1 / 10

PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT PUMP STATIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN

PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT PUMP STATIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN. South Florida Water Management District Water Resources Advisory Committee April 6, 2006. Contents. Project Overview Introduction to Pump Stations Pump Station Preliminary Design Schedule Issues and concerns

akira
Download Presentation

PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT PUMP STATIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PICAYUNESTRAND RESTORATION PROJECTPUMP STATIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN South Florida Water Management District Water Resources Advisory Committee April 6, 2006

  2. Contents • Project Overview • Introduction to Pump Stations • Pump Station Preliminary Design • Schedule • Issues and concerns • Discussion

  3. MILLER CANAL FAKA UNION CANAL MERRITT CANAL PRAIRIE CANAL 0 2 Recommended Plan ELEMENTS MILES 3 Spreader Canals 3 Pump Stations Canal Plugs 80% of Roads Removed Primary All Weather Roads Secondary Roads Flood Protection Levees I-75 810 cfs Private Lands Levee 1250 cfs 2650 cfs Management Roads 6L levee U.S 41 POI N levee POI SE levee POI SW levee

  4. Design Activities Preliminary Design Pump Stations Road Removal BODR Development Spreader Canals Protection Levees

  5. Pump Stations • Sized for 100 Year Storm Event • Merritt – 810 cfs • Miller – 1250 cfs • Faka Union – 2650 cfs • Designed to Meet CERP and SFWMD Standards • 155 mph wind load • Diesel drives • Ten day fuel supply • Minimal Reliance on Outside Utilities • Diesel engines and generators • Remote Control and Operations Capability

  6. Hydrologic Design Criteria • Match Canal Stage Hydrographs at I-75 For 5-Day, 100-Year Design Storm Event • No Pump Operation Below Minimum Canal Levels at I-75: Wet Season Dry Season(ft NAVD88)(ft NAVD88) Miller Canal 4.9 5.9 Faka Union Canal 4.9 5.9 Merritt Canal 5.2 8.0

  7. Schedule Initiate Design 12/04 Complete Design 11/06 Start Construction 1/07 Construction Complete 12/08 Operational Testing 4/09

  8. Pump Stations Opinion of Probable Cost • PIR (Oct 2004) $67.5M (25% Contingency) • BODR (Sept 2005) $76.8M (30% Contingency) • Prelim Design (Mar 2006) $109.5M (25% Contingency) • Differences (BODR vs. Current Estimate) : • Installation of Major Equipment Added $5.6M • Additional Design Detail Reveals Additional Costs $1.5M • Use of Stainless Steel (Per District Stds.) $1.2M • Poor Soil Conditions – Requires More Site Preparation $9.2M • Additional Contingency Related Dollars $8.6M • Concrete Volume & Cost Per CuYd Under Estimated $6.6M • Potential Savings by using portable pumps for redundancy $7.0M

  9. Stakeholder Issues and Concerns(Pump Stations) • Capacity and operation of pump stations • Hardy Pit is not a storage reservoir • Redundant pump capacity included • Pump Station operation will mimic existing structures • Impacts to wildlife due to noise, lighting, and towers

  10. Stakeholder Issues and Concerns(other Project Features) • Location and sizing of protection levees is being addressed in a separate BODR. • Project will not change water quality • Working with DOF ; recreational opportunities will be consistent with DOF Land Management Plan • Additional modeling is being done to determine if there are impacts to Tamiami Trail • Pump stations will be operated in accordance with the Permit criteria and Operation Plan • All modeling will be completed before Final Design • Uplands and Wetlands were both used as criteria in determining Project benefits

More Related