Final Technical Memorandum

Limitations:

This document was prepared solely for Hillsborough County in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between Hillsborough County and Brown and Caldwell dated August 27, 2020. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by Hillsborough County; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by Hillsborough County and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information.

5405 Cypress Center Drive, Suite 250 Tampa, Florida 33609 Tel: 813.371.9400 Fax: 813.371.9399

Prepared for: Hillsborough County

Project Title: FM Route Analysis Wastewater Pipeline Route Analysis from Van Dyke WWTP to NWRWRF

Project No.: 155621

Final Technical Memorandum

Subject: Pipeline Route Analysis

Date: November 25, 2020

To: Gita Iranipour, PhD Project Manager

From: Phil Walker, PE BC Project Manager

Prepared by:

Phil Walker, PE, Project Manager

Brett Sillman, EI, Project Engineer

Reviewed by:

Todd Bosso, PE, Client Services Manager

This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Phillip Walker PE using a Digital Signature and date. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Pipeline Route Analysis ii

FM Route Analysis - VDWWTP to NWRWRF - Final TM

Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

Section 1: Preface

1.1 Project Background and Objectives

Section 2: Pipeline Route Analysis

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Approach

2.2.1 Right-Of-Way and Easements

2.2.2 Existing Utilities

2.2.3 Residential / Commercial Impacts

2.2.4 Constructability

2.2.5 MOT Impacts

2.2.6 Future Roadway and Utilities Projects

2.3 Pipeline Segments

2.3.1 Initial Segment Identification

2.3.2 Route Analysis Workshop

2.3.3 Recommended Final Routes for Analysis

2.4 Route Analysis

2.4.1 Common Segments

2.4.2 Route A

2.4.3 Route B

2.4.4 Route C

Section 3: Regulatory Requirements

3.1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

3.2 Hillsborough County Right-of-Way Utilization

3.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

3.4 Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC)

3.5 City of St. Petersburg

Section 4: Project Schedule

Section 5: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

5.1 OPCC Methodology

5.2 Class of Estimate

5.3 Additional Considerations

Section 6: Recommendations

Appendix A: Workshop Meeting Summary

Appendix B: Draft TM Review Meeting Summary iii

Appendix C: Cost Opinion

Appendix D: Hillsborough County GIS Maps

Appendix E: Tampa Bay Water GIS Maps

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Potential Pipeline Routes

Figure 2-1 Preliminary Route Segments

Figure 2-2 Segments Removed from Consideration

Figure 2-3 Preferred Routes for Further Evaluation

Figure 2-4 Common Segments

Figure 2-5 Hillsborough County ArcGIS ROW Map

Figure 2-6 Existing Utilities along Van Dyke Rd

Figure 2-7 Route A

Figure 2-8 TBW Existing Utilities near Cosme Facility

Figure 2-9 City of St Petersburg Water Mains

Figure 2-10 Route B

Figure 2-11 Route C

Figure 2-12 Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd (Hillsborough County Property Appraiser)

Figure 2-13 Gunn Highway & S. Mobley Intersection Photo

List of Tables Table 5-1. Summary Table

Table 6-1. Summary Table

Section 1: Preface

1.1 Project Background and Objectives

The Van Dyke Wastewater Treatment Plant (VDWWTP) is owned and operated by Hillsborough County (County) and treats approximately 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD) annually. The VDWWTP is located in the Cheval area of Hillsborough County near the Suncoast Parkway and Van Dyke Rd. The WWTP’s permitted ca-pacity is 1.7 MGD annual average daily flow (AADF). The County is evaluating the construction of a master pump station, to replace the VDWWTP, and transfer the received wastewater through a new forcemain to the recently expanded Northwest Regional Water Reclamation Facility (NWRWRF). The proposed pipeline con-necting the two facilities is estimated to be a 16-inch forcemain, which the County has sized to carry the flows from VDWWTP. The County has also discussed rerouting other pump stations through the proposed forcemain.

As the County plans for the closure of the VDWWTP, it is expected that a new master pump station will be utilized to transfer flow to the NWRWRF located approximately 9 miles southwest of the VDWWTP. The County authorized Brown and Caldwell (BC) to perform a preliminary analysis to identify potential routes for the pipeline to connect the two facilities. The area between the two facilities present limited options for pipe-line routing. The roadways in this area are not arranged in a typical north/south and east/west grid limiting the availability of contiguous County right-of-way. There is also a myriad of lakes and wetlands in the area which present obstacles for some pipeline routing options. BC’s analysis identifies potential routing options and a recommended route for the County’s consideration.

Figure 1-1 Potential Pipeline Routes

Section 2: Pipeline Route Analysis

2.1 Introduction

There are several possible routing options for the proposed forcemain connection between VDWWTP and NWRWRF. BC used a segmented approach to the pipeline route analysis, which breaks up each routing op-tion into smaller pieces, or segments. A segment is a portion of a larger proposed route that, when added to adjacent segments, collectively form a complete route option. The preliminary desktop analysis evaluates the following factors for each segment: right-of-way (ROW) ownership and width, visible and marked existing utilities from a Level D Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) perspective, residential and commercial impacts, constructability, maintenance of traffic (MOT), and potential method of construction. BC’s route analysis in-cluded preliminary data review, a site visit of the proposed segments, a constructability, impacts to commer-cial and residential access and a collaborative virtual workshop with the County. The preliminary data that was reviewed is listed below:

o Hillsborough County Utility Geographic Information System (GIS) maps o Hillsborough County Property Appraiser Website o Tampa Bay Water GIS maps o Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Traffic Count (2017) o Hillsborough County Capital Improvement Plan projects o Florida Sunshine State One call information

A site visit was conducted on September 30, 2020 to visually observe and investigate the routes from the field and to take note of any ROW characteristics and existing utilities that were visible from the roadway.

