Flood Protection Plan

October 20, 2020

October 20, 2020

Dear Eureka Citizens:

The City of Eureka has suffered through 7 major river floods over the past 40 years. The recent floods of 2015 and 2017 had the highest river crests on record. The City had major floods in 1982-83 and 1993-94, and the earliest recorded City flood was in 1915, which is the 4th highest flood river crest on record.

In response to flooding in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the City coordinated with the State and Federal Government for a buyout of flood-prone properties, currently known as Route 66 State Park and Kircher Park. The City operates parks in other flood-prone areas which allow for recreational use during non-flood conditions, and limit damage during flood events.

Despite these efforts, large areas of the City still remain vulnerable to flooding. The recent 2015 and 2017 floods caused major damage to homes and businesses and caused numerous life safety issues. Public facilities and infrastructure were significantly impacted. For example, the City Waste Water Treatment Plant was overtopped (causing effluent to flow into the flood waters and Meramec River), Eureka High School incurred major losses and the flooding of Highway 109 and other smaller roads resulted in citizens being cut-off from access to necessities and emergency services.

The City estimates that the floods of 2015 and 2017 caused approximately $10,700,000 in damages. The total loss would have been much more had it not been for substantial sandbagging measures undertaken during the 2017 event. Many City residents and businesses have stated that they would not be able to financially recover from another major flood event, and the economic repercussions of these floods have been long lasting and severe.

In 2018 the City passed Proposition “E” which created a one-half cent sales tax to fund certain public safety projects, including flood mitigation. The City subsequently formed a “Public Safety Task Force” and “Flood Subcommittee” to research potential solutions to help prevent flooding. The City also engaged the engineering firm Horner & Shifrin, Inc. to assist with this research. The product of over 2 years of their effort is found in the enclosed Flood Protection Plan.

The Flood Protection Plan proposes building two Flood Walls that would be designed to protect against a “500 Year” flood event. I view this as the best possible solution to preserve public safety and prevent damage to property and infrastructure by addressing disruptions caused by river flooding. The Plan includes our engineering, cost estimates, survey locations and flood analysis with supporting data.

City officials have met with key regulators, State and Federal officials and property owners. The key permits required will be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City applied for these permits in early 2020, and anticipates that the public comment process will commence soon. The City projects that it could complete construction of the Walls within 12-15 months after receiving the Corps permits, which means that if permits are obtained in the first quarter of 2021, flood protection for the City is possible in 2022.

I encourage you to review the Flood Protection Plan and contact us if you have questions or need further information. We will be holding a town hall style event to allow opportunities to speak with City officials and regulators. I am proud of our City for designing and funding this innovative solution, and I hope that you will help support this effort to bring flood protection to the City of Eureka.

Sincerely,

Sean M. Flow er Mayor

1. The Problem

1. River and Creek Flooding. Two major creeks (“Flat Creek” and “Forby Creek”) run through the City of Eureka (the “City”) and discharge into the Meramec River. Flat Creek is located predominately on the South side of Interstate 44, and Forby Creek is located on the North side of Interstate 44 (Forby Creek is also known as Clifty Creek). Almost all of the storm water in the City discharges into Flat or Forby Creek, which then flow into the Meramec River.

When the Meramec River is at flood stage and rains have engorged both Flat and Forby Creeks, storm water can no longer flow into it instead backs up and overflows the creekbanks throughout the City. In the past 40 years the City has suffered through 7 large flood events (1982, 1983, 1993, 1994, 2008, 2015 and 2017). The flood condition existed for several days during each event. While the best recorded information we have is from the most recent floods, the City has endured flooding in these locations for over 100 years, with the City’s 4th highest flood crest occurring in 1915. A list of the City’s 10 largest flood events, including each river crest and damage that occurs at each level is attached as EXHIBIT 1.

2. Prior Buyouts and Current Flood Mitigation Efforts. Flood mitigation efforts have been underway in the City for many years, and these efforts have consisted of buyouts, City land use planning and temporary mitigation.

Initially federal buyouts were used to permanently relocate people and property out of flood-prone areas. The Federal Government “bought out” the owners of the current “Route 66 State Park” property (the former Times Beach environmental cleanup site), and later the mobile home park formerly located on the property now known as “Kircher Park”. These large areas located near the Meramec remain permanent open space where flood water can flow without damage to the City.

The City also planned for flooding by placing City parks such as Legion, Lions, Soetebier and Drewel Parks in much of the flood-prone areas. This planning allows use of the areas in non-flood conditions, with very little permanent damage during flood conditions.

The City has partially protected remaining flood vulnerable areas with temporary barriers (sandbags) and temporary relocations (i.e., the City removes key electronics from the Waste Water Treatment Plant prior to flooding if timing allows). These temporary measures still leave many areas unprotected (the Waste Water Treatment Plant still floods), there are significant road closures and considerable advance notice is needed to provide even these limited protections. These temporary efforts to protect the remaining flood areas are not a sustainable long-term solution.

3. Current Flooding Locations. As outlined in the prior Section, property buyouts, land use planning and temporary measures have reduced, but not eliminated, the flood risk and damages in the City. Because of the unique nature of the City’s flooding (caused by both the Meramec River and creek backups), two areas of the City remain subject to significant flood risk. These areas are outlined in white on the below map (the flood area is in the dark color). Small parts of these remaining areas receive some protection from temporary sandbagging efforts, but much more protection is needed.

