology Cost Comparison ....................................................................................... 4-5 4-3 Downtown Recommended Flood Protection Technology Conceptual Costs ............................... 4-6 5-1 Shared Use Path Design Criteria per AASHTO .......................................................................................... 5-4 5-2 Park Berm Dimensions ........................................................................................................................................ 5-6 5-3 Gauge Analysis of Historical Record of Flooding at English Landing Park ................................... 5-9 5-4 Option #1 No Action, Budget for Park Clean Up, Estimated Annual Cost ................................... 5-11 5-5 Option #2 Six-Foot Berm Construction, Estimated Conceptual Construction Cost to Raise the Trail Elevation to 752 feet ....................................................................................................................... 5-12 5-6 Option #2 Six-Foot Berm Construction, Estimated Conceptual Annual Costs Incurred to Raise the Trail Elevation to 752 feet ...........................................................................................................5-13 5-7 Option #3 Temporary Flood Protection, Estimated Material Cost for Water-Filled Tubes .........................................................................................................................................................................5-14 5-8 Option #3 Temporary Flood Protection, Estimated Annual Costs Incurred with Water-Filled Tubes .............................................................................................................................................5-14 5-9 Option #4 Three-Foot Berm Construction, Estimated Construction Cost Incurred to Raise the Trail Elevation to 749 feet .......................................................................................................................5-15 5-10 Option #4 Three-Foot Berm Construction, Estimated Annual Costs Incurred to Raise the Trail Elevation to 749 feet ...............................................................................................................................5-16 5-11 Estimated Costs Summary for Flood Protection of English Landing Park ..................................5-16
ii
Table of Contents-Parkville.docx
Table of Contents • Parkville Flood Protection Study
List of Figures RS-1 Recommended Flood Protection Technology Placement ................................................................. RS-5 RS-2 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing West along Highway 9 ...................................... RS-6 RS-3 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing South along Main Street ................................... RS-6 RS-4 Superimposed 6-foot High Berm along West Side of Park ............................................................... RS-8 RS-5 Preferred Park Flood Protection Alignment and Extended Alignment Option ..................... RS-11 1-1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-3 3-1 Preliminary Floodplain and Floodway ......................................................................................................... 3-4 3-2 Preliminary Flood Profile for Missouri River ............................................................................................ 3-5 3-3 Concrete Floodwall ............................................................................................................................................... 3-7 3-4 Fabric Membrane Dam Flood Protection .................................................................................................... 3-8 3-5 Metal Panel Flood Protection ........................................................................................................................... 3-9 3-6 Water-Inflated Tubes at Testing Grounds ................................................................................................3-10 3-7 Water-Inflated Tubes Dimension Cross Section ....................................................................................3-10 3-8 Water-Inflated Baffled Bladder .....................................................................................................................3-11 4-1 City Preferred Flood Protection Alignment and Sewer and Stormwater Utility Line Crossings ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4-2 Flood Protection Sections .................................................................................................................................. 4-4 4-3 Flood Protection Material Cost Curve .......................................................................................................... 4-5 4-4 Recommended Flood Protection Technology Placement .................................................................... 4-7 4-5 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing West along Highway 9 ......................................... 4-8 4-6 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing South along Main Street ...................................... 4-9 5-1 Preferred Park Flood Protection Alignment and Extended Alignment Option .......................... 5-2 5-2 English Landing Park Study Area and FEMA Floodway ....................................................................... 5-3 5-3 Berm and Shared Use Path Design Criteria Dimensions ...................................................................... 5-5 5-4 Superimposed 6-foot High Berm along West Side of Park .................................................................. 5-7 5-5 Tree Removal along Preferred Park Flood Protection Alignment ................................................... 5-8 5-6 Visual Representation of Gauge Analysis of Historical Record of Flooding at English Landing Park .........................................................................................................................................................5-10
