Item R3M
C ounty of f Monroe
ELj » °o
�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/�
�
Mayor David Rice, District 4
Th e Florida Keys
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Heather Carruthers, District 3
County Commission Meeting
January 17, 2018
Agenda Item Number: R.3
Agenda Item Summary #3817
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Sustainability
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Rhonda Haag (305) 453 -8774
TBD
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution approving the expenditure of up to
$100,000 in available RESTORE Local Pot funds for permitting of a canal restoration project in
unincorporated Monroe County.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This item is for consideration for funding the permitting phase only of a
Sugarloaf Key culvert canal restoration project for canals 384 and 388, as requested by Sugarloaf
residents, and as approved by the FKNMS Canal Advisory Subcommittee at their regular meeting
held December 7, 2017. A culvert replacement assessment study completed by an FDOT consultant
in January 2017 recommended a new double 7' x 4' box culvert with a structural cost of $113,500.
Not included in the construction estimates are erosion and sediment control, mitigation and
maintenance dredging. The project is anticipated to improve the water quality of canals 384 and 388.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
11/14/16: Approved Resolution 276 -2016 approving the allocation of Monroe County RESTORE
Act funds to canal water quality restoration projects.
CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DOCUMENTATION:
Resolution for RESTORE culvert project
Culvert Assessment Replacement for Sugarloaf Blvd - prepared by FDOT
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: January 17, 2018 Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: Up to $100,000 to be reimbursed by RESTORE Act Funds
Current Year Portion: N/A Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds: RESTORE Local Pot Funds
CPI: N/A Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: TBD for O &M costs
Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount: N/A
Grant: N/A County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: N/A Additional Details: N/A
N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Rhonda Haag
Completed
01/09/2018 10:38 AM
Cynthia Hall
Skipped
01/09/2018 10:44 AM
Peter Morris
Skipped
01/09/2018 11:12 AM
Cynthia Hall
Completed
01/09/2018 11:15 AM
Budget and Finance
Completed
01/09/2018 11:22 AM
Maria Slavik
Completed
01/09/2018 11:24 AM
Kathy Peters
Completed
01/09/2018 12:16 PM
Board of County Commissioners
Pending
01/17/2018 9:00 AM
WHEREAS, the RESTORE Act distributes civil fines collected from the responsible parties
under the Clean Water Act • impacted States and counties along the Gulf Coast in three separat's
q,treams or "pots" of funds: Direct Component "Pot I" (Local Pot); Restoration Council Pot "Pot
and Spill Impact Component "Pot 3" (Gulf Consortium Pot); and
"11-0 a I a*. r. a a a a
In# MM T140".2 R V IV I M -,I- -I-
WHEREAS, the annual payments the County's Local Pot over 15 years will be paid as such:
* 2016: an initial payment of $1.357M;
* 2017: payment of $41 OK;
* 2018: payment of $220K; and
aff-MUM
2019 through 203 1: annual payments of S440K (see attached Treasury Departmen)
Allocation Table); and
WHEREAS, allocating these funds to a large-scale, long-term environmentalirestoration
initiative such as canal restoration is cost-effective, while also being consistent with the local
priorities articulated in the MYIP; and
WHEREAS, canal restoration is a component of overall water quality and environmental
protection in the Florida Keys, complimenting the $113 investment by local taxpayers and the stat-s
to implement centralized wastewater treatment to protect and restore water quality, and complies
with the letter and intent of the RESTORE Act; and
WHEREAS, canal water restoration projects will remedy the high nutrient loading and low
dissolved oxygen impairing the water in canals by implementing technologies that address the most
significant causes of those conditions: accumulated organics, seaweed loading, and poor flushing
and tidal flow.
14 OWN NO
KIIII
�wll le-I&I 611#161 al tif t; I no I Q - Q - 1
2. The first canal restoration project shall be the permitting of the Sugarloaf Key Culverl
Project in an amount not to exceed $ 100,000.
MOME
amonfinym, MI1 M11milimmognx =-off-=
salemm W-glato § ltq 14 go) Ing llfaww fill
93� '�
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Danny Kolhage
(SEAL)
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KEVIN MADOH, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk Mayor David Rice
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
ASE COVED A-S TP R
C� L. HALL
ASSISTA T COUNTY ATTORNEY
Da1 e— 1— 5 - -d'01i
State Road 939/
Sugarloaf Boulevard
Culvert Replacement Assessment
Draft Submittal
SR 939 1SUGARLOAF BOULEVARD
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Monroe County, Florida
ADA Project No. C042- 1015 -15
Prepared for:
OT �
Prepared by:
A.D.A. Engineering, Inc.
8550 NW 33rd Street, Suite 202
Miami, Florida 33122
January 2017
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose ....................... ...............................
2.0 Project Description ..... ...............................
3.0 Existing Drainage ........ ...............................
4.0 Culvert Alternatives Assessment ...............
4.1 Culvert Capacity . ...............................
4.2 Culvert Cost ........ ...............................
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .........
FIGURES AND TABLES
....................................................................... ..............................1
....................................................................... ..............................1
....................................................................... ..............................1
...................................................................... ............................... 3
...................................................................... ............................... 3
...................................................................... ............................... 4
...................................................................... ............................... 5
Figure1: Project Location Map ................................................................................................. ..............................1
Figure 2: Culvert Headwall Facing South ................................................................................... ..............................2
Figure 3: Culvert Headwall on North Side ................................................................................. ..............................2
Table 1: Culvert Alternative Flow Capacity ............................................................................... ..............................3
Table 2: Culvert Alternative Costs ............................................................................................. ..............................4
Figure 4: Culvert Capacity vs. Approximate Cost ...................................................................... ..............................5
ATTACHMENTS
�s
L)
Cc
Cc
U)
0
0
0
�a
0
Attachment A - Existing Survey Map
Attachment B - CulvertMaster Calculations
Attachment C - Cost Estimate
R.3.b
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the analysis performed to assess multiple culvert options to
replace the existing 36" culvert under SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard between SR 5 and Driftwood Lane in Monroe
County, Florida. The intent of the culvert replacement is to maximize flow equalization between the existing
ditch north and the canal south of the Sugarloaf Boulevard, without impacting the existing roadway profile. This
memorandum includes hydraulic assessment and planning level cost estimates for the replacement of the
existing culvert and the permitting and mitigation costs for the removal of the mangroves within the canal and
the FDOT Drainage Ditch surrounding the culvert.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard is a two -lane, two -way undivided road that provides access to Sugarloaf Key from
SR 5 in Monroe County, Florida. Sugarloaf Boulevard is a County -owned facility, except for a small portion
immediately east of SR 5 that is within the FDOT right -of -way. It is in this small piece that an existing 36 -inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culvert provides interconnection between the canal to the south with the FDOT
drainage ditch to the north. This memorandum examines the capacity of the canal and the drainage ditch south
of the culvert versus the existing 36 -inch culvert and provides recommendations for increasing capacity for the
interconnection without modifying the roadway profile. It also includes the permitting and mitigation for the
removal of mangroves within this area to facilitate the flushing of water. This memorandum does not assess the
effects of dredging to increase capacity beyond what would be needed in the immediate vicinity of the
headwalls to facilitate installation of the recommended culvert option. The proposed flowline will match existing
conditions.
1
Packet Pg. 3374
Figure 1: Project Location Map
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The area to the north and south of the existing culvert is densely populated with mangroves. The mangroves
have been slowly increasing in density since the 1960s. Mangroves are protected from removal by local, state,
and federal laws. In May 2015, members of both Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) inspected the existing 36 -inch culvert and noted free flowing
exchange of water during tidal fluctuations. Silt and debris were also removed from in front of the headwalls
during May 2015. The existing 36 -inch culvert provides a possible flow area of 7.1 square feet (SF) when flowing
full. The existing culvert invert is -1.07 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (ft- NGVD). The
headwalls north and south of the culverts are 16 ft long. Figures 2 and 3 show the existing culvert conditions at
the north and south headwalls.