4. New Flood Maps, Increased Flood Levels. Federal and State agencies (FEMA and SEMA) are nearing completion of revised flood mapping for St. Louis County. These revised maps will reflect the increased flood levels that the City has experienced in its recent history. The revised maps increase the 100-year flood elevation by 3.5 feet (from 42.08 to 45.62), and the 500-year flood elevation will increase by more than 3.5 feet. The revised maps demonstrate that flood levels and flood risk in the City has increased, and that flooding will back up into the Forby and Flat Creek watersheds even further, resulting in the white outlined properties being even deeper into floodwater.

5. Flood Damage. Flooding caused significant damage to homes, business, parks and other public facilities in the areas of the City outlined in white. Many homes and businesses sustain great damage during flood events, especially the homes in the Elk Trails subdivision, and the businesses in the City’s historic “Old Town” district. Many of these buildings have sewer backups, and the flood water presents significant health issues as it is contaminated by effluent from the Waste Water Treatment Plant overtopping (as described further below).

Two public facilities, the City Waste Water Treatment Plant and Eureka High School, are greatly damaged during flooding. In addition to on-site damage, flooding of the Waste Water Treatment Plant causes damage to areas around and downstream of the plant as it is overtopped during flood events. The overtopping causes the plant to discharge untreated sewage throughout the City, and into the Meramec River where it eventually flows east into other areas of St. Louis County. Eureka High School has suffered significant damage to its fields and buildings during flooding. Flooding also causes Highway 109 to be overtopped and closed, causing major safety issues and economic loss to many properties that are not directly flooded. These areas are cut-off from access and emergency services.

These property, business and infrastructure damages cause major economic loss, harm the environment, endanger the safety and health of our residents and strain municipal services.

The City estimates that the 2015 and 2017 flood events resulted in $10,683,040 in damage, with the Rockwood School District incurring nearly $2,557,140 in damage alone (See EXHIBIT 2 for a detailed cost breakdown). This estimate likely understates the potential damage from flooding in these events, as the City’s temporary flood protection efforts (sandbagging) prevented damage from the 2017 event. Several of the areas impacted (“Old Town”, Truitt Drive and Elk Trails Subdivision) do not have the ability to continue to sustain losses and interruption of this magnitude. Without greatly improved flood protection, the City could see blighted conditions in the future. Several area business and residents have publicly stated that they cannot financially afford recovery from another flood.

EXHIBIT 3 contains several photos and links to video regarding flood damage in the City of Eureka.

2. The Solution

1. Flood Walls. The City proposes to build two flood walls that would provide protection from river flooding. One wall will provide flood protection from Flat Creek (the “Flat Creek Flood Wall”), and the other will provide flood protection from Forby Creek (the “Forby Creek Flood Wall”). The approximate locations of the Flood Walls are shown in red in the diagrams below. The areas that are protected by the Flood Walls are bounded in white. These new protected areas include Eureka High School, the City Waste Water Treatment Plant, the Elk Trails Subdivision and the historic Old Town district. The Forby Wall is about ½ mile from the Meramec River at its closest point, and the Flat Creek Wall is nearly 1.5 miles from the Meramec River at its closest point.

2. Closure Structures, Pumps. Pipes with a closure structure will be installed in each creek where it crosses underneath the respective Flood Wall. Water will continue to flow in the creeks as normal when there is not a flood event. These pipes will have “Gatewell” closure structures which the City would use to close the pipes during a flood event (which provides protection from the Meramec). Pumps will be installed and will be used to pump the creek water over each Flood Walls during a flood event to keep the surcharged creeks from flooding the City (providing protection from the engorged creeks).

Based on analysis of flood data from the past 30 years by City contracted engineers, the closure structures would only be used 1.5% of the time, with river flowing as normal 98.5% of the time (see EXHIBIT 4). The closure structures are rarely closed, but they will provide massive benefit when closed. These “Gatewell” closure structures are used in many places in the Eastern Missouri area, as well as the rest of the United States. The City has identified 24 different locations in Eastern Missouri where closure structures are in place (used on the Meramec, Mississippi and Missouri Rivers), and a total of 356 closure structures are in use in these 24 locations. EXHIBIT 5 shows the locations and pictures of these similar closure structures. 3. Flat Creek Flood Wall. The Flat Creek Wall will have a total length of 3,672 feet, with 2,097 feet of earthen wall and 1,575 feet of concrete wall. The earthen section will have a maximum height of 22.1 feet, and will be 15 feet wide at the top, and 121.8 feet wide at the base. The concrete wall section will have a maximum height of 12.5 feet, a minimum height of 2.7 feet, and will be 15 inches thick. The Flat Creek Wall will provide flood protection for the City Waste Water Treatment Plant, “Old Town” Eureka, the Truitt Drive industrial park and Highway 109 and related roads South of Interstate 44. A detailed engineered drawing of this flood wall is shown below, and a full-size drawing is attached as EXHIBIT 6. The Flat Creek wall will be designed to allow continued trail access through this area.