iii
Table of Contents-Parkville.docx
Table of Contents • Parkville Flood Protection Study
Acronyms AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe CDM Smith CDM Federal Programs Corporation CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Parkville D-FIRM digital Floodplain Insurance Rate Map Downtown historic downtown business district FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Study Flood Study 290294V000 FIS Flood Insurance Study HDR 1999 Continuing Authorities 205 Study Parkville, Missouri Recommendation Report by HDR 1999 HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System LOMR Letter of Map Revision Park English Landing Riverfront Park SEMA Missouri State Emergency Management Agency SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFT secure file transfer Test Report Flood Technology Test Report USACE U.S. of America Corp of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey WSE water surface elevation
iv
Table of Contents-Parkville.docx
Report Synopsis
This study is being prepared through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authority of Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1974. The purpose of this authority is to assist state, local and Tribal governments in the preparation of plans to address water resources and related problems. This Flood Protection Study was conducted by CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) on behalf of the USACE to develop flood protection recommendations that can be incorporated into an integrated, cost efficient, and effective flood protection plan for the City of Parkville (City). This study focused on two separate areas in Parkville for flood planning: the historic downtown business district (Downtown) and English Landing Riverfront Park (Park). The Downtown study area is north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks and west of the White Aloe Branch. The Park area is south of the BNSF railroad tracks, east of the White Aloe Branch and extends adjacent to the Missouri River. The height of flood protection for Downtown was determined using the difference between the base flood (commonly referred to as the 100-year flood or 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood) elevation and ground elevation. The height of flood protection for the Park consisting of a berm was analyzed using the difference between the 10-Percent Annual Chance Flood and ground elevations. Trail elevation to 749 feet was also considered. The ground elevation was determined using a combination of contour and survey information provided by the City. Flood protection systems considered included traditional levee/floodwall systems and innovative flood protection concepts that have been developed and installed over the last decade. Additionally, this study reviewed the regulatory floodway and base flood protection restrictions from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the effect it could have on the City’s Flood Protection Plan. The evaluation of flood protection technologies used the following considerations (parameters): effectiveness, constructability, cost/affordability, and maintenance and storage requirements. Additional points of considerations included physical constraints along the proposed flood protection alignment; equipment, people, and time requirements for installation; response planning; safety; and servicing the system under potentially prolonged flood conditions. The Downtown study area is a commercial use area with various businesses. Therefore, vehicular and pedestrian access, location of existing buildings, and location of existing utilities, including an active railroad, restrict the available width for flood protection construction and implementation. In the Park, the location of large mature trees and the banks of the Missouri River and White Aloe Branch affect construction of any flood protection technology. The City’s preferred flood protection alignment for Downtown runs along the west side of White Aloe Creek to the north side of the BNSF tracks, then westerly along the tracks. The required height of flood protection along this alignment ranges from 7 to 10 feet. The types of flood protection systems evaluated for Downtown included concrete walls, fabric membrane dams, metal panels, water-inflated tubes, and water-inflated baffled bladders. Specific benefits were found related to installation of each technology and in meeting the FEMA freeboard criteria. Since the width of the flood protection is determined by the desired height of the flood protection, the narrower base requirement for both the metal panel and concrete wall technologies is an important factor. Table RS-1 summarizes the results of each technology reviewed.
RS-1
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Table RS-1 Summary of Flood Protection Technologies Evaluated for Downtown Flood Protection
Technology Parameter Advantages Disadvantages
Concrete Floodwall
(Photo Source: CDM Smith)
Maintenance Reduces long-term
maintenance (annual
inspection may be required)
Limits dry side drainage
Potential for graffiti
Installation Requires minimal base width
Reduces time needed for
flood fighting effort versus
temporary efforts
Can be built in any
configuration
