Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.a.1)c) PowerPoint- 2016-17 Winter Storms Damage Update , including status of sinkhole repairs in Central San’s service area and lessons learned from the Miner Road sinkhole in Orinda i �1 i f r' w 1 O.a. 1 )c) 46 2016 17 WIN R S ORMS DAMAG UPDATE, MAY 189 2017 rw -. Edgar J. Lopez, PE Capital Projects Divis■on Mana er Paul Seitz, PE Collection System Division Manager Shari Deutsch Risk Management Administrator rw 4f* �i '�' 2016= 1 7 WINT R STORM DAMAG MA San Pablo r f Bay r r r ti 1 � t1% 100111111010111111 1 1 r_ G Sinkhole f - � �: ..f District Boundary ' - fy N San Carl6s Dr. Walnut Creek ',' � ; Illllner RoadIt, 24 Rheem Blvd.! _ --- Moraga Rd. { ' "-..• i S L. a ry's Molly a f' Sen f Francisco -, 1 ;ter t . , r ,r NORTH Sayl r Ilk Mile 5 _-- CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS SUMMARY • Rheem Blvd. / Moraga Rd. Sinkhole in Moraga • March 13, 2016 due to failure of city storm pipe, Central San sewer is in good condition • N . San Carlos 'in Walnut Creek • January 11 , 2017 due to trench failure • Miner Road Sinkhole in Orinda • January 11 , 2017 due to failure of City 84-inch CMP Storm pipe • St. Mary's College Sinkhole in Moraga • April 1 0, 2017 due to failure of Central San's 27-inch sewer pipe PIT 3 ► ' I'' A 1 I 1 •T } a � RH M BLVD . MORAGA SINKHOLE Wi Alk 14 4LAsm. Is Aa A ol 4W • 'p • Nearby sewer not damaged, Moraga will need to re laceportion of sewer to facilitatep Storm Drain repair. • Board approved utility agreement on Januar ' 266 2017 fora roximatel $38,000.� � approximately • Moraga has not yet completed repair. The Town is waiting for Caltrans approval, wh . p g pp o administers federal emergency funds on behalf of the Federal HighwayAdministration '. � , to solicit bids from prospective contractors to repair the Sinkhole. Caltrans is aware that the Town p e needs to receive approvals by early May 2017 to maintain theproject schedule and com lete re air. p repairs during this summer. �t .`•r �+ ',� �• Til yy r� �{�lf`l;� r+ Il�+�`1.•�� :, `. p' ,. .w .,. 4 t��..F 'r: F t 1,, rf• l i i • t f >� '. far. Itkl ,Y • ,. • ?'!+ i' . r � , � }.� �, 'a j� � � �: � ., - � _ ,•SIS,`cT�. J-!t• r ,1.� S•`` � '!�� 1 �. ..`i +�� �► r 1�•f� � � ��f���. �+'� �� 1. `til / �� r> '. .,� qj VW OIL -Q;r r:+eltf: k!r +_ � ~'''` s;J•. ', ' r ,' 71, wit lir• . ; 3•k , , F��f��. •r• A"�r �'�, �� .. ,. I� ,��' ��.��', ° '},,:.•r"1,i7,f► Y� I � ' > ', j i♦ ` is � • � �• "t a 1.yy S .ti,.a ,' 1 "ti.,l i ` �: "..i�•�4'i , rte,/�f y� J S J��jJ(j V-r.l..' 't.AR�7♦ .. ., dp dp dowpo .,, I\ r r , '' �fR�:'�- ���.,+ F -i- � ►•!•a''1_,J•1T`=�- ��14Ni`.'`nt.��'-C,� t • • • . • • i JANUARY 11 2017 STORM CAUSES SINKHOLE - MINER RD. ORINDA WEATHER STORM CAUSES SINKHOLE, CSO responded immediately and SEWAGE LEAK IN O installed bypass pumps/piping. started 24 hr monitoring of site. Engineering staff evaluated repairs and coordinated with the City of Orinda. • Initial sewer repairs consisted of 30 feet installation of the 15" and 18" sewer. Central San agreed to pay for sewer work only or install sewers with a Central r' San contractor. • Ongoing persistent heavy rain events prevented immediate repairs. G ' ✓� f F Am slu '^':—f'' amu.�_-►"" - 1 .� P ! JirQ• � set— M229 11 ' �' I . •ter ' II y 1{ t.y •. 7Yr f. °_• . S P � Ina LAr V - . I>.-N, . A l } RI • , I ,I .4: r' -i i moi«" � ! ..., -• � . rr 7 e j At j ss IV e { , 01 !V f pp� 00, • -. .-t: ` +fit, "4fi-°!. ,•.wF ai _. S r a•�. - -. a ,fir, i � _,•,'y� .1_ , _ K '� ��,�, `f'.R�' � r .•h _ + . y .� " .+'*Q- • f' . .- _ +a.r.4 'X t .yam'... r' .J f11 std,(Ihr, .r w94 P 5b� r j r flaw •' Yr mb Irk. V - v 41 40 - � �\ �;�►1 \ -•yam.