4. Forby Creek Flood Wall. The Forby Creek Wall will be an earthen wall with a total length of 3,000 feet. It will have a maximum height of 22.1 feet, and will be 15 feet wide at the top and 200 feet wide maximum at the base (100 feet wide is typical). The Forby Creek Wall will provide flood protection for Eureka High School, Elk Trails subdivision and Highway 109 and related roads North of Interstate 44. A detailed engineered drawing of this flood wall is shown below, and a full-size drawing is attached as EXHIBIT 7.

5. Analysis of Impact on Other Areas. The report and memo attached as EXHIBIT 8, both prepared by the City’s flood engineer, shows that the Flood Walls will not cause a rise in water on the “flood side” of the wall, or have negative impacts on other areas. The Forby Flood Wall is at least a ½ mile away from the Meramec at its closest point, and the Flat Creek Wall is nearly 1½ miles away from the Meramec at its closest point.

6. Flood Protection, Benefits, Limitations. The Flood Walls will provide the best possible protection from Meramec River flood events for property, infrastructure and most importantly - life. Life safety, as related to safe passage for emergency responders and motorists south of Old State Road, will also be significantly improved by these flood protection projects. The goal is to have the Walls certified by the City engineer after construction, and to obtain a “Letter of Map Revision” from FEMA. Once FEMA accredits the certification, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps will recognize the lessened risk of flooding to properties behind the Walls. This accreditation will either remove the mandatory purchase requirement for flood insurance or, if the lender still requires such, the premium will be significantly reduced (recognizing the lower risk of an insurance loss). In Old Town alone, local businesses could save $250,000-$300,000 in annual recurring premiums. While there are limitations to the protection in that the City cannot guarantee absolute protection from nature, these Walls will be a tremendous improvement for the City. FEMA will certify the Walls to protect against a 100-year event, however, the Walls are being designed to protect against a 500-year event.

7. Protect Existing Areas. The Flood Walls protect existing developed areas of the City that suffer the most damage during a flood event (existing buildings, roads and infrastructure). Their purpose is to protect people, as well as structures and infrastructure that cannot be practically protected or relocated, not to create areas for new development.

8. Flash Flooding, Storm Water. The Flood Walls will not improve flash flooding in the City. Flash flooding is caused by heavy rains that overwhelm the City storm water system, not by river backup. The City has addressed flash flooding by cleaning and removing debris from several large drainage areas, and by regular maintenance of the City storm water system. The City will continue to implement other storm water improvements.

9. Permits, Public Notice and Comment. The City has met with SEMA, the Corps of Engineers and other Federal, State and local officials regarding this Plan. The Flood Walls will require a floodplain development permit (issued by the City), a land disturbance permit (issued by Missouri DNR) and a permit from the Corps of Engineers related to the pipe and closure structures. The Corps is in the process of reviewing the City's permit application. As part of the Corps review process, they will request comments from the public regarding the project, and the public will be given the opportunity to provide comment to them. The City believes it will obtain the floodplain development and land disturbance permit. The Corps permits are the last significant permits required to move forward with this Flood Protection Plan.

10. Additional Corps of Engineer Support. The City and Corps have worked together on flood prevention plans for over two (2) years and will continue this effort. The Corps has already provided valuable data and reports about flooding in the entire Meramec Basin which the City has used in our analysis. The City thanks the Corps for its assistance and commitment toward providing long-term flood solutions for the City of Eureka and the entire region.

11. Cost and Funding. The City estimates that the Flood Walls described in this Report will cost between $7,500,000 to $8,000,000. A preliminary construction cost estimate is attached as EXHIBIT 9. Eureka would fund this construction from two (2) sources, Prop E and funds from the sale of the City Water and Sewer systems. There was initially a $2,000,000 allocation of Prop E funds toward flood protection, and it is likely that another $2,000,000 of Prop E funds originally allocated toward the Allenton Bridge project will not be needed and can be allocated to flood protection (a total of $4,000,000 from Prop “E” toward Flood Protection). The City would then use $4,000,000 from the utility sale to fund the remaining project costs. These project costs assume that the City is able to obtain dirt suitable to construct the walls at no cost, which is a reasonable assumption, as the City has already stockpiled a considerable amount of material, and has interest from several parties in providing more material. While this project may ultimately be eligible for federal financial assistance, the City has assumed there will be no assistance for purposes of this analysis.

12. Flood Wall Maintenance. In addition to the initial cost of construction, there will be long-term costs associated with maintenance of the Flood Walls and related protection system. These costs include turf maintenance (mowing, fertilizing) pump station costs (power, pump inspections and maintenance) and regular inspections by City staff and other professionals to ensure that the pumps, walls and closure gates are all operating as designed. These costs will need to be included in the annual City Budget.

13. Current Status. The field work and preliminary plans for the Flood Walls are complete. The City met with Federal, State and local officials regarding this project. In February 2020, the City submitted “Individual Permits” to the Corps of Engineers requesting authorization to install the closure structures for the Flood Walls, and anticipates public notices relating to these permit applications being sent out in November/December of 2020. The City is also working with all of the property owners directly impacted by the flood wall and will continue to negotiate to obtain all entitlements needed to proceed. A large portion of the Flood Walls are located on City property (some of which was acquired for purposes of completing the walls). Once the Corps of Engineers permits are obtained, the City anticipates construction of these Flood Walls can be completed within 12-15 months, meaning flood protection for the City is possible in 2022.