Permanent protection
(possibly lead to Letter of Map
Revision [LOMR])
Requires adequate space for
construction
Cost Reduces long-term
maintenance cost
No storage costs
No repeated installation costs
Initial installation more
expensive
Fabric Membrane Dam
(Photo Source: Portadam)
Maintenance City personnel familiar with
maintenance process from
2011 experience
Can be punctured
Must be continually inspected
during operation
Must be thoroughly cleaned
prior to storage after each use
Installation City personnel familiar with
installation process
1/10th the weight of standard
sandbags
Does not require permanent
foundation
Does not require prepared
surface
Can be installed in any
configuration
Requires sandbag
supplementation
Wind effects (until weight of
floodwater stabilizes)
Equipment required to move
pallets of material to
installation spots
Cost N/A Most expensive of the fabric
flood protection technologies
(material cost)
Metal Panel Flood Protection
(Photo Source: EKO Flood Systems
USA, LLC)
Maintenance Minimal Maintenance
Easily stored (stackable)
Must be cleaned with
pressure washer after each
use
Installation Quick Installation (Example: 1
person can install 1,000
square feet in five hours)
Multiple configuration options
(footer, stem wall)
Greater height does not
require a greater above
surface base width
Can be used with permanent
stem wall (reduces time
needed for installation of
flood protection)
Seepage occurs
Equipment required to move
pallets of material to
installation spots
Requires permanent footer
- Size of footer dependent
upon soil structure and
wall height
- Requires adequate space
for initial construction of
footer
Cost Additional panels can be
purchased in future to
increase height of flood
protection
Most expensive of temporary
applications
RS-2
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Table RS-1 Continued
Technology Parameter Advantages Disadvantages
Water-Inflated Tubes
(Photo Source: US Flood Control
Corporation)
Maintenance Can withstand up to 2,680
pounds of lateral pressure
(depending on anchor
diameter)
Punctures do not necessarily
result in loss of flood
protection
Must be thoroughly cleaned
prior to storage after each use
Can be punctured
Must be continually inspected
during operation
Installation Quick Installation
Stackable (to achieve greater
height)
Can be installed in many
configurations
Does not require permanent
foundation
Greater height requires a
wider base (approximate
1V:1H)
Equipment required to move
pallets of material to
installation spots
Limited turning radius
Cost Least expensive of reviewed
flood protection
N/A
Maintenance Limited maintenance during
installation
Can be punctured
Must be continually inspected
during operation
Must be thoroughly cleaned
prior to storage after each use
Installation Quick Installation
Stable (will not roll)
Does not require permanent
foundation
Greater height requires a
wider base (1V:2.25H)
Limited height (protects up to
6-foot Water Surface
Elevation (WSE)
Limited configuration (Does
not bend like Water-Inflated
tubes)
Not stackable
Equipment required to move
pallets of material to
installation spots
Cost N/A N/A Flood protection technology cost estimates obtained from vendors were used to perform a cost comparison of the technologies on a cost per linear foot basis. The concrete wall unit cost included installation, as this is a one-time expense. Both the concrete wall and the metal panel unit cost include an estimate of a typical footer cost, installed, as required for installation. All other technologies included material cost only, as installation cost will be required for each flood event in use. Fabric membrane, water-inflated tubes, and water-inflated baffled bladders all require more labor and time for installation when compared to the concrete floodwall or metal panel systems. These systems also cannot meet the height requirements through the entire alignment due to the required base width for installation. The costs of the technologies were within $200 per linear foot at a height of 8-feet. The recommended flood protection plan for the Downtown is a combination of permanent concrete walls and metal panels (with sill plate) at road crossings as shown on Figure RS-1. With this recommendation, the City could achieve protection of the Downtown area for the base flood elevation, while retaining its connection with the Missouri River and providing services to its residents. This recommendation has several benefits:
RS-3
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Maintenance. Maintenance requirements for the concrete wall would be limited to annual inspections and items identified during these inspections. Metal panels can be stacked and stored at existing City facilities.
Installation. With one-time installation for the concrete wall, there would be a decreased need for both City staff time and volunteer time for flood fighting activities in the Downtown study area. Installation would only be required during a flood event for the metal panels at the road crossings. While this will affect vehicular traffic in the area, Downtown would still be accessible from the north. In addition, this installation meets the width constraints present on the alignment.
Cost. The cost incurred with construction of the recommended system would primarily be a one-time construction cost. Annual inspection and maintenance costs would also be required.
Regulatory. Precedence has been set in FEMA Region VII for use of concrete walls and metal panels in updating the flood insurance study. The City could pursue a LOMR to remove the protected areas from the special flood hazard area zone.