After additional analysis, BC presented the initial findings to the County in an interactive and collaborative virtual workshop on October 6, 2020. The purpose of the workshop was to review each route segment and determine the County’s three (3) preferred route alternatives, which would be further described in this Pre-liminary Route Analysis Technical Memorandum. The meeting summary from the workshop is attached in Appendix A. Following the submittal of the Draft TM, a review meeting was held to review and discuss the TM and County comments. A summary of the Draft TM Review meeting is attached as Appendix B.

2.2 Approach

BC’s segmented approach allows for the route evaluation to assess the opportunities and challenges associ-ated with directing the pipeline down a particular path. Once each segment is evaluated in detail, parallel segments that lead to the same location may be directly compared to determine which routing decision is best for the pipeline in that area. The following sub-sections address the methods used to evaluate the pro-posed pipeline route segments and establish preferred routes for final review and analysis.

2.2.1 Right-Of-Way and Easements

The initial phase of the pipeline route analysis was to identify the available land areas where the proposed pipeline could be constructed. BC started this review by evaluating the available County ROW along the route alternatives. The Hillsborough County Property Appraiser was used to define the County’s existing ROW. Segments are evaluated based on availability and width of existing ROW. Segments with less ROW available are less preferred than segments that have a large amount of existing ROW. The County’s stated preference is for routes that follow existing ROW or existing County easements. Only one existing easement was identified by the County, located between N Mobley and Cosme Rd, a detailed review for additional ex-isting easements was not conducted. As a result, segments that utilized private property and subsequent new easements were not considered for the route analysis.

2.2.2 Existing Utilities

The route analysis includes a preliminary review of the existing utilities, Quality Level D for planning and route selection, along the proposed route alternatives which were either visible with existing field markings or provided from the County and Tampa Bay Water (TBW). In general, segments that have fewer existing utili-ties were considered more desirable than segments that contain more potential conflicts with existing utili-ties. Utility Owner’s in the project area were identified by utilizing the Florida Sunshine State One Call service, but they were not notified. As the route analysis evaluation area spans more than 20 miles of possible routes, the One Call returned the following list of Utility Owners in the project area.

o Amerigas Propane o Centurylink o Crown Castle o Frontier Communications o Hillsborough County Public Utilities o Hillsborough County Traffic Service o MCI o Spectrum Sunshine State, LLC o Tampa Electric Company o Tampa Bay Water o Zayo Group / Formerly Lightwave, LLC

Hillsborough County utilities were obtained from the County’s GIS maps for Water, Wastewater, and Re-claimed Water maps, which are included in Appendix D. In addition, existing water infrastructure maps were obtained from TBW (Appendix E) as they have many large and small diameter potable and raw water mains in the project area. Other utilities such as overhead power lines, buried telephone, and buried fiber optic ca-ble (BFOC) were identified during the field visit as described above. The identification of existing utilities in this preliminary route analysis was preliminary and did not utilize utility notification or SUE. SUE efforts should be completed during the next phase of the project design of the pipeline. The exact alignment and location of the existing utilities have not been identified by this analysis and may alter the preferred routing of the final pipeline. A detailed effort to identify the existing utility conflicts should be completed prior to the design phase.

2.2.3 Residential / Commercial Impacts

Route segments that impact residential or commercial properties were considered when evaluating each segment. This part of the analysis involves identifying potential temporary construction impacts to busi-nesses and residential homes along each of the proposed pipeline segments. The impacts of a pipeline pro-ject are typically made up a moving construction zone that is temporary followed by restoration impacts that is also temporary.

Impacts to businesses is considered the greater impact to the route selection as it is preferred to not create a disruption to a business’s daily operation. Where this condition exists in a segment, construction methods were considered to minimize impacts as well as the number of driveways available. Residential disruptions were also considered as a potential inconvenience to limited daily roadway obstructions (one lane of travel) and temporary impacts to driveways. Where possible, improving the existing conditions (roadway/ sidewalk/ or other public infrastructure) can be a positive approach and message to the impact of the construction ac-tivities. These impacts are best addressed early in the planning and design phases with good communica-tion and coordination with the impacted property owners.

2.2.4 Constructability

The constructability of a proposed pipeline route is generally accessed based upon the available ROW and resulting construction zone, existing roadway crossings, wetland and waterway crossing, existing utilities, MOT, residential and commercial impacts, and potential construction methods available to install the pro-posed pipeline. The purpose of evaluating the constructability or a route is to consider the factors which will influence the project during construction and reduce or prevent conflicts, minimize impacts to the commu-nity, reduce the risk of potential unknown conditions and identify cost effective solutions in a selected route.

Although construction cost is heavily impacted by the selection of construction method, the evaluation of constructability is primarily concerned with determining how practical it is to get from the beginning to the end of the segment.

The most commonly employed construction methods for new pipeline installation are Open Cut, Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD), and Jack and Bore. Each method provides unique opportunities to the designer to plan for the installation of a pipeline between the beginning and end of the segment. Open cut is the least expensive option per linear foot but requires a wide trench to be dug for the pipe to be installed. HDD is a trenchless option that can be used when avoiding conflicts like major intersections, crossing roadways, and performing water crossings. The beneficial use of directional drilling is countered by an increased cost per linear foot to install. Jack and bore is a more specialized method that can be used to cross major roadways under specific circumstances but comes with a high installation cost. Using these construction methods, each segment can be evaluated to determine its constructability.

In addition to construction method required for installation, the evaluation of constructability relies upon the physical conditions of the ROW along the pipeline segment. For example, narrow ROW that includes many existing utilities would present a constructability problem regardless of construction method selected. Simi-larly, if the ROW is narrow and curves, a compound directional drill could be required to install the pipeline.

As a result, straight, wide ROW with few existing utilities are the most desirable from a constructability stand-point. The constructability of each pipeline segment will be considered to determine which route has the least constructability obstacles. [elaborate on other constructability?]

2.2.5 MOT Impacts

BC reviewed the most recently available daily traffic volume statistics from the County’s MPO traffic count data. Approximately 9 miles of pipeline will be required to connect the VDWWTP to the NWRWRF. Along the way, the pipeline will be installed through the Citrus Park and Keystone areas via local, collector, and arterial roadways. The proposed routes parallel and cross major and minor roadways as they progress southwest toward the NWRWRF. Each segment was reviewed to estimate the potential MOT impacts associated with construction. Segments that require roadway impacts for arterial and collector road installation present more of a MOT impact than segments that can be constructed within the unimproved ROW outside the road-way. Segments that are constructed parallel to arterial and collector roadways or across major intersections present more MOT impacts than segments that are installed along residential roads. MOT impacts can be costly, increase risk, impact the general public and can add time to the construction duration, so segments that offer less significant MOT impacts are more desirable.

2.2.6 Future Roadway and Utilities Projects

BC reviewed the County’s FY2020-2025 Capital Improvements Plan as is available on the County’s website to determine future projects that may impact the project area. The following projects were identified as pos-ing a potential impact to the proposed pipeline routes:

CIP Project No. C69670000 – Gunn Highway at Tarpon Springs Rd / Walker Middle / North Mobley

The County is planning a project to implement sidewalks, ADA ramps, and other access improve-ments in the area of Walker Middle Magnet School on North Mobley. Construction is expected to be completed in October 2023, which may require coordination of the pipeline project.

CIP Project No. C46445000 – Neighborhood Drainage Capital Improvements

Sub-project No. 46145020 – S Mobley Rd Drainage Improvements

There are also plans for drainage improvements on the south side of S Mobley Rd that include the construction of a treatment/retention pond approximately 400 feet east of Lake Maurine Drive, with construction expected to be completed in mid-2021.

2.3 Pipeline Segments

2.3.1 Initial Segment Identification

Using the approach described in Section 2.2, BC began the preliminary route analysis by identifying the po-tential routes into segments as shown in Figure 2-1. During the kickoff meeting held on September 3, 2020, the County identified their preference of routes that utilize existing ROW. The County also expressed a desire to avoid major electrical corridors, where existing easements do not exist. These corridors have an increased risk associated with schedule due to negotiating easement agreements and the potential for future conflict based upon potential changes to the electrical infrastructure. Of the routes identified, it was noted that the following segments were identified as being common to all the potential route combinations:

o Segment 1 (Ramblewood Rd) – Provides the only viable existing route to VDWWTP o Segment 15 (Ed Radice Dr) – Provides a viable route to approach the NWRWRF

Figure 2-1 Preliminary Route Segments

2.3.2 Route Analysis Workshop

During the collaborative workshop held on October 6, 2020, BC and the County discussed each proposed segment individually based on the preliminary evaluation criteria described in Section 2.2. BC presented the findings of the preliminary route analysis via a segment-by-segment presentation. The goal of the workshop was to identify three preferred routes for further consideration. The group discussed the County’s preference to avoid installation along Gunn Hwy and a preference to install the proposed pipeline within existing County ROW, where possible. The County removed Segment 5 from consideration:

Segment 5 – routed along Tobacco Rd and Hutchinson Rd, requires directional drills, jack and bore, and installation of the pipeline within the roadway. There are significant utilities in the southern ROW of Van Dyke Rd near the entrance to Tobacco Rd that would present difficulties during construction.

Segment 5 is also considerably longer (18,000 LF) than the alternative segment 4 (6,800 LF), add-ing considerable cost. This segment also has significant ROW limitations. Additionally, sections of Hutchinson Rd have lakes, drainage, and pedestrian features that may present dewatering and MOT challenges.

After a review of the segments, BC presented some preferred route options and with the County then se-lected three routes for further consideration, which included all but two of the remaining segments. Seg-ments 3 and 10 fell out of consideration as they were not included in any of the three routes selected for further consideration.