14. Informational Meetings. The City will hold town hall style events to inform the public about this Plan, discuss permit issues, impacts on the area and give the public opportunities to ask questions. In addition, the City will continue to work with each of the individual stakeholders involved with construction of the Flood Walls.

15. Proposition E and Flood Committee. In response to flooding and several other key City public safety needs, the residents of the City passed “Proposition E” in 2018. Prop E created a half cent sales tax that provided funding for certain public safety projects, including flood protection. Once passed, a Public Safety Committee and Flood Subcommittee were formed by residents and public officials to work on efforts to protect the City from flooding. The City would like to recognize the efforts of these citizens, and thank them for their time, effort, and contribution to this Plan. The City also commends Horner & Shifrin, Inc., particularly lead engineer Karen Frederich, for her work.

Public Safety Committee and Flood Subcommittee

Sean Flower, Mayor Wes Sir, Alderman Jerry Diekmann, Alderman Carleen Murray, Alderman Craig Sabo, City Administrator Michael Wiegand, Police Chief John Boggs, Public Works Director Greg Brown, Fire Chief Kathy Butler, City Attorney Kevin Coffey, Former Mayor Chuck Maher, President of Chamber of Commerce Dr. Patrick Feder, Fire Board Director Paul Northington, Rockwood School District CFO Michael Bagwell Sean Hannan Guy Bopp Butch Oberkramer

16. Contact Information. If you have questions about this report, or would like to request further information, please contact City Administrator Craig Sabo, at [email protected], or 636-938-5233. 3. Exhibits

EXHIBIT 1 Eureka Historic Flood Crests and Local Damage per Crest Level

EXHIBIT 2 Flood Damage Detailed Itemization

EXHIBIT 3 Flood Damage Photos and links to Video

EXHIBIT 4 Closure Structure Analysis

EXHIBIT 5 Location s a nd P ictures o f E astern M issouri C reek C losure S tructures

EXHIBIT 6 Flat Creek Flood Wall

EXHIBIT 7 Flat Creek Flood Wall

EXHIBIT 8 Flood Study (HEC-RAS)

EXHIBIT 9 Cost Estimate

EXHIBIT 1 Eureka Historic Flood Crests and Local Damage per Crest Level

Historic Crests

(1) 46.11 ft on 05/03/2017 (2) 46.06 ft on 12/30/2015 (3) 42.89 ft on 12/06/1982 (4) 42.20 ft on 08/22/1915 (5) 40.90 ft on 04/14/1994 (6) 40.06 ft on 03/22/2008 (7) 39.00 ft on 02/01/1916 (8) 38.90 ft on 06/11/1945 (9) 36.72 ft on 09/26/1993 (10) 36.60 ft on 05/03/1983

Damage Per Crest Level 46.5 The Raineri Construction Products building on Truitt Drive begins flooding near this height.

46.3 The S hell stati on betw een So uth Cen tral Ave nue and Highw ay 109 build ing and the Eur eka P ost Off ice build ing will bo th begin flooding near this height.

46 Midwest Motors office buildi ng beg ins flood ing at t his heigh t.

45.7 Gershenson Construction on Truitt Drive begins flooding at this height.

45.3 The Legion Park Community Center will begin flooding near this height.

45 Three busin esses alon g Truit t Drive, Earthbound Recycling Cen ter, J.M. Mersheutz Cons truction and Sellenriek G rading begin flooding near this height.

44.5 The intersection of Highway 109 with highways W and FF will begin flooding near this height.

44 Cotton's Ace Hardware between South Central Avenue and Highway 109 begins flooding near this height.

43.5 Near this he ight, floodw ater w ill rea ch the top of the rim arou nd the wastew ater treatm ent p lant lagoo n.

43 Near this height, numerous businesses along Central Avenue in old town Eureka, Rockwood Bank, and the sewage treatment plant will begin flooding.

42.8 Highway 109 i n the o lder bu sine ss sec tion of E ureka is cl osed ne ar this he ight. 42 Highway 109 near O ld S tate R oad is flo oded an d closed nea r this heigh t. Al so, Lio ns Par k ball fields wi ll begi n floo ding near this height.

41.5 Near this height, floodwaters will reach the floors of the utility buildings at the wastewater treatment plant, including the generator shelter.

40.2 Highway 109 at Eureka Senior High School is closed.

40 The right bank begins to overflow.

35 Lighthouse Storage property begins to flood. Shelters and roads within Route 66 State Park are also flooded at this level.

34 Numerous homes on West Spring River Ranch Road begin flooding at or slightly above this level.

32.9 Near this height, the parking lot, restrooms, and smaller pavilion along Williams Road at Kircher Park in Eureka begin flooding.

32.5 On t he river 's Nor th s ide 8 ho me s along W est S pri ng River Ran ch Ro ad beg in f lood ing.

29.7 Near this he ight , the l arge pav ilion fl oor and gaz ebo a long Willi ams R oa d at Kir cher Pa rk begin flood ing.