Aesthetics. A permanent concrete floodwall can incorporate with current Downtown historical features, as shown on Figure RS-2 (view heading west along Highway 9) and Figure RS-3 (view south on Main Street). The estimated conceptual cost for this recommendation is $2.4 million. This cost is a feasibility level estimate and could vary significantly based on geotechnical investigations and decisions on final aesthetics of the proposed concrete wall. The flood protection review for the Park took into consideration both the City’s goals and the different physical, design criteria, and regulatory constraints specific to the Park. The City’s goals for flood protection of the Park include:
Building a berm to achieve a level of protection that will protect the Park from frequent floods that damage the park, generally within the 5- to 25-year event range
Retaining existing large mature trees
Retaining trail alignment
Retaining the trail width of twelve feet and
Retaining the parks connection with the Missouri River (aesthetic views) Items considered for the Park flood protection included the Missouri River flood elevation estimates, ground elevations in the park and along the trail, opportunities for flood protection tie-in based on natural and manmade high ground (such as the railroad embankment), constraints due to mature tree location along the proposed berm or trail elevation alignment, and the City’s goals for flood protection.
RS-4
Report Synopsis.docx
Wh
i
t
e
A
l
o
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
E 2nd Street
E 1st Stre
e
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
UV9
Metal Panels on Sill Foundation
Permanent Concrete Wall .
Figure RS-1 Recommended Flood Protection Technology Placement
0 100 20050
Feet
(c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Figure RS-2 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing West along Highway 9
Figure RS-3 View of Simulated Concrete Floodwall, Facing South along Main Street
RS-6
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study The current trail is approximately 6 feet lower than the 10-Percent Annual Chance Flood event water surface elevation (WSE). Since the scope of work for this project states that overtopping of the flood protection system is considered acceptable, no freeboard was included in this estimation (44 CFR recommends no less than 2 feet of freeboard). Taking into consideration the proximity and multi-purpose function of the trail to the river in conjunction with the steepness of the slope of the sides of the berm, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) design criteria is recommended for any trail modifications. For the purposes of this analysis, a 10- to 12-foot trail width was assumed. For the portions of the trail east of the Park road cul-de-sac, a 2-foot wide shoulder on the dry side of the trail and a 5-foot wide shoulder on the river side of the trail were assumed as part of any modification. This Park is renowned for its many festivals (Arts, Blues, Jazz, and RiverJam, Parkville Days, Turkey Trot and Christmas on the River). Many people visit the Park to enjoy its “scenic walking trails” which provide a unique connectivity to the Missouri River (City of Parkville English Landing Webpage, 2012). The height of the berm at 6 feet will block the view of the Missouri River from within the Park as shown on Figure RS-4. An additional negative impact would be the loss of over 50 mature trees. The study concluded that the height and width of the Park berm would have a negative impact on the aesthetic nature of the Park. The study identified that the preferred alignment was located within the regulated FEMA floodway for the Missouri River. A cost analysis was performed to evaluate flood protection options for the Park. The analysis utilized a historical flood analysis of Park, conceptual costs of building and maintaining a berm, and the historical flood repair costs from the City. The cost analysis resulted in four options.
Option #1 No Action: Budget for Park Clean Up With flooding occurring at the Park less than 2.5-percent of the time based on the historical Missouri River gauge data, one approach to addressing flood repair costs incurred is for the City to proactively budget for these anticipated costs using a pay-as-you-go sinking fund approach. This type of fund accumulates revenues until sufficient money is available for an identified project, or, in this case, a known cost incurred by the City on a regularly occurring basis. This would assist the City in building a fund to specifically address the Park flood recovery effort costs, when they are incurred.
Option #2 Six-Foot Berm Construction: Raise Trail Elevation to 752 feet The City has expressed a desire to construct a berm to provide flood protection of the Park as described previously. Figure RS-5 shows an approximate alignment of this berm, which would be at a height of 6 feet. The berm is estimated to provide the Park protection from a 10-year flood event. Annual costs are still incurred with routine inspection and maintenance of a berm. Because the berm would only be constructed to provide a 10-year level of protection for the Park, flooding would still occur and, therefore, the City would still incur flood repair and clean-up costs to the Park.
ng
Vie
w
RS-7
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Fig
u
r
e
RS
-4 Su
p
e
r
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
6
-foo
t
H
i
g
h
B
e
r
m
a
l
o
n
g
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
o
f
P
a
r
k
RS-8
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
Option #3 Temporary Flood Protection: Water-Filled Tubes In lieu of a permanent berm, the City could pursue a temporary flood protection option for the Park. The summary of technologies reviewed discussed advantages and disadvantages of three temporary flood protection options: fabric membrane, water-inflated tubes, and baffled bladders. Of these, water-filled tubes would allow the City the flexibility of choosing the best alignment to protect resources within the Park, while also allowing the City to purchase additional material, as funds are available. This would allow the City to adjust flood protection of the Park to a desired level for future flood events. Similar to the permanent berm, annual costs are still incurred with temporary flood protection technologies (storage, etc.).
