Performance Evaluation Of The New Orleans And Southeast .
Performance Evaluation of theNew Orleans and Southeast LouisianaHurricane Protection SystemFinal Report of the InteragencyPerformance Evaluation Task ForceVolume II – Geodetic Vertical and Water Level Datums26 March 2007FINALVolume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsII-iThis is a preliminary report subject to revision; it does not contain final conclusions of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Volume I – Executive Summary and OverviewVolume II – Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsVolume III – The Hurricane Protection SystemVolume IV – The StormVolume V – The Performance – Levees and FloodwallsVolume VI – The Performance – Interior Drainage and PumpingVolume VII – The ConsequencesVolume VIII – Engineering and Operational Risk and Reliability AnalysisVolume IX – General AppendicesDISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation oftrade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names andtrademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
Volume IIGeodetic Vertical and Water LevelDatumsMap of IPET study area.
ContentsExecutive Summary .1Participants.3Scope and Purpose .4General Background on Elevation Datums Used in Coastal Engineering Design andConstruction in Southeast Louisiana .5Overview of Vertical Datums .7Geodetic Datums.7National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29).8Equipotential Surfaces and the Geoid .9Measuring Heights (Elevations) from GPS Observations .10North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)--Definitions and Adjustment .11Development of the Time-Dependent NAVD88 (2004.65) Reference Framework forSoutheast Louisiana .14Accuracy Assessment of the NAVD88 (2004.65) Framework in Southeast Louisiana.15Tidal Reference Datums.16Other Reference Datums Used for Navigation and Flood Control Structure Construction inSoutheast Louisiana.18New Cairo Datum of 1910 .18Mean Gulf Level (MGL) and Mean Low Gulf (MLG) Datums.19Mississippi River Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) Datums .22GPS Data Collection and Processing to Update Reference Elevations on SoutheastLouisiana Tide Gauges .24Development of GPS Survey Data Collection Network Design.24Static GPS Survey Phases.24GPS Data Collection and Processing Procedures .27Estimated Accuracy of the Resultant GPS Vertical Control Survey.29Comparison of Provisional and Final Elevation Adjustments .30Comparison of CORS-Only Elevation Adjustment .30NOAA Tidal Datum Computational Procedures and Estimated Accuracies in SoutheastLouisiana .32Review of Tidal Datums and Tidal Datum Computation Procedures .32NOAA Definitions of Tidal Datums .32Tidal Datum Computation Overview .33Errors in Determination of Tidal Datums Using NOAA Procedures .36Total Estimated Uncertainty in Tidal Datum Computation for Subordinate Station .39II-iiVolume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Reestablishment of New Canal (17th Street Canal) Gauge Station and Associated TidalDatum Error.40Connection between Tidal Datums and Geodetic Datums in Southeast Louisiana.44Use of a Modified NTDE Procedure for Geographical Areas with High Rates of SeaLevel Change .45Areas with Anomalous Sea Level Trends.45Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) .46Updated Tidal Datums in the IPET Study Area--LMSL Relationships to NAVD88(2004.65) .47Preliminary Local Mean Sea Level Relationship (December 2005) .47Rationale for Connections to Additional NOS Water Level Stations .50Local Mean Sea Level Relationships in the IPET Study Area .52Modified 5-Year Tidal Datum Analysis for New Orleans Study Area .56Local Mean Sea Level at IHNC Florida Avenue Gauge Site (1969) .59Relative Sea Level Trends in the IPET Study Area.61Introduction.61Variation in Sea Levels and Global Sea Level Rise.61Seasonal Variation.61Error Estimates.63Analysis Stations .65Sea Level Rates at USACE Stations.67Conclusions on Sea Level and Subsidence Trends .69Data Analysis and Impacts: Evaluation of Designed and Constructed Elevations on FloodControl and Hurricane Protection Structures .71Purpose .71Methodology .71Geodetic Vertical Datum and Tidal Epoch Elevations.71Typical Geodetic and Water Level Datums Used in New Orleans Area FloodwallConstruction.73Subsidence and Settlement Considerations in Protective Structure Elevations .77Data Analysis and Impacts: Orleans Avenue Outfall Canal Construction Reference Datums.79Summary of Findings .79Reference Documents.79Design Elevation Parameters .80Reference Benchmark for Orleans