TAP Alternative No. 2 - Recharge/Recovery Alternative: The location referred to as the Recharge/Recovery Corridor is shown in Figure 1, entitled - Project Location, provided in Attachment 1.A to this scope of services. The Engineer will develop an inventory of existing information in previous studies associated with the Recharge/Recovery Corridor related to the hydrogeology of the study area. The purpose of these investigations is to maximize the use of previous work to define the hydrogeology the Recharge/Recovery Corridor and minimize field investigations needed as part of the scope of services. Building on the review of existing information discussed above, the Engineer will conduct hydrogeologic investigations of the Recharge/Recovery Corridor. This will consist of up to three 900 foot cores and analysis. Survey will be included in support of the hydrogeologic field investigations as required to indicate the location of this work on a base map of the Recharge/Recovery Corridor. Concurrent with the review of previous investigations and the supplemental field investigations, Engineer will conduct a literature review of water quality improvements anticipated through the proposed recharge/recovery system. This will include additional treatment of reclaimed water as it flows upward through the Avon Park aquifer to the Suwannee aquifer systems. This information will be used to estimate reclaimed water quantity and quality as it is delivered to the Suwannee aquifer and on to the Hillsborough River Reservoir through the recovery well system. Groundwater modeling will be employed to evaluate the number and locations of potential recharge and recovery xxxxx, determine the volume of reclaimed water that may be injected into the aquifer system, and estimate the volume of reclaimed water that can reasonably be expected to be recovered. Inputs to the groundwater model for the Recharge/Recovery Corridor will include previous hydrogeologic investigations by others and hydrogeologic investigations conducted as part of the Alternative No. 2 of the TAP implementation study.
TAP Alternative No. 1 Routing Analysis – Update of previous Investigations: The Engineer will perform a desktop evaluation of the original route variations (up to three preferred) created for the Tampa Bay Regional Reclaimed and Downstream Augmentation Project, based on anticipated potential discharge points for the TAP Alternative No. 1. This conceptual level evaluation is not intended to serve as a detailed route study. As such the criteria evaluated is different than the comprehensive list indicated on Task 3. This conceptual evaluation is intended to identify a preferred route for the purpose of cost comparison with different TAP implementation solutions. Determine the preferred TAP Alternative No. 1 route based on evaluation of the following criteria: • Effect on length of transmission pipeline • Estimated acquisition costs • Long-range area planning • Perceived public acceptance • Operation and maintenance accessibility • Environmental impacts and features • Permitting complexity • Potential archeological or historic sites, based on existing data • Potential for contaminated soil or groundwater, based on a review of recorded hazardous sites This analysis will: • Identify property and easements requirements for the preferred routes. • Identify the required permits for the routes. • Prepare a construction cost estimate for the preferred transmission main to District property. • Identify a recommended route for Alternative 1. • Prepare a conceptual level cost estimate for the recommended route.
TAP Alternative No. 2 Routing Analysis – Pipeline Route Study from HCFAWTP to the Vicinity of Roger’s Park: Identify the three most feasible alternative routes for the transmission pipeline required to convey reclaimed water from the HFCAWTP to the terminal distribution point in the vicinity of the DLTWTF and Roger’s Park Golf Course. Attend up to two meetings with the City representatives to discuss and possibly modify the alternative routes for further evaluation. Each of the alternative pipeline routes will be evaluated with respect to the following criteria: • Preliminary estimated costs • Long-range area planning • Safety considerations • Perceived public acceptance • Maintenance accessibility • Use of existing public rights-of-way • Length • Conflicts with existing utilities • Environmental impacts • Property required, including permanent and temporary easements • Permitting complexity • Traffic impacts • Potential archeological or historic sites, based on existing data • Potential for contaminated soil or groundwater, based on a review of recorded hazardous waste sites Upon selecting the recommended alternative (from the three most preferred alternative routes noted above), Engineer will: • Identify the property and easement requirements. • Identify the permit requirements • Prepare preliminary construction cost estimate.