Segment 3 – This segment includes the western section of Van Dyke Rd (Brown Rd to Gunn Hwy) and the northern section of Gunn Hwy (Van Dyke Rd to N Mobley Rd), has many existing utilities along both sides of the ROW including a 42-inch Tampa Bay Water (TBW) pipeline along the southern side of Van Dyke and the western side of Gunn Hwy. This segment also includes a major intersection crossing at Van Dyke Rd and Gunn Hwy, which offers limited access and presents constructability challenges. It is noted that Gunn Hwy is an arterial roadway with approximately 16,000 vehicles per day that travel this roadway and serves as one the major roadways connecting Hillsborough and Pasco County which will result in significant MOT needs to accommodate construction.

Segment 10 – is also routed along Gunn Hwy (N Mobley Rd and Cosme Rd), presents considerable challenges as a heavily trafficked arterial roadway, similar to Segment 3. Gunn Hwy in the area of this segment has a raised cross section due to the meandering roadway design and will require the installation of the forcemain deeper in some sections of the ROW.

These segments that were not included for further consideration are shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2 Segments Removed from Consideration

2.3.3 Recommended Final Routes for Analysis

As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the workshop provided an opportunity to review each segment individually select three preferred routes for further consideration. The County expressed a preference for avoiding major intersections and roadways where feasible, which included a preference to avoid pipe installation on Gunn Hwy. Route A was selected as it avoids all sections of Gunn Hwy and is generally installed along roads with the least traffic possible. Route B was selected as an alternative to Route A that allows the County to install the proposed pipeline along an existing easement near Hammond Elementary School, while minimizing con-struction along Gunn Hwy. Route C was selected as the third route for further evaluation as Route C avoids Race Track Rd should an unknown factor arise during the next phase of analysis. The three routes selected for further evaluation are shown in Figure 2-3. The route analysis of these potential options will be further discussed in the next section.

Figure 2-3 Preferred Routes for Further Evaluation

2.4 Route Analysis

After completion of the segment analysis and subsequent workshop with the County, three complete routes were identified for final analysis and comparison. This section will evaluate each route on key design consid-erations to determine the most viable route. Each Route’s unique segments will be evaluated separately from the common segments described below.

2.4.1 Common Segments

The three selected routes have many common segments that are common among the three developed routes A, B, and C. These segments have the same impact on each of the three proposed routes equally. As a result, these segments do not help to differentiate a preferred route. The following section of the route analysis below will discuss the impact of the common segments on the project. The common segments are shown in Figure 2-4 and are as follows

Segment 1 – Ramblewood Rd

Segment 2 – Van Dyke Rd

Segment 4 – Brown Rd

Segment 6 – N Mobley Rd

Segment 15 – Ed Radice Dr

Figure 2-4 Common Segments

2.4.1.1 Right-of-Way and County Owned Land

The pipeline within the common segments will mostly be installed within existing unimproved County ROW.

However, the access road along Ramblewood Rd between SR 589 and the VDWWTP appears to have varying width of ROW and easements/access agreements. The County’s ArcGIS open data ROW map, Figure 2-5 de-picts these access ways that extend to the VDWWTP via the access road, but additional information will need to be gathered during the detail design phase to better understand the existing rights of the access road and proposed pipe alignment.

The common segment along Van Dyke Rd (between Ramblewood Rd. and Brown Rd) appears to have adequate ROW based upon the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser.

Brown Rd, there is sufficient County ROW to install the new pipeline; however, a significant portion of the new pipeline may require installation within the roadway.

N Mobley Rd is sufficient to install the new pipeline up to the end of the common segments near Walker Middle Magnet School.

Ed Radice Park near NWRWRF is to be installed entirely in County owned lands.

Figure 2-5 Hillsborough County ArcGIS ROW Map

2.4.1.2 Residential and Commercial Impacts

Ramblewood Rd involves minor residential impacts as there are two entrances to residential communities along Ramblewood Rd, the Cheval community at Chemille Dr and the northern entrance to Lake Carlton

Van Dyke

WWTP

Arms. It is noted that, both of these communities have alternate entrances for residents which will help mini-mize impacts at the entrance crossings. The alternate Cheval entrance is located on W Lutz Lake Fern Rd and the alternate entrance to Lake Carlton Arms is located along Van Dyke Rd. In addition, there is the en-trance of the Brooker Creek Headwaters Preserve parking lot along Ramblewood Rd, which will need to be accommodated, but should not present a significant impediment.

There are a few residential impacts on the north side of Van Dyke Rd and a potential impact to the Resurrec-tion Parish located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Van Dyke Rd and Brown Rd. However, this impact is anticipated to be minor as the parking lot to the Parish has two entrances.

Brown Rd is a residential roadway with homes on both sides of the road. Impacts will be localized and will require access to be limited to one lane of traffic near the active construction. Brown has access to Van Dyke Rd on the north and N Mobley Rd to the south. Early coordination and communication with the resi-dents will improve MOT and expectations. Due to the fact that the pipeline may need to be installed within the roadway, there is an opportunity to improve the road quality along Brown Rd which may be a welcome improvement given the current roadway condition.