28 The lowest house on West Spring River Ranch Road begins flooding on the lower level.

EXHIBIT 2 Flood Damage Detailed Itemization

THE POWER HOUSE AT UNION STATION ● 401 S. 18th ST., STE. 400 ● SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63103-2296 314-531-4321 ● FAX 844-339-2910 ● www.HornerShifrin.com

March 6, 2019

Ashley Rasnic, PE, PMP VIA ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION Corps of Engineers – St. Louis District CEMVS, PM-F

RE: Federal Interest Determination

Dear Ms. Rasnic,

On behalf of the City of Eureka and in response to the email communication dated February 14, 2019 at 4:53 PM to Craig Sabo and others following the Coordination Call on February 7, the enclosed information is provided to aid in the Federal Interest Determination. The spreadsheet, compiled by the City of Eureka from input of affected individuals, shows the economic impact from the December-2015 flood event and the April-2017 flood event. The numbers demonstrate that mitigation actions taken after the 2015 event resulted in lower repair/recovery and floodfight/mitigation for the 2017 event. Please review this information and let me know if you have any questions related to this table.

The City believes it is important to assign a damage factor to intangible impacts experienced during the 2015 and 2017 flood events. While it is understood that readily available and scalable dollar values cannot be assigned to these impacts, they, nonetheless, can influence the cost-benefit calculations and provide immeasurable benefit to the City of Eureka and the region.

Eureka High School experienced measurable flood losses as disclosed in previous communications. The impact related to the disruption of the school year is vast: students didn’t have the in-person instruction or collaboration with teachers and fellow students during these events, they lost out on school related extracurricular activities and may have experienced loss of personal property. Teachers, teacher aids and support staff experienced a disruption in their pay and had to make extraordinary accommodations during both events.

Losses related to business activity extend beyond the high school. Businesses along Truitt Drive and in Old Town were significantly impacted. Businesses along Truitt Drive tried to continue operations from remote locations but efficiency was severely reduced. Commercial activity in Old Town was suspended for months following both floods causing loss of revenue to the businesses and loss of income to employees. Businesses reliant on interstate traffic saw reduced and absent traffic during the closure months.

Health and welfare impacts are self-evident when sanitary collection and treatment systems fail. Sewage backing into basements creates an aggravating factor into the cleanup and restoration efforts. If not sanitized adequately, residences and businesses can become the

SAINT LOUIS, MO ● CHICAGO, IL ● O’FALLON, IL ● POPLAR BLUFF, MO ● O’FALLON, MO

Address Repair/Recovery Flood Fighting/Mitigation Associated Costs Other 2015 2017 2015 2017 2015 2017 2015 2017

24 Fawn Meadows$ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,500.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 57 Fawn Meadows$ 75,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 1,120.00 $ 2,800.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 81 Caribou Court$ 7,662.00 $ 111.00 $ 1,329.00 $ 2,789.00 $ 1,680.00 $ 700.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 2 Spring River Ranch$ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,450.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 70 White Doe Court$ 100.00 $ ‐ $ 3,500.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 25 Fawn Meadows$ 11,386.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 3,900.00 $ 3,189.00 $ ‐ $ 15,000.00 $ ‐ 122 South Central Avenue$ 133,000.00 $ 200.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 500.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 59 White Doe Court$ 9,002.00 $ 3,125.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 64 White Doe Court$ 22,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 650.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 6,500.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 104 Elk Run Drive $ ‐ $ 2,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 85 Caribou Court$ 26,472.00 $ ‐ $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 77 Augustine Road$ 57,000.00 $ 63,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 8,400.00 $ 8,400.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 81 Augustine Road$ 220,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 13,525.00 $ 9,425.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 138 South Virginia Avenue$ 27,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 57 White Doe Court$ 75,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 2,800.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 68 White Doe Court$ 19,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 75 White Doe Court $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 2,300.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 74 White Doe Court $ ‐ $ 5,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 210 South Central Avenue$ 68,400.00 $ 49,500.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 16,900.00 $ 9,000.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 53 White Doe Court $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,000.00 $ 178.00 $ 268.00 $ ‐ $ ‐ 78 Caribou Court $ ‐ $ 9,970.00 $ ‐ $ 10,020.00 $ ‐ $ 1,020.00 $ ‐ $ 1,000.00 83 Caribou Court$ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 556.00 $ 56.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,150.00 14 Fawn Meadows Drive$ 2,623.00 $ 892.00 $ 650.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1,000.00 1400 South Outer Road$ 200,000.00 $ 205,930.00 $ 29,600.00 $ 29,600.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 40,000.00 1500 South Outer Road$ 310,000.00 $ ‐ $ 325,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ ‐ $ 25,000.00 84 Caribou Court $ 51,950.00 $ 18,760.00 $ 150.00 $ 5,650.00 $ 500.00 $ 750.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 5,100.00 127 South Central Avenue $ 57,494.00 215 Thresher Drive (St. Anthony's)$ 35,000.00 $ 20,000.00 219 Thresher Drive (Rockwood Bank)$ 100,000.00 $ 300,000.00 200 South Central Avenue$ 20,000.00 225 Thresher Drive$ 10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 207 South Central Avenue$ 50,000.00 $ 20,000.00 221 Thresher Drive$ 15,000.00 $ 5,200.00 7 Truitt Drive$ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 131 South Central Avenue$ 50,000.00 14 East Spring River Ranch Road$ 40,610.00 $ 40,610.00 1 Spring River Ranch Road$ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00 128 South Central Avenue$ 46,000.00 15 Truitt Drive$ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 22 Dreyer Avenue$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 137 South Central Avenue$ 20,000.00 141 South Central Avenue$ 105,000.00 15 West Spring River Ranch Road$ 11,450.00 $ 2,000.00 133 South Central Avenue$ 80,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,500.00 2 Truitt Drive$ 400,000.00 $ 300,000.00 333 Bald Hill Road (Community Center)$ 171,386.00 $ 5,420.00 $ 4,806.00 25 Truitt Drive$ 79,764.00 $ 79,000.00 30 Thresher Drive$ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 223 Thresher Drive$ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 199 Allen Road$ 113,102.00 $ 29,885.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,670.00 103 Thresher Lane $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 71 Augustine Road (WWTP)$ 603,793.00 $ 231,138.00 1 Williams Road (Kircher Park)$ 4,174.00 $ 74,583.00 Lift Stations (109, Kircher and Raineri)$ 15,094.00 $ 10,000.00 City Wide (sandbagging, trail repairs etc.)$ 101,449.00 $ 71,315.00 $ 819,839.00 $ 184,626.00 Donated Resources$ 41,669.00 $ 173,235.00