Figure 2: Culvert Headwall Facing South
U
S
2
Figure 3: Culvert Headwall on North Side
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
Survey of the canal, ditch, and surrounding area was obtained in September 2015 by Manuel Vera and
Associates, Inc. (see Attachment A). The existing Sugarloaf Blvd low edge of pavement is 5.53 ft -NGVD. The cross
section measured at Station 23 +00.00 within the canal limits has a flow area of 79.58 SF at a water elevation of
2.30 ft -NGVD. Elevation 2.30 ft -NGVD is the maximum elevation that still allows for the canal to maintain 1 ft of
freeboard above the water level within the canal section. The cross section within the FDOT ditch, taken at
Station 24 +50.00, has a flow area of 129.17 SF. Each cross section was taken approximately 50 feet from the
face of the headwall on both the north and south sides of Sugarloaf Blvd. The water elevations within the canal
and ditch vary with the tide.
4.0 CULVERT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
4.1 Culvert Capacity
For the purposes of this assessment, the water elevation of 2.30 ft -NGVD was used to determine the flow
capacity within the canal, ditch, and culvert alternatives. It was assumed that all culverts will flow from south to
north, maintain the existing flowline elevations of -1.07 ft -NGVD, and not impact the profile of Sugarloaf Blvd.
The alternatives were also within the limits of the existing headwall, to limit the environmental impacts. The
flow velocity was assumed to be approximately 2.5 feet per second (fps) within the canal cross section
approximately 50 ft south of the culvert, because the canal cross sectional area is smaller than the ditch, and
therefore, controls the flow volume capacity. The flow rate of 2.5 fps was chosen because it is the minimum
pipe cleansing velocity as stated in the FDOT Drainage Manual. Based on the canal cross sectional area with a
water level of 2.30 ft -NGVD and a flow velocity of 2.5 fps, the flow rate (Q), in the canal was calculated to be
198.95 cubic feet per second (cfs).
The desired headloss across a culvert is less than 0.1 ft when used as an equalizing structure. The maximum Q
was determined for each of the four alternatives, while maintaining the 0.1 ft of headloss and a tailwater of 2.30
ft -NGVD. The single 36 -inch pipe represents the existing condition. The double 36 -inch pipe was recommended
as a solution when the capacity issue was originally examined in 2015. The double 7'x4' concrete box culvert
(CBC) is the largest culvert that can be installed without excavating beyond the existing headwall.
Alternative 1: Single 36 -inch Pipe Culvert (existing condition)
Alternative 2: Double 36 -inch Pipe Culvert
Alternative 3: Double 7'x4' Concrete Box Culvert
Alternative 4: Bridge
The culvert capacity for each alternative was evaluated using Bentley CulvertMaster (see Attachment B for
CulvertMaster Output) except for Alternative 4. Table 1 provides a comparison of all the alternatives
demonstrating the possible flow restrictions as decreased capacity through the culvert.
Alternative
Number of
Pipes
Culvert
Size
Pipe
Type
Headwater El.
(ft -NGVD)
Tailwater El
(ft -NGVD)
Q
(cfS)
%of Canal
Capacity
1
1
36"
Round
2.40
2.30
13.20
6.6%
2
2
36"
Round
2.40
2.30
26.60
13.4%
3
2
7'x4'
CBC
2.40
2.30
90.50
45.5%
4
n/a
Bridge
2.40
2.30
198.95
100%
Canal Condition
198.95
100%
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
Table 1: Culvert Alternative Flow Capacity
It was determined that no culvert is able to fully meet the capacity of the adjacent canal within the constraints
of this assessment. Alternative 4 is the only alternative that will not restrict the flow under Sugarloaf Boulevard.
4.2 Culvert Cost
The existing culvert is 53 ft long with concrete pipe and straight concrete headwalls. The same design was
assumed to determine the cost associated with each alternative. Table 2 presents the approximate construction
cost associated with each alternative including a 20% Contingency, 20% for mobilization, and 20% for
maintenance of traffic. The cost for the headwall is assumed to be 30% of the price of the culvert. Detailed cost
estimates are shown in Attachment C.
The cost for mangrove removal is based on the acreage of mangroves to be removed portrayed as credits in
addition to the cost of obtaining the permit. Permits will need to be obtained from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at a combined rate of $5,000.00.