There are no residential or commercial impacts along N Mobley Rd within the Common Segments. Impacts associated with Walker Middle Magnet School and Hammond Elementary School are described in the sec-tions for Routes A, B, and C below.

2.4.1.3 Major Road Crossings

The common segments contain only two major road crossing that are anticipated to require the use of trenchless technologies to accommodate the road crossing. Ramblewood Rd will likely require a directional drill to install the pipe under SR 589 to avoid conflicting with the narrow parkway overpass. The Van Dyke Rd crossing at the intersection with Brown Rd is likely best suited for a jack and bore method to avoid impacts to the traffic along Van Dyke Rd. This construction method would minimize the required MOT, while being more suited to the physical requirements of the available space at the intersection.

2.4.1.4 Existing Utilities

The common segments will encounter known utilities from Hillsborough County and TBW which will require coordination and appropriate separation during the pipeline design. Additional research will be required to identify other buried utilities within these segments. Ramblewood Rd, as the primary access road for the VDWWTP, has an existing County forcemain and reclaimed water main along the west ROW of the entire seg-ment. There is also an existing County water main located along the east ROW of Ramblewood Rd until the water main terminates near SR 589. These three utilities, the existing forcemain, water main, and reclaimed water main continue west alongside the proposed common route segment in the north ROW of Van Dyke Rd.

A sample of this area is shown in Figure 2-6 based upon field markings identified during our site visit. Along the south side of Van Dyke there is a 48” TBW potable water main that runs the length of Van Dyke Road.

As the route turns south down Brown Rd. an existing 20” County reclaimed water main is routed along Brown Rd and turns along with the proposed pipeline west along N Mobley Rd. TBW raw water mains are introduced on Brown Rd. near N. Mobley and continue west along N. Mobley. An existing County water main, forcemain, and reclaimed water main extend south of the Ed Radice Park entrance to connect the County’s existing utili-ties with the NWR WRF. The existing forcemain is not pictured in Figure 2-6 as it only extends approximately 600 ft west of Ramblewood Rd.

Legend

Water

Reclaimed

BFOC

Figure 2-6 Existing Utilities along Van Dyke Rd

2.4.2 Route A

This section will evaluate Route A on key design considerations to determine the viability of the unique seg-ments associated with Route A. In addition to the common segments described above, Route A generally fol-lows the following path:

N Mobley Rd Crawley Rd Boy Scout Rd Racetrack Rd S Mobley Rd

Figure 2-7 Route A

2.4.2.1 Right-of-Way and County Owned Land

Based upon the data from the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, the ROW along Route A is adequate to accommodate the proposed pipeline without the acquisition of additional easements. Route A runs along the common segments to N Mobley Rd, Crawley Rd, Boy Scout Rd, Racetrack Rd, S Mobley Rd, and Ed Radice Dr.

N Mobley Rd is a two-lane collector road that has both Walker Middle Magnet School and Hammond Elementary school located along the south side of the road east of Gunn Hwy and residential proper-ties existing along the length of the roadway on the north. The ROW width varies from 50’ to 120’ and is sufficient to accommodate the pipeline.

Crawley Rd. is a two-lane collector road with a ROW width of approximately 50’ and has sufficient ROW width to install the new pipeline. Roadside swales may have to be accommodated during con-struction on the North side of the roadway.

Boy Scout Rd. is a two-lane collector road with a ROW width of approximately 50’ and has sufficient ROW to install the new pipeline.

Race Track Rd. is a two-lane arterial road with a ROW width of approximately 60’. The traffic along Race Track Rd is heavier toward the southwest and has fewer daily travelers along the northeastern sections of the road. Race Track Rd has sufficient ROW to install the new pipeline.

S Mobley Rd has a narrow ROW width of approximately 35’ and may require a portion of the pipeline to be installed in the roadway due to limited ROW and existing utilities and landscaping.

2.4.2.2 Residential and Commercial Impacts

Route A would result in a small amount of residential impacts. The residential driveways along N Mobley Rd and Race Track Rd could be restored quickly following installation of the proposed pipeline. The section of Race Track Rd that is utilized by Route A has a much lower daily traffic volume compared to the portions of Race Track Rd that continue south of the intersection with S Mobley Rd. A trenchless installation method could be utilized if an individual or group of community impacts are preferred to be avoided. The most signifi-cant impact along Route A is potentially to the Highland Park community along S Mobley Rd. This community has extensive landscaping in the ROW, but as is the case with many potential conflicts, the entrance does have two access driveways so the proposed pipeline installation impact could be less than initially expected.

The construction method selected during detailed design for Route A should minimize impacts to Walker Middle Magnet School and Hammond Elementary school along N Mobley Rd. Impacts to Fox’s Feed Depot at the intersection of Gunn Hwy and N Mobley Rd can be minimized by employing a directional drill for the crossing of Gunn Hwy. Lake Rogers Park has an entrance along N Mobley Rd that may be minimally im-pacted. The City of St. Petersburg’s Cosme Facility is located along Race Track Rd, which should be avoided by installing the pipeline on the opposite side of the road. The two churches located along the proposed pipeline both have dual entrances and would therefore be minimally impacted by the construction of the pro-posed pipeline.