Subtotals$ 3,715,330.00 $ 2,099,624.00 $ 866,444.00 $ 578,591.00 $ 454,678.00 $ 172,863.00 $ 151,600.00 $ 86,770.00

Total:$ 8,125,900.00 RSD Incurred Loss Totals

From: Freund, Chris | [email protected] Wednesday, Mar 4, 9:58 AM

To: Sean Flower | seanf@flowerandfendler.com

Good morning, Sean

Below is the breakdown of expenses related to the 2015 and 2017 floods.

Let me know if you need anything else.

I greatly appreciate all of your efforts on this.

2015 Estimated Loss $1,885,631.58

* Mitigation: $338,068.00 * Building Repairs/Replacements (including outbuildings, athletic fields and outdoor scoreboards): $1,030,075.55 * Contents (Materials/Replacements)

* EHS: $393,418.71 * Eureka Bus Lot (25 Truitt Dr): $10,653.08

* Sandbagging and Cleanup: $54,632.04 * Labor (12/29/2015-03/31/2016): $42,527.50 * Operating Net Losses: None reported as loss occurred over winter break * Transportation (athletic events relocated): $16,256.70

2017 Reported Loss: $671,508.79

* Mitigation: $314,947.61 * Building Repairs Replacement (including outdoor fencing and marquee): $176,159.00 * Contents:

* EHS: $42,436.19

* Labor (4/30/2017-5/7/2019): $35,531.00 * Operating Net Losses

* Adventure Club: $52,241.00 * Child Nutrition Services: $50,193.99 Let me know if you need anything else.

I greatly appreciate all of your efforts on this.

-- Chris Freund Director of Facilities Services Rockwood School District 636-733-3270 EXHIBIT 3 Flood Damage Photo s and Link s to Vide o

1915 Flood in Old Town Eureka

Emergency Rescue Efforts

The Flooded Eureka Sewer Plant

Highway 109 in Flood Conditions Old Town Eureka and Overtopped Sewer Plant 2017

Governor Nixon Speaking Near Flood Waste Disposal Area Shortly After 2015 Flood Old Town Eureka

Old Town Eureka

Flood Damage Inside Eureka High School in 2015

Eureka High School

Rockwood Bank Plaza

2017 Sandbag Clean Up 109 and Elk Trails Subdivision Flooding

2008 Flood in Old Town

Old Town Eureka Sandbag Wall Post Flood

Video Links

https://www.facebook.com/FOX2Now/videos/10155317408084228

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1182882705075558

https://www.facebook.com/TheWeatherChannel/videos/10155369899825921

https://khqa.com/news/state/watch-historic-flooding-hits-st-louis-area

EXHIBIT 4 Closure Structure Analysis

The daily flow gage readings for the previous 30-year period of record (10,950 days) is shown above.

FLAT CREEK The flowline at the proposed gatewell structure is Assuming the slide gate is closed for river stages 430 (approx.). This corresponds to a stage 26.1. exceeding stage 31 (elev. 434.9) for 22 days. The river was above stage 26.1 for 43 days.

FORBY CREEK The flowline at the proposed gatewell structure is Assuming the slide gate is closed for river stages 415 (approx.). This corresponds to a stage 11.1. exceeding stage 17 (elev. 420.9) for 175 days. The river was above stage 11.1 for 469 days.

EXHIBIT 5 Location s an d P ictures of Eastern Missouri Creek Closure Structures

InIn thethe St. LouisLouis District, District, the the National National Levee Levee Database Database shows shows 28 systems 24 systems that have that gravity have drain gravity structures: drain structures that discharge to the Meramec, Mississippi, -4and Missouri Rivers. All of these structures have at least one backflow prevention mechanism. The number of structures are indicated in parentheses.

Consolidated North County Levee System (52) Missouri Bottoms Levee System (6)

Elsberry / King's Lake System (5) Wood River D&LD Lower System (30) Wood River D&LD Upper System (5)

Foley, Cap Au Gris Levee & Winfield Main System (12) Brevator Levee System (6) Lakeside 370 Levee System (1) Chouteau Island / Chain of Rocks West Levee System (2) Columbia Bottoms Levee System (5) Howard Bend Levee District System (4) St. Louis Flood Protection Project System (71)

MESD / Chain of Rocks East Levee System (30) Prairie du Pont / Fish Lake System (12)

Monarch-Chesterfield Levee District System (4)

Valley Park Levee System (7) Columbia Drainage & Levee District No. 3 System (10) Festus Crystal City Levee System (4)

Prairie du Rocher / Edgar Lake System (12)

Ste. Genevieve No. 3 Levee System (4)

Grand Tower / Degognia Kaskaskia Island Drainage & Levee District System (8) Levee System (34)

Cape Girardeau Flood Protection System (9)

Big Five Levee System (23) TYPICAL GATEWELL STRUCTURE WITH THREE PIPES

Gatewell - located on landside of levee

Manual gate operators (to open & close gates) Slide gates located at bottom of gatewell - in closed position

Outfall at creek with backflow valves and antiflotation weight

EXHIBIT 6 Flat Creek Flood Wall

EXHIBIT 7 Forby Creek Flood Wall

EXHIBIT 8 Flood Study (HEC-RAS)

101 LAURA K DRIVE, STE. 101 ● O’FALLON, MISSOURI 63366-3991 636-329-9296 ● FAX 844-339-2910 ● www.HornerShifrin.com

March 30, 2020

Mayor Sean Flower City of Eureka, Missouri 100 City Hall Drive P.O. Box 125 Eureka, MO 63025-0125

RE: Hydraulic Model of Meramec River

Dear Mayor Flower:

As part of the ongoing flood mitigation project, Horner & Shifrin developed conceptual alignments of levees that would prevent the Meramec River from backing up in Flat and Forby Creeks. This means of flooding caused significant damage in 2015 and 2017.

To demonstrate that these proposed levees would not cause a rise in flood elevations, we modeled the proposed flood-protected areas in a hydraulic model. Fortunately, SEMA has recently completed a detailed study of the Meramec River watershed and we were able to obtain a copy of the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the river so the analysis will utilize the best-available and most current data.

The attached memorandum describes how this hydraulic model was used to show the proposed flood protection levees do not cause a rise in the flood elevations.

Sincerely, HORNER & SHIFRIN, INC.

Karen Frederich, PE, CFM Senior project manager enc.

SAINT LOUIS, MO ● CHICAGO, IL ● O’FALLON, IL ● POPLAR BLUFF, MO ● O’FALLON, MO

8755 W. HIGGINS RD., STE. 325 ● CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60631 312-332-4334 ● FAX 844-339-2910 ● www.HornerShifrin.com

Memorandum

TO: Sean Flower DATE: March 30, 2020 FROM: Stephen Randolph H&S JOB NO.: 182300 SUBJECT: Meramec River HEC-RAS modeling CC: Karen Frederich, file (levees at Forby and Flat Creeks) ______

BACKGROUND

The City has requested an evaluation of two proposed levees on the Meramec River. One is located near the confluence of Forby Creek and the other near the confluence of Flat Creek. The evaluation will determine if the regulatory water surface elevations on the Meramec River will be affected by the proposed levees.

MODELING METHODOLOGY

All hydraulic modeling was done using the Corps of Engineers’ HEC-RAS program. For this analysis, Horner & Shifrin obtained the Meramec River model (MeramecRiver.prj) used to create the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from the FEMA Engineering Library.

The HEC-RAS program allows for the set-up of “Plans” consisting of a combination of geometry and flow files. There are three plans that make up the HEC-RAS model for this analysis. Each of the plans are described in more detail in the sections that follow.

DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE PLAN

The duplicate effective model is a copy of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS. For this project, the effective model (MeramecRiver.prj) was saved as MeramecRiverLevees.prj and the simulation executed to ensure that the duplicate effective and effective models’ input and output matched one another.

CORRECTED EFFECTIVE PLAN

The corrected effective plan (MeramecRiverLevees.p05) corrects any errors that occur in the duplicate effective plan and adds any additional cross sections needed for analysis of the area of concern. For this plan, cross sections needed to be added to the duplicate effective model to include the two levee sites. The additional cross sections for the Forby site are located at STAS 173440.4 and 174146.5 and the additional cross section for the Flat Creek site are located at STAS 184149, 184246,184732, 185121 and 185218.

SAINT LOUIS, MO ● CHICAGO, IL ● O’FALLON, IL ● POPLAR BLUFF, MO ● O’FALLON, MO Meramec River HEC-RAS modeling (levees at Forby and Flat Creeks) Memo March 30, 2020 Page 2

PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLAN

For the proposed conditions plan (MeramecRiverLevees.p06), the corrected effective cross sections were modified to include the proposed levee geometry. Simulations for the 100-year (0.01 probability) flow event were run and then compared to each other.

CONCLUSION

As shown in the attached tables and cross section plots, the proposed levees do not affect water surface elevations on the Meramec River. This demonstrates no negative impact on the Meramec River or its floodplain.

Flat Creek HEC-RAS River Stations

167975.6 Y

169265.6

170461.6

173440.4 172059.8

173906 Z

183371.3 183161.7 175010.8 183057 182905.2 AC

184246.*

184732.*

185218.* 188176 AD

190620.4 211649.5 209078.7207483.1 AF 185996.8

194359.9 204007.6 AE 200612.1 197215

Flat Creek HEC-RAS Output Table

HEC-RAS River: Meramec River Reach: Main Profile: P100yr Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Main 185996.8 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.69 425.4 450.8 0.00009 4.31 83332.0 4636.0 0.12 Main 185996.8 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.69 425.4 450.8 0.00009 4.31 83332.6 4636.0 0.12

Main 185218.* P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.64 450.8 0.00009 4.21 91566.9 5362.2 0.11 Main 185218.* P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.64 450.8 0.00009 4.21 90788.2 5290.8 0.11

Main 185121.* P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.63 450.8 0.00009 4.13 92753.8 5464.0 0.11 Main 185121.* P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.63 450.8 0.00009 4.12 91922.6 5393.0 0.11

Main 184732.* P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.60 450.7 0.00009 4.11 96833.5 5846.7 0.11 Main 184732.* P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.60 450.7 0.00009 4.11 96088.3 5763.7 0.11

Main 184246.* P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.57 450.7 0.00009 4.07 102433.6 6451.2 0.11 Main 184246.* P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.57 450.7 0.00009 4.05 101882.6 6367.0 0.11

Main 184149.* P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.56 450.7 0.00009 4.00 103205.1 6585.7 0.11 Main 184149.* P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.56 450.7 0.00009 4.00 103208.7 6585.8 0.11

Main 183371.3 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 404.2 450.37 424.6 450.6 0.00015 4.98 111581.1 7895.2 0.13 Main 183371.3 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 404.2 450.37 424.6 450.6 0.00015 4.98 111584.9 7895.2 0.13

Main 183161.7 Bridge

Main 183057 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 402.6 449.87 425.6 450.2 0.00015 6.57 97588.3 7447.0 0.17 Main 183057 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 402.6 449.87 425.6 450.2 0.00015 6.57 97593.1 7447.0 0.17

Main 182905.2 AC P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 402.6 449.91 425.7 450.2 0.00009 5.83 100946.1 7004.7 0.15 Main 182905.2 AC P100yr Prop3 164700.0 402.6 449.91 425.7 450.2 0.00009 5.83 100950.9 7004.7 0.15

Main 182731.9 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 402.6 449.78 427.9 450.1 0.00012 6.82 88728.6 6435.3 0.18 Main 182731.9 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 402.6 449.78 427.9 450.1 0.00012 6.82 88732.9 6435.3 0.18

Forby Creek HEC-RAS River Stations

169265.6

170461.6

173440.4

172059.8

173906 Z

183161.7 175010.8

183057 182905.2 AC

184149.* 184246.*

Forby Creek HEC-RAS Output Table HEC-RAS River: Meramec River Reach: Main Profile: P100yr Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Main 174383.9 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 383.2 447.53 417.0 448.5 0.00016 9.09 44972.7 3710.9 0.21 Main 174383.9 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 383.2 447.53 417.0 448.5 0.00016 9.09 44974.7 3710.9 0.21

Main 174301.9 Mult Open

Main 174246.5 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 381.8 445.20 412.7 446.1 0.00015 8.68 44865.4 4263.2 0.20 Main 174246.5 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 381.8 445.20 412.7 446.1 0.00015 8.68 44867.4 4263.3 0.20

Main 174146.5 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 381.8 445.19 412.7 446.1 0.00015 8.68 44835.5 4263.0 0.21 Main 174146.5 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 381.8 445.18 412.7 446.1 0.00015 8.69 44766.0 4178.0 0.21

Main 173906 Z P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 388.5 445.73 416.5 445.8 0.00002 3.05 68288.3 4171.3 0.08 Main 173906 Z P100yr Prop3 164700.0 388.5 445.73 416.5 445.8 0.00002 3.05 68288.4 4116.4 0.08

Main 173440.4 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 396.9 445.49 418.7 445.8 0.00008 5.35 74122.2 3563.8 0.15 Main 173440.4 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 396.9 445.49 418.7 445.8 0.00008 5.35 74122.4 3565.5 0.15

Main 173340.2 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 396.9 445.48 418.7 445.8 0.00008 5.35 74090.5 3563.8 0.15 Main 173340.2 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 396.9 445.48 418.7 445.8 0.00008 5.35 74090.5 3563.8 0.15

Main 172059.8 P100yr CorrEff3 164700.0 393.9 445.41 445.7 0.00007 5.30 74057.0 3351.6 0.14 Main 172059.8 P100yr Prop3 164700.0 393.9 445.41 445.7 0.00007 5.30 74057.0 3351.6 0.14 EXHIBIT 9 Cost Estimate

Quantity Unit Unit Cost Extension FLAT CREEK Earthen wall 103,000 ccy 10 Concrete floodwall 1,347 cy 1,000 1,346,670 Utility relocation 100,000 allowance 50,000 Drainage west side of wall 250,000 allowance 250,000 Gatewell/culvert 1 ls 500,000 500,000 Pump station 1 ls 1,800,000 1,800,000 SUBTOTAL 3,946,670 Site restoration 7.5% of subtotal 296,000 Contingency 10% of subtotal 394,667 TOTAL 4,637,337

FORBY CREEK Earthen wall 107,000 ccy 10 Gatewell/culvert 1 ls 500,000 500,000 Pump station 1 ls 1,800,000 1,800,000 SUBTOTAL 2,300,000 Site restoration 5% of subtotal 115,000 Contingency 10% of subtotal 230,000 TOTAL 2,645,000

TOTAL WITH BOTH WALLS 7,282,337