Canal Floodwall Construction.81Local Mean Sea Level Relationships at the Orleans Avenue Outfall Canal .83Impact of Datum Variations on Constructed Floodwall Elevations.83Assessment of Pre- and Post-Katrina Flood Protection Elevations (Orleans AvenueOutfall Canal) .84Data Analysis and Impacts: London Avenue Outfall Canal Construction Reference Datums.87Volume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsII-iiiThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Summary of Findings .87Reference Documents.87Design Elevation Parameters .87Reference Benchmark Used in London Outfall Canal Parallel FloodwallConstruction.90Local Mean Sea Level Relationships at the London Avenue Outfall Canal .91Impact of Datum Variations on Constructed Floodwall Elevations.92Assessment of Pre- and Post-Katrina Flood Protection Elevations (London AvenueOutfall Canal) .92Data Analysis and Impacts: 17th Street Outfall Canal Construction Reference Datums .96Summary of Findings .96Reference Documents.96Design Elevation Parameters for 17th Street Canal .96Reference Benchmark Used in 17th Street Canal Parallel Floodwall Protection .100Derived Elevations of Benchmark MONUMENT 14 .101Assessment of Pre- and Post-Katrina Flood Protection Elevations (17th StreetOutfall Canal) .102Data Analysis and Impacts: Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) ConstructionReference Datums .105Summary of Findings .105Reference Documents.105Design Elevation Parameters for East Levee Floodwall Capping (1969)--IHNC Lockto Florida Ave Sta. 0 00 to 56 20.105Historical Adjustments to Reference Benchmark M 152 (1951 to date) .106Assessment of Pre- and Post-Katrina Flood Protection Elevations (IHNC East BankFloodwall between Claiborne and Florida Avenues).108Design versus Current Floodwall Elevations in the IHNC between the GIWWConfluence to the Seabrook Bridge (East and West Banks) .111Reference Datums for Hurricane Protection Projects in St. Bernard and PlaqueminesParishes.113Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Projects .113New Orleans to Venice Projects .115Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) Projects .116Estimating Subsidence Rates in the Southeast Louisiana Region from GeodeticObservations .118Corps of Engineers Policies on Use of Geodetic and Water Level Datum Relationships inDesign and Construction of Hurricane Protection Structures .122Background .122Assumed Relationship between Geodetic Datums and Sea Level.122Corps Policy Guidance on the Redefined NAVD88 Geodetic Datum .125New Orleans District Policy Memorandum on Geodetic Datum Readjustments .126Historical Event Timeline on Use of Geodetic Vertical Datums in New OrleansDistrict .129II-ivVolume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Field Topographic Survey Support to Other IPET Teams.135Field Survey Procedures and Specifications .137Data Processing and Submittal .141Quality Control and Quality Assurance Procedures .141Methodology for Converting Previous Vertical Datums/Adjustments to NAVD88(2004.65).141Summary of Findings and Lessons Learned.143High-Resolution Hydrodynamic Model Relationships to Geodetic and Sea LevelDatums .143Mean Low Gulf Datum Conversion to Mean Lower Low Water Datum .143Dual Elevations on Flood Control and Hurricane Protection Structures.143Geospatial Data Source Feature or Metadata Records .144Epoch Designations of Published Topographic Elevations.144Future Updates to Geodetic Elevations in Southeast Louisiana Region.144Co-located CORS and NWLON Sites for Subsidence Monitoring.145New Orleans District Water Level Gauges.145Local Mean Sea Level Epoch Updates and Relationships.146Definitions of NGVD29, NAVD88, Mean Sea Level, and Local Mean Sea Level .146Hurricane Season Biases in Local Mean Sea Level Averages .146Coordination of Topographic Survey Data Collection, Processing, and Management .146Vertical Control Monumentation Requirements and Stakeout Procedures on FloodControl Construction Projects.147LIDAR and Photogrammetric Mapping Calibration and Testing .147USACE Policy and Manual on Maintaining Geodetic and Water Level Datums inHigh Subsidence Areas .148Differential GPS and Related Survey Standards for Establishing ConstructionControl .148Certification Policy on Use of Vertical Datums for All Applications.148References.149Corps of Engineers References.149Federal Geographic Data Committee References.151NOAA NGS References .152NOAA CO-OPS References .153Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.155Appendix 1: Lidar Patch Check AreasAppendix 2: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section