FINAL_-_SWFWMD_Chesnut_Park_TPR_08132024R2_20241126.pdf

respec.com

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT-CHESNUT PARK SURFACE FACILITIES

PERMITTING SERVICES AND 30% DESIGN DOCUMENTS

THIRD PARTY REVIEW

respec.com

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT-CHESNUT PARK SURFACE FACILITIES

PERMITTING SERVICES AND 30% DESIGN DOCUMENTS

THIRD PARTY REVIEW

PREPARED BY

Joseph Haber, P.G.

Brad Picard, P.E.

RESPEC

2550 Green Forest Lane, Ste. 101 Lutz, FL 33558

PREPARED FOR

Southwest Florida Water Management District Water Resources Bureau 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34604-6899

NOVEMBER 25, 2024

Project Number W0101.24002

Professional Certification The engineering and geological evaluation and recommendations completed for the “Basis of Design Report – Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents – Third Party Review for the Southwest Florida Water Management District”, were performed by a Licensed Professional Engineer and Geologist in the State of Florida.

Bradley M. Picard, P.E.

RESPEC Company, LLC.

PG License Number: PE97117 Date: November 25, 2024

Joseph D. Haber, P.G.

RESPEC Company, LLC.

PG License Number: PG2631 Date: November 25, 2024

Digitally signed by Bradley M Picard Date:

2024.11.25 15:00:30 -05'00'

COVER LETTER

November 25, 2024

Emeli Sandoval Staff Hydrogeologist Water Resources Bureau Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34604-6899

Subject: Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents Draft Third-Party Review.

Dear Ms. Sandoval:

RESPEC is pleased to provide you with this report that documents the results of a Third-Party Review (TPR) of the preliminary design of the Pinellas County Chesnut Park ASR and Aquifer Recharge project, as documented in the report entitled “Basis of Design Report Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents” (December 2023), prepared by Jones Edmunds. RESPEC initially provided a draft of the TPR to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) staff on August 12, 2024. On September 4, 2024, SWFWMD staff organized a TPR Teams Meeting which included SWFWMD and RESPEC staff and Pinellas County staff and its consultants. A copy of the Meeting Minutes has been provided as Attachment A. On October 3, 2024, RESPEC received supplemental information including the “Pinellas County Chesnut Surface Facilities and MAR Third Party Review Summary of Comments and Responses”, and on October 22, 2024, RESPEC received the “Basis of Design Report Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents - Supplemental Information on the Basis of Design for the Managed Aquifer Recharge Well” from SWFWMD staff. RESPEC has reviewed these documents and revised the TPR report as requested by District staff.

Sincerely, Joseph Haber, P.G.

Managing Principal

RESPEC

Tampa, FL 813.295.9507

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 CONSTRUCTABILITY

3.0 COST

4.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

4.1 Conceptual Layout

4.1.1 Civil Site

4.1.2 Environmental Assessment

4.1.3 Well Designs Assessment

4.2 System Capacity and Water Availability

4.2.1 Design Flows

4.2.2 Hydraulic Boundary Conditions

4.3 Surface Facilities Assessment

4.3.1 Hydraulics and Pump Design

4.3.2 Intake Design and Treatment Options

4.3.3 Instrumentation and Controls

4.4 Monitoring Parameters

4.5 Permitting

4.5.1 Underground Injection Control

4.5.2 Other Permitting Considerations

4.6 Measureable Benefits

4.7 Project Schedule

5.0 CONCLUSION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The RESPEC Company, LLC (RESPEC) was contracted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to perform a Third-Party Review (TPR) of the 30% design of the Pinellas County Chesnut Park Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) and Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Project.

RESPEC reviewed the report entitled “Basis of Design Report (Report) for the Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents (December 2023)” prepared by Jones Edmunds. Per the Task Work Assignment (TWA), RESPEC considered project constructability, cost estimate, conceptual layout, benefits, and schedule. RESPEC initially provided a draft of the TPR to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) staff on August 12, 2024.

On September 4, 2024, SWFWMD staff organized a TPR Teams Meeting which included SWFWMD and RESPEC staff and Pinellas County staff and its consultants. A copy of the Meeting Minutes has been provided as Attachment A. On October 3, 2024, RESPEC received supplemental information including the “Pinellas County Chesnut Surface Facilities and MAR Third Party Review Summary of Comments and Responses”, and on October 22, 2024, RESPEC received the “Basis of Design Report Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents - Supplemental Information on the Basis of Design for the Managed Aquifer Recharge Well” from SWFWMD staff. RESPEC has reviewed these documents and revised this TPR report as requested by District staff.

2.0 CONSTRUCTABILITY

The project consists of the construction of a MAR well system, gravity intake structure with coarse screening at Brooker Creek, and an equipment building with appurtenant wet well, pumps, conveyance piping, filtration and disinfection systems, and monitoring equipment. The site’s existing ASR well is proposed to be furnished with a vertical turbine pump and conveyance piping to recover water from the well and supplement the reclaimed water system. The project will also include the construction of an upgraded access road and stormwater management.

Geotechnical investigations provided in the Report did not indicate unusual conditions that would prevent construction of the Chesnut Park Surface Facilities.

The 30% design drawings were reviewed, and no critical flaws, errors, or omissions that would prevent the construction of the Chesnut Park Surface Facilities or proposed MAR system were identified.

Staging and lay-down areas for equipment and construction materials may be identified on future plans to prevent conflicts with drilling rig operations. Construction measures (i.e., dewatering, dams, etc.) for the subsurface preparation and installation of the gravity intake structure, rip rap, and intake piping adjacent to Brooker Creek should be considered in future plans. Due to the intake structure’s proposed installation location along the creek bank, we would also expect wing walls or a similar retaining wall design to be incorporated on either side of the intake structure. These additional construction measures could increase the total installation cost of the intake system. Vertical clearances between the pipe to and from the existing ASR well and the 48” intake pipe should also be indicated in future plans. Any underground electrical utilities proposed to service the well pumps and equipment building should be represented in the plans for the electrical utility provider to review and assess the points of connection. HDPE pipe could also be considered for the intake line, as 48” PVC pipe may be difficult to find.

3.0 COST

The engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs (EOPCC) included in the Report is conservative, containing several lump sum items and high mobilization and contingency percentages (8% and 30%, respectively). This is expected with a 30% design package. Although the cost estimate appears to be conservative, the allocated costs to surface equipment and civil components appear to be reasonable for a project of this size and scope. The Report also includes Appendices containing quotes provided by manufacturers to support the cost estimate. The total project cost estimate provided in the report is $27,424,000 + $100,000 for the Independent Performance Evaluation (IPE). Factors such as number of bidders, construction material availability at the time of bidding, and the demand/availability of deep well contractors may affect the overall cost of the project.

In future EOPCC calculations, it is recommended that items such as gravel, access road base, and components to the stormwater management pond (outfall, control structure, etc.) be included with the Civil items. Quantities for reclaimed water piping from the equipment building to the existing reclaimed water line adjacent to East Lake Road, as well as the connection costs, should be included in the EOPCC. A line item for on-site testing (pressure testing utility lines, density testing of access road, etc.)

should also be considered.

4.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

4.1 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT

4.1.1 CIVIL SITE

As mentioned in Section 2, no critical flaws, errors, or omissions that would prevent the construction of the Chesnut Park Surface Facilities or proposed MAR system were identified in the 30% design drawings. We provide the following comments for the Engineer of Record to consider as the project progresses beyond the 30% design:

/ Provide additional details of the site’s stormwater system, including the type of pre-treatment and location of outfall.

/ A detail for the double floating turbidity barrier has not been provided and should be included on the Erosion Control Details sheet (C7).

/ Please provide a minimum depth and proposed material for the unpaved access drive on Sheet

C4.

/ The proposed grade outside of intake structure as shown on Section 1 on Sheet S2 does not appear to be consistent with the topography provided in the Plans. Please review and consider retaining walls or other slope stabilization measures in this area, especially if access to the structure is necessary and if vehicles will be required to travel near the top of the bank.

/ Please review the invert elevations of the proposed mitered end sections (MES). MES located at the beginning of the access road are proposed with invert elevations of 5.0 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Based on existing grades in that area, this does not appear to provide sufficient positive drainage and may cause stormwater to stage at the structures.

The addition of a swale downstream of the structure may be required to provide positive drainage. The downstream MES at this location is also in close proximity to existing trees, which may not survive if excavations are to take place within the limit of the trees’ root systems.

/ The downstream MES invert located further north along the access road is set at 8.0 NAVD 88 and is about 6’ higher than existing grade in this region.

/ Consider extending the project’s access road to connect directly to East Lake Road South. A shared use sidewalk runs parallel to East Lake Road, and a designated entry would ensure pedestrian safety from crossing maintenance/delivery vehicles. The need for a designated entry may be necessary for chemical delivery, maintenance, and emergency access.

/ Determine if a restroom is required to be provided for employees on the site. If necessary, additional design for water and sewer services should be included in the plans and should be reflected in the project cost estimate.

/ Include technical specifications for gravel, as well as fill and embankment, in Division 2 – Site Construction found in Section 9 of the Report.

4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

An environmental assessment was provided as Appendix D of the Report. The environmental assessment summarizes existing vegetative communities, the presence, or lack, of listed wildlife species, and jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters within the project limits. The environmental assessment also discussed the County’s tree ordinance and permitting requirements for tree removal on properties outside of Pinellas County right-of-way. The environmental assessment is complete and thorough. We recommend that Section 2.2.2 of the Report include a brief description of any critical observations that are included in the environmental assessment.

According to the Environmental Assessment, a potential bald eagle nest was identified within the property adjacent to the proposed work area. Additional environmental surveys should be conducted prior to construction to confirm the presence or absence of protected species.

Brooker Creek is identified as surface water and classified as Retained Waters by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The project is anticipated to impact this surface water and will require permitting through USACE and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). All permits under SWFWMD review are to be submitted to FDEP since SWFWMD has a vested interest in the project.

4.1.3 WELL DESIGN ASSESSMENT

As discussed in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of the Report, the project includes an existing ASR test well (ASRTP-1) and four monitoring wells, including two (2) Storage Zone monitor wells, one (1) upper zone monitoring well and one (1) regional Upper Floridan monitoring well. All these wells were authorized under FDEP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit 231277-001-UC and constructed in 2007. The permit was renewed in November 2010 under UIC Permit 231277-003-UC/5Q. Pinellas County is also proposing one Avon Park Formation injection well for the MAR aspect of the project.

The existing ASRTP-1 injection well consists of a 16-inch PVC casing set to a depth of 190 feet below land surface (bls) with an open hole set to 240 feet bls. The ASR injection zone is within the Suwannee Limestone formation. The background Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration of the ASR injection zone is approximately 2,980 mg/L according to the UIC well construction permit. Therefore, it is considered an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW), classified by the FDEP as groundwater with TDS concentrations below 10,000 mg/L. Based on the Report and RESPEC’s review of the well construction permit application, the well is capable of recharging and recovering between up to 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD). UIC Well Construction Permit Application 231277-005-UC was submitted to the FDEP on March 9, 2020, to authorize the injection of surface water from Lake Tarpon and is currently under review. Additional discussion regarding the UIC permitting effort is provided in Section 4.5.1.

This project also includes a proposed MAR well with a 24-inch final casing set to 600 feet bls with an open hole set to 1,250 feet bls. The recharge zone is a permeable unit in the Avon Park Formation called the Avon Park High-Permeability Zone (APHPZ), which is anticipated to have a TDS concentration greater than 10,000 mg/L, a non-USDW, G-IV aquifer. The capacity of the MAR well is dependent on the transmissivity of the APHPZ at the site, however it is anticipated to be capable of recharging up to 10 million gallons per day (MGD) or more. UIC Well Construction Permit Application 385705-001-UC was submitted to the FDEP on March 9, 2020, and is currently under review.

The design and potential productivity and injectivity of the wells is consistent with the hydrogeology of the area. The stated productivity and injectivity of the wells are also consistent with other existing injection well projects near the Chesnut project. Pinellas County provided an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) of $3.2 million which is consistent with current well contractor estimates.

However, as stated in the supplemental information provided on October 22, 2024, actual costs will be contingent upon the timing of the bid document release and the availability of well contracting firms that specialize in UIC well construction projects. Senate Bill 64 has increased the demand for UIC well contractors.

4.2 SYSTEM CAPACITY AND WATER AVAILABILITY

4.2.1 DESIGN FLOWS

The design flows used in the analysis were determined using monthly average flow data of water discharged from Lake Tarpon over the USACE control structure between 2001 and 2018. Water discharges of 10 MGD or more typically occurred 55 percent of the year, with an average discharge of 46 MGD. The assumptions made to determine the available water discharge from Lake Tarpon appear to be reasonable and exceed the maximum design of the proposed intake structure (14 MGD).

4.2.2 HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Surface water elevations at Lake Tarpon were established using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FIRM) panels, flood insurance studies, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge data. These methods are sufficient to determine 100-year flood elevations, average water elevations, and high and low water elevations of Brooker Creek.

4.3 SURFACE FACILITIES ASSESSMENT

4.3.1 HYDRAULICS AND PUMP DESIGN

The basis of design for the ASR Storage Pump, ASR Recovery Pump, MAR Well Pump, the North County Reclaimed Water (NC RCW) System Pump, and Filter Feed Pumps were reviewed to ensure the proposed pumps could accommodate the project demands. Selections for the NC RCW System Pump and the Filter Feed Pumps are reasonable.

The pump curves displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the Report for the ASR Storage Pump and Recovery Pump (both proposed as Floway Model 14JKH) do not appear to be consistent with the pump curves provided in Appendix B. The Floway Model 14JKH does not appear to meet the expected maximum head cases for either the Storage Pump or Recovery Pump (69 and 52 feet, respectively) at the 2.0 MGD primary design condition. The selected pump also does not meet the minimum shut-off head values set in Tables 4 and 5.

The pump curve displayed in Figure 5 of the Report for the MAR Well Pump also appears to be inconsistent with the pump curve provided in Appendix B. Figure 5 proposes a pump speed of 1800 RPM, yet the maximum speed for the Floway Model 27FKL pump is 1500 revolutions per minute (RPM).

The referenced pump curve matches the 1170 RPM curve for this pump. With a head of 83 feet at 10 MGD, this pump may not meet the maximum head case (89 feet) at the pump’s primary design condition.

Monitoring well pumps are also proposed with this project. A pump selection for this portion of the project was not completed for the 30% design phase. Pump selections will be completed for the monitoring wells once the layout and discharge locations are finalized. Table 8 of the Report summarizes monitoring well sampling information to meet the flushing volume requirements set by the

FDEP.

4.3.2 INTAKE DESIGN AND TREATMENT OPTIONS

The 10’x10’ intake structure is proposed to be constructed at the south bank of Brooker Creek in the depth of the water, and includes a coarse bar screen, a baffle to block debris, and a 48-inch PVC gravity pipe to convey flows from the creek to the wet well below the equipment building. The intake structure and pipe are designed to accommodate flows up to 14 MGD. The design of the intake system is reasonable. We recommend that a sluice gate, or equivalent, be installed either at the intake structure or at the entrance to the raw water basin to provide a shut-down measure in the event of an emergency or to perform maintenance and inspections in the wet wells.

Once the raw water enters the wet well, it will be filtered with a fine passive-water intake screening system to reduce suspended solids, turbidity, and debris from entering the second basin. This screening system will be outfitted with an air backwash cleaning system to remove debris from the screen. This could increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations within the raw water, however additional testing is expected to be required to ensure the proposed screening measures will meet applicable treatment requirements. For the sake of this design review, the selected screening and air backwash cleaning systems are reasonable and appear to be sufficient for this project.

The screened raw water will then enter a treatment system to further filter and disinfect surface waters prior to being discharged to the ASR Well or NC RCW System. This treatment system is required to meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. The selected treatment will be a combination of a ceramic ultrafiltration (CUF) system and an advanced oxidation process (AOP) disinfection system.

According to the Report’s disinfection cost analysis in Section 8, the AOP disinfection system requires higher expenses up-front, but will cost less throughout the lifespan of the equipment when compared to conventional chemical treatment. The AOP disinfection system also incorporates treatment and removal of substances that will likely have increased regulation requirements, such as PFAS and PFOS.

Based on the provided information and cost analysis, this treatment method is sufficient for the project.

Due to the level of sensitivity surrounding the ASR zone and its classification as a USDW, the Engineer of Record should provide additional information pertaining to the preventative or corrective measures to be taken for water that does not meet treatment standards.

4.3.3 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS

Pumps will be outfitted with a programmable logic control (PLC) system to control the pump operations, valve positions, and data collection. These controls will be able to regulate pumping rates and troubleshoot pump shut-offs and overruns. The specified controls in Section 6 of the Report are reasonable for this level of design. Additional on-site testing will be required to determine the allowable pumping rates for the ASR and MAR well systems.

4.4 MONITORING PARAMETERS

In accordance with UIC and FDEP requirements, the injection wells must monitor operating data including injection pressure, flow rate and water levels. The Report identifies the utilization of pressure transducers to monitor pressure, water level and temperature, while an electromagnetic flow meter will monitor flow rates. All the data will be compiled by a continuous datalogger that will be integrated into the PLC system. No water quality parameters were presented in the Report, however RESPEC’s review of the ASR system UIC permit file of record indicated that all the necessary water quality parameters for both the injection well and monitor wells will be included once the system is permitted for operation.

4.5 PERMITTING

No fatal flaws or insurmountable regulatory hurdles were identified in the Report, however the major obstacle for this project is obtaining an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as discussed below.

4.5.1 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL

The major regulatory issue for the project is the FDEP UIC permitting. ASR and Aquifer Recharge (AR) projects are permittable if it can be shown that the injected water will not cause endangerment of a USDW. Endangerment is defined as causing a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard within a USDW. If the natural background concentration for a parameter exceeds a drinking water standard, then the background concentration becomes the applicable standard of the injected water.

Based on the water quality information provided by the County, the background Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration in the Suwannee Limestone is less than 10,000 mg/L therefore the ASR injection zone is within a USDW and is classified as G-II groundwater and must comply with Rule 62-520.420, FAC for Standards for Class G-I and Class G-II Groundwater.

Rule 62-520.420(1) states that “waters classified as Class G-I and Class G-II ground water shall meet the primary and secondary drinking water quality standards for public water systems established pursuant to the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, which are listed in Rules 62-550.310 and 62-550.320, F.A.C., except as provided in Rule 62-520.520, F.A.C., and subsections (4) and (5) below, and except that the total coliform bacteria standard shall be 4 per 100 milliliters.”

A review of the permit application file of record indicates that the FDEP/UIC program is requiring the project to comply with the more stringent requirements of the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) rather than using the state rule requirements for total coliform found in Rule 62-520.420(1), FAC. A full review of the permitting effort is beyond the scope of this report; however, while this issue is surely an obstacle, it is not an insurmountable one.

4.5.2 OTHER PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS

The Report provides a comprehensive summary of the permitting requirements associated with the proposed project. We recommend that the Engineer of Record confirm whether Development Plan Review Approval is required through Pinellas County prior to construction, and if any well permitting needs to be obtained through the County. It is anticipated that a tree removal permit will need to be obtained by the contractor to accommodate the proposed access road width, alignment, and grading.

Additional permitting through Pinellas County may be required if the proposed access road is designed with a connection to East Lake Road.

4.6 MEASUREABLE BENEFITS

The economic benefits of the ASR lie in the supplemental augmentation of the Pinellas County Utilities (PCU) reclaimed water (RCW) supply. The primary economic benefits of reclaimed water use usually lie in the avoidance of higher quality fresh water being used for lower-value irrigation applications and in the value obtained from the additional use of the water. Higher-quality potable water and fresh groundwater are reserved for higher-value potable use.

RESPEC evaluated the potential measurable benefits for this project. The three (3) main benefits for this project listed in the Basis of Design document included the following:

1. During dry months or times of high RCW demand, the ASR could also be used to recover any stored surface water to continue supplementing the RCW system, reducing the direct contribution from Lake Tarpon. The project would diminish dry-weather reclaimed water shortages by increasing the reliability and resiliency of the North County Reclaimed Water System (NC RWS) through the use of ASR to store excess surface water from wet season to dry season with a minimum 5-year total recovery quantity of 300 MG.

2. In addition to the direct alternative water-supply portion of this project, the County is also exploring a surface water-managed aquifer recharge that would recharge excess Lake Tarpon water in lieu of allowing it to naturally flow to Tampa Bay, impacting nutrient loading to the Bay.

This would have direct benefits of reducing nitrogen loading to the Bay and freshening the permeable unit below the storage zone of the existing Lake Tarpon ASR, which would improve recovery efficiency of the ASR by mitigating impacts observed during recovery events. The project could provide a reduction of nutrient loading into Tampa Bay.

3. The NC RCWS would also realize further supplementation, and the amount recharged would exceed the amount recovered, resulting in a net benefit to the upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) in this region of Florida. The project would also help restore water level elevations in the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (NTBWUCA) and facilitate freshening of the aquifer through injection of excess surface water capable of achieving a one (1) billion gallon (BG) minimum recharge volume over a 5-year period.

SWFWMD requested that RESPEC comment on the measurable benefit of this project. According to the proposed agreement with the County, “The contractual measurable benefit will be a minimum 5-year rolling total recovery quantity of 300 million gallons through the use of ASR to store excess surface water from Lake Tarpon from wet season to dry season and achieve a minimum 5-year rolling total recharge volume of one (1) billion gallon (BG) through the use of AR facility.” This language is consistent with the County’s Basis of Design report and appears achievable based on RESPEC’s opinion and experience.

4.7 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The project schedule indicates construction to begin by June 2025, which is 236 days from the project’s assumed start date of September 15, 2024. Tasks within the provided schedule include meetings with Pinellas County and District Staff for design review, preparation of 60%, 90% and 100% designs, technical specifications, an EOPC, bid advertising and evaluation, and pilot testing filtration equipment. Completion of the project is forecasted for October 2026.

We recommend incorporating the preparation of required agency permit applications and review times into the schedule, as these items typically fall within the critical path of the project’s schedule. It is also recommended to incorporate time needed for additional design information, such as additional survey and topographic data, updated environmental assessment and protected species surveys, and updated/additional geotechnical investigations.

The supplemental information provided on October 22, 2024, identified the MAR well procurement and drilling schedule estimated to be 18 months. This timeline and schedule are reasonable for the size of the project. However, the completion date of the project will be highly dependent on the availability of qualified well contractors and their timeline for mobilizing to the site subsequent to selection.

Therefore, the County may want to consider adding availability to mobilize as a qualification for award of the well drilling contract.

5.0 CONCLUSION

RESPEC completed a Third-Party Review of the Basis of Design Report for the Chesnut Park Surface Facilities Permitting Services and 30% Design Documents. The ASR project’s benefits include the development of alternative water supplies to supplement the County’s reclaimed water supply, diminished dry weather reclaimed water shortages by increasing the reliability and resiliency of the NC RWS, and reduced use of higher quality fresh groundwater for irrigation. MAR will allow for freshening the permeable unit below the ASR storage zone, which could improve recovery efficiency of the ASR system and may reduce nutrient loading of upper Tampa Bay. In addition, the ASR and MAR may provide water level recovery to UFA within the NTBWUCA and facilitate freshening of the aquifer.

The project as currently designed is concluded to likely achieve proposed benefits similar to other successful aquifer recharge projects within the SWFWMD. No constructability or regulatory fatal flaws were identified. However, several recommendations have been provided in this TPR document which have been acknowledged and addressed by the County (Attachment B).

Draft Third-Party Review Coordination Meeting Minutes

September 4, 2024

Attachment A respec.com DRAFT

6561 Palmer Park Circle

Suite D

Sarasota, FL 34238

914.552.5657

September 23, 2024

Southwest Florida Water Management District Emeli Sandoval, Project Manager 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34604

RE: Pinellas County Chesnut Park Basis of Design Report and 30% Design Document Draft

Q142 Third-Party Review (TPR) Comment and Recommendations September 4, 2024, Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes

Meeting details / Date: September 4, 2024

/ Time: 2:00 pm

/ Meeting type: Teams meeting organized by SWFWMD

Attendees / Emeli Sandoval, Project Manager, SWFWMD / Seung Park, P.E., Water Supply Manager, SWFWMD / Joe Haber, P.G., RESPEC Company, LLC.

/ David Kelly, P.G., RESPEC Company, LLC.

/ Brad Picard, P.E., RESPEC Company, LLC.

/ David Adams, P.G., Pinellas County / Dan Umberger, P.G., Pinellas County / Pete Larkin, P.G., ASRus, LLC.

/ Mike Weatherby, P.G., HydroGeo Consulting, LLC.

/ Sean Menard, P.E., Jones Edmunds & Associates, Inc.

Agenda / Introductions / General Comment Discussion / Action Items / Third Party Review Schedule

Discussion items

1. SWFWMD staff (Emeli Sandoval) began the meeting, and introductions were made for all attendees.

2. RESPEC (Brad Picard) stated that the 30% Design Drawings were reviewed, and no critical flaws, errors or omissions were identified that would prevent the construction of the project.

3. RESPEC (Brad Picard) stated that although the cost estimate appears to be conservative, the allocated costs to surface equipment and civil components appear to be reasonable for

Pinellas County Chesnut Park Basis of Design Report and 30% Design Draft Third-Party Review Comment and Recommendation Meeting MINUTES // 2

DRAFT

a project of this size and scope. RESPEC noted that the construction costs for the MAR well were not included in the Basis of Design Report.

4. RESPEC staff (Joe Haber) clarified that as of September 4, 2024, no comments or responses by the County or County’s representatives had been received by RESPEC. RESPEC also reiterated that the County did not include the conceptual specifications or cost estimates for the Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) well construction. SWFWMD staff (Seung Park) confirmed that the MAR component of the project should be reviewed and included as part of the 30% design and TPR since the County’s Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) application and the Agreement include requested funding for the MAR well construction.

RESPEC also stated that there were some Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitting obstacles, however they were not insurmountable.

5. Pinellas County staff (David Adams) provided an update of the UIC Permit applications for both the ASR and MAR wells. Both permit applications were submitted in 2020, however UIC permits for the ASR and MAR well have not yet been issued. The more consequential issue holding up issuance is UIC staff’s interpretation of the EPA’s Revised Total Coliform Rule (RCTR) and its insistence that it supersedes FDEP’s coliform rules. Pinellas County has recently received correspondence from FDEP staff that appear to be siding with the County’s position that FDEP rules should be considered.

6. ASRus staff (Pete Larkin) stated that ASRus would develop a supplemental document that includes an update on the UIC permitting including well construction specifications and cost estimates for the construction of the MAR well.

7. Several RESPEC recommendations if the project progresses beyond the 30% design were discussed, including:

a. Potential to include wing walls or retaining system on either side of the intake structure which could increase the cost of the intake system (Page 4). Pinellas County stated that they would prefer the surface water intake be as unnoticeable as possible in regard to structural reinforcement to slope. They would like to minimize slope disturbance, though slope grades do not seem to be of concern.

b. Consider extending the project’s access road to connect directly to East Lake Road South (Page 6). Pinellas County would prefer not to connect the access road to East Lake Rd., as it is currently hidden from public view, and connecting the roads could be costly. However, the County acknowledged that a shared use sidewalk runs parallel, and having a designated entry would ensure pedestrian safety from crossing maintenance/delivery vehicles. The need for a designated entry may be necessary in the future for chemical delivery and maintenance. Pinellas County discussed relocating the access road connection approximately 300 feet south, away from bridge.

c. Determine if a restroom is required to be provided for employees on the site. If necessary, additional design for water and sewer services should be included in the plans and should be reflected in the project cost estimate (Page 6). Pinellas County stated that the site is meant for short-term operation, so staff should not need to stay on the property for more than a few hours. Generally, the site will be operated remotely.

d. The pump curves displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the Report for the ASR Storage Pump and Recovery Pump (both proposed as Floway Model 14JKH) do not appear to be consistent with the pump curves provided in Appendix B. The Floway

Pinellas County Chesnut Park Basis of Design Report and 30% Design Draft Third-Party Review Comment and Recommendation Meeting MINUTES // 3

Model 14JKH does not appear to meet the expected maximum head cases for either the Storage Pump or Recovery Pump (69 and 52 feet, respectively) at the 2.0 MGD primary design condition. The selected pump also does not meet the minimum shut-off head values set in Tables 4 and 5 (Page 8). Jones Edmunds (Sean Menard) stated that inconsistencies in pump-curves (pumps presented in report vs. the appendix) were due to a last-minute pump selection. SWFWMD (Seung Park) had cost concerns with pump selection not being completed for 30% design, however an approximate range pump costs were included in the cost estimate. Jones Edmunds stated that formal pump selection for the monitoring well pumps was intentionally excluded from the 30% design since the impact on cost is relatively small.

e. Due to the level of sensitivity surrounding the ASR zone and its classification of an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW), the Engineer of Record should provide additional information pertaining to the preventative or corrective measures that are to be taken for water that does not meet treatment standards (Page 9). Jones Edmunds (Sean Menard) stated that measures are in place in the event water does not meet treatment standards before being sent to the well, including built-in technology which determines rejection of off-spec water. Further discussion on this subject included a mechanism to shut down intake water from entering wells underneath the pump house related to off-spec water and maintenance.

8. SWFWMD staff (Seung Park) stated that the measurable benefit identified in the Cooperative Funding Agreement needs to be assessed and included in the TPR document. She stated that SWFWMD would forward the measurable benefit information to RESPEC for their review.

Action items

1. RESPEC

a. Remove “limited” review from the TPR site.

b. Review the supplemental document regarding the MAR Wells, and County’s comments regarding the Draft TPR before finalizing the report.

c. Include reasoning (pedestrian safety, chemical delivery) for extending access road to East Lake Road.

d. Update the permitting section of review based on information provided in the County’s supplemental response.

e. Incorporate a concluding statement detailing whether the measurable benefit can be achieved based on RESPEC’s review of the SWFWMD agreement with Pinellas County for the project.

2. Pinellas County

a. Provide supplemental documentation to SWFWMD regarding MAR well, which should include updated cost estimates, project schedule, update on permitting effort, any drawings included in application package, diagram of targeted zones, general subsurface well construction details, and details on how a contractor will be solicited.

Pinellas County Chesnut Park Basis of Design Report and 30% Design Draft Third-Party Review Comment and Recommendation Meeting MINUTES // 4

b. Inflate/update cost component and specify cost breakdown rather than providing a lump sum.

c. Evaluate and incorporate language on slope disturbance, and any possible retaining walls that may be considered. If these are incorporated, associated costs should be updated in writing from Pinellas County.

d. Provide a response as to how cost and drainage related comments from RESPEC will be incorporated moving forward in design. If they will be implemented, County should include related costs and schedules.

e. Consult environmental specialist for secondary investigation to determine if nest on property is a bald eagle’s nest.

f. Check code requirements to determine if restrooms are required on site.

g. Correct/update pump selection to work with all conditions and update cost if necessary.

h. Consider and incorporate a method of isolating intake water from entering wells underneath pump house.

i. Incorporate permitting requirements and general timelines into the project timeline once Pinellas County receives more information from UIC.

j. Provide SWFWMD with a timeline as to when supplemental documentation will be provided, along with responses to comments from the report.

3. SWFWMD

a. Share contract language from agreement with Pinellas County with RESPEC regarding calculate of the measurable benefit.

b. Share SWFWMD’s comments on TPR with RESPEC.

c. Draft a modification of RESPEC’s Task Work Assignment (TWA) schedule change to accommodate additional time for supplemental documentation review and the County’s comments.

Third party review schedule

a. Project schedule is to be updated.

b. Final TPR report completion date is September 15, 2024, but will likely be pushed back for Pinellas County to provide responses and supplemental information for review.

c. Pinellas County will be provided with additional time if needed to review recommendations and respond. Aim to finalize everything and take the item to the board in October or November, but this schedule can be flexible if needed.

Pinellas County Draft TPR Comments and Responses

Attachment B

Y:\01890 - ASRus\Projects\006-01-Chesnut Surface Facilities\Design&Construction\Data\Third Party Review\Summary of Comments Chesnut Park TPR.docx

Pinellas County Chesnut Surface Facilities Third Party Review Summary of Comments and Responses

Item Page Edit Reviewer Date EOR Response Resultant Action(s)

1.

4 Staging and lay-down areas for equipment and construction materials may be identified on future plans to preven conflict with drilling rig operations.

DKelly 08/12/2024

Agreed

Future Drawings will address staging and laydown areas as layout and sizing is more finalized. This will becompleted in advance of Constructability review.

2.

4 Consider construction measures for the subsurface preperation and installation of gravity intake structure, rip, rap, and intake piping in future plans.

Due to the intake structure’s proposed installation location along the creek bank, we would also expect wing walls or similar retaining wall design to be incorporated on either side of the intake structure.

These additional construction measures could increase the total installed costs of the intake system.

Vertical clearances between the pipe to and from the existing ASR well and the 48” intake pipe should also be indicated in future plans.

Any underground electrical utilities proposed to service the well pumps and equipment building should be represented in the plans for the electrical utility provider to review and provide input on the point of connection. HDPE pipe could also be considered for the intake line as 48” PVC pipe may be difficult to find.

Agreed

Future Drawings will address details of constructability and subsurface preparation.

None of the additional measures referenced appear to exceed the conservative contingency applied to the EOPC.

Exact locations of utility placement with horizontal and vertical separation details will be detailed as the project progresses beyond the preliminary/conceptual layout phase.

Pipe materials will be finalized as design progresses.

3.

5 The cost estimates appear to be conserviative for construction costs, specifically lump sum items and high mobilization and contingency percentages.

DKelly 08/12/2024 Agreed. This was primarily to address unknowns in market rates and future projections with this likely going to construction years after the estimate was made. The conservative contingencies are reduced as the project progresses.

EOPC will shift to be less conservative in future submittals as more variables are determined.

4.

5 Suggestion for future EOPCC calculations is to include items such as gravel access road base and stormwater management pond to civil items.

Quantities for reclaim water piping from the equipment building to the existing reclaim water line adjacent to East Lake Road, as well as the connection costs, should be included in the EOPCC. And a line itme for on-site testing should be considered.

Construction costs for the MAR well have not been included in the EOPCC.

Agreed.

Agreed. Testing and Record Drawings Allowances were intended to be included following 30%.

EOPC will shift to be less conservative and more detailed as more variables are determined.

Information related to the MAR included in the updated, highlighted EOPC attached to this document and will be included in additional detail in future submittals.

Item Page Edit Reviewer Date EOR Response Resultant Action(s)

5.

6 Provide additional details of site stormwater system, including type of pre-treatment and location of outfall.

Understood.

Additional Civil design details will be coordinated as the project progresses.

6.

6 A detail for the double floating turbidity barrier has not been provided and should be included on the Erosion Control Details sheet (C7).

Civil details will be established as plans progress beyond preliminary/conceptual design.

7.

6 Please provide a minimum depth and proposed material for the unpaved access drive on Sheet C4.

Additional Civil design details will be coordinated as the project progresses.

8.

6 The proposed grade outside of intake structure as shown on Section 1 on Sheet S2 does not appear to be consistent with the topography provided in the Plans.

Please review and consider retaining walls or other slope stabilization measures in this area, especially if access is required to be provided to the structure and if vehicles will be required to travel near the top of the bank.

The topography in the section view did not define elevations and was shown arbitrarily, not intending to match proposed grading.

Cross-discipline details will be coordinated more closely as the design progresses beyond 30% preliminary/conceptual layout.

Retaining walls and appropriate stabilization measures will be detailed as feedback on design approach, structure sizing, and location are all coordinated and verified with the Owner.

9.

6 Please review the invert elevations of the proposed mitered end sections (MES). MES located at the beginning of the access road are proposed with invert elevations of 5.0 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Based on existing grades in that area, this does not appear to provide sufficient positive drainage and may cause stormwater to stage at the structures. The addition of a swale downstream of the structure may be required to provide positive drainage.

The downstream MES at this location is also in close proximity to existing trees which may not survive if excavations are to take place within the limit of the tree’s root system.

Additional Civil design and final grading will be coordinated as the project progresses.

Civil and Stormwater infrastructure design will be re-evaluated to ensure no stormwater staging occurs at the structures and risk of impact to surrounding trees is minimized.

10.

6 The downstream MES invert located further north along the access road is set at 8.0 NAVD 88 and is about 6’ higher than existing grade in this region.

Additional Civil design and final grading will be coordinated as the project progresses. Civil design will be re-evaluated to ensure appropriate drainage and infrastructure elevations.

11.

6 Consider extending the project’s access road to connect directly to East Lake Road South.

This was intentionally omitted to reduce visibility of the site and prevent potential vagrant activities or vandalism.

It was discussed that this may be required regardless in order to allow chemical and refuse truck access. This will be re-evaluated in the 60% design.

12.

6 Identify on the plans the location of the potential bald eagle’s nest that was identified in the environmental site analysis.

A figure was included in the BODR to provide context, but the note included on Sheet C2 of the

Drawings provided will be accompanied by a figure or alternate drawing detailing approximate location and appropriate working radius limits in comparison. It will first be investigated in more

Item Page Edit Reviewer Date EOR Response Resultant Action(s) detail whether the nest in question is for Bald Eagle or Osprey before modifying documents.

13.

6 Determine if a restroom is required to be provided for employees on the site. If necessary, additional design for water and sewer services should be included in the plans and should be reflected in the project cost estimate.

This site is not meant to be occupied long term and no restroom should be required.

OSHA requirements for restrooms will be verified, but monitoring well sample pumps will be sized to provide required flushing volumes in <1 hour.

14.

7 Include technical specifications for gravel, as well as fill and embankment, in Division 2 – Site Construction found in Section 9 of the Report.

Additional technical specifications will be developed as materials and approach are finalized beyond preliminary conceptual design.

15.

7 We recommend that Section 2.2.2 of the Report include a brief description of any critical observations that are included in the environmental assessment.

The Environmental Assessment is included for reference in

Appendix D.

Item of significance from the Environmental Assessment will be addressed in the Contract

Documents for Contractor attention.

16.

8 The pump curves displayed in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the Report for the ASR Storage Pump and Recovery Pump (both proposed as Floway Model 14JKH) do not appear to be consistent with the pump curves provided in Appendix B.

The Floway Model 14JKH does not appear to meet the expected maximum head cases for either the Storage Pump or Recovery Pump (69 and 52 feet, respectively) at the 2.0 MGD primary design condition.

The selected pump also does not meet the minimum shut-off head values set in Tables 4 and 5.

Agreed. Site condition information was discovered that resulted in adjusted pump selections. The information was replaced in specific areas, but was overlooked in others.

The final selection will be consistent with required design condition ranges, maximum head conditions, and minimum shut-off head values.

17.

9 The pump curve displayed in Figure 5 of the Report for the MAR Well Pump also appears to be inconsistent with the pump curve provided in Appendix B.

Figure 5 proposes a pump speed of 1800 RPM, yet the maximum speed for the Floway Model 27FKL pump is 1500 RPM. The referenced pump curve matches the 1170 RPM curve for this pump. With a head of 83 feet at 10 MGD, this pump may not meet the maximum head case (89 feet) at the pump’s primary design condition.

Agreed. Site condition information was discovered that resulted in adjusted pump selections.