+ 4� M • a r k.. �h +�l�, S i.-- " %.. �.` .. j Yf .- y. , � '�''• 1'!i�• ref'��r' a.Iy• r=_ . . tlip15" Dia. Sewer !I'9�` + �• � cerleio 18 Dia. ewer week _. 11th to 1 3 : _c MIN R RD. ORINDA (F RUARY 2017 STO M) Heav rain intense ansa winds cause mayhem in BayArea 8y Sarah Ravani,Peter Fimrite and Evan Sern©ffsky updated 8:15 pm.Tuesday,February 7,2017 ....... -_.. 46 Dee w txjuse hi Will valley i NOW I a� os Gatos rmAO& w. oti Facebook Napa Rive(expected � r to itse above flood "I kal a lira" Ulm Ago*' 1 1 Then on Feb r y th uarpproximately 6.30 am, three homes were flooded along iner Rd Creek is re a Flowing, i&_ Abe_ x_ yHeadwalls Partially `■ 4 `1^t .-may ► Demolished yr• *M 4.. - 1 Ar 10 IMR • - . . ' - �' Server still bypassed Gas still bypassed Water shut dow .1 WIPPIPMEEPPIMPM" I rj •-i a,�_ s� .tM,, •*� �����+�.� .� � } e t. 1�1 � 1 y� •.� r ox i1.{" . �.r>... Nil woo je .1 S .F ,ems � •+p°i' �� ,. / ��.,�, P}vim.' � � � t ,� �,F�1,� , •�� }�y �r r I� �� i��,� '�',� fi .. 00 It f n , � •� , ;e° ,� �� J 4 '' � moi. . r �. sill, Ald/ • , ay qtr :• .o.1~dr'! .tyi�e�*,- ��'1 164 it A, Oil r L �r r, M1r r R. Air fit' ..A,LN IPA- JIK ew fo •�.+� � ,, fir � � ! � �M �f ! I'�� � } Ir F� 10 jr *0 7t A� -sit wo, 1. j • iT' •OM1.•' p' •fi MINER RD. aRINDA REPAIR0P TIONS AS IMPACTED BY MILESTONE EVENTS Initial Response: in January 2017 (before other storms) • Option A: • Replace 30-ft each of the 15" dia. and 18" dia. sewer after city replaced storm drain pipe • CSO Bypass pumping around sink hole and creek to avoid SSO After second storm in February: • CSO continues bypass pumping around sink hole and creek to avoid SSO using Rain for Rent contractor • Option B: Central San designed a permanent creek crossing using pier supported steel casings and new sewers • Option C: Rerouting sewers (abandoned due to high cost, topography, and ROW/permits, etc.) Design issues arose with the City of Orinda and impacted surrounding properties: Several alternatives evaluated: • City re-designed for larger corrugated metal pipe Storm Drain or oval piping • City then re-designed to concrete box culvert • City then re-designed to concrete box culvert with overflow piping and storm manholes to accommodate neighbors • City then considered installing temporary bridge to re-open Miner Rd. and postpone repairs for up to three years • City dealt with many permitting and right-of-way issues • City coordinated and worked with CalTrans regarding funding requirements Current plan in progress being constructed • Option D: • Install two new sewers on top of City's new final culvert design independently from City's contract due to CalTrans/FEMA requirements • Using same contractor as City (Bay Cities P&G) due to emergency nature of project • CSO continues bypass pumping around sink hole and creek to avoid SSO using Rain for Rent contractor �3 N RAL SAN 0 ION B R PAIR PLAN _J T MW K T 11 t MM I'll MAE CiF11tzkwi.E* Ems# T r. WE T:?MWM I *% AIL E,."'E'k ET{ SMP MN _ -- F ;cgaT i 11-M am ur,a qW1413 I I . 1 ¢ I eE3' Wu----� tom'°�•--tj 1 -- - -- -- A SEWER PIPE CROSSING ELEVATION 5FALE: 1/2"=v_ao c • Designed permanent fix and received quotes Total estimated costs up to $650,000 • Environmental Review and Permitting considerations (i.e.; CEQA and US Army Corps of Engineers) are required • Potential conflicts with City emergency contractor and schedule 0 Upgrades and betterment not covered by FEMA and CalOES MIN RDN CITY FINAL D SIGN OPTION D YE:.`AAE). -L E- T -LL L L LE' ll-I €.. - H= H- H= x Hsi. ' H��1' H= H= H= Ham.rx HGF.' €��;NCRE E: BARRIER El Don EIS.