2.4.2.3 Major Road Crossings

Route A includes two major road crossings. The first one is to cross Gunn Highway at N Mobley Rd and the second is to cross Race Track Rd at S Mobley Rd, which are both expected to be accomplished via HDD.

These crossings will result in some MOT impacts but should present minimal impacts to local traffic.

2.4.2.4 Existing Utilities

Route A’s unique segments are primarily to be installed west of Gunn Hwy. Hillsborough County utilities gen-erally do not extend into the ROW of N Mobley west of Gunn Hwy, Boy Scout Rd, or Race Track Rd. However, TBW has many water mains in this area as there is a large well field located near Gunn Hwy and Race Track Rd. Route A crosses a 42-inch TBW water main at Gunn Hwy along N Mobley Rd; however, this crossing is expected to be accomplished via a directional drill so the TBW water main will not present a conflict to Route A.

Routes A and B are routed along Race Track Rd near the City of St. Petersburg’s Cosme Treatment Facility, which corresponds with a significant number of existing TBW water mains in the area. Figure 2-8 shows the extent of the existing TBW utilities in the immediate area of the Cosme Facility. There is an existing 66-inch TBW water main along the northern ROW of Race Track Rd that is installed in its own easement that is set back from the County’s existing ROW. If installed along the north ROW of Race Track Rd, the proposed pipe-line would only conflict with the 66-inch TBW water main at two crossings as the TBW main enters the

Cosme Facility. Additionally, the City of St. Petersburg has two parallel 36” and 48” water mains crossing Race Track Rd near S Mobley Rd as shown in Figure 2-9. It will be important to coordinate this crossing with the City of St. Petersburg as many of the City’s large diameter water mains are prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP).

Figure 2-8 TBW Existing Utilities near Cosme Facility

Figure 2-9 City of St Petersburg Water Mains

2.4.3 Route B

This section will evaluate Route B on key design considerations to determine the viability of the unique seg-ments associated with Route B. In addition to the common segments described above, Route B generally follows the following path:

Cosme Rd Gunn Hwy Racetrack Rd S Mobley Rd

Figure 2-10 Route B

2.4.3.1 Right-of-Way and County Owned Land

The ROW along Route B is adequate to accommodate the proposed pipeline without the acquisition of addi-tional easements. Route B runs along an existing County easement, Cosme Rd, Gunn Hwy, N Mobley Rd, Boy Scout Rd, Racetrack Rd, S Mobley Rd, and Ed Radice Dr.

Route B routes the proposed pipeline from N Mobley Rd to Cosme Rd via a section of existing ease-ment within the land owned by the School Board of Hillsborough County. The easement details will require additional review to determine purpose and width to confirm the proposed pipeline can be accommodated. It may be possible for the pipe to parallel the path of the existing 20-inch reclaimed water main in this area or could be potentially be drilled under the wetlands in a more direct route toward Cosme Rd.

Cosme Rd, is a dead-end residential roadway with limited access. As a result, the proposed pipeline is expected to be installed at least partially in the roadway due to the limited ROW and existing utili-ties.

The ROW along Gunn Hwy in this area is approximately 65’ and is located along a stretch of roadway that is curved and super elevated to accommodate traffic speeds. This results in elevated roadway edges as compared to the lower grade along the east and west sides of the road. This may result in deeper excavations and challenges to install the pipeline.

Race Track Rd. is a two-lane arterial road with a ROW width of approximately 60’. The traffic along Race Track Rd is heavier toward the southwest and has fewer daily travelers along the northeastern sections of the road. Race Track Rd has sufficient ROW to install the new pipeline.

S Mobley Rd may require a portion of the pipeline to be installed in the roadway due to limited ROW and existing utilities and landscaping.

2.4.3.2 Residential and Commercial Impacts

Route B has minimal residential impacts along its unique segments. As discussed in Section 2.4.3.2, care should be taken during construction to minimize impacts to Hammond Elementary School. Along Cosme and Gunn Hwy, there are very few residential impacts and only one non-residential impact, to the adjacent Cen-tral Bible Chapel. The impacts along Race Track Rd south of the intersection with Boy Scout Rd are the same as outlined in Section 2.4.3.2 and are generally minimal.

2.4.3.3 Major Road Crossings

Route B also has two major roadway crossings. The pipeline is expected to cross Gunn Hwy at Cosme Rd and will cross Race Track Rd at S Mobley Rd. The Gunn Hwy and Cosme Rd crossing will require a jack and bore, while the Race Track Rd crossing may be accomplished via HDD. Each trenchless crossing will minimize im-pacts to local traffic.

2.4.3.4 Existing Utilities

The piping installed from N Mobley Rd to Cosme Rd within the School Board of Hillsborough County’s prop-erty must be installed in a manner to avoid conflicts with significant overhead electric lines and the existing 20” County reclaimed water main. The County’s existing 20” reclaimed water main continues along Cosme in the path of Route B but turns to continue along Gunn in the east ROW, while the proposed Route B will cross to the west ROW of Gunn Hwy. There is an existing County water main on the west ROW along Segment 11.

As Route B turns onto Race Track Rd, the focus shifts from County utilities to Tampa Bay Water’s several wa-ter mains that cross Race Track Rd from the adjacent well fields. Once Route B turns into Segment 13 at the intersection of Race Track Rd and Boy Scout Rd, the existing utilities are as described in 2.4.5.2.