Mitigation credits will be required through USACE. Credits under the USACE, also known as UMAMs, are
purchased at a rate of $270,000 per credit. The UMAM is calculated by the number of mangroves removed
times a delta factor of 0.8. It is estimated at 0.95 acres of mangroves will be removed in addition to the culvert
improvements, regardless of the alternative chosen resulting in a mitigation cost of approximately $205,000.00.
Alternative
Structure Type
Structure Cast
Mangrove
Mitigation Cost'
Total Cost
1
Single 36" Pipe
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
Double 36" Pipe
$11,900.00
$210,000.00
$221,900.00
3
Double 7'x4' Culvert
$113,500.00
$210,000.00
$323,500.00
4
Bridge
$785,400.00
$210,000.00
$995,400.00
Table 2: Culvert Alternative Costs
No price is shown for the single 36 -inch pipe since this represents the existing condition. The price shown for
the double 36 -inch pipe is for the installation of one additional 36" pipe only. The bridge cost was based on an
average price of $275/SF for recent bridge replacement within the Florida Keys. It was also assumed the new
bridge would be a total of 34 ft wide to accommodate 2 -24 ft travel lanes and 4' wide sidewalks on both sides.
It was also assumed the bridge would be 50 ft long to clear the FDOT Ditch average width.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of culvert capacity as the percentage of the canal capacity versus the cost.
4
SR 939 /Sugarloaf Boulevard
From East of SR 5 to West of Driftwood Lane
Culvert Replacement Assessment
% of Canal Capacity Approximate Cost
Figure 4: Culvert Capacity vs. Approximate Cost
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The double 36 -inch culvert was originally recommended as the preferred solution to increase capacity in 2015,
but this assessment shows the addition of another 36" culvert does not greatly increase the overall culvert
capacity when compared to the canal capacity. The recommended alternative of the double 7'x4' CBC provides
significantly more capacity for a relatively low cost of $323,500.00. This culvert provides the max benefit
possible without the need to reconstruct Sugarloaf Boulevard.
L)
Cc
0
L .
Cc
U)
0
0
�a
�L1
0
�L1
5
100
$1,000,000
90
$900,000
80
$800,000
70
$700,000
60
$600,000
50
$500,000
40
$400,000
0
30
$300,000
20
$200,000
10
$100,000
0 ......... _ ........ .......... _
$0
Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Single 36" Culvert Double 36" Culvert Double 7'x4'
Bridge
Culvert
% of Canal Capacity Approximate Cost
Figure 4: Culvert Capacity vs. Approximate Cost
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The double 36 -inch culvert was originally recommended as the preferred solution to increase capacity in 2015,
but this assessment shows the addition of another 36" culvert does not greatly increase the overall culvert
capacity when compared to the canal capacity. The recommended alternative of the double 7'x4' CBC provides
significantly more capacity for a relatively low cost of $323,500.00. This culvert provides the max benefit
possible without the need to reconstruct Sugarloaf Boulevard.
L)
Cc
0
L .