DataAppendix 3: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section DataAppendix 4: IHNC West Bank Breach SurveysAppendix 5: Railroad DetailAppendix 6: 17th Street Canal – Low Chord ElevationsAppendix 7: Inner Harbor Navigation Canal – Low Chord ElevationsVolume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsII-vThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix 8: London Avenue Canal – Low Chord ElevationsAppendix 9: Orleans Avenue Canal – Low Chord ElevationsAppendix 10: High Water Marks – Orleans Parish, InteriorAppendix 11: High Water Marks Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, West BankAppendix 12: High Water Marks, Lower Plaquemines ParishAppendix 13: High Water Mark, St. Bernard ParishAppendix 14: Inner Harbor Navigation Canal West/SeaLand-Maresk Topographic DetailAppendix 15: Lake Pontchartrain/IHNC Gauge ConnectionsAppendix 16: Time Stamped Surge Elevations - New Orleans Lakefront AirportAppendix 17: Time Stamped Surge Elevations – Orleans Marina (Near New Canal atLakefront)Appendix 18: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section DataAppendix 19: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section DataAppendix 20: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section DataAppendix 21: Bridge/Floodwall TiesAppendix 22: Orleans Outfall Canal BM ALCO to CHRYSLER Level RunAppendix 23: Permanent and Temporary Control Used and Established for IPET SurveysAppendix 24: Pump Stations Surveyed, Listed by ParishAppendix 25: Jefferson Parish Pump StationsAppendix 26: Orleans Parish Pump StationsAppendix 27: Plaquemines Parish Pump StationsAppendix 28: St. Bernard Parish Pump StationsAppendix 29: St. Charles Parish Pump StationsAppendix 30: 1985 New Orleans Policy on NGS BenchmarksAppendix 31: GPS Network Adjustment - IPET Project ReportAppendix 32: IPET Digital Leveling SpecificationsAppendix 33: IPET Survey Task Order–Contract Scope of WorkAppendix 34: NAVD88 ETL 1110-1-152 1994Appendix 35: NGS Data Sheet for IPET GPS ControlAppendix 36: Outfall Canal Post-Katrina Topographic SurveysAppendix 37: IPET Supplemental Survey Scope of WorkAppendix 38: ETL 1110-2-349 Coastal MLLW DatumAppendix 39: Monument MemoII-viVolume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix 40: Historical TimelineAppendix 41: Benchmark HistoryAppendix 42: Leveling AbstractsList of FiguresFigure 1.Figure 2.Figure 3.Figure 4.Figure 5.Figure 6.Figure 7.Figure 8.Figure 9.Figure 10.Figure 11.Figure 12.Figure 13.Figure 14.Figure 15.Figure 16.Figure 17.Figure 18.Figure 19.Figure 20.Precise level lines and tide gauges used to define the NGVD29 datum. . 9Relationship between the ellipsoid, geoid, and orthometric heights. 10Differences in centimeters between NGVD29 and NAVD88. . 12Location of fixed benchmarks defining NAVD88 (2004.65). . 15New Orleans District datum plane conversions. . 21Martello Castle, Lake Borgne. . 25Shell Beach, Lake Borgne. 25Phase 1a and Phase 1b geodetic connections established by 3001, Inc. . 26Comparison of presently accepted tidal datums with preliminary tidaldatums computed on most recent data from New Canal Station (8761927).Elevations are relative to arbitrary station “0”. 40Estimation of uncertainty in tidal datum computation for 9-year historicaldata collected at NOAA Tide Station 876 1927, units in feet. . 42Estimation of uncertainty in tidal datum computation for newly collected 3months of data at NOAA Tide Station 876 1927, units in feet. 43Excerpt from published benchmark sheet for Waveland, MS, showing therelationship of NAVD88 to tidal datums. . 44NOS preliminary Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) (1983-2001 NTDE)minus NAVD88 (2004.65) differences for southern Lake Pontchartrain. 48Excerpt from NOS tidal benchmark sheet summarizing the procedure usedto obtain the new relationship between LMSL (1983-2001) and NAVD88(2004.65)—December 2005. . 49Planned locations of the 3001, Inc. Phase 1a and Phase 1b operations planto tie in additional NOS water level stations in support of the IPET. 50Phase 1a and Phase 1b geodetic connections established by 3001, Inc. insupport of the IPET. 51Excerpt from NOS tidal benchmark sheet summarizing the procedure usedto obtain the relationship between LMSL and NAVD88 (2004.65) at NewCanal Station. 53Preliminary LMSL (1983-2001 NTDE) – NAVD88 (2004.65) relationshipsin the IPET region. Values in feet. 54Rates of vertical displacement for benchmarks near Michoud Substationfrom NOAA Technical Report 50 (NGS 2004). 