2.4.4 Route C

This section will evaluate Route C on key design considerations to determine the viability of the unique seg-ments associated with Route C. In addition to the common segments described above, Route C generally follows the following path:

Cosme Rd Gunn Hwy S Mobley Rd

Figure 2-11 Route C

2.4.4.1 Right-of-Way and County Owned Land

The ROW along Route C is adequate to accommodate the proposed pipeline without the acquisition of addi-tional easements. Route C runs along an existing County easement, Cosme Rd, Gunn Hwy, S Mobley Rd, and Ed Radice Dr.

Route B routes the proposed pipeline from N Mobley Rd to Cosme Rd via a section of existing ease-ment within the land owned by the School Board of Hillsborough County. The easement details will require additional review to determine purpose and width to confirm the proposed pipeline can be accommodated. It may be possible for the pipe to parallel the path of the existing 20-inch reclaimed water main in this area or could be potentially be drilled under the wetlands in a more direct route toward Cosme Rd.

Cosme Rd, is a dead-end residential roadway with limited access. As a result, the proposed pipeline is expected to be installed at least partially in the roadway due to the limited ROW and existing utili-ties.

The ROW along Gunn Hwy varies in width from 65’ to 120’ and is located along a stretch of roadway that is curved and super elevated to accommodate traffic speeds. This results in elevated roadway edges as compared to the lower grade along the east and west sides of the road. This may result in deeper excavations and challenges to install the pipeline.

The ROW of S Mobley Rd near the intersection of Gunn Hwy narrows and may be insufficient to in-stall the pipeline. It is expected that a significant portion of the pipeline near the intersection may require installation within travel lanes of both Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd as sections of the ROW are too narrow to avoid installation in the roadway. This area is shown in Figure 2-12.

Figure 2-12 Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd (Hillsborough County Property Appraiser)

2.4.4.2 Residential and Commercial Impacts

There are significantly more residential and non-residential impacts along Route C than along either Routes A and B. This is primarily due to the installation of the pipeline along Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd. The Northton Grove and Keystone Crossing developments collectively have hundreds of homes connected to one entrance each along Gunn Hwy. Arbor Lake, along S Mobley Rd has one primary entrance and a locked gate secondary entrance that could potentially be used to mitigate impact to the hundreds of residents in this community. In addition to these residential impacts, the commercial area on the northwest corner of the in-tersection of Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd could be significantly impacted by installations that cross one of the two entrances to the parking lot. There are also potential impacts to the traffic patterns at the intersec-tion if the pipeline must be installed in a travel lane to navigate the intersection. It is expected that Route C will include multiple directional drills to avoid disruption to the high traffic flow into and out of the residential communities in this area.

2.4.4.3 Major Road Crossings

Route C has the same crossing of Gunn Highway at Cosme Rd, which may require a jack and bore as de-scribed above. In addition to this major roadway crossing, there is an additional impact to a major road at the intersection of Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd. Construction near this intersection would likely require instal-lation of the pipeline in a travel lane of both Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd. This would result in a significant MOT impact as the intersection has a high number of daily travelers. Figure 2-13 shows a view of the inter-section on Gunn Highway facing south.

Figure 2-13 Gunn Highway & S. Mobley Intersection Photo

2.4.4.4 Existing Utilities

Route C has the same existing utilities as 2.4.5.3 until it crosses Race Track Rd into Segment 14 along Gunn Hwy. In this area, the existing County utilities include and existing reclaimed water main, water main, and miscellaneous gravity sewer piping. An existing County forcemain joins the Route C path at the intersection of Gunn Hwy and S Mobley Rd and continues west along S Mobley Rd until the entrance of Ed Radice park.

While Route C avoids a majority of the TBW infrastructure, there is a 36-inch TBW water main that crosses Gunn in the area of Copeland Rd.

Section 3: Regulatory Requirements A preliminary review of the regulatory requirements for the proposed pipeline project has identified common permitting requirements for all three pipeline routes. The average pipeline length between the three routes is approximately 49,600 linear feet. The following is a brief summary of the permitting agencies and the likely permit requirements that will need to be completed prior to construction activities.

3.1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

The County in conjunction with the selected contractor will need to obtain an FDOT Utility Permit prior to working within the FDOT ROW by using the One-Stop Permitting (OSP) website. It is expected that the cross-ing of the SR 589 overpass along Ramblewood Rd will be the only FDOT Utility Permit required within the pro-ject. The County will be listed as the Utility Agency Owner (UAO) and the crossing will need to follow the most recently updated Utility Accommodation Manual (UAM), which is 2017 at the time of this writing.

3.2 Hillsborough County Right-of-Way Utilization

The project will require a Hillsborough County Development Services, Right-of-Way Use permit application for pipeline construction activities within the ROW. The design will need to adhere to the County’s Utility Accom-modation Guide and respond to separate ROW utilization reviews and proposed MOT needs. This permit is expected to cover nearly the entire length of the project.

