Infrastructure Recovery Workshop Report post-Floods in North-Central Victoria – Practitioners Experiences Malcolm Styles Engineering Management Styles Bendigo Victoria Flood Forum Mildura 14 November

Background The storm events in Victoria

Background (cont.) 3

4

5

6

Mount Alexander Quanta of Damage repaired Re sheeted over a million square metres of road Repaired/replaced 920 small culverts Repaired/replaced 187 larger culverts (>750 Ø) Restitution of 25 bridges & major culverts (>10m²) Major repairs to five large culverts and bridges 100 flood ways and fords repaired 12,025 tonnes of spalls used to stabilise culvert and road drainage systems 15,000 square metres sealed roads repaired 7

Background (continued) 8 Figure 4The major national natural disaster funding arrangements Expenditure for 2009 ‑ 10 to 2012 ‑ 13

Bendigo Practitioners Workshop (June 2014) Australian Government Productivity Commission of Inquiry Natural Disaster Funding Terms of Reference relevant to the workshop 9

Workshop Questions WORKSHOP What is good practice in infrastrucure flood recovery? Areas of: Response, emergency works Identifying and documenting damage, regional consistency Procurement issues; use of contractors, consultants; insurance of infrastructure Assignment & control of works Reporting, and claims, future funding issues Liaison with other authorities Mitigation and resilience measures – what was in place, and what since 10

Workshop Outcomes – Immediate Emergency Response The Councils used in-house crews for emergency responses plus contractors registered with the local Councils Broad inspections & photos Not enough signs Supervisors assessed and prioritised emergency works Problems about materials supply and lack of experienced contractors 11

Workshop Outcomes – Longer-term recovery Various models used (e.g. Loddon Shire purchased more plant, put relief staff on 2 year contracts, and used their experienced staff to do the recovery works) Others used schedule of rates contractors and external consultants to co-ordinate recovery efforts and administration Varying systems of inspections, recordings of damage & estimates 12

Workshop Outcomes – Procurement Experiences Emergency work often poorly recorded Sandbagging, temporary toilets, showers should have been organised by others, not Councils Long timeframe to record and estimate damage (months). Often due to poor initial recording. Delays in setting up external contracts, and some specification documentation scant in details, understanding of skills/plant, required outcomes. Precast products supply delays 13

Procurement Experiences (cont.) 14

Procurement Experiences (cont.) Questions Raised: How to better co-ordinate with flood-affected neighbours? Can particular works be grouped/batched (e.g. small drain repairs/replacements; re-sheeting works on area basis, bridge repairs, larger culvert repairs, etc.) and separate tenders invited? Insurance of flood-vulnerable local road infrastructure – is it an option? 15

Assignment and Control of Works Various models used (refer to earlier slide) VicRoads undertook an “audit inspection” role on behalf of the State Department of Justice There was confusion amongst Council administrative and some Council engineers and supervisors about the roles and responsibilities of external consultants appointed to assign and control the works Some Council Environmental and Planning staff had difficulty in being able to co-operate with recovery efforts, as did some consultants in being able to appreciate the Council’s planning and environmental imperatives CMAs were supportive at emergency response phases, but some became quite bureaucratic as time went on 16

Mitigation and Resilience 17

What was in place? Great people responding to the emergency events Flood response plans (a mix of effectiveness) Some supplies of sandbags and signs – not enough? Not much thought had been given to marshalling road infrastructure recovery works 18

What has happened since? A lot about how to deal with emergency response. Australian Government Commission of Enquiry Draft Report More $ towards resilience projects (e.g. Loddon Shire – three towns flood studies; Gannawarra built a higher south levee plus flood studies for two towns; Central Goldfields has completed Carisbrook & Dunolly; Macedon Ranges has done flood studies for Gibson & Woodend. 19

What has happened since (continued)? State Emergency Service has completed many Flood Guides for towns (e.g. Koondrook, Carisbrook, Dunolly, Kerang, Quambatook, and working on five guides for towns/communities in Loddon Shire. Community Flood committees have been set up. Operation plans being integrated into Municipal Emergency Management Sub-plans 20

Future Actions 21

Future Actions Refer to the AGPC draft report proposed recommendations (which are advocating far more outcome-based sustainability and resilience measures – with significant costs to be borne by State and local governments in recovery works) Council-controlled road infrastructure asset management planning must build in resilience measures Need to streamline longer term recovery of infrastructure through documentation of “best practice” measures established post-the Queensland and Victorian flood disasters 22

Future Actions (cont). 23

Future Actions (continued) 24

25