`. :..,:a .U.1-1 C Ek,, Ek r, Ejr,,. I•.,LET EIS:., EIS. '.�.. yqrr. =F tip.; IT_ LE :,4TEA A L EAST WALL ELEVATION City contractor mobilized on April 19 2017 and started construction on April 24, 2017 See attached City of Orinda March 14, 2017 presentation by Larry Theis j._ OPTION D IS CURRENTLY BEING IMPLEMENTED • Least Net Cost to Central San • Most cost recovery from both FEMA and CaIOES • Least Risk to District from SSO avoidance • Permanent Fix • B est Solution in coordination with City of rinda /.s '••.V W.� �1i '3t 1.-.*,:� - •a, •' � E )��7,` �'ptJ i, .� .O-Y�/` 1 +r �{C • O :V•r•`�.� .�,y�.� � r++�i�' "�Y� r.._ ti } - y �i� -•'-`r''9\HJT" .�j�.�. `i 4 e.- - '+ � r Ai i+,S, *�� v r �.- fl+��f;4'� + .�` -`� 4•, ►��f �+� , ' .i+q,..� ., ,.. ���'Fi� + ♦ � �f' •Vit`+/,�,. +� �,r .'r�'� \, .�I�✓1�'' �- `•' S..�r�=s f' �* .i .' a., 1�"11.I. r -+ -i+• .,�. f{`�' lu, +, � fi). s• A��. +1�J ♦•i- Pji�a,a .t/� �. .. •Yt, T•,^e__ �7y.. )r� � .�` J\-�, � ,jk.y` •r - �.1�A! �''7�1 � .+�.! ,'e. �..s•r'Ir.�� 1'.y}'�,�` _ � , •�i. . ��� �4. 1. ,-�.�' 7/T,e� � ,�. - ^T�t�'r .��:'fit•: ��. .-y+ �'�a ►� �... , 1",. .�,R`Yj y� r.. r y,•, q . /f Ar a 91 Ilk ALL- L4 P At IL v � � r � 1 � �� .'�" I j� w.+ ` �:'y, '� a•-`�, 1'r i• J,. r,, M ,r +h �� • • ♦ r .7 Ail .,9 f• ♦ � � r ., y •+y..r ♦ �'.\.�� +�!'Ni 'r 1�i'� � 1,.Y 1'. -'t� S •i �:!� Y * , 1 r ,4t.��" � •" r 11 1. T- n r,x•. �, /s E_ � r A• ,fit � A` - .. .� � / ♦.' -� !'• M '� 1 ul .. ,ter.. •_l�ll�r�(♦ � 1 �.5 � !e�e`l a,�P `' r�i`. /��.4p'`-t 1•. � �,�+" �..��lr„�, •v�' 1 ri + "�w}•-'+X .Ai tet' � � •�•� --'►4"� .��,f�n.; '� h":h+�i�91 'r''./Y _�r +Aa�� -`t.`�y i ti���f ty,�+1. ,.y, - � _.. 7 r • l♦ A' 1 M'. '1 COST ANALYSIS FOR 0 TIONS Expected Duration of Bypass Pumping Bypass Pumping Cost Options Description of Repair Options Capital Cost months) (***) Total Cost Permits N CEQA A Initial Response $ 2500000 3.5 $ 389,851 $ 639,851 No No Redo Following Storm wash out(Option D) $ 200,000 2 $ 164,600 $ 364,600 No No Total for Option A$ 450,000 5.5 $ 554,451 $ 1,004,451 No No B Rerouting Sewers ** $ 2,000,000 18 $ 1,500,901 $ 3,500,901 Yes Yes C Pier Supported Steel Encased sewers $ 650,000 5 $ 431,001 $ 1,081,001 Yes Yes D �urrent Approach(Install pipe top of Final ulvert Design) 200,000 6 $ 513,301 $ 713,301 No No [•)Fish and Game,ALOE (**)Not pursued due to routing alternatives undetermined,design and construction complication(topography,2 creek crossings,golf course,ROW,and Army Corps of Engineers permitting.Cost could vary anywhere between$3M and$W. (*"J Month Rain for Rent plus OT for District Staff 75%of Emer enc Res)onse 18.75%of remaining Recovery from Fed Recovery from State Total Potential Percentage of Potential Financial Reimbursement FEMA CalOES Reimbursement eligible cost A Initial Response-Plus Option D $ 603,338,28 $ 150j834.57 $ 754,173 75 B Rerouting Sewers(*) $ 11125,67S.78 $ 281418.95 $ 1,407,095 40.2% C Pier Supeorted Steel Encased sewers $ 510,750.78 $ 127,687.70 $ 638,438 59,1°l Current Approach(install pipe top of Final D Culvert Design) $ 534 975.78 $ 133,743.95 $ 668,720 93.8% Total Potential Net Project Cost Impact Net Financial Impact Total Cost Reimbursement to District A Initial Response $ 1,00414S1 $ 7S4,173 $ 250,278 B Rerouting Sewers ** $ 3,500,901 $ 1,407,095 $ 2,093,806 C _Pier Supported Steel Encased sewers $ 11081,001 $ 638,438 $ 442,563 urrent Approach(Install pipe top of Final D ulvert Design) $ 713,:301 $ 668 720 44 581 Selected Option 1'S [.wed#��w¢� a�C�� JF�� '�•�•� ,��+/ r. .r � ` yt FJ � .f• .. e -�� .tom--�+. w t _ •� .dam• • ST. MARY S CO G MORAGA SINKHOLE Okift Ado or -`�_ � �' �. �� ...• `,`+k. �a fir°y `•. 04/12/1 7 1O: 2 F immediately res on �- secured sinkhole on April Contractor mobilized and started rel on April • Staff submi s o r U ic ssistance � � �, .. � i ,+`- r I• •� `" .�-:mart-�, a'^'�.�1 t�., �� ..•+ � ! �.�� - + ;���.�+. e�1 � is .i f ♦.. -A ,� �'i,�i- • ST. MARY' S COLLEGE REPAIR UNDER CONSTRUCTION Ar ir f r vA, -i + lb R- Ile �t Y��{iii � � ..� .i•. r� �41 LESSONS L ARN D ROM WINTER STAR M SINKHOLE EVENTS 11 , A Less coordination 1 Single agency required Faster execution More coordination Slower execution; less control 2 Multi-agency required of progress Importance of early Opportunity to maximize Multi-agency with coordination, and financial assistance and better federal and or state tolerance for evolving coordination and use of public 3 grant conditions funds ............... 21 FEDERAL AND STATE DISASTER $$ rograms Available to Central San : • FEMA — Public Assistance (pays 75%) 9 CaIOES — Calif. Disaster Assistance (pays 18 .75%) • Local Share is 6.25% • Events eligible to recovery: • Miner Rd . • N . San Carlos St. Mary's (TBD?) zZ TH PU LIC ASSISTANC A) P P OCESS I Dk off` i b � FEMA tbl(Rates 46 40 40 - 1 r r f funds to Recipient Subreelplant complates Reciolont c otW ucts work and requests Applicant. Brielings Oaseout Gt Its ra'ecti,s Applicant s submitRequests Recipient �''! Mr r ut llc Appl nt entice completion(within Preliminary Damage Assistance [within 30 and rej)orts all 180 days of project Assessment days of Declaratiurif damage completion)and FEMA (within 60 days of closes project(s). t .� rr tom_Tt FEW a ppraves Kikoft Meettnej Applicant ���� submlts cLarati FEMA closes MWeSt iwitftift 3 Develop Proj l $cope the.Applilcant days of tnctdenp FFMA canducts. of Work and costs kcff etir� i� 1 i,-► the. prey idential (within 21 days FEMA and Recipient Disaster PA Program i r Ci r� of RPA approval) conaucl Exit BrIeOnp, Award Mrs i e r.- ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • Applicant must be eligible. PAisonlY for Public Entities • Faclolloty or structure must be eligible. • Applicant must own or have legal responsibility to maintain it • Work must be eligible . Applicant must have legal responsibility to do the work Costs must be eligible . +�Z,.................. Must be nenecessaryandIeasonable, no P '---------- liand � Pro improvements allowed, reduced by allJmmry I U;40 applicable credits (insurance) etc. FEMA iNTRU 2Y FEMA CATEGORIES OF WORK Emergency Work Permanent Work Address an Restoration of: immediate threat: C Roads/bridges A Debris removal D Water control facilities OB Emergency E Buildings/equipment protective measures F Utilities G Parks, recreational, and other facilities Bypass Pumping Sewer Repair EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES Criteria: • Must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to lives, public health or safety Includes temporary relocation of essential services • Limited to six months' duration (extension may be granted upon applicant's request) I&A r .. _ 2 ` EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES Eligible Costs : Overtime * Force account equipment usage • Contracted work (T&Csapply) Ineligible Cost: • Regular time 27 PERMANENT REPAIRS • Only reimburses to pre-event conditions Cost of improvements/betterments excluded • Regular staff time is included Direct Administrative Costs are included WK c REIMBURSEMENT STATUS • Request for Public Assistance filed 3/17/17 • FEMA/CalOES kickoff meeting held 4/19/17 • Next Steps: • FEMA Site Inspectors review and report to local FEMA rep (this week?) • Local FEMA rep develops project worksheets for FEMA approval z9 1 I I ti Y t e 1 f4 "rrAf7R1 n'i" 77-74lr�_