Option #4 Three-Foot Berm Construction: Raise Trail Elevation to 749 feet An additional alternative could include the City pursuing incremental flood protection of the Park by elevating the trail approximately 1 to 3 feet, to elevation 749 feet. Appendix C includes conceptual plan and profile views of what this trail elevation could look like. Annual costs are still incurred with routine inspection and maintenance of trail elevation. Flooding would occur less frequently, but the City would still incur flood repair and clean-up costs to the Park.
Evaluation of Options for Flood Protection of English Landing Park Table RS-2 summarizes the estimated initial (construction and/or material acquisition) costs and estimated annual costs for each option.
Table RS-2 Estimated Costs Summary for Flood Protection of English Landing Park
Option Description
Estimated Cost (2012) 1
Initial Cost Annual Cost 2
Option #1 No Action Budget for Park Clean Up $0 $230,000
Option #2 2 Six-Foot
Berm Construction Raise Trail Elevation to 752 feet $1,820,000 $280,000
Option #3 Temporary
Flood Protection 3 3-Foot High Water Filled Tubes $270,000 $250,000
6-Foot High Water Filled Tubes $520,000 $260,000
Option #4 Three-Foot
Berm Construction
Raise Trail Elevation to 749 feet –
Contract Construction $670,000 $260,000
Raise Trail Elevation to 749 feet –
City Self Perform Construction $510,000 4 $230,000 5
1 Estimated costs have been rounded up to the nearest $10,000.
2 Annual costs do not include intangible costs that cannot be quantified (i.e. loss of use).
3 Use of water-filled tubes is considered infeasible and is not recommended for further consideration.
4 Assumes City cost to construct is 75% of contracted cost.
5 Assumes City would self-perform annual maintenance and flood repair. Under the “No Action” option, no initial cost would be incurred by the City. Instead, the City would proactively budget for anticipated future flood repairs in the Park. The annual costs for Options #2 and #4 include building the berm, repairing the berm after minimal flood events, and annual maintenance of the berm. These costs do not included loss of use during flood events, the impact of any berm construction adjacent to established trees, modification to existing light poles and benches, and a reduction of the river view from the Park (particularly from the River Stage Park Shelter). Raising the trail along the southern edge of the Park reduces accessibility to the
RS-9
Report Synopsis.docx
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study trail and increased maintenance tasks. Currently the trail is accessible from any point in the Park for physically challenged people. Adding additional areas of accessibility to the trail would increase the financial costs associated with the berm. The additional maintenance tasks include inspecting for damage from burrowing animals, inspecting for scouring from high WSE events, and repairing noted damages. Any fill placed for a berm or trail elevation should be compacted to meet USACE standards. This fill should be placed in 6 to 10 inch lifts. With the significant number of trees adjacent to the existing trail alignment, an arborist should be consulted to determine fill allowable near trees or design requirements for tree protection. Existing stormwater conveyance paths through the Park to the river are critical to retain. In addition, tie-in of a trail elevation or berm could pose challenges at the railroad tracks. Additional requirements may be required from BNSF to place any fill adjoining the railroad embankment. It should be noted that the entirety of the Park is within the FEMA regulated floodway of the Missouri River and will require a City floodplain permit for any land modifications. Sandbag closures would be required at certain points where berm construction or trail elevation is not feasible. These locations include the Park road entrance, existing boat ramp, and Park road cul-de-sac, as well as potentially the connection adjacent to the railroad. A one to two day lead time would most likely be required to construct these measures prior to flooding. The Park would be closed leading up to and during any flood event. During the flood event, the berm and/or trail elevation area would require continuous monitoring to assess the structural integrity as well as the dewatering needs within the Park. Following any flood event, a full inspection of any berm and/or trail elevation should be completed with repairs completed as identified. Due to the current lack of available water at the Park, the use of water-filled tubes (Option #3) as a temporary means of flood protection is considered infeasible. It is also uncertain how well the tubes would hold up under prolonged flooding conditions of the Missouri River as their placement would be in an area of higher flow velocity.
RS-10
Report Synopsis.docx
E 2nd Street
E 1st Str
e
e
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Engl
i
s
h
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
D
r
i
v
e
UV9
UV9
Whi
t
e
A
l
o
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
Rush Creek
Missouri River
740
750
760 770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
90
0
910
920
930
940
950
96
0
970
98
0
99
0
10
0
0
740 740
830
740
740
740
750
750
750
75
0
970
75
0
74
0
750
750
750
.
Preferred Park Flood Protection Alignment
Extended Park Flood Protection Alignment
Ten-Foot Contour
0 400 800200
Feet(c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Figure RS-5 Preferred Park Flood Protection Alignment and Extended Alignment Option
Report Synopsis • City of Parkville, Missouri – Missouri River Flood Protection Study
This page intentionally left blank
RS-12
Report Synopsis.docx
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Authority This study is being prepared through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authority of Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1974. The purpose of this authority is to assist state, local and Tribal governments in the preparation of plans to address water resources and related problems.
1.2 Purpose This Flood Protection Study was conducted by CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Smith) on behalf of the USACE to develop flood protection recommendations that can be incorporated into an integrated, cost efficient, and effective flood protection plan for the City of Parkville (City). Flood protection systems considered included traditional levee/floodwall systems and innovative flood protection concepts that have been developed and installed over the last decade. The newer concepts include both new technical approaches to flood protection and selected measures that are classified as semi-permanent/permanent flood protection concepts. Additionally, this study reviewed the regulatory floodway and base flood protection restrictions from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the effect it could have on the City’s Flood Protection Plan.
1.3 City of Parkville Historical Flood Information In 1999, under the continuing authority of Section 205 Flood Control Act, a preliminary assessment study was conducted for the USACE. The study evaluated non-structural land use zoning, floodplain management and flood-warning emergency response systems, and traditional structural levee/floodwall systems. This study determined that conventional structural alternatives were too costly to protect the downtown area and undesirable in terms of impacts to the aesthetics, historic assets/buildings, environmental habitat, and connectivity to the river. A Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Parkville completed in August 1977 documented the existence and severity of flood hazards within the study area. Flood hazard boundary maps of the City were re-evaluated and updated in 1978 for the National Flood Insurance Program. Although the Missouri River Basin has been studied extensively, no previous reports or studies specific to the Parkville area have been conducted. FEMA recently performed a flood study along the Missouri River from which preliminary digital Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps (D-FIRMs) and models were created. Currently, this preliminary information has not been adopted by FEMA as effective. One significant change noted on the preliminary maps and models is the reduction in the Missouri River base flood elevation. The base flood elevation for the Missouri River and White Aloe Branch in the study area changes from 762 feet to 760 feet.
1-1
Section 1 Introduction.docx
Section 1 • Introduction
1.4 Study Area This study focuses on two separate flood planning areas in Parkville: the historic downtown business district (Downtown) and English Landing Riverfront Park (Park). As shown on Figure 1-1, the Downtown study area is north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks and west of the White Aloe Branch. The Park area is south of the BNSF railroad tracks, east of the White Aloe Branch, and extends adjacent to the Missouri River. The flood water source for both study areas is the Missouri River. Flood events occur in the Park first, due to the Park’s low ground surface elevation and proximity to the Missouri River. Currently, most of the Downtown area receives minor flood protection from the railroad track embankment. There is approximately a 20-foot elevation increase between the edge of the Park and the railroad embankment.
1-2
Section 1 Introduction.docx
E 3rd Street
E 2nd Street
E 1st Str
e
e
t
Mill Stree
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ea
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Engl
i
s
h
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
D
r
i
v
e
UV9
Whi
t
e
A
l
o
e
B
r
a
n
c
h
Rush Creek
Missouri River
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920 930
940
950
96
0
970
98
0
99
0
10
0
0
74
0
970
740
830
92
0
740
740
740
760
75
0
75
0
750
870
750
940
750
750
86
0
750
.