3.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) through the FDEP is required before beginning construction activi-ties that would potentially impact wetlands, alter surface water flows or contribute to water pollution due to construction activities. This project is expected to utilize construction methods that will avoid significant wet-land impacts. The ERP is required to be submitted to the FDEP local office at Southwest District via paper mail or online application. The online application can be submitted through the FDEP’s Business Portal that can be found at www.fldepportal.com.

While the decommissioning of the VDWWTP is not included within this project, it is notable that the transfer of the VDWWTP wastewater flow will require appropriate permits at both the VDWWTP and the NWRWRF.

3.4 Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) Hillsborough County EPC requires that a Domestic Wastewater Permit be submitted for the pipeline and transfer of wastewater flows. The permit can be submitted via mail or electronic application. The electronic application can be found at the following website: https://www.epchc.org/divisions/waste/waste-e-docu-ment-submittal.

3.5 City of St. Petersburg

The City of St. Petersburg (St. Pete) may require a Water Transmission Main (WTM) Crossing permit be sub-mitted through the Engineering and Capital Improvements Department. Detailed design should ascertain the locations of the pipelines via coordination with the City and SUE; ROW availability, potential existing special easements, and property constraints at each St Pete WTM crossing. This crossing permit was considered for Routes A and B along Race Track Rd.

Section 4: Project Schedule After a review of the routes and based upon the level of detail of this route analysis, the schedules for each route reflect similar results. A project schedule was developed to reflect all three route options which in-cludes the timeline of the selection of an engineering firm, design, contractor bid and ultimately the pipeline construction. Figure 4-1 shows the estimated schedule and assumes that the start of the schedule is the beginning of the Fiscal Year 2022 (October 2021). The schedule assumes a traditional design-bid-build method of procurement for the project. These assumptions estimate that the construction of the pipeline would begin in November 2023 and be operational by November 2024.

ID Task Name Duration Start

1 RFQ Selection 151 days Mon 10/4/21

2 Advertise 30 days Mon 10/4/21

3 Selection/Award 90 days Mon 11/15/21

4 NTP 1 day Mon 5/2/22

5 Final Design 295 days Mon 5/2/22

6 Geotechnical/Survey/SUE/Wetland 90 days Mon 5/2/22

7 30% 60 days Tue 7/12/22

8 60% 60 days Tue 10/4/22

9 90% 50 days Tue 12/27/22

10 100% 30 days Tue 5/9/23

11 Permitting 60 days Tue 3/7/23

12 Bid Phase 90 days Tue 7/18/23

13 Construction Phase 261 days Tue 11/21/23

14 NTP 1 day Tue 11/21/23

15 Material Procurement 60 days Wed 11/22/23

16 Field Activities 150 days Wed 2/14/24

17 Substantial Completion 30 days Wed 9/11/24

18 Final Completeion 20 days Wed 10/23/24

Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct

2022 2023 2024

Section 5: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

5.1 OPCC Methodology

The OPCC was prepared using quantity take-offs where available, vendor quotes and material pricing.

Markups such as general conditions, insurances, bonding, and taxes were considered. The OPCC includes direct labor costs and anticipated productivity adjustments to labor and equipment. The estimation method-ology calculated construction labor crew and equipment hours from production rates contained in docu-ments and electronic databases published by R.S. Means, Mechanical Contractors Association (MCA), Na-tional Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), and Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment (Blue Book). This estimate was prepared using BC’s estimating system, which consists of Sage Construction and Real Estate 300 estimating software engine (formerly Timberline) using RS Means database, historical project data, the latest vendor and material cost information, and other costs specific to the project location.

This estimate utilized GIS and visual observations as the basis for the preliminary data used during the anal-ysis. Based on preliminary information and certain planning-level assumptions, high-level construction cost opinions were completed. A contingency of 30 percent was used to account for unforeseen circumstances and to account for detail not included in the planning stage of this route analysis.

5.2 Class of Estimate

In accordance with the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE) criteria, this is a Class 5 estimate. A Class 5 estimate is defined as a Conceptual Level or Project Viability Estimate.

Typically, engineering is from 0 to 2 percent complete. Class 5 estimates are used to prepare planning level cost scopes or evaluation of alternative schemes, long range capital outlay planning and can also form the base work for the Class 4 Planning Level or Design Technical Feasibility Estimate. Accuracy for Class 5 esti-mates typically ranges from -50 to +100 percent, depending on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. In unu-sual circumstances, ranges may exceed those shown. The detailed cost opinion is included as Appendix C.

5.3 Additional Considerations

The attached cost opinion assumes a 16-inch internal pipe diameter based upon direction from the County at the time of this TM. The County is considering two possible options for changing the pipe diameter based on hydraulic considerations outside the purview of this TM. The first option is to install a 16-inch diameter pipe that increases to a 20-inch along the route to optimize the hydraulics while the second option will be to install a 20-inch diameter pipe along the entire route. This change will increase the construction cost from what is shown below. However, the cost increase is not expected to change the relative cost between routes and does not impact the recommended route.

Table 5-1. Summary Table

Route A Route B Route C

Proposed Forcemain $ 17,797,330 $ 17,754,915 $ 17,643,190

Restoration $ 573,430 $ 708,803 $ 903,974

Traffic Control $ 343,547 $ 410,335 $ 823,011

Total $ 18,714,307 $ 18,874,053 $ 19,370,175

Section 6: Recommendations…