Cc
U)
0
0
�a
�L1
0
�L1
5
ATTACHMENT A
EXISTING SURVEY MAP
�s
cu
cu
0
0
0
0
0
cl
LL
cu
CL
CL
m
CD
M
U)
E
0
CL
0
E
L)
E
cu
N G,
1 + O
a
do
cD
\ s +
N 1
co
, V A
Ul
\ N
o'_ O
lo
\ \ \ \ \ d
rJ O
I \O
\� v v v v v S C �� ��� � �_ + N � � �\
\ v cq v+
v v — 7
\ o� N \�
\ �/N
zm
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
r -1
I I
I
I
I
- -1-
I
I
I
I
I
- r -
V
I I
I I
I I
1 1 - r
I
I I
I I
I I
- � d °
I I
I I
I I
L —1—
I
I
1 _
I
I
1
I
I
_ L _
I I
I I
1_ _I _
I I
I I
1 _ J
N
C
O
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
1
I I
I I
I I
1 —- 1 —
1 1
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
r
1
I I
I I
I I
1 — - —
1 1
I
I
I
-�
1
1
1
L_1_
1 1
1 1
11
1
1
_1
1 1
1 1
— -1_J
1
1
N
Do
C
O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
7 — F — 1— —1 — 7 — T
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- 1 -- 1 - r - r - 1 -- 1 - - T -
L _1— -1_1_L _I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I til I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I� I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I 1
i
� O
�O
(f� O
O
W I
z 00
�N
J �
W
L Q
Q�
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
i 1 i i I 1
I I I I I 1
+ —I — -1 4— + -1 — -1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
r — 1 — - 1 — r r — 1 — - 1 -
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
L_I —_I_ _L _1 — -1_
N W et O
cc
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
4U I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
II I I I II I�
O I I I I I I I 1
i
-1 — 4
4 —
—
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I til I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I� I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I 1
i
� O
�O
(f� O
O
W I
z 00
�N
J �
W
L Q
Q�
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
i 1 i i I 1
I I I I I 1
+ —I — -1 4— + -1 — -1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
r — 1 — - 1 — r r — 1 — - 1 -
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
L_I —_I_ _L _1 — -1_
N W et O
cc
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
4U I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
II I I I II I�
O I I I I I I I 1
i
� O
�O
(f� O
O
W I
z 00
�N
J �
W
L Q
Q�
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
I I I I I 1
i 1 i i I 1
I I I I I 1
+ —I — -1 4— + -1 — -1-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
r — 1 — - 1 — r r — 1 — - 1 -
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
L_I —_I_ _L _1 — -1_
N W et O
cc
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
4U I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
II I I I II I�
O I I I I I I I 1
i
cc
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
4U I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I II
I I I I I I
II I I I II I�
O I I I I I I I 1
i
ATTACHMENT B
CULVERTMASTER CALCULATIONS
�s
cu
cu
U)
0
cu
CL
CD
M
U)
E
0
CL
0
E
L)
E
cu
Culvert Calculator Report
Worksheet -1
Solve For: Headwater Elevation
Culvert Summary
Allowable HW Elevation
Computed Headwater Elew
Inlet Control HW Elev.
Outlet Control HW Elev.
2.40 ft
2.40 ft
2.30 ft
2.40 ft
Headwater Depth /Height
Discharge
Tailwater Elevation
Control Type
1.16
13.20 cfs
2.30 ft
Outlet Control
Grades
Upstream Invert
Length
-1.07 ft
53.00 ft
Downstream Invert
Constructed Slope
-1.07 ft
0.000000 ft /ft
Hydraulic Profile
Profile PressureProfile
Slope Type N/A
Flow Regime N/A
Velocity Downstream 1.87 ft /s
Depth, Downstream
Normal Depth
Critical Depth
Critical Slope
3.37 ft
N/A ft
1.16 ft
0.003963 ft /ft
Section
Section Shape
Section Material
Section Size
Number Sections
Circular
Concrete
36 inch
1
Mannings Coefficient
Span
Rise
0.013
3.00 ft
3.00 ft
Outlet Control Properties
Outlet Control HW Elev.
Ke
2.40 ft
0.50
Upstream Velocity Head
Entrance Loss
0.05 ft
0.03 ft
Inlet Control Properties
Inlet Control HW Elev. 2.30 ft
Inlet Type Square edge w /headwall
K 0.00980
M 2.00000
C 0.03980
Y 0.67000
Flow Control
Area Full
HDS 5 Chart
HDS 5 Scale
Equation Form
Unsubmerged
7.1 ft'
1
1
1
�S
C)
Cc
0
Cc
U)
0
0
0
�a
LU
W
0
U5
LU
W
Title: Sugarloaf Project Engineer: awilson
c: \... \documents \sugarloaf key \project1.cvm ADA Engineering Inc Culvert
12/22/16 01:40:30 PMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -16 Packet Pg. 3384
Culvert Calculator Report
Worksheet -1
Solve For: Headwater Elevation
Culvert Summary
Allowable HW Elevation
Computed Headwater Elew
Inlet Control HW Elev.
Outlet Control HW Elev.
2.40 ft
2.40 ft
2.30 ft
2.40 ft
Headwater Depth /Height
Discharge
Tailwater Elevation
Control Type
1.16
26.60 cfs
2.30 ft
Outlet Control
Grades
Upstream Invert
Length
-1.07 ft
53.00 ft
Downstream Invert
Constructed Slope
-1.07 ft
0.000000 ft /ft
Hydraulic Profile
Profile PressureProfile
Slope Type N/A
Flow Regime N/A
Velocity Downstream 1.88 ft /s
Depth, Downstream
Normal Depth
Critical Depth
Critical Slope
3.37 ft
N/A ft
1.16 ft
0.003965 ft /ft
Section
Section Shape
Section Material
Section Size
Number Sections
Circular
Concrete
36 inch
2
Mannings Coefficient
Span
Rise
0.013
3.00 ft
3.00 ft
Outlet Control Properties
Outlet Control HW Elev.
Ke
2.40 ft
0.50
Upstream Velocity Head
Entrance Loss
0.06 ft
0.03 ft
Inlet Control Properties
Inlet Control HW Elev. 2.30 ft
Inlet Type Square edge w /headwall
K 0.00980
M 2.00000
C 0.03980
Y 0.67000
Flow Control
Area Full
HDS 5 Chart
HDS 5 Scale
Equation Form
Unsubmerged
14.1 ft'
1
1
1
�S
C)
Cc
0
Cc
U)
0
0
0
�a
LU
W
0
U5
LU
W
Title: Sugarloaf Project Engineer: awilson
c: \... \documents \sugarloaf key \project1.cvm ADA Engineering Inc Culvert
12/22/16 01:48:08 PMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -16 Packet Pg. 3385
Culvert Calculator Report
Worksheet -1
Solve For: Headwater Elevation
Culvert Summary
Allowable HW Elevation
Computed Headwater Elew
Inlet Control HW Elev.
Outlet Control HW Elev.
2.40 ft
2.40 ft
2.30 ft
2.40 ft
Headwater Depth /Height
Discharge
Tailwater Elevation
Control Type
0.87
90.50 cfs
2.30 ft
Outlet Control
Grades
Upstream Invert
Length
-1.07 ft
53.00 ft
Downstream Invert
Constructed Slope
-1.07 ft
0.000000 ft /ft
Hydraulic Profile
Profile
Slope Type
Flow Regime
Velocity Downstream
H2
Horizontal
Subcritical
1.92 ft /s
Depth, Downstream
Normal Depth
Critical Depth
Critical Slope
3.37 ft
N/A ft
1.09 ft
0.003435 ft /ft
Section
Section Shape
Section Material
Section Size
Number Sections
Box
Concrete
7 x 4 ft
2
Mannings Coefficient
Span
Rise
0.013
7.00 ft
4.00 ft
Outlet Control Properties
Outlet Control HW Elev.
Ke
2.40 ft
0.70
Upstream Velocity Head
Entrance Loss
0.06 ft
0.04 ft
Inlet Control Properties
Inlet Control HW Elev. 2.30 ft
Inlet Type 0° wingwall flares
K 0.06100
M 0.75000
C 0.04230
Y 0.82000
Flow Control
Area Full
HDS 5 Chart
HDS 5 Scale
Equation Form
Unsubmerged
56.0 ft'
8
3
1
�S
C)
Cc
0
Cc
U)
0
0
0
�a
LU
W
0
U5
LU
W
Title: Sugarloaf Project Engineer: awilson
c: \... \documents \sugarloaf key \project1.cvm ADA Engineering Inc Culvert
12/22/16 01:37:13 PMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -16 Packet Pg. 3386
ATTACHMENT C
COST ESTIMATE
�s
cu
cu
U)
0
0
0
LU
w
0
LU
0
a
U—
cu
CL
2
CL
CD
M
U)
E
0
CL
0
E
L)
E
cu
Sugarloaf, Key - Double 36° Culvert
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
NOTES
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
20% of Pay Item Total
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
LS
1
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
20% of Pay Item Total
TWO (2) CONCRETE HEADWALLS
LS
1
$1,700.00
$1,700.00
30% of Pay Item Total
PIPE CULVERT, OPTIONAL MATERIAL, 36" ROUND, S /CD
LF
53
$109.50
$5,803.50
1 -36" culvert already in place to remain
CONTINGENCY
LS
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
20% of Total Fee for Pay Items
$11,900.00
W
w
0
F—
U)
LL
w
F-
0
a
LL
N
L
Q
L
Q
m
cC
O
i
cC
Z31
7
N
L
O
CD
E
CD
V
Q
CD
CD
E
CD
Q
CD
>
U
r
c
CD
E
t
v
ca
r
r
Q
Sugarloaf Key - Double 7'x4' CBC
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
NOTES
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$11,100.00
$11,100.00
20% of Pay Item Total
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
LS
1
$11,100.00
$11,100.00
20% of Pay Item Total
TWO (2) CONCRETE HEADWALLS
LS
1
$16,700.00
$16,700.00
30% of Pay Item Total
7'x4' CONCRETE BOX STRUCTURE
LF
106
$525.00
$55,650.00
CONTINGENCY
LS
1
$18,900.00
$18,900.00
20% of Total Fee for Pay Items
$113,500.00'
W
w
0
F—
U)
LL
w
F-
0
a
LL
N
L
Q
L
Q
m
cC
O
i
cC
i31
7
N
L
O
CD
E
CD
V
Q
CD
CD
E
CD
Q
CD
>
U
r
c
CD
E
t
v
ca
r
r
Q
Sugarloaf Key - Bridge
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
NOTES
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$93,500.00
$93,500.00
20% of Pay Item Total
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
LS
1
$93,500.00
$93,500.00
20% of Pay Item Total
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT IN MONROE COUNTY
SF
1700
$275.00
$467,500.00
Price based on avg. cost per SF for Bridge Replacement
Assumed 34' wide bridge and 50' long
CONTINGENCY
LS
1
$130,900.00
$130,900.00
20% of Total Fee for Pay Items
$785,400.00'
W
w
0
F-
U)
LL
w
I-
0
a
LL
N
L
Q
i
Q
m
cC
O
i
cC
Z31
7
N
L
O
CD
E
CD
V
Q
CD
CD
E
CD
Q
CD
>
U
r
c
CD
E
t
v
ca
r
r
Q
Canal Restoration Program Upda
Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners ME
January 17, 2018
Rhonda Haag
Monroe County
amec
foster
wheeler
Greg Corning, PE
AMEC Foster
Wheeler
ITEM R3
SUGARLOAF HOMEOWNERS REQUEST FOR CANS
RESTORATION PROJECT FUNDING
Request is for $100,000 of RESTORE funds
for the permitting phase (only) of a
culvert replacement project. Will require
a tidal analysis.
Canals 384 Poor and 388 Fair — Lower
Sugarloaf Key (MM 17)
r Existing FDOT -owned 36" pipe culvert
connects two canal systems
Lack of flushing due to long, multi -
segmented canal system with natural
growth of mangroves near existing culve
The canal area and culvert are located or
FDOT US 1 Right of Way.
FDOT not willing to fund project since th
canal functions as a "drainage ditch'; bui
provided an email to homeowners. saying
they would approve if County moved
forward
ITEM R3 con't
SUGARLOAF HOMEOWNERS REQUEST FOR 1
CANAL RESTORATION PROJECT FUNDING
r FDOT consultant completed a culvert capacity analysis, proposed
recommendation includes:
o Remove and replace existing 36" culvert with Tx 4' double box culvert
o Removal of approximately 120 yards of red mangroves
o Removal of approximately 1,000 CY of sediment (increases flow)
FDOT proposed estimated construction cost is $113,500, does not appear to
include other potential costs such as sediment removal, erosion and sediment
control, dewatering, pavement restoration, backfilling, and labor.
o FDOT estimated mangrove removal mitigation cost of $210,000, not included
in permitting phase. Other estimates vary.
Residents committed to fund the following:
• Feasibility study to analyze alternatives for the scope of the project and
estimate costs and
• O &M costs following completion of the project.
Residents request the BOCC approve the item for permitting phase based on
12/7/17 Canal Advisory Subcommittee recommendation to approve the
permitting phase of the project.