0 400 800200
Feet(c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Figure 1-1 Study Area
Downtown Study Area
Park Study Area
BNSF Railroad Line
Ten-Foot Contour
Waterway
Section 1 • Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
1-4
Section 1 Introduction.docx
Section 2
Data Collection
An inventory of available information was completed for the Downtown and Park study areas to identify and characterize a recommended flood protection alignment and technology. The previous study was reviewed for baseline hydrology and hydraulic information. Data was collected from the City, FEMA, Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), USACE, the Internet, and field visits. Data collected included historical flood events information, including site-specific flood depths, and volunteer numbers and hours.
2.1 Data from USACE During the kick-off meeting USACE staff provided contact information for USACE flood fighting staff as a source of information for the flood protection system utilized by the City in 2011. The USACE flood fighting staff were interviewed by phone in August 2012. The USACE flood fighting staff also provided (e-mail) information about the flood protection systems currently being utilized by the USACE. The data provided by the USACE is listed on Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Data Provided by USACE
Data Description Format
Continuing Authorities 205 Study Parkville, Missouri Recommendation Report by HDR
1999 (HDR 1999)
PDF
Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic models
(KCLeveesPh1 - 2006 and MoR100yrFldwy – 2007)
HEC-RAS files
Temporary Flood Protection System Information e-mail (September 2012)
verbal (August 2012)
2.2 Data from City The 2011 flood event resource contact information was provided by the City during the kick-off meeting. Contacts included the City Manager, Police Department, and Public Works personnel. Data from the City was provided through meetings, phone and e-mail communication, and via a field visit/computer download. Table 2-2 lists the information provided by the City.
Table 2-2 Data Provided by City
Data File Type
Geographic Information System files:
City Limit
Contours
Sanitary Sewer System
Stormwater System
Trees
2011 Flood Protection System Alignment
GIS Shapefiles
(Received September 2012,
creation date unknown)
2011 High Water Observations Excel Spreadsheet
2011 Volunteer count and hours Database Hardcopy
2011 Flood Fighting Costs Meeting Record
Survey Points (November 2012) PDF
2-1
Section 2 Data Collection.docx
Section 2 • Data Collection
2.3 Data from SEMA The SEMA office was contacted to determine if there was digital flood information available for the Missouri River and White Aloe Branch within the study area. The preliminary hydraulic modeling information and the D-FIRM created on behalf of FEMA were downloaded from the SEMA secure file transfer (SFT) website. In review of this data it was noted that, while the effective Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and preliminary D-FIRMs currently refer to White Aloe Branch as White Aloe Branch, the hydraulic modeling files and profiles refer to White Aloe Branch as White Branch.
2.4 FEMA Data Information regarding FEMA floodplain regulations as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), CFR 44 revised as of October 1, 2010 and the online electronic CFR (e-CFR) was gathered for flood protection design criteria reference.
2.5 Data from Flood Protection Vendors Utilizing the initial list of flood protection types and manufacturers from the scope of work, the Internet was used to collect data and contact information for multiple flood protection manufacturers. In order to perform a direct comparison of vendor cost estimates, each vendor was provided the following assumptions for this conceptual level estimate by e-mail:
Estimated length and height of flood protection needed as related to four flood events (Significant Damage, Base Flood, 1993 Event and 500-Year, and HDR 1999)
Three road crossings in the area for the flood protection system
Option of recommending use of a mix of flood protection technologies The following manufacturers provided cost estimate information for this study:
Architecture Metals Ltd.
EKO Flood Systems USA, LLC
Flood Control America
Hydrological Solutions, Inc.
Portadam Inc.
US Flood Control Corp. The information provided by each manufacturer reflected sole source installation of each flood protection technology and is included in Appendix A.
2-2
Section 2 Data Collection.docx
Section 2 • Data Collection
2.6 Site Visit Material Site visits occurred in September and November of 2012 to collect photos for visual aids and measurements at minimum width points on potential flood protection alignments. Photos were taken in the vicinity of the BNSF railroad tracks, the Downtown area, and the Park. The minimum width points of the Downtown flood protection alignment occur beside the U.S Post Office Building (approximately 8 feet between the edge of building and the White Aloe Branch bank) and between the railroad and buildings on the west side of Main Street (approximately 14 feet between the edge of railroad fence and building).
2-3
Section 2 Data Collection.docx
Section 2 • Data Collection
This page intentionally left blank
2-4
Section 2 Data Collection.docx