55New LMSL (2001-2005 NTDE) – NAVD88 (2004.65) relationships basedon 2001-2005 updated tidal datums. 57Volume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsII-viiThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Figure 21.Figure 22.Figure 23.Figure 24.Figure 25.Figure 26.Figure 27.Figure 28.Figure 29.Figure 30.Figure 31.Figure 32.Figure 33.Figure 34.Figure 35.Figure 36.Figure 37.Figure 38.Figure 39.Figure 40.Figure 41.Figure 42.Figure 43.II-viiiMethodology for determining LMSL (2001-2005 NTDE) – NAVD88(2004.65) relationship at USACE water level stations. . 58Long-term water level data collected at Florida Avenue, USACE waterlevel station (1944-2003). . 59January 1967 to October 1971 water level data collected at Florida Avenue,USACE water level station. . 60Monthly LMSLs from Pensacola to Galveston (meters above LMSL). . 62Seasonal variations in the IHNC (Florida Avenue gauge). 63Standard error of linear LMSL trends versus year range in data . 6495% confidence interval for linear MSL trends versus year range of data . 65LMSL trends from 1982 to present for selected Stations in the IPET studyarea. 66LMSL trends from 1982 -1992 for selected Stations in the IPET study area. . 66Possible datum shifts identified from raw COE data through comparisonwith NOS data series at Pensacola, Dauphin Island, and Grand Isle. 68Three separate time series derived from simultaneous comparison ofUSACE Florida Avenue data with NOS data identifying significant datumshifts near 1978 and 1982. . 68Sea level trend calculated from combination of the three segmentsidentified in the previous analysis is approximately 7.90 mm/yr. . 68Datum relationships at Benchmark ALCO and NOAA New Canal Gauge(1951 to 2006) (Source: NOAA). . 75IPET GPS surveys in December 2005 at Benchmark ALCO on seawallbulkhead at USCG station vicinity NOAA New Canal Gauge (3001, Inc.). 76Typical I-wall section at elevation 14.90 ft (DACW29-93-C-0077). . 80“Normal Water Surface” notation on flood-side of Orleans Outfall Canal(typical) DACW29-95-B-0035. . 81Impact of using NGVD elevation instead of LMSL elevation for construction stakeout of Orleans Avenue Outfall Canal floodwall construction(DACW29-93-C-0077). (Elevation differences are rounded to the nearesttenth of a foot.). 86Hydraulic profiles referenced to “NGVD” in GDM 20 (Revised May1990). . 88Typical section of floodwall with 14.4 ft design elevation on LondonAvenue I-wall. 89Typical portion of stage hydrograph on London Avenue Canal depicting1 ft superelevation based on the gauge at the Seabrook Bridge in theIHNC (DACW29-94-C-0079 (94-B-0047). 89Reference benchmarks (Gentilly Blvd. Bridge floodproofing—DACW2999-C-0005). 90Impact of using NGVD elevation instead of LMSL elevation for construction stakeout of London Ave. Outfall Canal floodwall construction. . 95Typical section and General Note depicting “normal water surface” in 17thStreet Canal at 1.5 to 2.0 ft elevation. (Contract 92-1 Board of LeveeCommissioners of East Jefferson Levee District -17th Street Canal WestSide Levee Improvements). . 97Volume II Geodetic Vertical and Water Level DatumsThis report is the independent opinion of the IPET and is not necessarily the official position of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Figure 44.Figure 45.Figure 46.Figure 47.Figure 48.Figure 49.Figure 50.Figure 51.Figure 52.Figure 53.Figure 54.Figure 55.Figure 56.Figure 57.Figure 58.Figure 59.Figure 60.Figure 61.Figure 62.Figure 63.Figure 64.Figure 65.Figure 66.Figure 67.Figure 68.Typical section depicting “normal water surface” in 17th Street Canal at1.0 ft elevation (Orleans Levee District Contract 02043-0489--1990-AsBuilt). . 98DM 20 design flowlines. . 9917th Street Canal Reference Benchmark USACE MONUMENT 14 nearHammond Hwy. 100Design versus current floodwall elevation—East Bank 17th St. OutfallCanal. .
Appendix 2: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section Data Appendix 3: Topographic and Hydrographic Cross Section Data Appendix 4: IHNC West Bank Breach Surveys Appendix 5: Railroad Detail Appendix 6: 17th Street Canal – Low Chord Elevations Appendix 7: Inner Harbor Navigation Canal – Low Chord Elevations
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
MARCH 1973/FIFTY CENTS o 1 u ar CC,, tonics INCLUDING Electronics World UNDERSTANDING NEW FM TUNER SPECS CRYSTALS FOR CB BUILD: 1;: .Á Low Cóst Digital Clock ','Thé Light.Probé *Stage Lighting for thé Amateur s. Po ROCK\ MUSIC AND NOISE POLLUTION HOW WE HEAR THE WAY WE DO TEST REPORTS: - Dynacó FM -51 . ti Whárfedale W60E Speaker System' .
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
