The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 33-64

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 33... ... 33 Introduction A survey was distributed to the state hydraulic engineer (or equivalent position) at the 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 34 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 6 (13%) Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 35 State DOT Response California • In-house monitoring system for rainfall, flash flood, etc. • Some instrumentation on bridges Delaware • DelDOT Flood Monitoring System brochure Georgia • BridgeWatch -- flood monitoring website • USGS rapid deployment gages Idaho • Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems State DOT Response Oklahoma • Our communications and cross-over people with Office of Emergency Management, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and cooperative gages with the USGS • An extensive Mesonet system of precipitation stations monitored by NOAA Pennsylvania • PennDOT's data and information South Carolina • Improving pre-storm planning, documenting institutional knowledge from previous events, and meetings that include all parts of the DOT involved in pre/during/post-response • Improve communication between DOT units, with other state agencies, and with federal agencies • Keep dedicated employees and the ability to quickly understand information and apply it • Expand use of rapid deployment gages (RDGs) Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 37 Flood Monitoring Figure 12 illustrates the reported DOT offices that are responsible for flood monitoring. Some of the DOTs noted that their flood monitoring is a joint effort with no one office or person in charge. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... 38 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Instruments and tools: The most commonly observed instrument and tool that DOTs use for flood monitoring are federal stream gages, which are often USGS stream gages. The distribution of instruments and tools used for flood monitoring is shown in Figure 14. Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 39 State DOT Response Alaska Local reports, local observations, satellite data Connecticut BridgeWatch Hawaii National Weather Service Massachusetts Tide gages Minnesota Flights Mississippi Information from local DOT maintenance personnel Nebraska NDOT cameras Ohio Third-party platform Oklahoma Mesonet Oregon Preventative, used in design, not during a flooding event Pennsylvania Internal systems South Carolina On-site measurements, RDGs, river cams, BridgeWatch, on-site pictures Wisconsin GIS Division of State Patrol (DSP) Table 6. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... 40 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 2 (5%) Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 41 5 = very effective) , 35 of 42 DOTs responded with a self-ranking of 3, 4, or 5, which is considered successful. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 4 (9%) Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 43 2 (4%) Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 1 (2%) Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 45 3 (10%) Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems State DOT Response Massachusetts Standard federal products Nevada Models are projects, not flood prediction Oklahoma People and computers; we do not run models to predict floods, we design to withstand them. Table 13. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 47 6 (20%) Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 48 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems State DOT Response Colorado CWCB Delaware University of Delaware working with Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Hawaii Usually done in the design process and not usually updated Maryland As needed Nebraska When site conditions change Nevada, Oklahoma Models are not used for flood prediction New York When bridges are replaced North Dakota Project-by-project basis South Carolina SCDNR Utah No data are being inputted for the DOT Table 15. Other reported responses to how often the flood prediction model input data are updated. Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 49 2 (29%) Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... 50 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 4 (9%) Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 51 1 (2%) Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... State DOT Link to website Alaska I believe many Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) staff rely on the Alaska Pacific River Forecast Center's website for tracking floods. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 53 DOT Response Alaska Public interests may dictate the threshold Colorado Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) District of Columbia Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security Massachusetts Governor/state emergency management office Michigan State police North Carolina Emergency Management North Dakota National Weather Service Pennsylvania Governor's Office Table 21. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 54 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems DOT Forecast precipitation Forecast stream stage Observed precipitation Observed stream stage Observed stream inundation Model precipitation Model inundation Bridge scour Alaska 6 6 6 8 8 5 6 8 California 7 6 4 4 2 2 N/A 5 Delaware 6 6 4 8 8 4 8 6 District of Columbia 7 7 6 4 7 4 5 6 Georgia 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 8 Hawaii 6 N/A 6 6 6 N/A N/A 4 Idaho 4 N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 6 Iowa 5 7 2 8 8 6 N/A N/A Kansas 7 8 7 7 7 N/A N/A 7 Louisiana 8 8 8 8 5 5 5 8 Maine 6 2 6 8 4 N/A N/A 8 Maryland 6 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 Massachusetts 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Michigan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Missouri 8 7 8 8 8 6 6 8 Nebraska 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 8 New Hampshire 7 7 7 7 8 1 1 8 New York 6 6 6 8 8 4 4 7 North Carolina 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 North Dakota 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Ohio 8 6 6 5 4 3 4 3 Oklahoma 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 4 Pennsylvania 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 8 Rhode Island 5 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Carolina 4 6 4 8 6 3 3 N/A Texas 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 8 Utah 8 2 4 1 1 3 2 N/A Washington 8 8 5 8 8 N/A N/A 8 West Virginia 8 7 8 8 8 5 7 8 Wisconsin 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 8 Table 22. Reported importance rankings system (1 = least important and 8 = most important) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 55 4 (17%) Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 56 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems State DOT Effectiveness of general communication system Effectiveness of internal communication system Effectiveness of inter-agency communication system Effectiveness of public communication system California Email to maintenance. Georgia System attributes lead to quicker response times. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 57 2 (9%) Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 4 (8%) Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 59 2 (4%) Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 60 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems DOT Communication practices and approaches Alaska For large area-wide emergencies (e.g., earthquakes, extreme floods) , the state of Alaska would mobilize a command center to which all engaged department staff would report. Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 61 2 (4%) Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 62 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 5 (15%) Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... Survey of State Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 63 2 (4%) Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 64 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Summary The high response rate of this survey (94%) allowed a comprehensive view of DOT flood management practices across the United States. Read the entire page →

From page 33...

... 33 Introduction A survey was distributed to the state hydraulic engineer (or equivalent position) at the 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT.