Hillsborough County Florida Conservation and Environmental Lands Management Department
We manage more than 61,000 acres of environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat and corridors acquired through the Jan K. Platt Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP).
Management responsibilities include:
Prescribed burning
Invasive species control
Wildlife inventory
Trail maintenance
Feral animal control
Habitat improvements for endangered and threatened species of plants and animals
ELAPP is a voluntary program established for the purpose of providing the process and funding for identifying, acquiring, preserving and protecting endangered, environmentally-sensitive and significant lands in Hillsborough County. It is a citizen-based program with volunteer committees involved in every key aspect of the program. ELAPP is not a regulatory program, but lands are identified for the program because of their environmental significance.
About HCConservation
Hillsborough County FL Conservation and Lands Management
We protect Hillsborough County's natural lands and wildlife through a system of conservation parks and nature preserves, including more than 63,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands through ELAPP. We also provide unique outdoor recreational activities ranging from picnicking and camping to hiking and kayaking.
Tag Cloud
Filename.ppt/1South County
One Water Program
HI L L S B O RO UG H CO UNT Y
M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 2 1
P ot abl e Wat er T r ans m i s s i on M ai n
EL APP Ba l m B oy et t e & B a l m S cru b P re se rve
Filename.ppt/2Agenda
1. Project Background/Objective
2. Route Identification
3. Non-Cost Evaluation
4. Summary
Filename.ppt/31. Project Background/Objective
• Identify viable routes
Direct path (roadway ROW or
dedicated easements)
Consider future One Water
Program pipelines
• Identify baseline route
• Evaluate alternative routes
Potable water
delivered from
Tampa Bay Water
Filename.ppt/41. Project Background/Objective
• Identify viable routes
Direct path (roadway ROW or
dedicated easements)
Consider future One Water
Program pipelines
• Identify baseline route
• Evaluate alternative routes
Potable water
delivered from
Tampa Bay Water
Filename.ppt/52. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
5
Filename.ppt/62. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
6
WC. New Water Facility Routes
Filename.ppt/72. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
7
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
Filename.ppt/82. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
8
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
SC.2 ELAPP Easement
SC.1 SR 674 ROW
Filename.ppt/93. Non-Cost Criteria
9
Criteria
Definition
Environmental
Impacts from wetlands, protected species or habitats, historical protected areas,
potential contaminated sites/Brownfields
Property/ROW
Access (Public right-of-way, permanent easement) and land use (rural,
residential, commercial, etc.)
Duration
Overall project duration due to work area constraints (overhead power, along or
in roads), easement acquisition, special construction requirements (trenchless),
difficult restoration requirements, permitting requirements (road and railroad),
required coordination (governmental agencies, special interest groups, etc.)
Utility Conflicts
Impacts/risk to existing utilities, relocation requirements, issues with
maintaining required clearances, outage requirements, issues for future
maintenance/repairs
Public Impacts
Impacts to business, residents, and visitors; traffic/accessibility impacts,
complaints (noise, dust, traffic, etc.), public safety, loss of customers, critical
facilities (hospitals, schools, fire stations, airports, etc.)
Functionality/
Reliability
O&M access (under road, congested ROW utility corridor, level of effort for O&M
(number of appurtenances), safety issues for crews performing O&M (traffic
control requirements)
Filename.ppt/10Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
10
Filename.ppt/11Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
11
Filename.ppt/12Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
12
Reflects relative
importance to WRD
Filename.ppt/133. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
13
A. Environmental
Enter Score of 0 - 5 in Highlighted Cell (0 Worst, 5 Best)
0 40% + of segment impacted
1 30 - 40% of segment impacted, mitigation is needed
2
3
4
5 No impact along segment
20 - 30% of segment impacted, some issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods but mitigation is needed
10 - 20% of segment impacted, most issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods but some amount of mitigation is needed
Up to 10% of segment impacted, issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods
Filename.ppt/143. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
14
Filename.ppt/153. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
15
Segment Name
Score
Segment
Length (ft)
Wetland
Length (ft)
ELAPP Length
(ft)
% Impacted
Balm to Triple Creek
13,265.0
282
0
2%
S.1 CR 672 from Water Facility to Old Balm Rd
4
766.8
15
0
2%
S.2 CR 672 from Old Balm Rd to TECO Esmt
4
3,009.4
60
0
2%
S.3 TECO Esmt South to Hwy 672
3
1,375.5
250
0
18%
S.4 Private Esmt South to Hwy 672
3
1,405.9
250
0
18%
S.5 Old Balm Rd from CR 672 to TECO Esmt
4
3,726.3
25
0
1%
A.1a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
0
1,470.4
1,470.4
0
100%
A.1b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
0
1,501.2
1,501.2
0
100%
A.2a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Solar
0
4,769.3
4,769.3
0
100%
A.2b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Solar
3
4,755.3
650
0
14%
A.3a TECO Esmt Solar to ELAPP
4
12,152.0
1058
0
9%
A.3b ELAPP West of TECO Esmt
4
12,175.5
100
12,075.5
100%
A.4a TECO Esmt ELAPP to Dirt Rd
5
1,539.3
0
0
0%
A.4b Private Esmts ELAPP to Dirt Rd
5
1,540.3
0
0
0%
A.5a TECO Esmt Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,562.9
0
0
0%
A.5b Edina Rd ROW Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,627.6
0
0
0%
B.1/C.1 Hwy 672 TECO Esmt to BW Rd
1
2,601.9
1000
0
38%
B.2 BW Rd Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
4
2,918.5
75
0
3%
B.3 BW Rd to Solar
3
3,958.4
500
0
13%
B.4 BW Rd Solar to Dirt Rd
1
12,405.8
4100
0
33%
B.5 BW Rd Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,662.9
0
0
0%
B.6/C.5 Hwy 674 BW Rd to TECO Esmt
4
7,480.8
710
0
9%
C.2 Hwy 672 BW Rd to Carlton Lake Rd
5
2,823.1
0
0
0%
C.3 Carlton Lake Rd
4
21,144.8
330
0
2%
C.4 Hwy 674 Carlton Lake Rd to BW Rd
4
10,080.8
450
0
4%
AB.1 Balm Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd
2
983.7
220
0
22%
AB.2 Solar TECO Esmt to BW Rd
0
3,466.2
3466
0
100%
AB.3 Dirt Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd
3
7,453.7
1100
0
15%
SC.1 Hwy 674 from TECO Esmt to W Lake Dr
5
7,084.8
0
0
0%
SC.2 TECO to W Lake Dr - north SR674 route alt
4
8,694.8
85
735
9%
SC.3 W Lake Dr
5
2,644.6
0
0
0%
SC.4 SR 674 from W Lake Dr to US 301
4
5,084.2
30
0
1%
Filename.ppt/163. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
16
Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
Filename.ppt/173. New Potable Water Facility to Balm Rd Routes
17
Construction in TECO or
private property easement
is significantly shorter and
approximately 1/3 the cost
of construction in CR
672/Balm Rd ROW
Filename.ppt/183. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
18
Routes have similar non-cost scores
Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
Filename.ppt/193. Balm Rd to SR 674 Routes
19
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
Filename.ppt/20Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
20
Routes have similar non-cost scores
ELAPP and TECO routes score higher
Filename.ppt/2121
Variations of ELAPP Routes
Filename.ppt/223. SR 674 Routes
22
Avoiding construction along
a portion of SR 674
significantly reduces public
impact at a slightly lower
estimated construction cost
Filename.ppt/23Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
23
Routes have similar non-cost scores
ELAPP and TECO routes score higher
ELAPP route scores higher than SR 674
Filename.ppt/24Questions?
24
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
SC.2 ELAPP Easement
SC.1 SR 674 ROW
Alternative
Underground
Filename.ppt/254. Summary: Benefits of ELAPP Alternative Routes
25
• Construction out of road ROW
Significantly reduces public impact
• Construction in dedicated easements
Simplifies future maintenance of water transmission main
Effectively eliminates risk of future impacts
• Also significantly reduces construction costs and schedule
Opportunity: Cost-sharing partnership to expand ELAPP restoration
Filename.ppt/26Extra Slides
Filename.ppt/273. Easements Under Consideration – North Area
27
Filename.ppt/283. Easements Under Consideration – South Area
28
Filename.ppt/29Summary: Baseline Sun City Center Route
29
Balm Wimauma Rd ROWSR 674 ROW
(requires temporary lane)
CR 672/Balm Rd ROW
Filename.ppt/302. Route Identification: Triple Creek Route
30
Filename.ppt/315. Summary: Viable Sun City Center Routes
31
Filename.ppt/323. Non-Cost Evaluation
32
• 6 non-cost criteria identified
• Quantitative scoring system: 0 (worst) to 5 (best)
• Assign scores to identified segments for each criterion
• Calculate route non-cost score for each criterion:
One Water Program
HI L L S B O RO UG H CO UNT Y
M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 2 1
P ot abl e Wat er T r ans m i s s i on M ai n
EL APP Ba l m B oy et t e & B a l m S cru b P re se rve
Filename.ppt/2Agenda
1. Project Background/Objective
2. Route Identification
3. Non-Cost Evaluation
4. Summary
Filename.ppt/31. Project Background/Objective
• Identify viable routes
Direct path (roadway ROW or
dedicated easements)
Consider future One Water
Program pipelines
• Identify baseline route
• Evaluate alternative routes
Potable water
delivered from
Tampa Bay Water
Filename.ppt/41. Project Background/Objective
• Identify viable routes
Direct path (roadway ROW or
dedicated easements)
Consider future One Water
Program pipelines
• Identify baseline route
• Evaluate alternative routes
Potable water
delivered from
Tampa Bay Water
Filename.ppt/52. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
5
Filename.ppt/62. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
6
WC. New Water Facility Routes
Filename.ppt/72. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
7
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
Filename.ppt/82. Route Identification: Sun City Center Routes
8
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
SC.2 ELAPP Easement
SC.1 SR 674 ROW
Filename.ppt/93. Non-Cost Criteria
9
Criteria
Definition
Environmental
Impacts from wetlands, protected species or habitats, historical protected areas,
potential contaminated sites/Brownfields
Property/ROW
Access (Public right-of-way, permanent easement) and land use (rural,
residential, commercial, etc.)
Duration
Overall project duration due to work area constraints (overhead power, along or
in roads), easement acquisition, special construction requirements (trenchless),
difficult restoration requirements, permitting requirements (road and railroad),
required coordination (governmental agencies, special interest groups, etc.)
Utility Conflicts
Impacts/risk to existing utilities, relocation requirements, issues with
maintaining required clearances, outage requirements, issues for future
maintenance/repairs
Public Impacts
Impacts to business, residents, and visitors; traffic/accessibility impacts,
complaints (noise, dust, traffic, etc.), public safety, loss of customers, critical
facilities (hospitals, schools, fire stations, airports, etc.)
Functionality/
Reliability
O&M access (under road, congested ROW utility corridor, level of effort for O&M
(number of appurtenances), safety issues for crews performing O&M (traffic
control requirements)
Filename.ppt/10Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
10
Filename.ppt/11Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
11
Filename.ppt/12Criteria
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability A. Environmental
A
B. Property/ROW
B
B
C. Duration
C
C
C
D. Utility Conflicts
A
B
C
D
E. Public Impacts
A
E
E
E
E
F. Functionality/ Reliability
A
B
C
F
E
F
Number of Selections
4
4
5
1
5
2
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
3. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting
12
Reflects relative
importance to WRD
Filename.ppt/133. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
13
A. Environmental
Enter Score of 0 - 5 in Highlighted Cell (0 Worst, 5 Best)
0 40% + of segment impacted
1 30 - 40% of segment impacted, mitigation is needed
2
3
4
5 No impact along segment
20 - 30% of segment impacted, some issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods but mitigation is needed
10 - 20% of segment impacted, most issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods but some amount of mitigation is needed
Up to 10% of segment impacted, issues can be avoided through alternative
construction methods
Filename.ppt/143. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
14
Filename.ppt/153. Non-Cost Criteria Weighting (Scoring Example)
15
Segment Name
Score
Segment
Length (ft)
Wetland
Length (ft)
ELAPP Length
(ft)
% Impacted
Balm to Triple Creek
13,265.0
282
0
2%
S.1 CR 672 from Water Facility to Old Balm Rd
4
766.8
15
0
2%
S.2 CR 672 from Old Balm Rd to TECO Esmt
4
3,009.4
60
0
2%
S.3 TECO Esmt South to Hwy 672
3
1,375.5
250
0
18%
S.4 Private Esmt South to Hwy 672
3
1,405.9
250
0
18%
S.5 Old Balm Rd from CR 672 to TECO Esmt
4
3,726.3
25
0
1%
A.1a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
0
1,470.4
1,470.4
0
100%
A.1b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
0
1,501.2
1,501.2
0
100%
A.2a TECO Esmt Hwy 672 to Solar
0
4,769.3
4,769.3
0
100%
A.2b Private Esmts Hwy 672 to Solar
3
4,755.3
650
0
14%
A.3a TECO Esmt Solar to ELAPP
4
12,152.0
1058
0
9%
A.3b ELAPP West of TECO Esmt
4
12,175.5
100
12,075.5
100%
A.4a TECO Esmt ELAPP to Dirt Rd
5
1,539.3
0
0
0%
A.4b Private Esmts ELAPP to Dirt Rd
5
1,540.3
0
0
0%
A.5a TECO Esmt Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,562.9
0
0
0%
A.5b Edina Rd ROW Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,627.6
0
0
0%
B.1/C.1 Hwy 672 TECO Esmt to BW Rd
1
2,601.9
1000
0
38%
B.2 BW Rd Hwy 672 to Balm Rd
4
2,918.5
75
0
3%
B.3 BW Rd to Solar
3
3,958.4
500
0
13%
B.4 BW Rd Solar to Dirt Rd
1
12,405.8
4100
0
33%
B.5 BW Rd Dirt Rd to Hwy 674
5
1,662.9
0
0
0%
B.6/C.5 Hwy 674 BW Rd to TECO Esmt
4
7,480.8
710
0
9%
C.2 Hwy 672 BW Rd to Carlton Lake Rd
5
2,823.1
0
0
0%
C.3 Carlton Lake Rd
4
21,144.8
330
0
2%
C.4 Hwy 674 Carlton Lake Rd to BW Rd
4
10,080.8
450
0
4%
AB.1 Balm Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd
2
983.7
220
0
22%
AB.2 Solar TECO Esmt to BW Rd
0
3,466.2
3466
0
100%
AB.3 Dirt Rd TECO Esmt to BW Rd
3
7,453.7
1100
0
15%
SC.1 Hwy 674 from TECO Esmt to W Lake Dr
5
7,084.8
0
0
0%
SC.2 TECO to W Lake Dr - north SR674 route alt
4
8,694.8
85
735
9%
SC.3 W Lake Dr
5
2,644.6
0
0
0%
SC.4 SR 674 from W Lake Dr to US 301
4
5,084.2
30
0
1%
Filename.ppt/163. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
16
Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
Filename.ppt/173. New Potable Water Facility to Balm Rd Routes
17
Construction in TECO or
private property easement
is significantly shorter and
approximately 1/3 the cost
of construction in CR
672/Balm Rd ROW
Filename.ppt/183. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
18
Routes have similar non-cost scores
Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
Filename.ppt/193. Balm Rd to SR 674 Routes
19
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
Filename.ppt/20Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
20
Routes have similar non-cost scores
ELAPP and TECO routes score higher
Filename.ppt/2121
Variations of ELAPP Routes
Filename.ppt/223. SR 674 Routes
22
Avoiding construction along
a portion of SR 674
significantly reduces public
impact at a slightly lower
estimated construction cost
Filename.ppt/23Route
A. Environmental B. Property/ ROW C. Duration D. Utility Conflicts E. Public Impacts F. Functionality/ Reliability Total
Score
Relative Weight
19%
19%
24%
5%
24%
10%
100%
New Potable Water Facility to Balm Road
WC.1
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.2
3.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
WC.3
4.0
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.3
Balm Road to SR 674
A.1
(TECO)
3.0
5.0
0.6
4.4
4.9
5.0
3.5
A.2
(ELAPP)
1.0
4.9
0.8
4.8
5.0
4.7
3.8
B
(Balm Wimauma)
2.5
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.9
3.0
2.9
C
(Carlton Lake)
3.9
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
SR 674 to Sun City Center
SC.1
(SR 674)
4.6
1.4
1.4
0.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
SC.2
(ELAPP)
4.2
3.2
1.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3. Route Non-Cost Criterion Scores
23
Routes have similar non-cost scores
ELAPP and TECO routes score higher
ELAPP route scores higher than SR 674
Filename.ppt/24Questions?
24
WC. New Water Facility Routes
A.1 TECO Joint Use Corridor
A.2 Private/ELAPP Easement
B. Balm Wimauma Rd
C. Carlton Lake Rd
SC.2 ELAPP Easement
SC.1 SR 674 ROW
Alternative
Underground
Filename.ppt/254. Summary: Benefits of ELAPP Alternative Routes
25
• Construction out of road ROW
Significantly reduces public impact
• Construction in dedicated easements
Simplifies future maintenance of water transmission main
Effectively eliminates risk of future impacts
• Also significantly reduces construction costs and schedule
Opportunity: Cost-sharing partnership to expand ELAPP restoration
Filename.ppt/26Extra Slides
Filename.ppt/273. Easements Under Consideration – North Area
27
Filename.ppt/283. Easements Under Consideration – South Area
28
Filename.ppt/29Summary: Baseline Sun City Center Route
29
Balm Wimauma Rd ROWSR 674 ROW
(requires temporary lane)
CR 672/Balm Rd ROW
Filename.ppt/302. Route Identification: Triple Creek Route
30
Filename.ppt/315. Summary: Viable Sun City Center Routes
31
Filename.ppt/323. Non-Cost Evaluation
32
• 6 non-cost criteria identified
• Quantitative scoring system: 0 (worst) to 5 (best)
• Assign scores to identified segments for each criterion
• Calculate route non-cost score for each criterion: