Agenda 05/14/2019 Item #11C (Randall Blvd & Oil Well Rd Corridor Study)05/14/2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to accept the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study, direct staff
to pursue the Alternative 2+ and to provide study results to the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for consideration in the 2045 Long Range Transportation plan (Project No. 60065).
OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval of the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study)
which evaluated the potential roadway improvements in the study area and recommend pursuing multi -
lane improvements to Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, and Oil Well Road.
CONSIDERATIONS: In December 2015, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO)
2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) established a need for a study surrounding the Randall
Boulevard and Oil Well Road corridors. The study was intended to define the most appropriate corridor
for the needed multi-lane improvements to facilitate east-west travel.
In December 2016 Jacobs (previously CH2MHill) began evaluating potential improvements to existing
Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Desoto Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, as well as potential
corridors on a new alignment. The study process involved the development of alternatives, a comparative
evaluation of the social and environmental effects and the overall cost of each option. The Study
considered traffic operation improvements such as roundabouts, grade separated overpasses, frontage
roadways, access management, and new traffic signal locations for the recommended alternative.
The purpose of the project is to develop an east-west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. Without the proposed
improvements, Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are projected to be highly congested before the year
2040. The purpose and need for a project in the area are to reduce congestion, enhance regional mobility
for people and goods, improve safety and improve emergency evacuation.
After the purpose and need for the project were documented, the Study began to consider alternatives.
The No Build Alternative is always included in the analysis. Four initial alternatives were developed
from the alternatives outlined in the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP (2015). All alternatives propose a new
connection from Randall Boulevard east of Desoto Boulevard N. to Oil Well Road just west of Oil Well
Grade Road. Four alternatives were developed and presented at the Initial Alternatives Public Meeting on
May 24, 2018.
Alternative 1 includes a new alignment roadway connecting Randall Blvd. to Oil Well Rd. Traffic would
be able to bypass the existing north-south connections of Everglades Blvd. and DeSoto Blvd., thus
allowing potential roundabouts at those connections with Randall Blvd.
11.C
Packet Pg. 386
05/14/2019
Figure 1 - Alternative 1 - S Curve
Alternative 2 considers widening existing facilities along Randall Blvd. and Everglades Blvd. Since Oil
Well Rd. is constrained to four lanes near Immokalee Rd., traffic would have the option to use Randall
Blvd. and Everglades Rd. as a bypass. This increase in traffic demand could be met with widening
Randall Blvd. to 6 lanes and Everglades Blvd. to 4-lanes in the study area. Roundabouts would not be
included with a six-lane Randall option.
Figure 2 - Alternative 2 - 6-lane Randall Blvd. plus 4-lane Everglades Blvd.
Alternative 3 considers widening existing facilities along Randall Blvd., Everglades Blvd. and Desoto
Blvd. Since Oil Well Rd. is constrained to 4 lanes near Immokalee Rd., traffic would have the o ption to
use Randall Blvd. and Everglades Blvd. and Desoto Blvd. as a bypass. This increase in traffic demand
could be met with widening Randall Blvd. to 6 lanes, Everglades Blvd. to 4-lanes, and Desoto Blvd. to 4-
lanes in the study area. Roundabouts are not likely to be included with a six-lane Randall option.
11.C
Packet Pg. 387
05/14/2019
Figure 3 - Alternative 3 - 6-lane Randall Blvd. plus 4-lane Everglades Blvd. and 4-lane Desoto Blvd.
Alternative 4 considers widening existing facilities along Randall Blvd. and Everglades Blvd . to 6 lanes.
Since Oil Well Rd. is constrained to 4 lanes near Immokalee Rd., traffic would have the option to use
Randall Blvd. and Everglades Rd. as a bypass. This increase in traffic demand could be met with
widening Randall Blvd. to 6 lanes and Everglades Blvd. to 6-lanes in the study area. Roundabouts are not
likely to be included with a six lane Randall option.
Figure 4 - Alternative 4 - 6-lane Randall Blvd. plus 6-lane Everglades Blvd.
These four alternatives were then refined based on a qualitative analysis that included costs and potential
impacts, as well as public input. The four initial alternatives were evaluated, and two alternatives
(Alternative 3 and 4) were eliminated from consideration. The two viable alternatives (Alternative 1 and
2) were further refined based on a more detailed, quantitative analysis that included costs, potential
impacts, and public input. These alternatives were presented at the Viable Alternatives Public Meeting on
April 11, 2019, for public review and comment. The No Build alternative serves as a baseline for
comparison with the Built Alternatives and remains an alternative throughout the study.
The Study considered an optimized future roadway network including the planned Big Cypress Parkway
11.C
Packet Pg. 388
05/14/2019
and its potential connection to the planned Vanderbilt Beach Rd. extension.
The proposed Alternative one (S-Connector) cannot provide a connection to Vanderbilt Beach Rd.
extension, and moves more traffic to Immokalee Road and, therefore, does not provide the long -term
benefit to the region. Therefore, given the regional mobility needs, and higher environmental impacts and
costs, Alternative one was eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternative 2 was further refined and as shown on Figure 5 is the recommended corridor (now known as
Alternative 2+) with the following considerations:
• Randall Blvd. (west of Everglades) supports the need for 6-lane widening.
• Randall Blvd. (east of Everglades) supports the need for 4-lane widening.
• Regional mobility needs and the future roadway network needs should be considered in the
upcoming Collier MPO 2045 LRTP.
Figure 5. Recommended Alternative and Future Roadway Network (Alternative 2+)
Based on the purpose and need considerations including the traffic analysis and regional long-range plan,
as well as increasing capacity on the network and enhancing access, safety and mobility, the
recommended corridor is Alternative 2+.
These study results will be provided to the Metropolitan Planning Organization staff for consideration in
the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan update.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no funding allocated for future phases of this project approved in the
current budget or in the current five -year AUIR (Annual Update and Inventory Report). The project cost
for Alternative 2+ is estimated at $80.8 million. The Board will have the opportunity to approve the
individual project designs and allocate funding through the annual budget process and adoption of the
annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
11.C
Packet Pg. 389
05/14/2019
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The project is in accordance with the goals and objectives of
the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, raises no legal
issues, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study which
evaluated the potential roadway improvements in the study area and recommend pursuing Alternative 2+
consisting of the multi-lane improvements to Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, and Oil Well
Road and the connecting roadway network and direct staff to provide study results to the Metropolitan
Planning Organization for consideration in the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Prepared By: Lorraine Lantz, AICP, Principal Planner, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program
Management Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Draft 1 - Randall Report (PDF)
2. [Linked] Randall Blvd Corridor Report (PDF)
3. [Linked] Randall Blvd Corridor Report - Appendices (PDF)
11.C
Packet Pg. 390
05/14/2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.C
Doc ID: 8565
Item Summary: Recommendation to accept the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor
Study and direct staff to pursue the Alternative 2 (Project No. 60065). (Lorraine Lantz, Project Manager,
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management Division)
Meeting Date: 05/14/2019
Prepared by:
Title: Project Manager – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management
Name: Lorraine Lantz
04/09/2019 12:03 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - IF, CPP & PM – Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program
Management
Name: Amy Patterson
04/09/2019 12:03 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 04/11/2019 3:46 PM
Public Services Department Jennifer Reynolds Additional Reviewer Completed 04/16/2019 11:28 AM
Growth Management Operations Support Christopher Johnson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/16/2019 1:27 PM
Growth Management Department Gene Shue Additional Reviewer Completed 04/17/2019 1:27 PM
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Amy Patterson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/30/2019 10:15 AM
Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Trinity Scott Additional Reviewer Completed 05/01/2019 11:55 AM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Skipped 05/01/2019 5:36 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 05/02/2019 6:58 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 05/03/2019 7:47 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 05/03/2019 1:06 PM
Office of Management and Budget Susan Usher Additional Reviewer Completed 05/07/2019 11:57 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 05/07/2019 2:36 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/14/2019 9:00 AM
11.C
Packet Pg. 391
April 2019
Prepared for
DraftExecutive Summary
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
D RAFT
Executive Summary – Randall Blvd and
Oil Well Road Corridor Study
Prepared for
Collier County
April 4, 2019
JACOBS ENGINEERING
5801 Pelican Bay Blvd, Suite 505
Naples, Florida 34108
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SL0331171122ORL
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
1 Project Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study ............................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Project Purpose and Needs .............................................................................................. 1-3
1.3.1 Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment (May 2018) ................................................ 1-4
1.3.2 Traffic Demand ................................................................................................. ..1-4
1.3.3 Mobility ............................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.4 Safety .................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.3.4 Emergency Evacuation ........................................................................................ 1-8
1.4 Alternatives Development ............................................................................................... 1-9
2 Corridor Development ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Evaluation Analysis and Criteria....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Typical Sections ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3.1 Four-Lane Cross-Section ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.3.2 Four-Lane Cross-Section (expandable to Six-Lane)............................................. 2-1
2.3.3 Six-Lane Cross-Section ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.4 Traffic Circulation Plan ..................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Culverts/Bridges ................................................................. .............................................2-2
3 Initial Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Alternative 1 New Alignment “S-Connector” .................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Alternative 2 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 4-Lane Everglades Blvd) .................................... 3-3
3.3 Alternative 3 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 4-Lane Everglades Blvd and 4-Lane
DeSoto Blvd) .................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Alternative 4 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 6-Lane Everglades Blvd) .................................... 3-4
3.5 Initial Alternatives Comparative Evaluation .................................................................... 3-5
3.6 Selection of Viable Alternatives ....................................................................................... 3-6
4 Viable Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 No Build ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Transportation System Management & Operations ....................................................... 4-2
4.3 Viable Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Viable Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.5 Viable Alternatives Comparative Evaluation ................................................................... 4-4
5 Recommended Alternative .................................................................................................. 5-1
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
CONTENTS
SL0331171122ORL
Appendices
A Cost Estimates
B Design Criteria
C Traffic Data
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Existing Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 1-5
Table 1-2. Travel Time to Work .................................................................................................................. 1-7
Table 2-1. Existing Roadway Classifications ............................................................................................... 2-2
Table 3-1. Alternative 1 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2. Alternative 2 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-3. Alternative 3 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-4. Alternative 4 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 3-5
Table 3-5. Initial Alternatives Comparative Matrix .................................................................................... 3-5
Table 4-1. Viable Alternatives Comparative Matrix ................................................................................... 4-4
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 1-2. Project Location Map ............................................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-3. Rural Lands West Location Map. ............................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-4. Study Area Road Network (without canals)............................................................................. 1-6
Figure 1‐5. Collier County Evacuation Zones ............................................................................................. 1-9
Figure 2-1. Proposed Typical Sections ....................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2. Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 3-1. Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
Figure 3-2. Alternative 1 New Alignment Access Options ......................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3. Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................ 3-3
Figure 3-4. Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................ 3-4
Figure 3-5. Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................ 3-4
Figure 4-1. Viable Alternative 1 New Alignment........................................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4-2. Viable Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................. 4-4
Figure 5-1. Optimized Future Roadway Network ...................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-2. Recommended Alternative and Future Roadway Network ..................................................... 5-2
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SL0331171122ORL
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
AADT Annual average daily traffic
AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report
CR County Road
D1RPM District One Regional Planning Model
FAC Freight Activity Center
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FTZ Foreign Trade Zone
GIS Geographic Information Systems
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
ROW right of way
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SRA Stewardship Receiving Areas
SSA Stewardship Sending Areas
SIS Strategic Intermodal System
T&E Threatened and Endangered
TSM&O Transportation System Management and Operations
UDB Urban Development Boundary
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C Volume capacity ratio
vpd vehicle per day
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
1-1
SECTION 1
Project Introduction
The Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study) is an environmental and engineering
study process to determine potential social, economic, cultural, natural and physical environmental
impacts associated with a proposed transportation improvement project, or alternatives. The Study
process is a blending of preliminary engineering, environmental impact assessments, public outreach
and agency coordination.
The study process involves the development of alternatives, a comparative evaluation of the social and
environmental effects and the overall cost of each option. This Study considers traffic operation
improvements such as roundabouts, grade separated overpasses, frontage roadways, access
management, and new traffic signal locations for the recommended alternative.
The analysis described herein adheres to the project development process by examining the various
concepts considered for this project. These alternatives include No Project (No Build), Transportation
System Management, and Study (Build) Alternatives. The following sections describe in greater detail
the conditions relating to:
•Corridor Development
•Initial Alternatives
•Viable Alternatives
•Recommended Alternative
1.1 Project Overview
Collier County initiated the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study) to evaluate
potential roadway network improvements near Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road in Collier County,
Florida. The study is located in northern Collier County, east of I-75. Figure 1-1 presents the Regional
Location Map.
The Study involves the evaluation of potential improvements to existing Randall Boulevard, Oil Well
Road, Desoto Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, as well as potential corridors on a new alignment.
Figure 1-2 presents the Project Location Map. The study process involves the development of
alternatives, a comparative evaluation of the social and environmental effects and the overall cost of
each option.
The Study began in December 2016 and a Public Kickoff Meeting was held to introduce the project on
March 22, 2017, an Initial Alternatives Public Information Meeting was held May 24, 2018, and the
Viable Alternatives Public Information Meeting was held April 11, 2019.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1-2
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map
Figure 1-2. Project Location Map
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
approved in December 2015, identified the following facilities with a high degree of future congestion:
•Randall Boulevard east of Immokalee Road (CR 846)
•Oil Well Road between Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Grade Road
During the development of the Needs Plan for the LRTP, this Study was identified to better define the
most appropriate multi-lane improvements and/or new roadway within the study area. Two potential
alignments were identified in the LRTP:
•Widen Randal Boulevard to 6‐lanes along the existing corridor from Immokalee Road to Desoto
Boulevard and then extends a new segment in a north‐easterly direction to interconnect to Oil
Well Road at or near Oil Well Grade Road intersection. Oil Well Road from Everglades Boulevard
to Oil Well Grade Road would then be widened to 4‐lanes to complete the network
improvements.
•Widen Randall Boulevard to 6‐lanes along the existing alignment from Immokalee Road for a
distance of approximately two miles, and then establish a reverse curve alignment north to
connect to Oil Well Road at a point west of Everglades Boulevard. From that point eastward,
Everglades Boulevard would be 6‐lanes to Oil Well Grade Road. In the future it would be
necessary to widen Randall Boulevard to 4‐lanes either to Everglades Boulevard or Desoto
Boulevard.
This Study considers traffic operation improvements such as roundabouts, grade separated overpasses,
frontage roadways, access management, and new traffic signal locations for the recommended
alternative.
1.3 Project Purpose and Needs
The purpose of the project is to develop an east-west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. Without the
proposed improvements, Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are projected to be highly congested
before the year 2040.
Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are parallel east-west routes. They serve as a primary connection
to Immokalee Road (CR 846) for the existing and future developments of Orangetree, northern Golden
Gate Estates, rural residential areas, and future planned development. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is
categorized as a Freight Distribution Route and a High Crash Corridor in the Collier 2040 LRTP a and is
also a designated emergency evacuation route. The roadway is critical in facilitating movement of local
and regional traffic (including truck traffic) in northern Collier County. Additionally, Immokalee Road
(CR 846) is one of three east-west connections to I-75 in Collier County and is the only east-west
connection from I-75 in northern Collier County that connects to northeastern Collier County.
The needs of the project are to:
•Reduce congestion for future traffic needs due to population and employment growth
•Enhance regional mobility and access between I-75 and eastern Collier County, as well as
improve freight (truck), transit, bicycle and pedestrian access
•Improve safety by reducing vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian user conflicts
a Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report. December 2015. Figure 4-5 & 4-6. Accessed on Dec. 13, 2018 from
http://www.colliermpo.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7725
1-3
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1-4
•Improve emergency evacuation by increasing the number of residents from eastern Collier
County that can be evacuated and access times for emergency responders
1.3.1 Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment (May 2018)
The Collier MPO LRTP was amended May 25, 2018 to consider transportation needs resulting from a
reallocation of population and employment growth within the limits of the proposed Rural Lands West
Stewardship Receiving Area. The development proposes approximately 4,000 acres of residential and
nonresidential mixed-use development with a town center. Figure 1-3 is an excerpt from the amended
LRTP showing the Rural Lands West Stewardship Receiving Area in eastern Collier County.
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is approximately 185,000 acres surrounding the Immokalee
area and includes the proposed Rural Lands West developmentb. In 2002, Collier County developed
Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) and Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) within the Overlay to
encourage development on lands that are less sensitive and better suited for development. The
amended LRTP further states that through the evaluation of the transportation needs using the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic model, D1RPM, a list of additional transportation needs
was identified in 2018. Based on the prioritization of all projects in the 2040 needs assessment, a revised
2040 Cost Feasible Plan was developed that included: the widening of Oil Well Road (Priority Number
25)and Randall Boulevard (Priority Numbers 16, 65, and 74), as well as extending Randall Boulevard
(Priority Number 75) within the study area. The revised 2040 Needs Plan was developed to include the
Big Cypress Parkway (new 4-lane). The 2018 LRTP Amendment does not make a recommendation on the
new alignment “S-Connector” (also referred to as S-Curve) from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road.
Figure 1-3. Rural Lands West Location Map.
1.3.2 Traffic Demand
Collier County’s 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities reported existing
and projected deficiencies for county roadways. Within the study area, Oil Well Road (from Immokalee
b https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-
restudy
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Road to Everglades Boulevard) was reported to operate at LOS C with a LOS target of D. From Everglades
to DeSoto Boulevard, Oil Well Road was reported to operate at LOS B with a LOS target of D.
Randall Boulevard (from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard) was reported to operate at LOS E
with a LOS target of D. This was a slight improvement in LOS from the previous report that had Randall
Boulevard at LOS F, though it remained below the LOS target and was projected to be LOS F by 2021.
However, Randall Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard was reported to operate at
LOS C with a LOS target of D.
The existing traffic characteristics are presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Existing Traffic Characteristics
Road From To
Peak Hour
Directional
Vol (AADT)
Change in Dir
Volume from
2017 to 2018
Target
LOS
2018
LOS
Year
Expected
Deficient
Oil Well Rd Immokalee Rd Everglades Blvd 850 21.4% D C
Oil Well Rd Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 850 25% D B
Randall Blvd Immokalee Rd Everglades Blvd 820 -5.7%D E 2021
Randall Blvd Everglades Blvd DeSoto Blvd 639 2.02% D C
Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Oil Well Rd 310 10.7% D B
DeSoto Blvd Golden Gate Blvd Oil Well Rd 110 10 D B
Source: Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities; AADT=Average Annual Daily Traffic
The Project Traffic Technical Memorandum (pending) shows following Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT) and volume to capacity (V/C) by 2045 for Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Boulevard for the
existing network. Note that V/C greater than one (1) indicates facility deficiency.
Randall Boulevard:
•8th Street NE to 16th Street NE – 25,780 vehicle per day (vpd); V/C 1.62
•16th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard – 16,834 vpd; V/C 1.06
•Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard – 13,625 vpd; V/C 0.93
Oil Well Road:
•Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard – 37,692 vpd; V/C 1.15
•Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard – 30,586 vpd; V/C 0.64
Appendix C presents the LOS for the existing study area network.
1.3.3 Mobility
Immokalee Road is categorized as a Freight Distribution Route and a High Crash Corridor in the Collier
2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.c The western termini of Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard is
Immokalee Road. The roadway is critical in facilitating movement of local and regional traffic including
truck traffic in northern Collier County as it connects to I-75, Oil Well Road, and SR 29 (other designated
regional transportation network facilities).
c Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2015. Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report. Figure 4-5 and 4-6. Accessed on
December 13, 2018 from http://www.colliermpo.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7725
1-5
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1-6
1.3.3.1 Network Mobility
Mobility in northern Collier County is constrained by conservation lands in the northeastern and
southeastern parts of the County (see Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map). The area is also constrained
by a canal system (South Florida Water Management District Golden Gate Canal Basin) created in Collier
County during the 1960s to drain the lands for residential development. The residential lots are 1 to
5 acres in size and are connected by a coarse grid of undifferentiated roads with few connecting cross
streets. The canal system crisscrosses the residential grid, leaving roadways to dead end at the canals,
reducing east-west mobility. Figure 1-4 presents the road network in the study area; to emphasize the
lack of network connectivity in the area, the canals are not shown. Figure 1-4 also shows the current
programmed projects near the study area that include new and future bridge canal crossings, widening
of Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE, proposed improvements at the intersection
of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard (including the ultimate improvement of a flyover bridge, and
the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road to 16th Street NE. While these projects improve access and
mobility to and from the study area, they do not improve mobility within the study corridor. The
proposed improvements are anticipated to improve east-west mobility in the corridor.
Figure 1-4. Study Area Road Network (without canals)
1.3.3.2 Freight Mobility
The Collier MPO 2040 LRTP defines the entire Immokalee Road (CR 846) corridor as a Freight
Distribution Route. The Freight Activity Center and Freight Network map from the LRTP. Immokalee
Road (CR 846) connects two Primary Freight Activity Centers (FACs); the Old US 41 Industrial area and
the Immokalee Regional Airport. The LRTP notes that the Old US 41 Industrial area has limited rail
service but should be recognized as the only site in Collier County with the potential for intermodal rail
activities where freight is transferred between modes (e.g., truck-to/from rail). The Immokalee Airport
area is primarily devoted to agricultural functions, but a 60-acre portion is designated as a Foreign Trade
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Zone (FTZ). With convenient access to highway facilities recognized by the State as part of the Strategic
Intermodal System, the Immokalee Airport is well suited for intermodal air-cargo/truck activities.
The proposed intersection improvements are anticipated to:
•enhance east-west access and regional mobility between I-75 and areas slated for development
in eastern Collier County;
•enhance freight mobility and access to Immokalee Road as it is classified as a regional freight
connector in the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP, linking to other recognized freight corridors (I-75, Oil
Well Road, and SR 29).
1.3.3.1 Travel Time Reliability
The project improvements will provide enhanced mobility of people and goods in the study area.
Review of the United Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Travel
Time to Work, indicates that the study area block groups have a significantly greater travel time to work
than that that of the County. Table 1-2 presents the travel times to work for each block group in the
study area, as well as Collier County. The highest percentage for each group is highlighted for
comparison. In Collier County, the highest percentage for travel time to work is between 15 to
19 minutes (17%). By comparison, Block Group 1’s highest percentage for travel time to work is 45 to
59 minutes (26%), and Block Groups 2 and 3 are between 30 to 34 minutes (33% and 53%, respectively).
Table 1-2. Travel Time to Work
Travel Time
(minutes) Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Collier County
< 5 3% 1% 1% 2%
5 to 9 3% 3% 0% 10%
10 to 14 6% 4% 5% 14%
15 to 19 1% 4% 1% 17%
20 to 24 7% 8% 13% 16%
25 to 29 4% 11% 4% 7%
30 to 34 20% 33% 53% 15%
35 to 39 12% 8% 8% 3%
40 to 44 8% 19% 0% 4%
45 to 59 26% 7% 12% 6%
60 to 89 5% 2% 1% 3%
≥ 90 3% 0% 2% 2%
1.3.4 Safety
1.3.4.1 Emergency Facilities
There are two County emergency facilities near the project study area: Collier County Fires Station 10
and the Collier County Sherriff’s Office/Emergency Management Services facility. The fire station is just
west of the study area and the EMS facility and sheriff’s office is located northwest of the along
Immokalee Road and 39th Avenue NE. The proposed project will improve east-west mobility and
1-7
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1-8
connectivity within the corridor, thereby enhancing access and reducing travel time for emergency
responders.
1.3.4.2 User Conflicts and Crash History
Minimal pedestrian and bicycle traffic were observed in the field; however, facilities accommodating
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users exist in the area and activity is anticipated to increase with
planned development. Collier Area Transit has multiple bus stops in and adjacent to the study corridor
along Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Most of the study area existing sidewalks and bike lanes lack
continuity and have poor network connectivity resulting in circuitous routes that make walking or
cycling undesirable. There are no bicycle lanes or sidewalks along Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto
Boulevard.
Crash data within the study area was evaluated over a 5-year period (2013 through 2017) and found
that 24 crashes resulted in injuries and one crash resulting in a fatality along Randall Boulevard from 8th
Street NE to DeSoto Boulevard. There were 22 crashes resulting in injuries along Oil Well Boulevard from
Immokalee Road to DeSoto Boulevard. Crashes were concentrated front of the high school, west of
Everglades Boulevard and at Everglades Boulevard. No fatalities were reported along Oil Well Road
during the evaluation period. The access management the proposed improvements provide, will
improve safety by limiting median openings to safe locations that reduce conflict points.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to improve pedestrian/bicycle/transit access and
circulation by modifying/limiting opportunities for conflicts between motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users by:
•adding sidewalks and buffered bicycle lanes to reduce conflict points and provide a quality
experience that promotes walking, cycling, and transit use;
•adding turn-lanes along the proposed widened facilities (Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road,
Everglades Boulevard, etc.) in the corridor to reduce motorist conflict points;
•diverting traffic from Oil Well Road south to Randall Boulevard to minimize traffic volumes in
front of the high school.
1.3.5 Emergency Evacuation
Due to Collier County’s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, western Collier County is vulnerable to storm
surge during tropical storms and hurricanes, therefore a sound network of hurricane-related emergency
evacuation routes is critical. There is an increasing number of residents in northeastern Collier County
that are in a relatively isolated area of Collier County and have a limited network for emergency
evacuations. Figure 1-5 presents Collier County’s Evacuation Zones and Routesd. The project area is
between Zones E and F, which are the County’s least vulnerable zones. Zones E and F act as a refuge for
evacuees in the more vulnerable zones.
d https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/emergency-management/why-evacuate/-fsiteid-1
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Figure 1‐5. Collier County Evacuation Zones
1.4 Alternatives Development
Alternatives considered as part of this study include the No Build Alternative, four initial alternatives,
and two viable alternatives. The initial alternatives were derived from the alternatives outlined in the
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP (2015). These alternatives were refined based on a qualitative analysis that
include cost and potential impacts, as well as public input. The initial alternatives were presented at the
Initial Alternatives Public Meeting on May 27, 2018 for public review and comment. The viable
alternatives were further refined based on a more detailed, quantitative analysis that include costs,
potential impacts, and public input. These alternatives were presented at the Viable Alternatives Public
Meeting on March 27, 2019 (pending) for public review and comment including a recommended Build
Alternative. The No Build alternative serves as a baseline for comparison with the Built Alternative and is
an alternative throughout the study. The Recommended Alternative is determined upon completion of
the final public meeting.
1-9
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
2-1
SECTION 2
Corridor Development
The reasonable alternatives for this project are identified and evaluated in a multistep process to allow
opportunities for public and agency input throughout the study. The process for identifying alternatives
to be evaluated is called alternatives development. Initial alternatives are screened to a limited number
of viable alternatives that are further screened and result in a final recommendation (called a Preferred
Alternative). All alternatives are compared against the no-build alternative which serves as a baseline for
Development and Screening of Alternatives
2.1 Evaluation Analysis and Criteria
The evaluation of alternate corridors began with the documentation of existing conditions within the
study area (Figure 1-2). Existing data was collected from field visits, aerial photography, existing reports
and studies and other pertinent information. Full color uncontrolled aerial mapping was used for land
use suitability, preliminary alignment/corridor location and display boards used at public information
meetings. Available documentation included as-built drawings, County tax maps, and local government
comprehensive plans. Information was also collected based on input received from public agencies
through the public involvement outreach.
Evaluation of right of way and right of way use, cultural resources (i.e. historic, archaeological,
agriculture, government/public), geotechnical features, community/special land use facilities (i.e.,
schools, hospitals, churches, neighborhoods, parks/recreation) and environmental features (i.e.,
wetlands, threatened/endangered species, contamination sites) were identified to determine the
location of potential impacts associated with the proposed improvements. These features are discussed
in detail in the Existing Data Report and are summarized in the Corridor Analysis Report (pending).
2.2 Design Criteria
The design criteria and standards are based on design parameters in accordance with the FDOT Plans
Preparation Manual, Volume I and II (FDOT, 2017), 2015 FDOT Design Standards (FDOT, 2017), and A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2011). The design criteria for the project
will be refined further after reasonable alternatives are identified because the geometric criteria depend
upon the facility type of the alignments recommended for further analysis. The corridors were
developed using consistent design criteria to ensure a reasonable comparison.
The design criteria applicable to corridor development are summarized in Appendix B.
2.3 Typical Sections
2.3.1 Four-Lane Cross-Section
Under this alternative, the typical section for the roadway includes a 22-foot center median, two 11-foot
travel lanes in each direction, 7-foot bike lanes with curb and gutter, a grassed separator and 6-foot
concrete sidewalks or 12-foot shared-use pathway (on one side). The typical section also includes a
closed drainage system. The required right of way width for this typical section is 180 feet.
2.3.2 Four-Lane Cross-Section (expandable to Six-Lane)
This alternative provides for a four-lane typical section with the ability to provide one additional lane in
each direction in the future by widening to the inside with a 44-foot center median.
2.3.3 Six-Lane Cross-Section
This alternative includes a 22-foot center median, three 11-foot travel lanes in each direction, 7-foot
bike lanes with curb and gutter, a grassed separator and 6-foot concrete sidewalks or 12-foot pathways.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 2—CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
2-2
The typical section also includes a closed drainage system. The required right of way width for this
typical section is 204 feet. This alternative would provide the capacity to accommodate the existing and
future traffic demand and provide future needed channelization in the median to improve safety by
allowing left-turning vehicles to be removed from the flow of through traffic. The typical sections for the
four-lane and six-lane alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1.
2.4 Traffic Circulation Plan
Within the project study limits, all roadways are owned and maintained by Collier County. Table 2-1 lists
the roadway classifications based on Collier County’s current Growth Management Plan Transportation
Element 3 (amended June 13, 2017). The County Growth Management Plan also notes (based on
Transportation Element 7), that Everglades Boulevard is a Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Route.
The Collier MPO 2040 LRTP notes that Oil Well Road between Immokalee Road and SR 29 is a Freight
Distribution Route that connects another Freight Distribution Route, Oil Well Road, to a Regional Freight
Mobility Corridor, SR 29.
Table 2-1. Existing Roadway Classifications
Road Classification County Designations
Oil Well Rd Minor Arterial Freight Distribution Route
Randall Blvd Minor Collector
Everglades Blvd Minor Collector Hurricane Evacuation Route
DeSoto Blvd Local Road
Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan Transportation Element 3 (amended June 13, 2017);
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP
The specific purpose of the project is to enhance mobility and develop a traffic circulation plan for the
local system connection to the primary facilities of Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Everglades
Boulevard, Desoto Boulevard that promotes safe local traffic, bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Figure 2-2 shows the existing roadway network east of I-75 and the current laneage. As can be seen, the
only major east-west routes east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) are Immokalee Road, Golden Gate
Boulevard and Oil Well Road.
In order to provide adequate transportation capacity to meet future traffic development and planned
growth as approved in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, proposed improvements to Randall
Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Everglades Boulevard, Desoto Boulevard, in addition of the Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension and potential Big Cypress Parkway, will provide a network of improvements will provide
additional capacity in the east-west direction to meet the travel demands of the growing Golden Gate
Estates community and developing communities to the east.
2.5 Culverts/Bridges
Existing bridges will be evaluated for widening or replacement at all crossings of the Cypress, Curry,
Corkscrew, Orange Tree, Golden Gate, Miller and Faka Union canals in accordance with current
requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. The bridges will be designed to maintain
the capacity of the canals without any constrictions.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 2—CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
Proposed 4-Lane Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
S-Connector Alternative
Randall Blvd Alternative
Everglades Blvd Alternative
DeSoto Blvd Alternative
Proposed 4-lane Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
With provisions for median expansion to 6-lanes
Randall Blvd Alternative
Everglades Blvd Alternative
DeSoto Blvd Alternative
Proposed 6-lane Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
Randall Blvd Alternative
Figure 2-1. Proposed Typical Sections
2-3
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 2—CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
2-4
Figure 2-2. Existing Roadway Network
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
3-1
SECTION 3
Initial Alternatives
The corridors were developed to evaluate an east-west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. The development
of potential corridors to be studied as part of this project was carried out in stages. Initially, the project
was broken into segments defined as follows:
•New Alignment "S-Connector" – connecting Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road
•Randall Blvd - from Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd (or the S-Connector proposed
intersection)
•Randall Blvd - from Everglades Blvd (or the S-Connector proposed intersection) to DeSoto Blvd
•Randall Blvd - from DeSoto Blvd to Oil Well Road (new alignment)
•Oil Well Road – from Everglades Blvd (or the S-Connector proposed intersection) to Oil Well
Grade Road
•Everglades Blvd – from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road
•DeSoto Blvd – from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road
Initial alternatives were developed based on the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP as stated in Section 1.2. All
alternatives propose a new connection from Randall Boulevard east of Desoto Boulevard N to Oil Well
Road just west of Oil Well Grade Road. Four alternatives were developed and presented at the Initial
Alternatives Public Meeting on May 24, 2018.
3.1 Alternative 1 New Alignment “S-Connector”
Alternative 1 (Figure 3-1) proposes a new alignment along the Golden Gate Canal that would include a
reverse curve (S-Curve) alignment north to connect to Oil Well Road at a point west of Everglades
Boulevard. The new alignment is proposed as free-flow movements from/to Oil Well Road and Randall
Boulevard.
Figure 3-1. Alternative 1
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 3—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
3-2
Randall Boulevard would be 4-lanes east of the Golden Gate canal. Traffic would be able to bypass the
existing north-south connections of Everglades Boulevard and Desoto Boulevard, thus allowing potential
roundabouts or improved intersections at those locations with a 4-lane Randall Boulevard. Table 3-1
presents the benefits and limitations of Alternative 1.
Table 3-1. Alternative 1 – Benefits & Limitations
New Alignment Benefits New Alignment Limitations
•Widening of Randall Blvd from 2-lanes to 4-lanes east of
proposed S-Connector
•Diverts away from neighborhood / avoids school zones
•Free flow of traffic operations (at peak hours)
•Uses existing right of way on Oil Well Rd for 6 Lane
expansion
•Proposed S-Connector requires additional new right of
way
•Does not make use of existing 6-lane infrastructure on
Everglades Blvd
•Introduces driveway access impacts to homes along
Randall Blvd by restricting left-turn movements
•Requires new canal bridges
As part of the new alignment, access to existing roads (27th Avenue NE, 29th Avenue NE and 31st Avenue
NE) were considered and were shown at the Alternative Public Information Meeting held in 2018. As
shown in Figure 3-2, three options were presented: (1) 3 Connection Points with all three streets
connected, (2) 1 Connection Point with all three streets connected via a frontage road, and (3) no
streets connected. The benefit of the options with connections is that they provide for improved local
traffic circulation by providing direct access to the proposed S-Connector, thereby reducing travel time
and emergency response time. Based on public comment received at the Alternative Public Information
Meeting, the option with no connections was recommend for further analysis due to the concerns of
increased traffic (local cut-through) due to the new access.
Figure 3-2. Alternative 1 New Alignment Access Options
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 3—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
3.2 Alternative 2 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 4-Lane
Everglades Blvd)
Alternative 2 (Figure 3-3) proposes widening Everglades Boulevard and eliminating the S-Curve. It also
proposes widening Randall Boulevard to six (6) lanes instead of four (4). Alternatives 2 through 4 are
variations of the “conventional” response to a congestion issue, that is to widen the existing roadways
rather than construct a new roadway. In Alternative 2, traffic would have the option to use an expanded
4 Lane Everglades Road as a bypass to reach an expanded 6 Lane Randall Boulevard. The intersections
with Everglades Road would require a traffic signal, causing some delays. Roundabouts are not viable on
a 6-lane roadway. Table 3-2 presents the benefits and limitations of Alternative 2.
Figure 3-3. Alternative 2
Table 3-2. Alternative 2 – Benefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
•Widening of existing network
•Widening of Everglades is consistent with Collier MPO
LRTP needs and evacuation routes
•Diverts away from neighborhood / avoids school zones
•Uses existing right of way on Oil Well Rd for 6 Lane
expansion
•Does not require new bridges
•Increases commute time compared to Alternative 1
•Greater delays at intersections
•Potential impacts associated with Everglades Blvd
expansion to 4 lanes (expandable to 6 lanes)
•Requires more right of way on Randall Blvd for 6 lane
expansion
3.3 Alternative 3 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 4-Lane Everglades
Blvd and 4-Lane DeSoto Blvd)
Alternative 3 (Figure 3-4) is another variation of conventional widening to the existing roadways within
the study area. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 with the 4-lane Everglades Boulevard
connection, but it also adds another 4-lane bypass at Desoto Boulevard to distribute some of the traffic.
Table 3-3 presents the benefits and limitations of Alternative 3.
3-3
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 3—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
3-4
Figure 3-4. Alternative 3
Table 3-3. Alternative 3 – Benefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
•Same benefits as Alternative 2
•Adds a second 4-Lane option for north-south travel with
use of both Everglades Blvd and Desoto Blvd
•May reduce delays at intersections with two options for
users
•Same limitations as Alternative 2
•Potential impacts associated with Desoto Blvd
expansion to 4 lanes
3.4 Alternative 4 (6-Lane Randall Blvd plus 6-Lane
Everglades Blvd)
Alternative 4 (Figure 3-5) is like Alternative 2 but proposes widening Everglades Boulevard to six (6)
lanes and eliminate widening Desoto Boulevard. Table 3-4 presents the benefits and limitations of
Alternative 4.
Figure 3-5. Alternative 4
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 3—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
Table 3-4. Alternative 4 – Benefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
•Same benefits as Alternative 2
•Expanded Everglades Blvd to 6 lanes would further
reduce congestion and meet traffic demand
•Same limitations as Alternative 2
•Potential impacts associated with Everglades Blvd
expansion to 6 lanes
3.5 Initial Alternatives Comparative Evaluation
An analysis was initiated to reduce and refine a wide range of roadway alignments for each segment
down to a specific improvement program, thereby eliminating from consideration infeasible or non-
viable alternatives. Based on this analysis, 23 roadway segments were developed for further
consideration.
Following this qualitative analysis, a quantitative evaluation matrix was developed to compare the 23
alternative roadway segments. The objective of this effort was to further refine the alternative roadway
segments and carry forward the most viable for a more detailed analysis. For each of the roadway
segments, seven criteria were further evaluated. These criteria included overall right of way impacts,
business impacts, residential impacts, community facility impacts, special land use impacts, cultural and
historical impacts, and natural environment and physical impacts. Table 3-5 presents the results of the
evaluation in matrix format.
Table 3-5. Initial Alternatives Comparative Matrix
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1
with New Alignment
"S-Connector"
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Right of way Impact MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM
Total Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
Vacant Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Non-Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Potential Residential Displacements (No.) 1 0 1 0
Potential Business Displacements (No.) 0 0 0 0
Community Use Parcel Impacts (No.) 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 16 13 21 13
T&E Species Habitat Potential Effects MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Canal crossings (No. of bridges) 4 2 2 2
Estimated Preliminary Project Cost
(in 2018 $ Millions) LOW LOW HIGH MEDIUM
3-5
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 3—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
3-6
3.6 Selection of Viable Alternatives
Based on public comment, the evaluation matrix (as presented in Table 3-3) and purpose and need
considerations, a consensus was reached to eliminate Initial Alternatives 3 and 4 from further
consideration. Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated since they provided no additional benefit over
Alternatives 1 and 2 for the following reasons:
Purpose and Need: All Initial Alternatives satisfy the purpose and need of the project by increasing
capacity on the network and enhancing access, safety and mobility.
Natural Environment: Overall, Alternative 1 on a new alignment has higher natural environmental
impacts. Wetland impacts range from 6 to 15 acres approximately. Alternatives 1 and 3 have higher
wetland impacts compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 1 also has the potential for higher
surface water impacts and T&E species habitat impacts. Alternative 3 has the highest impacts associated
with Florida panther primary zone habitat. The study area is located within the Florida Bonneted Bat
Focal Area, and the entire project footprint was identified for potential effects.
Social Impacts: Overall, Alternative 1 has the least social impacts and least impacts related to
community cohesion. With most buildings sitting toward the front of their lots, acquiring right of way
along the existing streets would diminish the front offsets to the buildings and result in the buildings
being closer to the roadway. As a result, Alternatives 2 and 3 which included the six-lane widening of
Randall Blvd (from Everglades Blvd to DeSoto Blvd) had significantly more impacts to the residential
parcels property, driveways and access than Alternatives 1. There are no displacement of homes or
businesses associated with the build alternatives. No impacts to community services or parks are
anticipated.
Access Management Impacts: By reconstructing the existing roadways as part of this project, the
existing driveways would be reconnected to the widened road. This would create access/conflict points
along a major portion of the project between the through vehicles and vehicles entering and exiting
driveways. Multiple U-turn points would be required to allow the local traffic to access both directions
of the roadway, creating additional conflict points and further degrading the level of service of the
roadway. Alternative 1 presents access impacts to residential parcels at the intersections with Randall
Blvd.
Traffic Demand: The existing 2-lane Randall Blvd (west of Everglades) is expected to fail by 2021. Based
on the network alternatives analysis summary table (Appendix C), traffic volumes on Randall Blvd (west
of Everglades) support the need for 6-lane widening. By 2045, the 2-lane Randall Blvd (east of
Everglades) is expected to fail; however, the traffic volumes only support the need for 4-lane widening
and does not show the need for 6-lanes within the design year horizon. In comparison to the No Build
and Build Alternatives, Alternative 1 operates with the best level of service and relieves congestion
along constrained Oil Well Road east of Immokalee Road to Everglades.
Conclusion: Based on the traffic analysis of the network initial alternatives, there was no improvement
or benefit in the level of service on the roadways analyzed (Randall Blvd, Oil Well Road, Everglades Blvd,
Desoto Blvd, and the proposed S-Connector) between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, given the
higher access and environmental impacts and no significant improvement in meeting the future traffic
demand, Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated from further evaluation. Alternatives 1 and 2 are
recommended for further evaluation with the following considerations:
-Randall Blvd (west of Everglades) supports the need for 6-lane widening.
-Randall Blvd (east of Everglades) supports the need for 4-lane widening.
-Regional mobility needs and the future roadway network needs should be considered in the
upcoming update of the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP.
-Impacts to access associated with the S-Connector intersections should be further evaluated to
reduce impacts.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
4-1
SECTION 4
Viable Alternatives
4.1 No Build
The No Build (No Action) Alternative includes highway facilities that are likely to exist in 2040. This
includes the existing highway network, which is part of all alternatives in addition to the highway
improvements that are identified in the Collier County MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan and
the FDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program Projects. The No Action Alternative includes those
projects that provide for an increase in capacity, such as new roadway construction, widening projects,
and major interchanges.
The No Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the travel benefits of other alternatives. The
improvements contained in the Transportation System Management and Operations (TSM&O) and Build
Alternatives are improvements that could be made in addition to those contained in the No Build
Alternative.
The No Build Alternative would avoid right of way and construction costs associated with the proposed
improvements, eliminate the short-term disruption that would occur along the existing roadways during
construction activities, and prevent business or residential impacts or impacts to other undeveloped
lands or wetlands. However, the No Build Alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the
project. The disadvantage of the No Build Alternative is that there would be no provision to
accommodate the anticipated growth in traffic volumes. Without mobility improvements within the
study area, operating conditions of Immokalee Road, Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and
Desoto Boulevard would deteriorate at an accelerated rate. The increased traffic congestion on these
roadways would delay motorists and increase the potential for crashes. Specifically, the No Build
Alternative will offer no benefits to the existing or future traffic congestion within the area. Distinct
benefits and limitations associated with this alternative are described below.
Benefits:
•No impedance to traffic flow during construction,
•No expenditure of funds for right of way acquisition, engineering, design or construction,
•No impact to the adjacent natural, physical, and human environments, and
•No disruption to existing land uses due to construction-related activities.
Limitations:
•Increase in traffic congestion and road user costs, unacceptable level of service, and an increase in
accidents associated with an increase in travel times and traffic volumes due to excessive delays,
•Increase in carbon monoxide levels and other air pollutants caused by an increase in traffic
congestion,
•Increase in maintenance costs due to roadway and structure deterioration,
•Increase in emergency service response time in addition to an increase in evacuation time during
weather emergencies because of heavy congestion,
•Increase in safety-related accidents due to heavy congestion, and
•Potential increase in safety-related accidents due to less than desirable levels of service and access
management.
The No Build Alternative shall remain a viable alternative through the public involvement process. The
final selection of an alternative will not be made until all impacts are considered and responses to the
public hearing comments have been evaluated.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 4—VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
4-2
4.2 Transportation System Management & Operations
Transportation System Management (TSM&O) Alternatives are defined as low capital cost
transportation improvements designed to maximize the utilization and efficiency of the existing
transportation system through improved system management. The various forms of TSM&O activities
include:
•Traffic signal improvements,
•Intersection/interchange improvements,
•Widening of parallel arterials,
•Ridesharing programs,
•High Occupancy Vehicular (HOV) lanes,
•Reversible flow roadway systems,
•Transit,
•Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), and
•Ramp-to-ramp auxiliary lanes.
Although the implementation of TSM&O strategies would certainly aid in localized operations of the
existing roadway network, the projected traffic volumes for the design year 2030 require additional
capacity in excess to any improvements possible through TSM&O measures to maintain or improve the
existing levels of service. Therefore, the TSM&O Alternative is not considered a viable alternative and no
further evaluation of the TSM&O Alternative will be conducted during this study.
4.3 Viable Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is the same as the Initial Alternative 1 with no connections to 27th Avenue NE, 29th Avenue
NE and 31st Avenue NE. Viable Alternative 1 (Figure 4-1) proposes a new alignment along the Golden
Gate Canal that would include a reverse curve (S-Curve) alignment north to connect to Oil Well Road at
a point west of Everglades Boulevard. The new alignment is proposed as free-flow movements from/to
Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard.
Distinct benefits and limitations associated with this alternative as compared to Viable Alternative 2 are
described below.
Benefits:
•Based on the traffic analysis (Appendix C), Alternative 1 provides the best traffic operations for the
road network and relieves congestion along constrained Oil Well Road east of Immokalee Road to
Everglades Blvd.
•Alternative 1 has less impacts on residential parcels and as a result affects less property owners.
Limitations:
•Alternative 1 requires significantly more right of way than Alternative 2.
•Alternative 1 has more impacts to the natural environment including wetland and T&E species
habitat.
•Alternative 1 has higher cost.
•Although Alternative 1 is predicted to operate at an acceptable level of service by moving the traffic
westbound faster and more efficiently, the result is that the intersections along Immokalee Rd at Oil
Well Road, Randall Blvd and Wilson Blvd are highly likely to fail sooner in the planning horizon.
•Given the future roadway network, the planned Big Cypress Parkway has the potential to connect to
the planned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, bypassing the already congested segment of
Immokalee Road between Oil Well Road and Wilson Blvd. The proposed S-Connector cannot provide
a connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and moves more traffic to Immokalee Road and,
therefore, does not provide the long-term benefit to the regional.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 4—VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
Figure 4-1. Viable Alternative 1 New Alignment
4.4 Viable Alternative 2
Viable Alternative 2 (Figure 4-2) is similar to Initial Alternative 2 as it proposes widening Everglades
Boulevard and eliminating the S-Curve. Based on the impacts to community cohesion, Viable Alternative
2 was refined to include the less impactive widening of Randall Boulevard to four (4) lanes instead of six
(6) lanes east of Everglades Blvd. In Alternative 2, traffic would have the option to use an expanded 4
Lane Everglades Road as a bypass to reach an expanded 6 Lane Randall Boulevard west of Everglades
Blvd. The intersections with Everglades Road would require a traffic signal, causing some delays.
Roundabouts are not viable on a 6-lane roadway.
Distinct benefits and limitations associated with this alternative as compared to Viable Alternative 1 are
described below.
Benefits:
•Alternative 2 requires significantly less right of way than Alternative 1.
•Alternative 2 has less impacts to the natural environment including wetland and T&E species
habitat.
•Alternative 2 has lower cost.
•Given the future roadway network, the planned Big Cypress Parkway has the potential to connect to
the planned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, bypassing the already congested segment of
Immokalee Road between Oil Well Road and Wilson Blvd. The widening of Everglades Blvd is most
compatible with the future roadway network.
•Everglades Blvd is identified by Collier County as an evacuation route, with potential future
connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Limitations:
•Based on the traffic analysis (Appendix C), the constrained Oil Well Road west of Everglades Blvd
fails by 2045. This may be a function of the traffic model that is not showing as much traffic being
diverted to Randall Blvd.
•Alternative 2 has more impacts on residential parcels and as a result affects more property owners.
4-3
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 4—VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
4-4
Figure 4-2. Viable Alternative 2
4.5 Viable Alternatives Comparative Evaluation
A quantitative evaluation matrix was developed to compare the two viable alternatives and the no build
alternative. The objective of this effort was to further refine the alternative roadway segments and carry
forward the most viable for a more detailed analysis. Table 4-1 presents the results of the evaluation in
matrix format. This information was presented at the April 2019 public information meeting. The cost
estimate applicable to viable alternatives are summarized in Appendix A.
Table 4-1. Viable Alternatives Comparative Matrix
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SECTION 5—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 5
Recommended Alternative
Based on public comment (pending), the evaluation matrix (as presented in Table 4-1) and purpose and
need considerations including the traffic analysis and regional long-range plan, a consensus was reached
to eliminate Viable Alternative 1 from further consideration for the following reasons:
Purpose and Need: Both Viable Alternatives satisfy the purpose and need of the project by increasing
capacity on the network and enhancing access, safety and mobility. However, based on the regional
mobility needs of eastern Collier County, Alternative 2 satisfies the purpose and need of the project
more than Alternative 1.
Natural Environment: Overall, Alternative 1 on a new alignment has higher natural environmental
impacts. Wetland impacts range from 6 to 10 acres approximately. Alternative 1 has higher wetland
impacts compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 1 also has the potential for higher surface water impacts
and T&E species habitat impacts. Alternative 1 has the highest impacts associated with Florida panther
secondary zone habitat. The study area is located within the Florida Bonneted Bat Focal Area, and the
entire project footprint was identified for potential effects; as a result, Alternative 1 has potential for
greater impacts to habitat.
Social Impacts: Overall, Alternative 1 has the least social impacts and least impacts related to
community cohesion. Impacts to the front of the parcel lots where minimized with the selection of the
4-lane typical section (in a 4-lane footprint, not expandable to 6-lanes) along Randall Blvd, east of
Everglades. There are no displacement of homes or businesses associated with the build alternatives.
No impacts to community services or parks are anticipated.
Access Management Impacts: Alternative 1 presents access impacts to residential parcels at the
intersections with Randall Blvd.
Traffic Demand: In comparison to the No Build and Build Alternatives, Alternative 1 operates with the
best level of service and relieves congestion along constrained Oil Well Road east of Immokalee Road to
Everglades. Although Alternative 1 is predicted to operate at an acceptable level of service by moving
the traffic westbound faster and more efficiently, the result is that the intersections along Immokalee Rd
at Oil Well Road, Randall Blvd and Wilson Blvd are highly likely to fail sooner in the planning horizon.
Conclusion: Given the optimized future roadway network (as shown on Figure 5-1), the planned Big
Cypress Parkway has the potential to connect to the planned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension,
bypassing the already congested segment of Immokalee Road between Oil Well Road and Wilson Blvd.
The proposed S-Connector cannot provide a connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and moves
more traffic to Immokalee Road and, therefore, does not provide the long-term benefit to the regional.
Therefore, given the regional mobility needs, and higher environmental impacts and costs, Alternative 1
was eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternative 2 as shown on Figure 5-2 is recommended for further evaluation with the following
considerations:
-Randall Blvd (west of Everglades) supports the need for 6-lane widening.
-Randall Blvd (east of Everglades) supports the need for 4-lane widening.
-Regional mobility needs and the future roadway network needs should be considered in the
upcoming update of the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP.
5-1
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
SL0331171122ORL 5-2
Figure 5-1. Optimized Future Roadway Network
Figure 5-2. Recommended Alternative and Future Roadway Network
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Appendix A
Cost Estimates
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor StudyCost Estimate ‐ DRAFTViable AlternativeDescription SegmentsConstruction Cost Project Unknowns Survey‐Design‐CEIEnvironmental Mitigation Right of Way Project Cost1Widen 5 miles of Randall Blvd (6/4‐lane) with new 1 mile "S" Connector (4‐lane)A+B1+C+D1+F1+G56,600,000$ 14,200,000$ 14,200,000$ 5,700,000$ 6,958,000$ 97,700,000$ 2Widen 5 miles of Randall Blvd (6/4‐lane) and widen 1 mile of Everglades Blvd (4‐lane)A+B2+C+E2+F+G47,800,000$ 12,000,000$ 12,000,000$ 4,800,000$ 4,179,000$ 80,800,000$ Notes: Project Unknowns = 25%Survey‐Design‐CEI = 25%Environmental Mitigation = 10%Segments in red are BY OTHERS and not included in the costsROW cost assumes $70,000 per Acre ImpactTotal project costs include engineering, ROW, and construction, but do not include utility relocations, landscaping,Florida Panther mitigation habitat credit, environmental permit fees, dump fees, or disposal of contaminated soils. Noise barriers are not anticipated. ProjectCostPage 1 of 34/3/201911.C.aPacket Pg. 423Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor StudyCost Estimate ‐ DRAFTRandall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor StudyCollier County, FLApril 1, 2019Long Range Estimate of SegmentsSegment Alignment from toLength (mi) Improvement Cost per mile Roadway Cost Bridges Cost per bridge Bridge CostConstruction CostA Randall Blvd 8th St Golden Glades Canal 1.8 2 to 6 Widening 8,215,378$ 14,800,000$ 1 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 16,700,000$ B1 Randall Blvd Golden Glades Canal Everglades Blvd 1 2 to 4 Widening 7,448,544$ 7,500,000$ 1 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 9,000,000$ B2 Randall Blvd Golden Glades Canal Everglades Blvd 1 2 to 6 Widening 8,215,378$ 8,300,000$ 1 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ 10,200,000$ C Randall Blvd Everglades Blvd Desoto Rd 2 2 to 4 Widening 7,448,544$ 14,900,000$ 1 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 16,400,000$ D1 S‐connector Randall Blvd Oil Well Rd 1.1 New 4‐Lane 7,448,544$ 8,200,000$ 2 1,500,000$ 3,000,000$ 11,200,000$ E2 Everglades Blvd Randall Blvd Oil Well Rd 0.6 2 to 4 Widening 7,448,544$ 4,500,000$ 1,500,000$ ‐$ 4,500,000$ F1 Oil Well Rd Golden Glades Canal Everglades Blvd 0.7 4 to 6 Widening 4,683,454$ 3,300,000$ 1,900,000$ ‐$ 3,300,000$ G‐by others Oil Well Rd Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd 3.9 2 to 6 Widening 8,215,378$ 32,100,000$ 2 1,900,000$ 3,800,000$ 35,900,000$ Notes:Cost per mile from FDOT LRE modelshttp://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/Estimates/LRE/CostPerMileModels/CPMSummary.shtmCost per bridge = bridge width * 125' bridge length * $125/sfSegment Costs are mutually exclusive ‐ See Alternative Cost for resultsSegmentCostPage 2 of 34/3/201911.C.aPacket Pg. 424Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Appendix B
Design Criteria
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
34
Design Element
Oil Well
Rd
Randall Blvd
Everglades
Blvd
Ramps
(Flyover and
At-grade)
Frontage
Road Source General Functional
Classification
Minor
Arterial
Minor
Collector Ramp Local Map B3 - Federal Functional
Classification - Collier County
Access Management 5* 7* N/A N/A Resolution 13-257 Table 3
*proposed
Design Speed 45 MPH 45 MPH 35 MPH 25 MPH FGB Table 3-1
Posted Speed 45 MPH 45 MPH 35 MPH 25 MPH Typical Section No. Lanes (Ultimate) 6 4 (6) 1 (2) 2
Lane Width 11' 11' 11' 11' FGB Table 3-8
Bike Lane Width - - 7'
(4' min.)
7'
(4' min.)
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design
Guide, FGB Figure 9-1
Sidewalk Width 8'
(6' min.) 6' - 5’ CCULDC 6.06.02,
FGB 3.C.7.d Shoulder Width Inside Full
(Paved) - - 6' - FGB Table 3-11
Outside Full
(Paved) - - 10' - FGB Table 3-11
Inside Bridge - - 6' - FGB Table 3-11
Outside Bridge - - 10' - FGB Table 3-11
Median Width 22'
(15.5' min.)
22'
(15.5' min.) - - FGB Table 3-14
Border Width 12' 12' 33' 12' FDM Table 210.7.1
Clear Zone 4' 4' 4' 1.5' FGB Table 3-15
ROW Width 149' 139' - 60' Record plans,
CCULDC 6.06.01.N Horizontal Min. Stopping Sight
Distance 360' 360' 250' 155' FGB Table 3-3
Max. Deflection w/o
Curve 1° 00' 1° 00' 2° 00' 2° 00' FDM 210.8.1
Length of Curve 675'
(400' min.)
675'
(400' min.)
525'
(400'min.) N/A FDM Table 210.8.1,
FGB 3.C.4.a
Max. Curvature (Min.
Radius) 8°15' (680') 8°15' (680') 16°00' (360') 28°45'
(200') FGB Table 3-5
Max. Superelevation 0.05 0.05 0.05 -0.02 FGB 3.C.4.b Vertical Max. Grade 6% 8% 9% 7% FGB Table 3-7
Max. Change in
Grade w/o VC 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.10 FGB Table 3-8
Base Clearance above
BCWE 3' 3' 2' 2' FDM 210.10.3.(2)
Crest Curve K 61 61 29 12 FGB Table 3-9
Sag Curve K 79 79 49 26 FGB Table 3-9
Vertical Clearance 16.5' 16.5' 16.5' 16.5' FGB 3.C.7.j.4.(b)
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Appendix C
Traffic Data
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Randall Blvd
Everglades BlvdDesoto BlvdRattlesnake Hammock Logan BLVDSanta Barbara BLVDCounty Barn Immokalee Rd
Orange Blossom
Thomasson Dr Wilson BlvdEverglades BlvdCamp Keais RdAve
Ma
r
iaBlvdBonita Beach Rd
Wiggins Pass SR 29Immokalee Rd
Collier BlvdSan Marco RDLivingston RdTamiami Trail NDavis Blvd
Pine Ridge Rd
Vanderbilt Beach Rd COUNTY LINE RDVanderbilt DrGolden Gate PKWYOld 41S 1st STAirport Pulling RdGoodlette-Frank RdRadio Rd
Green Blvd
Golden Gate Blvd W
Bayshore DrCollier BlvdOil Well Rd
ATTACHMENT C
Percentage Change In Peak Hour Directional Volume From 2017
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
µ
Growth Management DepartmentTransportation Planning
SR 82
S 1st StLake Trafford Rd
N 15th STWestclox St
W Main StSR 29 INSET MAP
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
$+41
$+41
$+41
!(951
!(951
!(951
!(846
!(846
$+41
GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICPGrowth Management DepartmentDate: June, 2018GulfofMexico LakeTrafford
!(29
!(29
LEE COUNTY
-This map evaluates changes in measured background trips; not trip bank changes.
Legend
Percentage Change In Peak Hour Directional Volume From 20175%-10% Decrease From 201710%-20% Decrease From 2017
5%-10% Increase From 2017
10%-20% Increase From 2017
>20% Increase From 2017
< +/- 5% Change From 2017
Page 11 of 26211.C.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Attachment "F"56 57 58 56 57 58 61 63 64 65 66Collier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic Counts2016 2017 20182017 20172017 2018Traffic 1/7th TripPeak Hour Peak Peak Peak2018 20182017 1/7thVer. B2018 1/7th 1/7th TBCount BankPeak Dir Hour Hour Hour Actual Percent2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB2018 L Year YearExist Cnt. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation VariationTrip Trip Trip2017Trip Trip Trip2018 Remain.1/7th TBO Expected ExpectedID# CIE# Proj# Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std Dir Volume Volume Volume Volume To Volume To VolumeBank Bank BankVolumeBank Bank BankVolume Capacity V/C S Deficient Deficient45 45 541.0 99910 CR31 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,2001230 1240 1220(20) -1.61%10 0 10 1250 25 0 25 1245 955 56.6% C2.1 55 62031 CR31 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 6D 599 E N 3,0001950 1970 1810(160) -8.12%70 0 70 2040 66 0 66 1876 1124 62.5% C2.2 55 62031 CR31 Airport Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road 6D 503 E N 3,000 1830 1860 1770(90) -4.84%94 0 94 1954 54 0 54 1824 1176 60.8% C3.0 39 60121 CR31 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 1770 1980 2330 350 17.68% 7 0 7 1987 14 0 14 2344 656 78.1% D4.0 99906 CR31 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 533 E N 2,800 2060 2290 2310 20 0.87% 18 0 18 2308 22 0 22 2332 468 83.3% D 20285.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Radio Road Davis Boulevard 6D 553 E N 2,800 2040 2100 2230 130 6.19% 17 0 17 2117 11 0 11 2241 559 80.0% D6.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 552 E S 2,700 1590 1610 1650 40 2.48% 10 0 10 1620 73 2 75 1725 975 63.9% C7.0 99911 Bayshore Drive US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Thomasson Drive 4D 521 D S 1,800 600 650 620(30) -4.62%45 0 45 695 116 2 118 738 1062 41.0% B8.0 31 60021 CR 865 Bonita Beach Road West of Vanderbilt Drive Hickory Boulevard 4D 653 D E 1,9001050 1070 1060(10) -0.93%0 0 0 1070 0 0 0 1060 840 55.8% C9.0 Carson Road Lake Trafford Road Immokalee Drive 2U 610 D N 600 310 320 330 10 3.13% 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 330 270 55.0% C10.0 33 60101 County Barn Road Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 320 326 380 54 16.42% 65 0 65 391 123 1 124 504 396 56.0% C11.0 99912 CR29 CR 29 US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades City 2U 582A D S 1,000 100 190 160(30) -15.79%0 0 0 190 0 0 0 160 840 16.0% B12.0 SR84 Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Airport Road 6D 558 E E 2,700 1520 1550 1610 60 3.87% 33 0 33 1583 56 0 56 1666 1034 61.7% C13.0 48 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Airport Road Lakewood Boulevard 4D 559 D E 2,000 1550 1500 1580 80 5.33% 4 0 4 1504 0 0 0 1580 420 79.0% D14.0 49 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 4D 658 D E 2,000 1530 1610 1670 60 3.73% 61 0 61 1671 61 0 61 1731 269 86.6% D 202615.0 83 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1460 1440 1460 20 1.39% 144 0 144 1584 196 0 196 1656 544 75.3% D16.1 83 SR84 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road 6D 560D EE 3,300 650 700 74040 5.71% 24 139 163 863 86 139 225 965 2335 29.2% B16.2 83 SR84 Davis BoulevardRadio RoadCollier Boulevard6D 601D EW 3,300 1050 1080 112040 3.70% 34 214 248 1328 82 214 296 1416 1884 42.9% B17.0 62 63041 CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier BoulevardWilson Boulevard4D 531 D E 2,300 1660 1600 1710 110 6.88% 0 0 0 1600 0 0 0 1710 590 74.3% C18.0 99913 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 530 E E 2,700 1210 1230 12300 0.00% 13 0 13 1243 13 0 13 1243 145746.0% B19.0 5 60027C CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 507 E E 3,300 2780 2710 2930 220 8.12% 5 0 5 2715 5 0 5 2935 365 88.9% D202420.1 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 508 E E 3,300 2280 2200 229090 4.09% 0 0 0 2200 12 0 12 2302 998 69.8% C20.2 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston RoadI-756D 691 E E 3,300 2890 2770 2610(160) -5.78%1 0 1 2771 0 0 0 2610 690 79.1% D21.0 74 60027 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-75Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 1980 1960 2140 180 9.18% 14 0 14 1974 14 0 14 2154 1146 65.3% C22.0 99916 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard4D 605 D E 1,800 1450 1550 161060 3.87% 59 8 67 1617 43 8 51 1661 139 92.3% D202323.0 19 68041 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 860 930 820(110) -11.83%15 0 15 945 46 0 46 866 134 86.6% D202624.1 65 60134 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 4D 595 E N 2,4001340 1350 137020 1.48% 73 0 73 1423 73 0 73 1443 957 60.1% C24.2 65 60134 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 581 E N 2,400 1530 1550 1680 130 8.39% 0 0 0 1550 0 0 0 1680 720 70.0% C25.0 88 60005 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway6D 505 E N 3,000 1850 1890 2220 330 17.46% 0 0 0 1890 0 0 0 2220 780 74.0% C 26.0 99917 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 504 E N 2,700 2250 2190 2480 290 13.24% 0 0 0 2190 0 0 0 2480 220 91.9% D 2023 202327.0 87 68055 Green BoulevardSanta Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard2U 642 D E 900 720 730 680(50) -6.85%0 0 0 730 0 0 0 680 220 75.6% D29.0 66011 Gulfshore Drive111th AvenueVanderbilt Beach Road 2U583a D N 800 230 235 220(15) -6.22%0 0 0 235 0 0 0 220 580 27.5% B30.1 37 65061 CR951 Collier BoulevardImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,0001450 1520 1680 160 10.53% 273 174 447 1967 419 128 547 2227 773 74.2% C30.2 37 65061 CR951 Collier BoulevardVanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,0001200 1220 12200 0.00% 48 38 86 1306 79 39 118 1338 1662 44.6% B31.1 85 68056 CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road6D 536 D N 3,000 1867 1904 1780(124) -6.51%26 16 42 1946 48 30 78 1858 1142 61.9% C31.2 85 68056 CR951 Collier BoulevardPine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard6D 536 D N 3,000 1867 1904 1780(124) -6.51%32 12 44 1948 38 22 60 1840 1160 61.3% C32.1 76 65062 CR951 Collier BoulevardGreen BoulevardGolden Gate Pwky4D 525 D N 2,300 1370 1410 150090 6.38% 27 0 27 1437 27 0 27 1527 773 66.4% C32.2 76 68056B CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate PwkyGolden Gate Main Canal 4D 607 D N 2,300 1250 1260 1370 110 8.73% 53 162 215 1475 55 162 217 1587 713 69.0% C32.3 76 68056B CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate Main Canal I-758D 607 E N 3,600 1250 1260 1370 110 8.73% 55 258 313 1573 66 258 324 1694 1906 47.1% B33.0 61 60092 SR951 Collier BoulevardI-75Davis Boulevard8D 573 E N 3,600 2810 2820 2960 140 4.96% 12 347 359 3179 13 277 290 3250 350 90.3% D202434.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier BoulevardDavis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 1490 1400 1660 260 18.57% 141 377 518 1918 209 297 5062166 834 72.2% C35.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 603 E N 3,200 1770 1860 190040 2.15% 102 245 347 2207 195 143 338 2238 962 69.9% C36.1 12 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Wal-Mart Driveway6D 557 E N 2,500 1581 1500 153030 2.00% 26 183 209 1709 111 127 238 1768732 70.7% C36.2 SR951 Collier BoulevardWal-Mart DrivewayManatee Road4D 557 D N 2,000 1734 1769 1530(239) -13.49%29 108 137 1906 123 104 227 1757 243 87.9% D202637.0 12 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardManatee RoadMainsail Drive4D 627 D N 2,200 1560 1670 1770 100 5.99% 0 103 103 1773 68 103 171 1941 259 88.2% D202438.0 51 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardMainsail DriveMarco Island Bridge4D 627 D N 2,200 1560 1670 1770 100 5.99% 0 31 31 1701 0 31 31 1801 399 81.9% D202839.0 64 99901 CR846 111th Avenue N.Gulfshore DriveVanderbilt Drive2U 585 D E 700 300 300 3066 2.00% 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 306 394 43.7% B40.0 1 60031 CR846 111th Avenue N.Vanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 613 D E 900 430 430 4399 2.09% 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 439 461 48.8% B41.1 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 566 E W 3,100 1910 2010 208070 3.48% 41 0 41 2051 175 0 175 2255 845 72.7% C41.2 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadGoodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 625 E E 3,100 2520 2570 263060 2.33% 41 0 41 2611 45 0 45 2675 425 86.3% D 2023 202342.1 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road6D 567 E W 3,100 2790 2790 2900 110 3.94% 5 0 5 2795 7 0 7 2907 193 93.8% D 2022 202242.2 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadLivingston RoadI-756D/8D 679 E E 3,500 2460 2460 2580 120 4.88% 29 0 29 2489 49 0 49 2629 871 75.1% D43.1 8 66045 CR846 Immokalee RoadI-75Logan Boulevard6D/8D 568 E E 3,500 2410 2458 2390(68) -2.77%176 169 345 2803 410 170 580 2970 530 84.9% D202643.2 CR846 Immokalee RoadLogan BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 656 E E 3,200 1960 1980 202040 2.02% 228 357 585 2565 741 251 992 3012 188 94.1% D202144.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee RoadCollier BoulevardWilson Boulevard6D 674 E E 3,300 1620 1620 1770 150 9.26% 282 265 547 2167 633 216 849 2619 681 79.4% D45.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee RoadWilson BoulevardOil Well Road6D 675 E E 3,300 1830 1890 2020 130 6.88% 224 205 429 2319 296 93 389 2409 891 73.0% C46.0 73 60165 CR846 Immokalee RoadOil Well RoadSR 292U 672 D E 900 370 390 41020 5.13% 29 102 131 521 122 46 168 578 322 64.2% C47.0 66 99903 Lake Trafford Road Carson RdSR 292U 609 D E 800 470 470 50030 6.38% 38 0 38 508 47 4 51 551 249 68.9% C48.0 60166 Logan BoulevardVanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road2U 587 D N 1,000 610 710 670(40) -5.63%16 19 35 745 14 19 33 703 297 70.3% C49.0 22 68051 Logan BoulevardPine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard4D 588 D S 1,900 1410 1570 161040 2.55% 0 0 0 1570 0 0 0 1610 290 84.7% D 2023 202350.0 79 60166 Logan BoulevardImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 644 D N 1,000 590 560 57010 1.79% 0 30 30 590 29 30 59 629 371 62.9% C51.0 21 65041 CR881 Livingston RoadImperial StreetImmokalee Road6/4D 673 D N 3,000 1160 1180 126080 6.78% 99 0 99 1279 61 0 61 1321 1679 44.0% B52.0 57 62071 CR881 Livingston RoadImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 576 E N 3,1001610 1610 164030 1.86% 38 0 38 1648 28 0 28 1668 1432 53.8% C53.0 58 62071 CR881 Livingston RoadVanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road6D 575 E S 3,1001450 1480 149010 0.68% 18 0 18 1498 4 0 4 1494 1606 48.2% B54.0 52 60071 CR881 Livingston RoadPine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway6D 690 E N 3,100 1470 1470 153060 4.08% 34 0 34 1504 46 0 46 1576 1524 50.8% B55.0 53 60061 CR881 Livingston RoadGolden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 687 E N 3,000 1220 1270 133060 4.72% 39 0 39 1309 8 0 8 1338 1662 44.6% B58.0 67 99904 N. 1st StreetNew Market RoadSR-29 (Main Street)2U 590 D N 900 550 590 63040 6.78% 0 0 0 590 18 8 26 656 244 72.9% C59.0 New Market RoadBroward StreetSR 292U 612 D E 900 520 570 59020 3.51% 0 0 0 570 10 5 15 605 295 67.2% C61.0 36 Camp KeaisOil Well RoadImmokalee Road2U 626A D S 1,000 220 190 26070 36.84% 0 108 108 298 132 72 204 464 536 46.4% B62.0 68 99905 CR887 Old US 41Lee County LineUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 547 D N 1,000 960 1050 107020 1.90% 37 0 37 1087 40 0 40 1110(110)111.0% F Existing ExistingMASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm
Page 14 of 26211.C.aPacket Pg. 429Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor
2016 2017 20182017 20172017 2018Traffic 1/7th TripPeak Hour Peak Peak Peak2018 20182017 1/7thVer. B2018 1/7th 1/7th TBCount BankPeak Dir Hour Hour Hour Actual Percent2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB2018 L Year YearExist Cnt. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation VariationTrip Trip Trip2017Trip Trip Trip2018 Remain.1/7th TBO Expected ExpectedID# CIE# Proj# Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std Dir Volume Volume Volume Volume To Volume To VolumeBank Bank BankVolumeBank Bank BankVolume Capacity V/C S Deficient Deficient45 45 5463.099924 CR896 Seagate DriveCrayton RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 4D 511 D E 1,700 970 970 106090 9.28% 0 0 0 970 0 0 0 1060 640 62.4% C64.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 512 E E 2,800 1870 1860 1990 130 6.99% 6 0 6 1866 6 0 6 1996 804 71.3% C65.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadGoodlette-Frank Road Shirley Street6D 514 E W 2,800 1940 1970 198010 0.51% 1 0 1 1971 6 0 6 1986 814 70.9% C66.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadShirley StreetAirport Road6D 515 E E 2,800 2250 2390 247080 3.35% 52 0 52 2442 24 0 24 2494 306 89.1% D202467.1 41 60111 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road6D 526 E E 3,000 2660 2550 261060 2.35% 35 0 35 2585 29 0 29 2639 361 88.0% D202567.2 41 60111 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadLivingston RoadI-756D 628 E E 3,000 2950 2990 303040 1.34% 103 0 103 3093 112 0 112 3142(142)104.7% F Existing Existing68.0 41 99907 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadI-75Logan Boulevard6D 600 E E 2,800 2130 2120 219070 3.30% 1 0 1 2121 1 0 1 2191 609 78.3% D69.0 15 65032 CR856 Radio RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road4D 544 D E 1,800 1120 1180 11800 0.00% 15 0 15 1195 3 0 3 1183 617 65.7% C70.0 15 65033 CR856 Radio RoadLivingston RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 527 D E 1,800 1110 1130 117040 3.54% 26 0 26 1156 6 0 6 1176 624 65.3% C71.0 16 65031 CR856 Radio RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard4D 685 D W 1,800 580 630 64010 1.59% 0 85 85 715 57 85 142 782 1018 43.4% B72.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Charlemagne Boulevard 4D 516 D W 1,800 1010 1010 103020 1.98% 0 55 55 1065 132 11143 1173 627 65.2% C73.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Charlemagne Boulevard County Barn Road4D 517 D W 1,800 700 740 83090 12.16% 0 48 48 788 108 11 119 949 851 52.7% B74.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road County Barn RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 534 D W 1,900 670 700 76060 8.57% 0 40 40 740 69 18 87 847 1053 44.6% B75.0 77 60169 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard6D 518 E W 2,900 490 490 53040 8.16% 56 115 171 661 95 75 170 700 2200 24.1% B76.0 56 62081BSanta Barbara Boulevard Green BoulevardGolden Gate Parkway4D 529 D N 2,100 1240 1270 1240(30) -2.36%0 0 0 1270 0 0 0 1240 860 59.0% C77.0 56 62081ASanta Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 528 E N 3,100 1780 1810 188070 3.87% 54 0 54 1864 54 0 54 1934 1166 62.4% C78.0 56 62081ASanta Barbara Boulevard Radio RoadDavis Boulevard6D 537 E N 3,100 1290 1350 1450 100 7.41% 213 0 213 1563 221 0 221 1671 1429 53.9% C79.0Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis BoulevardRattlesnake-Hammock Road 6D 702 E S 3,100 930 890 95060 6.74% 112 0 112 1002 139 0 139 1089 2011 35.1% B80.0SR29 SR 29US 41 (Tamiami Trail) CR 837 (Janes Scenic Dr) 2U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%0 0 0 150 0 0 0 130 770 14.4% B81.0SR29 SR 29CR 837 (Janes Scenic Dr) I-752U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%0 0 0 150 0 0 0 130 770 14.4% B82.0SR29 SR 29I-75Oil Well Road2U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%8 61 69 219 51 34 85 215 685 23.9% B83.0SR29 SR 29Oil Well RoadCR 29A South2U 665A D N 900 380 410 4100 0.00% 0 0 0 410 54 30 84 494 406 54.9% C84.0SR29 SR 29CR 29A South9th Street4D 664 D W 1,700 600 600 62020 3.33% 12 0 12 612 94 37 131 751 949 44.2% B85.0SR29 SR 299th StreetCR 29A North2U 663 D S 900 620 620 63010 1.61% 21 0 21 641 72 24 96 726 174 80.7% D86.0SR29 SR 29CR 29A NorthSR 822U 663 D S 900 620 620 63010 1.61% 0 0 0 620 50 23 73 703 197 78.1% D87.0SR29 SR 29Hendry County LineSR 822U 591A D S 800 350 360 37010 2.78% 0 0 0 360 7 4 11 381 419 47.6% B88.0SR82 SR 82Lee County LineSR 292U 661A D S 800 710 650 74090 13.85% 8 0 8 658 41 17 58 798 2 99.8% E 2022 201991.0 43US41 Tamiami Trail EastDavis BoulevardAirport Road6D 545 E E 2,900 1580 1700 1920 220 12.94% 23 47 70 1770 124 2 126 2046 854 70.6% C92.0 47US41 Tamiami Trail EastAirport RoadRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 604 E E 2,900 2240 2300 2460 160 6.96% 13 248 261 2561 281 92 373 2833 67 97.7% E202093.0 46US41 Tamiami Trail EastRattlesnake Hammock Road Triangle Boulevard6D 572 E E 3,000 1960 1860 194080 4.30% 15 329 344 2204 474 158 632 2572428 85.7% D 94.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastTriangle BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 571 E E 3,000 1510 1620 170080 4.94% 0 203 203 1823 325 117 442 2142 858 71.4% C 95.1US41 Tamiami Trail EastCollier BoulevardJoseph Lane6D 608 D E 3,100 670 770 990 220 28.57% 134 107 241 1011 534 30 564 1554 1546 50.1% B95.2US41 Tamiami Trail EastJoseph LaneGreenway Road4D 608 D E 2,000 670 770 990 220 28.57% 53 102 155 925 53 93 146 1136 864 56.8% C95.3US41 Tamiami Trail EastGreenway RoadSan Marco Drive2U 608 D E 1,075 670 770 990 220 28.57% 53 4 57 827 84 1 85 1075 0 100.0% F 2021 201996.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastSan Marco DriveSR 292U 617A D E 1,000 140 240 200(40) -16.67%0 0 0 240 0 0 0 200 800 20.0% B97.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastSR 29Dade County Line2U 616A D E 1,000 150 210 170(40) -19.05%0 0 0 210 0 0 0 170 830 17.0% B98.0 71US41 Tamiami Trail North Lee County LineWiggins Pass Road6D 546 E N 3,100 1990 2090 2250 160 7.66% 97 8 105 2195 59 8 67 2317 783 74.7% C99.0 50US41 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass RoadImmokalee Road6D 564 E N 3,100 2560 2890 3000 110 3.81% 29 8 37 2927 26 8 34 3034 66 97.9% E 2020 2020100.0 45US41 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 577 E N 3,1002280 2320 1920(400) -17.24%18 0 18 2338 16 0 16 1936 1164 62.5% C101.0 45US41 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive6D 563 E N 3,1002300 2330 2460 130 5.58% 3 0 3 2333 1 0 1 2461 639 79.4% D102.0US41 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park DrivePine Ridge Road6D 562 E N 3,100 1860 1900 2010 110 5.79% 2 0 2 1902 2 0 2 2012 1088 64.9% C108.0Thomasson DriveBayshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 698 D E 800 490 500 51010 2.00% 41 53 94 594 105 4 109 619 181 77.4% D109.0 42 65071 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U/4D 524 E E 1,400 910 990 9900 0.00% 0 0 0 990 0 0 0 990 410 70.7% C110.1 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road4D 646 D E 1,9001480 1540 1410(130) -8.44%0 0 0 1540 7 0 7 1417 483 74.6% C110.2 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road4D/6D 666 D E 2,5001700 1760 1750(10) -0.57%0 0 0 1760 7 0 7 1757 743 70.3% C111.1 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 579 E W 3,0001850 1910 196050 2.62% 0 0 0 1910 4 0 4 1964 1036 65.5% C111.2 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston RoadLogan Blvd.6D 668 E E 3,0002000 2150 2070(80) -3.72%82 0 82 2232 71 0 71 2141 859 71.4% C112.0 24 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Logan BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 580 E E 3,0001230 1530 1690 160 10.46% 260 2 262 1792 256 2 258 1948 1052 64.9% C114.0 25 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt DriveBonita Beach RoadWiggins Pass Road2U 548 D N 1,000 420 440 4499 2.05% 3 32 35 475 3 32 35 484 516 48.4% B115.0 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt DriveWiggins Pass Road111th Avenue2U 578 D N 1,000 440 440 4499 2.05% 3 13 16 456 3 13 16 465 535 46.5% B116.0 26 69021Westclox RoadCarson RoadSR 292U 611 D W 800 220 210 2100 0.00% 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 210 590 26.3% B117.0 99928 CR888 Wiggins Pass RoadVanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 669 D E 1,000 400 430 4399 2.09% 3 13 16 446 17 13 30 469 531 46.9% B118.0Wilson BlvdImmokalee RoadGolden Gate Boulevard 2U 650 D S 900 320 320 34020 6.25% 24 0 24 344 0 0 0 340 560 37.8% B119.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well RoadImmokalee RoadEverglades Boulevard4D 725S D E 2,000 600 700 850 150 21.43% 117 216 333 1033 225 62 287 1137 863 56.9%C120.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well RoadEverglades Boulevard Desoto Boulevard2U 694 D W 1,100 280 280 35070 25.00% 13 210 223 503 137 72 209 559 541 50.8% B121.1Oil Well RoadDeSoto BoulevardOil Well Grade2U 694 D W 1,100 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 209 209 489 124 62 186 536 564 48.7% B121.2Oil Well RoadOil Well GradeAve Maria Blvd4D 694 D W 2,000 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 209 209 489 124 62 186 536 1464 26.8% B122.0Oil Well RoadAve Maria BlvdSR 292U 694 D W 800 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 65 65 345 116 54 170 520 280 65.0% C123.0 60040Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard18th Street NE/SE4U 652 D E 2,300 1080 1102 119088 8.02% 0 0 0 1102 10 5 15 1205 1095 52.4% B123.1 60040Golden Gate Boulevard 18th Street NE/SEEverglades Boulevard2U 4D652 D E 2,300 1080 1102 1190 88 8.02% 0 0 0 1102 0 5 5 1195 1105 52.0% B124.0 60040Golden Gate Boulevard Everglades Boulevard DeSoto Boulevard2U Manual D E 1,010 218 223 2274 1.96% 0 0 0 223 0 0 0 227 783 22.5% B125.0CR896 Pine Ridge RoadLogan BoulevardCollier Boulevard4D 535 D E 2,400 1290 1320 134020 1.52% 1 7 8 1328 0 7 7 1347 1053 56.1% C132.0Randall BoulevardImmokalee RoadEverglades Boulevard2U 651 D E 900 850 870 820(50) -5.75%42 36 78 948 24 16 40 860 40 95.6% E 2023 2021133.0Randall BoulevardEverglades Boulevard DeSoto Boulevard2U Manual D E 900 614 626 63913 2.02% 0 20 20 646 0 0 0 639 261 71.0% C134.0Everglades Boulevard I-75Golden Gate Blvd2U 637S D S 800 410 430 45020 4.65% 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 450 350 56.3% C135.0Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road2U 636S D N 800 310 280 31030 10.71% 16 20 36 316 36 9 45 355 445 44.4% B136.0Everglades Boulevard Oil Well RoadImmokalee Road2U 635S D N 800 390 410 45040 9.76% 0 0 0 410 0 0 0 450 350 56.3% C137.0DeSoto BoulevardI-75Golden Gate Boulevard 2U 639A D S 800 140 140 15010 7.14% 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 150 650 18.8% B138.0DeSoto BoulevardGolden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road2U 638A D S 800 100 100 11010 10.00% 0 0 0 100 8 0 8 118 682 14.8% B142.0Orange Blossom Drive Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road2D 647 D W 1,200 600 540 400(140) -25.93%19 0 19 559 19 0 19 419 781 34.9% B143.0Orange Blossom Drive Airport RoadLivingston Road2U 647 D W 1,000 600 540 400(140) -25.93%40 0 40 580 46 0 46 446 554 44.6% B144.0Shadowlawn DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Davis Boulevard2U 523 D N 800 230 230 2300 0.00% 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 570 28.8% BMASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm
Page 15 of 26211.C.aPacket Pg. 430Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor
Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor Study ‐ Network Alternative AnalysisAreaRoadway No‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Type 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SV Vol/Cap LOSRandall BlvdImmokalee Rd to 8th St 27713 47684 37502 37483 37511 U 27436 4 35820 0.77 C 47207 6 53910 0.88 C 37127 6 53910 0.69 C 37108 6 53910 0.69 C 37136 6 53910 0.69 C8th St to 16th St 26040 52082 41266 41344 41225 U 25780 2 15930 1.62 F 51561 6 53910 0.96 C 40853 6 53910 0.76 C 40931 6 53910 0.76 C 40813 6 53910 0.76 C16th St to "S" Connector17004 40372 27603 27478 27628 U 16834 2 15930 1.06 F 39968 6 53910 0.74 C 27327 6 53910 0.51 C 27203 6 53910 0.50 C 27352 6 53910 0.51 C"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 17004 23532 27603 27478 27628 U 16834 2 15930 1.06 F 23297 4 35820 0.65 C 27327 6 53910 0.51 C 27203 6 53910 0.50 C 27352 6 53910 0.51 CEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 13763 18458 19252 19220 19250 T 13625 2 14580 0.93 D 18273 4 31950 0.57 C 19059 6 48150 0.40 C 19028 6 48150 0.40 C 19058 6 48150 0.40 CDesoto Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 13917 14402 14397 14403 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 13778 4 31950 0.43 C 14258 6 48150 0.30 C 14253 6 48150 0.30 C 14259 6 48150 0.30 COil Well RdImokallee Rd to "S" Connector38073 22684 34496 34530 34435 U 37692 4 35820 1.05 F 22457 4 35820 0.63 C 34151 4 35820 0.95 D 34185 4 35820 0.95 D 34091 4 35820 0.95 C"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 37190 37496 32751 32942 32683 T 36818 4 31950 1.15 F 37121 6 48150 0.77 C 32423 4 31950 1.01 F 32613 4 31950 1.02 F 32356 4 31950 1.01 FEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 30895 31179 30036 30529 30041 T 30586 6 48150 0.64 C 30867 6 48150 0.64 C 29736 6 48150 0.62 C 30224 6 48150 0.63 C 29741 6 48150 0.62 CDesoto Blvd to Randall Blvd Ext 29861 28238 29158 29155 29155 T 29562 6 48150 0.61 C 27956 6 48150 0.58 C 28866 6 48150 0.60 C 28863 6 48150 0.60 C 28863 6 48150 0.60 CRandall Blvd Ext to Oil Well Grade Rd 32871 34341 33905 33903 33904 T 32542 6 48150 0.68 C 33998 6 48150 0.71 C 33566 6 48150 0.70 C 33564 6 48150 0.70 C 33565 6 48150 0.70 CEverglades BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 9569 5598 11270 11111 11334 T 9473 2 14580 0.65 C 5542 2 14580 0.38 C 11157 4 35500 0.31 C 11000 4 31950 0.34 C 11221 6 48150 0.23 CDesoto BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 8691 4584 4761 5296 4761 T 8604 2 14580 0.59 C 4538 2 14580 0.31 C 4713 2 14580 0.32 C 5243 4 31950 0.16 C 4713 2 14580 0.32 C"S" ConnectorRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 19557 n/a n/a n/a T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21513 4 35820 0.60 C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNotes: LOS D Service Volume source: FDOT Gerernalized Annual Average Daily Volume Tables (12/18/2012), Table 1 (Urban), Table 2 (Transitioning)2045 AADT = 2040 PSWT * 90% MOCF * 110%Below Level of Service (LOS) TargetVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > .80Alternative 42040 PSWT Volumes No‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 311.C.aPacket Pg. 431Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor Study ‐ Network Alternative AnalysisAreaRoadway No‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Type 2045 DDHV Lanes PHPD SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 DDHV Lanes PHPD SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 DDHV Lanes PHPD SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 DDHV Lanes PHPD SV Vol/Cap LOS 2045 DDHV Lanes PHPD SV Vol/Cap LOSRandall BlvdImmokalee Rd to 8th St1372 2361 1857 1856 1857 U 1358 4 2000 0.68 C 2337 6 3000 0.78 D 1838 6 3000 0.61 C 1837 6 3000 0.61 C 1838 6 3000 0.61 C8th St to 16th St1289 2579 2043 2047 2041 U 1276 2 900 1.42 F 2553 6 3000 0.85 D 2023 6 3000 0.67 C 2027 6 3000 0.68 C 2021 6 3000 0.67 C16th St to "S" Connector842 1999 1367 1361 1368 U 834 2 900 0.93 D 1979 6 3000 0.66 C 1353 6 3000 0.45 B 1347 6 3000 0.45 B 1354 6 3000 0.45 B"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 842 1165 1367 1361 1368 U 834 2 900 0.93 D 1153 4 2000 0.58 C 1353 6 3000 0.45 B 1347 6 3000 0.45 B 1354 6 3000 0.45 BEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 682 914 953 952 953 T 675 2 900 0.75 D 905 4 2000 0.45 B 943 6 3000 0.31 B 942 6 3000 0.31 B 943 6 3000 0.31 BDesoto Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 689 713 713 713 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 682 4 2000 0.34 B 706 6 3000 0.24 B 706 6 3000 0.24 B 706 6 3000 0.24 BOil Well RdImokallee Rd to "S" Connector1885 1123 1708 1710 1705 U 1866 4 2000 0.93 D 1112 4 2000 0.56 C 1691 4 2000 0.85 D 1693 4 2000 0.85 D 1688 4 2000 0.84 D"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 1841 1857 1622 1631 1618 T 1823 4 2000 0.91 D 1838 6 3000 0.61 C 1606 4 2000 0.80 D 1615 4 2000 0.81 D 1602 4 2000 0.80 DEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 1530 1544 1487 1512 1488 T 1515 6 3000 0.50 C 1529 6 3000 0.51 C 1472 6 3000 0.49 B 1497 6 3000 0.50 B 1473 6 3000 0.49 BDesoto Blvd to Randall Blvd Ext 1479 1398 1444 1444 1444 T 1464 6 3000 0.49 C 1384 6 3000 0.46 C 1430 6 3000 0.48 B 1430 6 3000 0.48 B 1430 6 3000 0.48 BRandall Blvd Ext to Oil Well Grade Rd 1628 1700 1679 1679 1679 T 1612 6 3000 0.54 C 1683 6 3000 0.56 C 1662 6 3000 0.55 C 1662 6 3000 0.55 C 1662 6 3000 0.55 CEverglades BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 474 278 558 550 562 T 469 2 800 0.59 C 275 2 800 0.34 B 552 4 2000 0.28 B 545 4 2000 0.27 B 556 6 3000 0.19 BDesoto BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 431 227 236 263 236 T 427 2 800 0.53 C 225 2 800 0.28 B 234 2 800 0.29 B 260 4 2000 0.13 B 234 2 800 0.29 B"S" ConnectorRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 969 n/a n/a n/a T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1066 4 2000 0.53 C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNotes: Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume source: Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report DDHV = PSWT * 9% K * 55% D * 0.9 MOCF * 110%LOS BVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) < =.49LOS CVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > .50LOS DVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > .75LOS EVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > .95LOS FVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > 1.00Alternative 42040 PSWT *9% K *55% DNo‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 311.C.aPacket Pg. 432Attachment: Draft 1 - Randall Report (8565 : Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor Study)
May 2019
Prepared for
Draft Corridor AlternativesAnalysis Report
D R A FT
Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report
for the
Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road
Corridor Study
Prepared for
Collier County
April 25, 2019, Revised May 3, 2019
JACOBS ENGINEERING
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 505
Naples, Florida 34108
SL0331171122ORL iii
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. vii
Project Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study ............................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Project Needs ................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3.1 Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment (May 2018) ............................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Growth and Existing Development ..................................................................... 1-4
1.3.3 Traffic Demand ................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.4 Mobility ............................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3.5 Safety .................................................................................................................. 1-9
1.3.6 Enhance Emergency Evacuation ....................................................................... 1-10
1.4 Alternatives Development ............................................................................................. 1-11
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Traffic Characteristics ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Roadway/Functional Classification ..................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 Typical Sections ................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.4 Existing Area Transit ........................................................................................... 2-4
2.1.5 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ...................................................................... 2-6
2.1.6 Drainage and Hydrology ..................................................................................... 2-7
2.1.7 Geotechnical ....................................................................................................... 2-8
2.1.8 Crash Data and Safety Analysis ........................................................................... 2-8
2.1.9 Intersection Layout ............................................................................................. 2-9
2.1.10 Lighting.............................................................................................................. 2-12
2.1.11 Existing Structures ............................................................................................ 2-12
2.2 Environmental Conditions ............................................................................................. 2-13
2.2.1 Social Environment ........................................................................................... 2-13
2.2.3 Natural Environment ........................................................................................ 2-25
2.2.4 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 2-32
Corridor Alternatives Development .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Evaluation Analysis and Criteria....................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Typical Sections ................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.3.1 Four-Lane Cross-Section ..................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Four-Lane Cross-Section (expandable to Six-Lane) ............................................ 3-3
3.3.3 Six-Lane Cross-Section ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.4 Bridges ................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.4 Traffic Circulation Plan ..................................................................................................... 3-5
Initial Alternatives............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Alternative 1 – New Alignment “S-Connector” ............................................................... 4-1
4.2 Alternative 2 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 4-Lane Everglades Boulevard ................ 4-3
4.3 Alternative 3 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 4-Lane Everglades Boulevard and 4-Lane
DeSoto Boulevard ............................................................................................................ 4-3
4.4 Alternative 4 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 6-Lane Everglades Boulevard ................ 4-4
4.5 No Build Alternative ......................................................................................................... 4-5
CONTENTS
SL0331171122ORL iv
4.6 Evaluation Matrix of Initial Alternatives .......................................................................... 4-6
4.7 Selection of Viable Alternatives ....................................................................................... 4-9
Viable Corridor Alternatives Evaluation ............................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Transportation System Management & Operations ....................................................... 5-1
5.2 Viable Alternative 1 – New Alignment “S-Connector” .................................................... 5-1
5.3 Viable Alternative 2 – 4-Lane Everglades Boulevard ....................................................... 5-2
5.4 Evaluation Matrix of Viable Alternatives ......................................................................... 5-3
5.5 Viable Alternative 2 Plus Future Network ....................................................................... 5-4
5.6 Traffic Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5-5
5.7 Purpose and Need Evaluation .......................................................................................... 5-8
Recommended Alternative .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Recommended Alternative Potential Impacts ................................................................. 6-2
6.1.1 Social Resources .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.2 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 6-3
6.1.3 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.4 Physical Impacts .................................................................................................. 6-8
Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Public and Agency Outreach ............................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.1 Project Website .................................................................................................. 7-2
7.2 Summary of Public and Agency Input .............................................................................. 7-2
7.2.1 Kickoff Public Meeting #1 (March 22, 2017)....................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Initial Alternatives Public Meeting #2 (May 24, 2018) ....................................... 7-3
7.2.3 Viable Alternatives Public Meeting #3 (April 11, 2019) ...................................... 7-3
Next Steps........................................................................................................................................ 8-1
Appendices (under separate cover)
A Collier MPO LRTP Excerpts
B Traffic
C Desktop Cultural Resource Assessment and Windshield Survey
D Natural Resources Technical Memorandum
E Potential Utilities
F Noise Study Technical Memorandum
G Viable Alternative Costs
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Travel Time to Work .................................................................................................................. 1-9
Table 2-1. Existing Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 2-1
Table 2-2. Existing Roadway Classifications ............................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-3. Existing Horizontal Alignment Data .......................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-4. Neighborhoods ........................................................................................................................ 2-15
Table 2-5. Planned Developments in Study Area ..................................................................................... 2-16
Table 2-6. Community Focal Points ......................................................................................................... 2-18
Table 2-7. Study Area Block Groups 2017 Census Data ........................................................................... 2-21
Table 2-8. Historic Resources Within Project Area .................................................................................. 2-23
Table 2-9. Archaeological Resources Within Project Area ..................................................................... 2-2 3
CONTENTS
SL0331171122ORL v
Table 2-10. Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Wildlife Species in the Study Area ................... 2-30
Table 3-1. Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 4-1. Alternative 1 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2. Alternative 2 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-3. Alternative 3 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-4. Alternative 4 – Benefits & Limitations ...................................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-5. No Build Alternative – Benefits & Limitations .......................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-6. Initial Alternatives Comparative Matrix .................................................................................... 4-7
Table 5-1. Viable Alternative 1 – Benefits & Limitations When Compared to Viable Alternative 2 .......... 5-2
Table 5-2. Viable Alternative 2 – Benefits & Limitations When Compared to Viable Alternative 1 .......... 5-3
Table 5-4. Viable Alternatives Comparative Matrix ................................................................................... 5-4
Table 5-3. Purpose and Need Evaluation ................................................................................................... 5-9
Table 6-1. Potential Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative ......................................................................... 6-9
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................ 1-1
Figure 1-2. Project Location Map ............................................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-3. Rural Lands West Location Map .............................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-4. Northern Golden Gate Rural Estates Parcels ........................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-5. Study Area Existing Level of Service ........................................................................................ 1-6
Figure 1-6. Study Area Road Network (without canals) ............................................................................ 1-8
Figure 1-7. Collier County Evacuation Zones ........................................................................................... 1-11
Figure 2-1. Existing 4-Lane Oil Well Road Typical Section ......................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. Proposed SunTrail Alignments and Spine Pathway Corridors ................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-3. Existing Everglades 6-Lane Typical Section .............................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-4. Existing 2-Lane Typical Section ................................................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-5. CAT Route 19 ........................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-6. CAT Route 28 ........................................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-7. Randall Boulevard Crash Intensity ........................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-8. Oil Well Road Crash Intensity .................................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 2-9. Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard Intersection ............................................................ 2-9
Figure 2-10. Oil Well Road and DeSoto Boulevard Intersection .............................................................. 2-10
Figure 2-11. Randall Boulevard and 16th Street NE Intersection ............................................................ 2-10
Figure 2-12. Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard Intersection ................................................. 2-11
Figure 2-13. Randall Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard Intersection ...................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-14. Existing Bridge Typical Section - Oil Well Road Over Golden Gate Canal ............................ 2-13
Figure 2-15. Existing 2-Lane Bridge Typical Section ................................................................................. 2-13
Figure 2-16. Existing Land Use Map ......................................................................................................... 2-14
Figure 2-17. Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map ............................................................................. 2-15
Figure 2-18. Planned Developments and Neighborhoods........................................................................ 2-1 7
Figure 2-19. Social/Environment Focal Points Map.................................................................................. 2-2 0
Figure 2-20. Census Demographics........................................................................................................... 2-2 2
Table 7-1. Public Meetings Summary .........................................................................................................7-1
Table 7-2. Summary of Public and Agency Opportunity ........................................................................... 7-2
CONTENTS
SL0331171122ORL vi
Figure 3-1. Proposed 4-Lane Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter) ................................................ 3-3
Figure 3-2. Proposed 4-Lane Typical Section – Expandable 6-Lanes (Urban with Curb & Gutter) ............ 3-3
Figure 3-3. Proposed 6-Lanes Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter) .............................................. 3-4
Figure 3-4. Proposed Bridge Typical Sections ............................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-5. Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 4-1. Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
Figure 4-2. Alternative 1 New Alignment Access Options ......................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-3. Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................ 4-3
Figure 4-4. Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................ 4-4
Figure 4-5. Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-6. Initial Alternatives 2045 Traffic Analysis .................................................................................. 4-8
Figure 5-1. Viable Alternative 1 New Alignment........................................................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2. Viable Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................. 5-3
Figure 5-3. Viable Alternative 2 Plus Future Roadway Network ................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-4. Traffic Analysis 2045 Viable Alternatives................................................................................. 5-7
Figure 2-21. Cultural Resources Map ....................................................................................................... 2-24
Figure 2-22. Wetlands Map...................................................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-23. Species Map ......................................................................................................................... 2-29
SL0331171122ORL vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADT Annual average daily traffic
AUIR Annual Update and Inventory Report
CR County Road
F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FIRES Florida’s Integrated Report Exchange System
FLUCCS Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System
FMSF Florida Master Site File
FWC Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
LOS level of service
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
ROW right of way
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
T&E Threatened and Endangered
TSM&O Transportation System Management and Operations
UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
V/C Volume capacity ratio
vpd vehicle per day
SL0331171122ORL 1-1
SECTION 1
Project Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
Collier County initiated the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study) to evaluate
potential roadway network improvements near Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road in Collier County,
Florida. The study is located in northern Collier County, east of I-75. Figure 1-1 presents the Regional
Location Map.
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map
The Study involves the evaluation of potential improvements to existing Randall Boulevard, Oil Well
Road, DeSoto Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, as well as potential corridors on a new alignment.
Figure 1-2 presents the Project Location Map. The study process involves the development of
alternatives, a comparative evaluation of the social and environmental effects and the overall cost of
each option.
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-2
Figure 1-2. Project Location Map
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
approved in December 2015, identified the following facilities with a high degree of future congestion:
• Randall Boulevard east of Immokalee Road (CR 846)
• Oil Well Road between Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Grade Road
Appendix A presents the Forecasted 2040 Highway Congestion map from the LRTP. During the
development of the Needs Plan for the LRTP, this Study was identified to better define the most
appropriate multi-lane improvements and/or new roadway within the study area. Two potential
alignments were identified in the LRTP:
• Widen Randall Boulevard to 6‐lanes along the existing corridor from Immokalee Road to DeSoto
Boulevard and then extends a new segment in a north‐easterly direction to interconnect to Oil
Well Road at or near Oil Well Grade Road intersection. Oil Well Road from Everglades Boulevard
to Oil Well Grade Road would then be widened to 4‐lanes to complete the network
improvements.
• Widen Randall Boulevard to 6‐lanes along the existing alignment from Immokalee Road for a
distance of approximately two miles, and then establish a reverse curve alignment north to
connect to Oil Well Road at a point west of Everglades Boulevard. From that point eastward,
Everglades Boulevard would be 6‐lanes to Oil Well Grade Road. In the future it would be
necessary to widen Randall Boulevard to 4‐lanes either to Everglades Boulevard or DeSoto
Boulevard.
This Study considers traffic operation improvements such as roundabouts, grade separated overpasses,
frontage roadways, access management, and new traffic signal locations for the recommended
alternative.
1.3 Project Needs
The purpose of the project is to develop an east-west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. Without the
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-3
proposed improvements, Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are projected to be highly congested
before the year 2045.
Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are parallel east-west routes. They serve as a primary connection
to Immokalee Road (CR 846) for the existing and future developments of Orangetree, northern Golden
Gate Estates, rural residential areas, and future planned development. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is
categorized as a Freight Distribution Route and a High Crash Corridor in the Collier 2040 LRTP a and is
also a designated emergency evacuation route. The roadway is critical in facilitating movement of local
and regional traffic (including truck traffic) in northern Collier County. Additionally, Immokalee Road
(CR 846) is one of three east-west connections to I-75 in Collier County and is the only east-west
connection from I-75 in northern Collier County that connects to northeastern Collier County.
The needs of the project are to:
• Reduce congestion for future traffic needs due to population and employment growth
• Enhance regional mobility and access between I-75 and eastern Collier County, as well as
improve freight (truck), transit, bicycle and pedestrian access
• Improve safety by reducing vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian user conflicts
• Improve emergency evacuation by increasing the number of residents from eastern Collier
County that can be evacuated and access times for emergency responders
1.3.1 Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Amendment (May 2018)
The Collier MPO LRTP was amended May 25, 2018 to consider transportation needs resulting from a
reallocation of population and employment growth within the limits of the proposed Rural Lands West
Stewardship Receiving Area. The development proposes approximately 4,000 acres of residential and
nonresidential mixed-use development with a town center. Figure 1-3 is an excerpt from the amended
LRTP showing the Rural Lands West Stewardship Receiving Area in eastern Collier County.
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (shown in Appendix A) is approximately 185,000 acres
surrounding the Immokalee area and includes the proposed Rural Lands West development b. In 2002,
Collier County developed Stewardship Receiving Areas and Stewardship Sending Areas within the
Overlay to encourage development on lands that are less sensitive and better suited for development.
The amended LRTP further states that through the evaluation of the transportation needs using the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic model, District 1 Regional Planning Model, a list of
additional transportation needs was identified in 2018. Based on the prioritization of all projects in the
2040 needs assessment (listed in the amended LRTP Appendix), a revised 2040 Cost Feasible Plan was
developed that included the widening of Oil Well Road (Priority Number 25) and Randall Boulevard
(Priority Numbers 16, 65, and 74), as well as extending Randall Boulevard (Priority Number 75) within
the study area. The revised 2040 Needs Plan was developed to include the Big Cypress Parkway (new
4-lane). The Cost Feasible Plan from the amended Collier MPO 2040 LRTP is presented in Appendix A.
a Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report. December 2015. Figure 4-5 & 4-6. Accessed on Dec. 13, 2018 from
http://www.colliermpo.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7725
b https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-
restudy
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-4
Figure 1-3. Rural Lands West Location Map
1.3.2 Growth and Existing Development
The need for additional operational capacity in the study area is based upon increased congestion and
travel demand expected from population and employment growth within the project area and Collier
County. Based on socioeconomic data c for Collier County:
• Population is projected to grow by 57% from approximately 316,000 in 2010 to 497,000 in 2040.
(annual growth rate of 1.68% based on growth between 2010 to 2017).
• Employment is projected to grow by 41% from 170,000 in 2010 to 241,000 in 2040 (1.4% annual
growth rate).
This growth may be attributed to the number of active and proposed Planned Unit Developments
present in eastern Collier County. Additionally, there are a significant number of rural, vacant residential
properties within and adjacent to the study area. Collier County’s Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Restudy White Paper d noted that of the 66,000 acres that make up Golden Gate Estates, over 95
percent is for residential use. The paper further noted that as of 2016, approximately half of the parcels
have been developed. Figure 1-4 is an excerpt from the paper which presents the distribution of
developed residential areas within northern Golden Gate Rural Estates. The areas in green indicate
undeveloped residential parcels, and that when developed/built-out, would further increase area
congestion.
c Sources include: Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2018. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau
Quick Facts, 2018.
d Collier County Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper, Prepare by the Grown Management Department, Community Planning
Section Staff, December 2017.
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-5
Source: Collier County Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper, 2017
Golden Gate Rural Estates Parcels with Structure
Golden Gate Rural Estates Parcels without Structure
Figure 1-4. Northern Golden Gate Rural Estates Parcels
1.3.3 Traffic Demand
Collier County’s 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities reported existing
and projected deficiencies for county roadways.
Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard was reported to operate at LOS E,
with a LOS target of D, and experienced a five (5) to 10 percent decrease in Peak Hour Directional
Volume from 2017. This was a slight improvement in LOS from the previous 2017 AUIR that had Randall
Boulevard at LOS F, though it remained below the LOS target and is projected to be LOS F by 2021.
Randall Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard was reported to operate at LOS C
with a LOS target of D.
Oil Well Road from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard was reported to operate at LOS C, and
experienced a greater than 20 percent increase in Peak Hour Directional Volume from 2017.
Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto also experienced an increase in Peak Hour Directional Volume from
2017, of 10 to 20 percent, but were found to be operating at a LOS C and B, respectively in 2018. A map
from the AUIR showing the changes in Peak Hour Direction Volume from 2017 is presented in Appendix
B. Figure 1-5 presents the AUIR 2018 Peak Hour Direction Volume, Direction, and LOS for the existing
study area network. The predominant direction for the study area in the peak hour is east, towards I-75.
It is noted that Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard is expected to be
deficient by 2021.
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-6
Figure 1-5. Study Area Existing Level of Service
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-7
1.3.4 Mobility
Immokalee Road is categorized as a Freight Distribution Route and a High Crash Corridor in the Collier
2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.e The western termini of Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard is
Immokalee Road. The roadway is critical in facilitating movement of local and regional traffic including
truck traffic in northern Collier County as it connects to I-75, Oil Well Road, and SR 29 (other designated
regional transportation network facilities).
1.3.4.1 Network Mobility
Mobility in northern Collier County is constrained by conservation lands in the northeastern and
southeastern parts of the County (see Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map). The area is also constrained
by a canal system (South Florida Water Management District [SFWMD] Golden Gate Canal Basin)
created in Collier County during the 1960s to drain the lands for residential development. The
residential lots are 1 to 5 acres in size and are connected by a coarse grid of roads with few connecting
cross streets. The canal system traverses the residential grid, leaving roadways to dead end at the
canals, reducing east-west mobility. Figure 1-6 presents the road network in the study area; to
emphasize the lack of network connectivity in the area, the canals are not shown. Figure 1-6 also shows
currently programmed projects, the Collier MPO Amended 2040 Cost Feasible projects, as well as the
Collier MPO Amended 2040 Needs projects in the study area:
• New and future bridge canal crossings (programmed)
• Widening of Randall Boulevard from Immokalee Road to 8th Street NE (cost feasible)
• Proposed improvements at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard (cost
feasible)
• Extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road to 16th Street NE (cost feasible)
• Future Big Cypress Parkway - by others (needs)
• Extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from 16th Street NE to Big Cypress Parkway (needs)
While these projects improve access and mobility to and from the study area, they do not improve
mobility within the study corridor. The proposed project is anticipated to improve east-west mobility in
the corridor as well as regional mobility through its connection to the future improvements.
e Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2015. Collier 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report. Figure 4-5 and 4-6. Accessed on
December 13, 2018 from http://www.colliermpo.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7725
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-8
Figure 1-6. Study Area Road Network (without canals)
1.3.4.2 Freight Mobility
The Collier MPO 2040 LRTP defines the entire Immokalee Road (CR 846) corridor as a Freight
Distribution Route. The Freight Activity Center and Freight Network map from the LRTP is presented in
Appendix A. Immokalee Road (CR 846) connects two Primary Freight Activity Centers; the Old US 41
Industrial area and the Immokalee Regional Airport. The LRTP notes that the Old US 41 Industrial area
has limited rail service but should be recognized as the only site in Collier County with the potential for
intermodal rail activities where freight is transferred between modes (e.g., truck-to/from rail). The
Immokalee Regional Airport area is primarily devoted to agricultural functions, but a 60-acre portion is
designated as a Foreign Trade Zone. With convenient access to highway facilities recognized by the State
as part of the Strategic Intermodal System, the Immokalee Regional Airport is well suited for intermodal
air-cargo/truck activities.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to:
• enhance east-west access and regional mobility between I-75 and areas slated for development
in eastern Collier County;
• enhance freight mobility and access to Immokalee Road as it is classified as a regional freight
connector in the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP, linking to other recognized freight corridors (I-75, Oil
Well Road, and SR 29).
1.3.4.1 Travel Time Reliability
The project improvements will provide enhanced mobility of people and goods in the study area.
Review of the United Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Travel
Time to Work, indicates that the study area block groups have a significantly greater travel time to work
than the average of the County. Travel time to work refers to the total number of minutes that it usually
took the person to get from home to work each day during the reference week. The elapsed time
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-9
includes time spent waiting for public transportation, picking up passengers in carpools, and time spent
in other activities related to getting to work.
Table 1-1 presents the travel times to work for each block group in the study area, as well as Collier
County. FDOT’s Commuting Trends in Florida, notes that based on the 2016 American Community
Survey data, the average one-way commute in Florida was 27.4 minutes, which is 0.8 minutes longer
than the national average.f Considering that 25 to 29 minutes is the average travel time to work for the
State of Florida and the nation, the percentages of travel times greater than 30 minutes are summed at
the bottom of Table 1-1 to determine what percentage of the block groups are above average. Review
of this data indicates that 69% to 76% of the working population near the study area (Block Groups 1, 2,
and 3) spend more than 30 minutes commuting to work, as compared to 33% of the working population
of Collier County as a whole. While the census data does not reflect destinations, it is assumed that the
majority of the commuters near the study area are heading west towards Naples and major
employment centers of the County.
Table 1-1. Travel Time to Work
Travel Time
(minutes) Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Collier County
< 5 3% 1% 1% 2%
5 to 9 3% 3% 0% 10%
10 to 14 6% 4% 5% 14%
15 to 19 1% 4% 1% 17%
20 to 24 7% 8% 13% 16%
25 to 29 4% 11% 4% 7%
30 to 34 20% 33% 53% 15%
35 to 39 12% 8% 8% 3%
40 to 44 8% 19% 0% 4%
45 to 59 26% 7% 12% 6%
60 to 89 5% 2% 1% 3%
≥ 90 3% 0% 2% 2%
Total %
Travel Times > 30
minutes
74% 69% 76% 33%
1.3.5 Safety
1.3.5.1 Emergency Facilities
There are two County emergency facilities near the project study area: Collier County Fire Station 10 and
the Collier County Sherriff’s Office/Emergency Management Services facility. The fire station is just west
of the study area, and the EMS facility and sheriff’s office is located northwest of the along Immokalee
Road and 39th Avenue NE. The proposed project will improve east-west mobility and connectivity within
the corridor, thereby enhancing access and reducing travel time for emergency responders.
f Commuting Trends in Florida, A Special Report from FDOT Forecasting and Trends Office, February 2018.
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-10
1.3.5.2 User Conflicts and Crash History
Minimal pedestrian and bicycle traffic were observed in the field; however, facilities accommodating
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users exist in the area and activity is anticipated to increase with
planned development. Collier Area Transit has multiple bus stops in and adjacent to the study corridor
along Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Most of the study area existing sidewalks and bike lanes lack
continuity and have poor network connectivity resulting in circuitous routes that make walking or
cycling undesirable. There are no bicycle lanes or sidewalks along Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto
Boulevard.
Crash data within the study area was evaluated over a 5-year period (2013 through 2017) and found
that 24 crashes resulted in injuries and one crash resulting in a fatality along Randall Boulevard from
8th Street NE to DeSoto Boulevard. There were 22 crashes resulting in injuries to 34 individuals along Oil
Well Boulevard from Immokalee Road to DeSoto Boulevard. Crashes were concentrated in front of the
high school, west of Everglades Boulevard and at Everglades Boulevard. No fatalities were reported
along Oil Well Road during the evaluation period. The access management that the proposed
improvements provide, will improve safety by limiting median openings to safe locations that reduce
conflict points.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to improve pedestrian/bicycle/transit access and
circulation by modifying/limiting opportunities for conflicts between motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users by:
• adding sidewalks and buffered bicycle lanes to reduce conflict points and provide a quality
experience that promotes walking, cycling, and transit use.
• adding turn-lanes along the proposed widened facilities (Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road,
Everglades Boulevard, etc.) in the corridor to reduce motorist conflict points.
• diverting traffic off of Oil Well Road south to Randall Boulevard to minimize traffic volumes in
front of the high school.
1.3.6 Enhance Emergency Evacuation
Due to Collier County’s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, western Collier County is vulnerable to storm
surge during tropical storms and hurricanes, therefore a sound network of hurricane-related emergency
evacuation routes is critical. There is an increasing number of residents in northeastern Collier County
that are in a relatively isolated area of Collier County and have a limited network for emergency
evacuations. Figure 1-7 presents Collier County’s Evacuation Zones and Routes g. The project area is
between Zones E and F, which are the County’s least vulnerable zones. Zones E and F act as a refuge for
evacuees in the more vulnerable zones.
g https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/emergency-management/why-evacuate/-fsiteid-1
SECTION 1—PROJECT INTRODUCTION
SL0331171122ORL 1-11
Figure 1-7. Collier County Evacuation Zones
1.4 Alternatives Development
Alternatives considered as part of this study include the No Build Alternative, four initial alternatives,
and two viable alternatives. The initial alternatives were derived from the alternatives outlined in the
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP (2015). These alternatives were refined based on a qualitative analysis that
include cost and potential impacts, as well as public input. The initial alternatives were presented at the
Initial Alternatives Public Meeting on May 24, 2018 for public review and comment. The viable
alternatives were further refined based on a more detailed, quantitative analysis that include costs,
potential impacts, and public input. The viable alternatives were presented at the Viable Alternatives
Public Meeting on April 11, 2019 for public review and comment, including a Recommended Alternative.
The No Build alternative serves as a baseline for comparison with the Recommended Alternative and
remains an alternative throughout the study.
SL0331171122ORL 2-1
SECTION 2
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions are documented in this section in order to identify engineering and environmental
conditions along the proposed corridors that may have a bearing on selection of a feasible corridor.
2.1 Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions
This section summarizes the existing roads and associated traffic conditions within the study boundaries.
The Modeling Technical Memorandum is presented in Appendix B.
2.1.1 Traffic Characteristics
Collier County’s 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities reported existing
and projected deficiencies for county roadways. Within the study area, Oil Well Road (from Immokalee
Road to Everglades Boulevard) was reported to operate at LOS C, which has an acceptable LOS of D.
From Everglades to DeSoto Boulevard, Oil Well Road was reported to operate at LOS B with an
acceptable LOS of D.
Randall Boulevard (from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard) was reported to operate at LOS E
which has an acceptable LOS of D. This was a slight improvement in LOS from the previous report that
had Randall Boulevard at LOS F, though it remained below the acceptable LOS and was projected to be
LOS F by 2021. However, Randall Boulevard from Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard was
reported to operate at LOS C which has an acceptable LOS of D.
The existing traffic characteristics are presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Existing Traffic Characteristics
Road From To
Existing
Posted
Speed
(mph)
Existing
Number
of Lanes
Peak Hour
Directional
Volume
(vph)
Change in
Directional
Volume
(2017 to
2018)
Acceptable
LOS
2018
LOS
Year
Expected
Deficient
Oil Well
Road
Immokalee
Road
Everglades
Boulevard
45 4 850 21.4% D C
Oil Well
Road
Everglades
Boulevard
DeSoto
Boulevard
45 2 850 25% D B
Randall
Boulevard
Immokalee
Road
Everglades
Boulevard
45 2 820 -5.7% D E 2021
Randall
Boulevard
Everglades
Boulevard
DeSoto
Boulevard
45 2 639 2.02% D C
Everglades
Boulevard
Golden
Gate
Boulevard
Oil Well
Road
45 2 310 10.7% D B
DeSoto
Boulevard
Golden
Gate
Boulevard
Oil Well
Road
45 2 110 10 D B
Source: Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities; VPH=vehicles per hour
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-2
2.1.2 Roadway/Functional Classification
Within the project study limits, all roadways are owned and maintained by Collier County. Table 2-2 lists
the roadway classifications based on Collier County’s current Growth Management Plan Transportation
Element 3 (amended June 13, 2017). The County Growth Management Plan also notes (based on
Transportation Element 7), that Everglades Boulevard is a Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Route.
The Collier MPO 2040 LRTP notes that Oil Well Road between Immokalee Road and SR 29 is a Freight
Distribution Route that connects to Oil Well Road (a Freight Distribution Route) to SR 29 (a Regional
Freight Mobility Corridor).
Table 2-2. Existing Roadway Classifications
Road Classification Additional Characteristics
Oil Well Road Minor Arterial Freight Distribution Route
Randall Boulevard Minor Collector
Everglades Boulevard Minor Collector Hurricane Evacuation Route
DeSoto Boulevard Local Road
Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan Transportation Element 3 (amended June 13, 2017);
Collier MPO 2040 LRTP
2.1.3 Typical Sections
2.1.3.1 Oil Well Road
Oil Well Road is a 4-lane divided minor arterial h from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard and is
constrained between Immokalee Road and the Golden Gate Main Canal. Based on record plans, the
roadway right of way (ROW) varies between 100 and 200 feet, and includes 12-foot wide travel lanes,
4-foot bike lanes and 6-foot sidewalks adjacent to the outside travel lanes. The roadway includes a
raised median that varies in width between 10 and 17 feet. Type F curb and gutter are adjacent to the
inside and outside lanes. The existing posted speed limit is 45 mph. Figure 2-1 presents the typical
section 4-lane Oil Well Road Typical Section.
Figure 2-1. Existing 4-Lane Oil Well Road Typical Section
h Collier County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element Number 3, Amended June 13, 2017
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-3
East of Everglades Boulevard, Oil Well Road reduces to a 2-lane roadway that typically consists of two
undivided 12-foot lanes (one in each direction) with varying 2-4 foot paved shoulders and an open
drainage system (see Figure 2-3). There are no bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. There is a
12-foot shared use path along the north side of the road for approximately ¼ mile east of Everglades
Boulevard where roadway transitions from four lanes to two lanes. This shared use path is part of the
SunTrail Alignments, a high priority pathway network for regional connectivity between Collier, Lee,
Sarasota, and Manatee counties i. The shared use path in the project study area (see Figure 2-2) is
proposed along the ROW of the Golden Gate Main Canal and then along Oil Well Road east to the Faka
Union Canal ROW north.
Figure 2-2. Proposed SunTrail Alignments and Spine Pathway Corridors
2.1.3.2 Randall Boulevard
The existing Randall Boulevard typical section consists of two undivided 12-foot lanes with unpaved
shoulders and open drainage system, within 50 feet of ROW. According to Collier County Plat Book 7,
Page 11, an additional 50 feet of roadway easement exists for a total ROW of 100 feet (see Figure 2-3). A
paved sidewalk exists for approximately 1/3 of a mile from 8th Street NE on the north side of the road
(outside of the existing ROW), at varying distances from the edge of travel. The existing posted speed
limit is 45 mph.
2.1.3.3 Everglades Boulevard
The existing 2-lane section of Everglades Boulevard consists of two undivided 12-foot lanes with
unpaved shoulders and open drainage, within 50 feet of existing ROW. An additional 50 feet of roadway
easement is documented in the Collier County Plat Book 5, Page 90. Figure 2-4 presents the 2-lane
typical section.
Everglades Boulevard is a 6-lane roadway from 31st Avenue NE (south of Oil Well Road) to 35th Avenue
NE (north of Oil Well Road) to allow for a widened intersection at Oil Well Road. The roadway includes
12-foot travel lanes, 4-foot bicycle lanes in each direction, and Type F curb and gutter on the outside
lanes (Figure 2-3). The existing posted and design speed limit is 45 mph.
i Collier MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, March 8, 2019
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-4
Figure 2-3. Existing Everglades 6-Lane Typical Section
2.1.3.4 DeSoto Boulevard
The existing DeSoto Boulevard typical section consists of two undivided 12-foot lanes with unpaved
shoulders and open drainage (see Figure 2-4) within 100 feet of ROW (based on Collier County Plat Book
5, Page 89). The existing posted speed limit is 45 mph. There are no bicycle lanes or sidewalks along
DeSoto Boulevard within the study area.
Figure 2-4. Existing 2-Lane Typical Section
(Oil Well Road)
(Randall Boulevard)
(Everglades Boulevard)
(DeSoto Boulevard)
2.1.4 Existing Area Transit
There are two Collier Area Transit (CAT) routes within/near the study area: Route 19 and Route 28. Both
provide service between Immokalee and the Collier County Government Center. CAT Route 19
(Figure 2-5) is adjacent (to the west), along Immokalee Road and has bus stops adjacent to Fire Station
10 and the Shoppes of Orangetree shopping center near the Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard
intersection. The route is adjacent to the study area with five buses per day and makes connections at
the Intermodal Transfer Facility and the Immokalee Health Department. CAT Route 28 (Figure 2-6) runs
along Oil Well Road on the north side of the study area and has bus stops along Oil Well Road, in front of
the middle and high schools and neighboring communities. The route serves the study area with three
buses per day.
For residents living in the northern Golden Gates Estates area, pedestrian/bicycle access to the bus
stops near Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard, requires walking/riding on the side of the roads within
most of the study area. Additionally, pedestrian and bicycle mobility and access to activity centers
surrounding the study area is limited due to the lack of sidewalks and bike paths within the study area.
Sidewalks and bike paths are limited to only Oil Well Road between Everglades Boulevard.
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-5
Figure 2-5. CAT Route 19
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-6
Figure 2-6. CAT Route 28
2.1.5 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
There are no deficiencies in the existing horizontal or vertical geometry within the study limits. Collier
County is generally very flat, with slight elevation changes, especially within the project study limits. All
the roadways in the study area are generally straight and flat with no horizontal or vertical curve. The
existing posted speed on all facilities is 45 mph, and the alignments are evaluated against present-day
criteria for a design speed of 45 mph j.
The existing Oil Well Road vertical alignment does not have any vertical curves. As a flat urban section,
the roadway grade alternates between +0.30%/-0.30% grade minimum and +0.65%/-0.65% grade
maximum. This is typical for a relatively flat urban section in order to promote proper drainage.
j FDOT 2016 Florida Greenbook (effective June 19, 2017)
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-7
Table 2-3 lists the available horizontal alignment information from the record plans for Oil Well Road.
The record plans for Everglades Road indicate that there are no horizontal curves in the 6-lane section
where it intersects Oil Well Road. Based on field observations, there are no horizontal curves in the
other existing roadways in the study area.
Table 2-3. Existing Horizontal Alignment Data
Existing
Horizontal Curve
Length Criteria
Superelevation
Criteria
Existing
Variation or
Exception Road PI Station
Design
Speed R (ft.) Superelevation L (ft.)
Desirable
(ft.)
Min.
(ft.)
Oil Well
Road
64+81.99
(Left)
45
MPH
13,039.00 Normal Crown 406.2 675 400 Normal Crown None
Oil Well
Road
64+81.99
(Right)
45
MPH
12,961.00 Normal Crown 403.79 675 400 Normal Crown None
Oil Well
Road
82+89.03 45
MPH
11,459.00 Normal Crown 400.00 675 400 Normal Crown None
Oil Well
Road
203+71.55
(Left)
45
MPH
23,020.00 Normal Crown 460.07 675 400 Normal Crown None
Oil Well
Road
203+71.55
(Right)
45
MPH
22,918.00 Normal Crown 458.03 675 400 Normal Crown None
2.1.6 Drainage and Hydrology
The project study area is located within the jurisdiction of the SFWMD within the Big Cypress Basin. The
surface hydrology within the Big Cypress Basin is shaped by a system of drainage canals and structures.
The drainage system is separated into eight major basins. The study area is within the major basins of
the Golden Gate Canal and Faka Union Canal. In the 1960s, both basins were created to drain the lands
for residential development k.
The Golden Gate Canal Basin is separated into the nine drainage sub-basins, two of which the project
study area is located within: Orange Tree Canal and Main Golden Gate Canal Sub-basins. Water in the
Orange Tree Canal Sub-basin flows south into the Cypress Canal. Existing drainage facilities in this sub-
basin consist of approximately 3.4 miles of canal with one culvert structure providing conveyance of
flows to the Cypress Canal system. The Main Golden Gate Canal Sub-basin is located in the southern and
eastern portions of the Golden Gate Basin, and functions as the collector and discharge point for the
Golden Gate Basin. Flow in the canal flow is generally to the southwest. Water control structures
provide a step-down of the water level to prevent over-drainage of interior lands. There are seven
SFWMD-operated water level control structures in this sub-basin.
The Faka Union Canal Basin is separated into four drainage sub-basins, two of which the project study
area is located within: Faka Union Canal and Miller Canal Sub-basins. The Faka Union Canal is the
primary drainage feature of this sub-basin. Flow is directed south through the center of Golden Gate
Estates to the Faka Union Bay estuary via approximately 29.5 miles of primary canal and seven SFWMD
operated weir structures. Existing drainage facilities also include several box culverts and bridges at
various road crossings.
Existing drainage characteristics within the project study area were determined by reviewing available
As-Built Drawings for Oil Well Road (CR 858) From E. Immokalee Road to E. Camp Keais Road, Collier
County Board of Commissioners, Permit Modification No. 11-01745-P, Segment 2. The plans are
k Canals in South Florida: A Technical Support Document, SFWMD, Appendix C: Primary Water Management Features, April 28, 2010
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-8
available in the project files. The existing stormwater runoff along Oil Well Road and the 6-lane segment
of Everglades Boulevard is conveyed to either the Golden Gate Canal, Faka Union Canal, or Orange
Blossom Ranch master surface water management system (Permit No. 11-02432-P) via storm sewer
pipes and ponds. Based on the as-built drawings, there are no cross drains in this segment.
Drainage along Randall Boulevard is accomplished via open roadside ditches and side drains along the
north and south sides of the road. The stormwater ultimately outfalls to either the Orange Tree Canal,
Golden Gate Canal, or the Faka Union Canal.
2.1.7 Geotechnical
A preliminary geotechnical investigation will be performed during the design phase to further assess the
roadway and stormwater management constraints once the preferred alternative is selected.
2.1.8 Crash Data and Safety Analysis
Crash data was collected from Florida’s Integrated Report Exchange System (FIRES) portal for the study
area. The analysis includes five years of crash data from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. Crash
history for Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road are shown in Figures 2-7 and 2-8, respectively.
The FIRES Summary Report for Randall Boulevard indicates there were 63 total crashes of which 24
resulted in injuries to 37 individuals. On October 24, 2014, a crash resulted in a fatality at the
intersection of Randall Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard.
The FIRES Summary Report for Oil Well Road indicates there were 45 total crashes of which 22 resulted
in injuries to 34 individuals. No fatalities were reported during this time period.
Figure 2-7. Randall Boulevard Crash Intensity
The highest crash locations along Randall Boulevard are at the intersections of 16th Street NE and
Everglades Boulevard. No pedestrian or bicyle related crashes were documented.
Figure 2-8. Oil Well Road Crash Intensity
The highest crash location along Oil Well Road is in front of Palmetto Ridge High School. The next
highest crash locations are at Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard. No pedestrian or bicyle
related crashes were documented.
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-9
The proposed improvements may divert traffic south to Randall Boulevard, east of the high school,
reducing traffic volume and thus conflicts along this section of Oil Well Road. The proposed access
management along Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard will improve safety by limiting median openings
to safe locations that reduce conflict points.
2.1.9 Intersection Layout
There are four major intersections in the study area. The basic geometric layouts of the existing
intersections within the project study area are described below.
2.1.9.1 Oil Well Road/Everglades Boulevard Intersection
The intersection of Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard forms a four-leg intersection with all
movements controlled by a traffic signal. All legs of the intersection include two left-turn only lanes, one
right-turn only lane, and three thru lanes (eastbound Oil Well Road has only two thru lanes). The traffic
signal heads are positioned horizontally on steel mast arms and utilize video vehicle detection. There are
marked crosswalks across the northern and western legs of the intersection, as shown in Figure 2-9.
Figure 2-9. Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard Intersection
2.1.9.2 Oil Well Road/DeSoto Boulevard Intersection
The intersection of Oil Well Road and DeSoto Boulevard forms a three-leg unsignalized intersection with
no marked crosswalks. The north end of DeSoto Boulevard is marked with a warning sign that drivers
cannot go thru and must make a right or left turn, as shown in Figure 2-10.
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-10
Figure 2-10. Oil Well Road and DeSoto Boulevard Intersection
2.1.9.3 Randall Boulevard/16th Street NE Intersection
The intersection of Randall Boulevard and 16th Street NE forms a four-leg intersection with the Valencia
Golf and Country Club entrance (Approach Boulevard). The northbound and southbound movements
are controlled by stop signs. The Valencia Golf and Country Club entrance includes a divided roadway.
There are no marked crosswalks, as shown in Figure 2-11.
Figure 2-11. Randall Boulevard and 16th Street NE Intersection
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-11
2.1.9.4 Randall Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Intersection
The intersection of Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard forms a four-leg intersection with the
thru and left-turn only movements controlled by a traffic signal. All legs of the intersection include one
left-turn only lane, one right-turn only lane, and one thru lane. The traffic signal heads are positioned
vertically along span wire and are activated by loop detection. There are no marked crosswalks across,
as shown in Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-12. Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard Intersection
2.1.9.5 Randall Boulevard/DeSoto Boulevard Intersection
The intersection of Randall Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard forms a four-leg intersection with the
unpaved segment of Randall Boulevard east of DeSoto Boulevard. The east and westbound movements
are controlled by stop signs. Three legs of the intersection include one thru lane. There are no marked
crosswalks across, as shown in Figure 2-13.
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL
2-12
Figure 2-13. Randall Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard Intersection
2.1.10 Lighting
Lighting was constructed along Oil Well Road as part of the roadway widening in 2012 and are spaced
approximately every 280 feet on both sides of the street and connected via underground conduit. There
is no lighting along Randall Boulevard, but there are some intersection lights near the Valencia Golf and
Country Club entrance. There is no lighting along Everglades Boulevard, with the exception of the
lighting at the intersection of Oil Well Road. There is no lighting along DeSoto Boulevard with the
exception of a light fixture mounted to a power pole at the intersections of Oil Well Road.
2.1.11 Existing Structures
There are four major bridge structures within the study area that cross either the Golden Gate Canal or
the Faka Union Canal.
2.1.11.1 Oil Well Road Structures
Along Oil Well Road west of Everglades Boulevard, Bridge No. 034137 crosses the Golden Gate Canal.
The bridge was constructed in 2012 as part of the Oil Well Road widening project and is 150 feet long
along Oil Well Road (centerline), 122 feet wide (cross-section view). According to the April 1, 2019 FDOT
Florida Bridge Information Report, the last bridge inspection was on April 3, 2018. The inspection noted
Figure 2-14. Existing Bridge Typical Section - Oil Well Road Over Golden Gate Canal
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-13
a Sufficiency Rating of 87.6. The AADT on the bridge is 24,844 vpd according to the report. Figure 2-14
presents the existing bridge typical section.
Along Oil Well Road east of Everglades Boulevard, Bridge No. 030150 crosses the Faka Union Canal. The
bridge was constructed in 1966 approximately 21.91 feet long along Oil Well Road (centerline),
166.3 feet wide (cross-section view). According to the April 1, 2019 FDOT Florida Bridge Information
Report, the last bridge inspection was on March 28, 2017. The inspection noted a Sufficiency Rating of
73.6 and noted that the bridge was functionally obsolete. The report further noted the AADT over the
bridge 2,880 vpd. Figure 2-15 presents the existing bridge typical section.
2.1.11.2 Randall Boulevard Structures
Within the study area, there are two bridges along Randall Boulevard that have similar typical sections.
West of Everglades Boulevard is Bridge No. 034048 that crosses the Golden Gate Canal. East of
Everglades Boulevard is Bridge No. 034050 that crosses the Faka Union Canal. Both bridges were
constructed in 1965. According to the April 1, 2019 FDOT Florida Bridge Information Report, the last
bridge inspection for both bridges was on April 19, 2017. The inspection noted a Sufficiency Rating of 76
and 93.5 for the Golden Gate Canal and Faka Union Canal bridges, respectively. The inspection further
noted that the bridge of Golden Gate Canal was functionally obsolete. While the report did not note that
the Faka Union Canal bridge was functionally obsolete, the bridge does not meet current road design
standards as the lane widths are narrower than the current standard. The report further noted the AADT
over the Golden Gate Canal and Faka Union Canal bridges are 11,205 vpd and 125 vpd, respectively.
The bridges are approximately 20 feet wide (10-foot travel lanes) and are approximately 150 feet long
over Golden Gate Canal and 100 feet long over Faka Union Canal. Figure 2-15 present the typical section
for the existing bridges.
Figure 2-15. Existing 2-Lane Bridge Typical Section
(Oil Well Road Over Faka Union Canal)
(Randall Boulevard over Golden Gate Main Canal)
(Randall Boulevard over Faka Union Canal)
2.2 Environmental Conditions
2.2.1 Social Environment
The sociocultural environment includes the social (human) and cultural environment. Land use,
community facilities, socio-economic characteristics, parks and recreation areas, archaeological and
historical resources, and farmlands are included.
2.2.1.1 Land Use
The study area existing land use, presented as Figure 2-16, is a mix of low density residential, higher
density residential, and commercia uses. Collier County’s comprehensive plan, identified as the Growth
Management Plan, identifies the future land use for this area, as shown in Figure 2-17.
DESOTO BLVDOIL WELL GRADE RD
EVERGLADES BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD39TH AVE NECorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHead45678464567858O1,000 0 1,000500FeetLast Updated:20190218Randall_LU_SFWMD2014-2016Source Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEPFigure 2-16 Existing Land UseLegend:Project Study AreaCanalsRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaLand Use DescriptionsResidential Rural ResidentialCommercial and ServicesInstitutional, Educational FacilitiesGolf CoursesCommunity Recreation FacilitiesOpen LandPasturesRow Crops, CroplandCitrus GrovesTree Nurseries and OrnamentalsUplands Forested/Non-Forested Channelized Waterway, Canals, ReservoirsWetlandsRoadsElectrical Power FacilitiesWater Plants, Pumping Stations
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-15
Figure 2-17. Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map
The proposed project is expected to support the planned development near the study area and is
consistent with Collier County’s Growth Management Plan. Planned development data were obtained
from the future land use elements of the Growth Management Plan along with information collected
during Collier County coordination meetings. Neighborhoods in or near the study area are presented in
Table 2-4 and shown in Figure 2-18. Table 2-5 lists planned developments within and near the project
study area and presented in the Planned Development and Neighborhoods (Figure 2-16).
Table 2-4. Neighborhoods
Name Location Access to Study Area Planned Development
Ranch at Orange
Blossom
North of Oil Well Road, west of
Golden Gate Canal
Access to Immokalee Road
(CR 846) by Oil Well Road
Orange Blossom Ranch
Groves of Orange
Blossom
South of Oil Well Road, west of the
Golden Gate Canal
Access to Immokalee Road
(CR 846) by Oil Well Road
Orange Blossom Ranch
Citrus Greens Northeast corner of Immokalee Road
(CR 846) and Oil Well Road
Direct access to Immokalee
Road (CR 846) and indirect
access by Oil Well Road
Orangetree
Valencia Lakes Northeast corner of Immokalee Road
(CR 846) and Oil Well Road
Direct access to Immokalee
Road (CR 846) and indirect
access by Oil Well Road
Orangetree
Waterways Northeast corner of Immokalee Road
(CR 846) and Oil Well Road
Direct access to Immokalee
Road (CR 846) and indirect
access by Oil Well Road
Orangetree
Twin Eagles North of Immokalee Road (CR 846),
west of Wilson Boulevard
Direct access to Immokalee
Road (CR 846)
Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-16
Table 2-5. Planned Developments in Study Area
Development Status* Details
MIR-MAR PUD Approved/Construction Complete 2.38-acre commercial subdistrict
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD Approved/Construction
Underway
1,600 residential units on 616 acres
Orangetree PD Underway/Construction
Complete
3,150 residential units with 10 acres for
retail/commercial use
Randall Boulevard Commercial
Center CPUD
Approved/Construction Complete 25.76-acre commercial center
Rural Lands West Overlay Approved 196,000 acres of non-contiguous lands overlay defined
into Sending Lands (environmentally sensitive lands),
Receiving Lands (lands suitable for high density
development), and Neutral Lands
4,000 acres of mixed used land uses including 10,000
dwelling units, 800,000 square feet of retail/service
uses, 450,000 square feet of office uses, 100,000 square
feet of medical offices and facilities, 250,000 square
feet of light industrial uses, 211,000 square feet of civic
uses, 220 hotel rooms and three public schools.
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Approved 77,000 acres of non-contiguous lands overlay defined
into Sending Lands (environmentally sensitive lands),
Receiving Lands (lands suitable for high density
development, and Neutral Lands
• Twin Eagles Approved/Construction
Underway
1,114 acres – golf course and residential community
• Twin Eagles South Phase 1 Approved Residential community of up to 853 units
*Approved under Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section to begin development
DESOTO BLVDOIL WELL GRADE RD
EVERGLADES BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD39TH AVE NERed MapleSwampPreserveRiversRoadPreserveCorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHeadCampKeaisStrand45678464567858Ave MariImmokalee RoadRural Village MPUDCollier LakesRural Lands WestRural Lands WestTwinEaglesSouthRanchatOrangeBlossomWaterwaysTwinEagles1243Orange BlossomRanch PDGrovesofOrange BlossomValenciaLakesCitrus Greensat Orangetree^_"TX%2#0Orange BlossomRanch PDOrangetree PDFAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALUNKNOWNCURRY CANALORANGE TREE CANALCOCOHATCHEE CANALCYPRESS CANALMILLER CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALCORKSCREW CANALCORKSCREW CANALCYPRESS CANALCYPRESS CANALO2,00002,0001,000FeetLast Updated:20190308Randall_PlannedDev_NeighborhoodsSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEPFigure 2-18Planned Developments and NeighborhoodsLegend:Project Study AreaCanalsCollier County ParksFlorida Managed LandsRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaAva MariaTown BoundarySurface WatersCollier County Future ParksPlanned Development (new)Planned Development (underway)1. Immokalee Road Estates CPUD2. MIR-MAR PUD (Built Out)3. Randall Blvd Center (Active)4. Proposed Randall Blvd Commercial Center CPUDStewardship Sending AreasNeighborhoods%9#0Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station #10Florida Forestry Service (Collier)^_"TXCollier County Sheriff's Office/EMS ServicesCollier County UF/IFAS ExtensionCollier County FairgroundsCollier County Northeast Recycle Drop-Off CenterNotes: *( A designated area within the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Area District that limits land use through a Stewardship Eastment for Conservation purposes.)Part of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Development
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-18
2.2.1.2 Community Focal Points
Social resources within two (2) miles of the project study area are presented in Table 2-6 below and
include Emergency Services, Public Schools, Recreational Areas and Parks, Grocery Stores,
Transportation Resources, and other Community Resources. Figure 2-19 presents Community Focal
Points figure is attached. The project does not significantly impact existing community resources or
isolate them from the community.
Table 2-6. Community Focal Points
Name Location Proximity to Study Area
Emergency Services
North Collier Fire Rescue District
Station #10
13240 Immokalee Road Naples FL 34120 Within the study area
Collier County Sheriff’s Office Estates
Substation District 4
14750 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 2 miles north of the study area
Collier County Emergency Medical
Services
14750 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 2 miles north of the study area
Public Schools
Collier Charter Academy 12101 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 1.0 mile from western end of
study area
Palmetto Ridge High School 1655 Victory Lane Naples, FL 34120 1.7 miles northeast of the study
area
Corkscrew Elementary School 1065 CR 858 Naples, FL 34120 1.2 miles northeast
Corkscrew Middle School 1165 CR 858 Naples, FL 34120 1.2 miles northeast
Recreational Areas and Parks
Future Big Corkscrew Island Regional
Park (Collier County)
825 39th Avenue Northeast Naples, FL
34120
2.0 miles north
Corkscrew Elementary/Middle School
Park
1065 CR 858 Naples, FL 34120 1.2 miles north
Valencia Golf and Country Club (Public
Golf Course)
1725 Double Eagle Trail, Naples 1 mile east
Twin Eagles Golf (Private) 11530 Aerie Court, Naples 1 mile west
Grocery Stores
Publix Super Market at
Neighborhood Shoppes of
Orangetree
13550 Immokalee Road, Naples Signalized access to
Immokalee Road (CR 846) by
Randall Boulevard, and direct
unsignalized access to
Immokalee Road (CR 846)
Transportation Resources
Route 19/28 Bus Stop (North/East-Bound) Southeast corner of intersection –
Orangetree Neighborhood Shoppes
Accessible by sidewalk, in study
area
Route 19/28 Bus Stop (South/West-Bound) Northwest corner of intersection –
westbound turning lane to 4th Street NE
No sidewalks, in study area
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-19
Table 2-6. Community Focal Points
Name Location Proximity to Study Area
Other Community Resources
Collier County UF/IFAS Extension 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples Access to Immokalee Road
(CR 846) by 39th Avenue, 2 miles
northeast
Collier County Fair and Exhibition 751 39th Avenue NE, Naples Access to Immokalee Road
(CR 846) by 39th Avenue, 2 miles
northeast
Collier County Northeast Recycle Drop-
Off Center
825 39th Avenue NE, Naples Access to Immokalee Road
(CR 846) by 39th Avenue, 2 miles
northeast
Olde FloridaGolf ClubDESOTO BLVDOIL WELL GRADE RD
EVERGLADES BLVDGOLDEN GATE BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD9"TX39TH AVE NEValencia Golf& Country ClubTwin Eagles GolfCoursesPanther RunGolf ClubåCorkscrew Elementary& Middle SchoolPalmetto RidgeHigh SchoolååSabal PalmElementary SchoolCypress PalmMiddleSchoolååRiver RdPreserveTrailåEstatesElementarySchoolGolf ClubEvergladesCalusa PinesGolf ClubåCollierCharter AcademyRed MapleSwampPreserveRiversRoadPreserveFuture BigCorkscrew IslandRegional ParkCorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHeadCampKeaisStrand45678464567858SHADY HOLLOW BLVD WHeritageBay GolfBonita BayEast Cypress & SabalCoursesPlanned NortheastRegional WTPBird RookerySwamp and TrailFAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALUNKNOWNCURRY CANALCOCOHATCHEE CANALORANGE TREE CANALMILLER CANALCYPRESS CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALCYPRESS CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALCOCOHATCHEE CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALO2,100 0 2,1001,050 FeetLast Updated:20190308Randall_FocalPointsSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEPLegend:Canals9Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station #10Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services"TXCollier County Sheriff's Substation District 4North Collier Fire Control and Rescue EMS StationCollier County UF/IFAS ExtensionCollier County Fair and ExhibitionCollier County Northeast Recycle Drop-Off CenterGolf CoursesPlace of WorshipCollier County ParksStewardship Sending AreasFlorida Managed LandsPreferred Proposed TrailåSchoolExistingTrail*Proposed Trail HeadsPlanned Northeast Regional Water Treatment PlantNeighborhoodsLake/PondAve MariaRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaFigure 2-19 Social/Environment Focal Points Map
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-21
2.2.1.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Demographic information was obtained from the United Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Three block groups are within or near the project study area.
Figure 2-20 presents the Block Group boundaries and associated demographic data is attached.
Table 2-7 summarizes the study area demographics and compares them to the overall demographics of
the County. Demographic information indicates that both block groups have populations with a
determined poverty status (22 to 39 percent) higher than the Collier County average of 13 percent.
Based on demographic census data, populations with limited transportation mobility options may exist
in the study area, reinforcing the need for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mobility improvements. The
higher percentage of households with a determined poverty status, indicates that the study area may
serve a greater number of transit-dependent individuals. The proposed improvements include addition
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities which are anticipated to provide an enhanced experience that
increases walking, cycling, and transit use in the area.
Table 2-7. Study Area Block Groups 2017 Census Data
Block
Group Population
Block
Area in
acres
% of Block
in Study
Area
%
Limited
English
%
Minority
%
Poverty
%
Over Age
65
%
Youth
%
Disability
1 8,071 263,396 0.8 0 8 22 10 32 32
2 8,669 8,358 24.9 3 9 22 15 26 20
3 8,335 59,626 0.1 2 10 39 37 36 12
County 356,774 1.48 M 6 11 13 30 18 23
Limited English refers to the percentage of households with Limited English Speaking status
Minority refers to the percentage of population that is non-white
Poverty refers to the percentage of population of whom poverty status is determined
Over Age 65 refers to the population that is 65 years and over
Youth refers to the percentage of population under 18 years in households
Disability refers to the percentage of households with at least one
22: Indicates where the block demographic percentage is considerably higher than that of Collier County
M: Million
DESOTO BLVDOIL WELL GRADE RD
EVERGLADES BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD39TH AVE NERed MapleSwampPreserveRiversRoadPreserveCorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHeadCampKeaisStrand45678464567858Ave Maria213COLLIER COUNTYFAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALUNKNOWNCURRY CANALORANGE TREE CANALCOCOHATCHEE CANALCYPRESS CANALMILLER CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALCORKSCREW CANALCORKSCREW CANALCYPRESS CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALO2,00002,0001,000FeetLast Updated:20190307Randall_CensusDemographicsSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEPFigure 2-20Census DemographicsLegend:Project Study AreaCanalsCollier County ParksFlorida Managed LandsRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaAva MariaTown BoundarySurface WatersCollier County Future ParksCENSUS BLOCK 1Tract 112.02Block Size (Acres) = 263,396Population = 8071% Block in Study Area = 0.8%% Households with Limited English Speaking = 0%% Minority = 8%% Poverty = 22%% Over Age 65 = 10%% Youth = 32%% Households with at least 1 person with a disability = 23%CENSUS BLOCK 2Tract 112.02Block Size (Acres) = 8,358Population = 8669% Block in Study Area = 24.9%% Households with Limited English Speaking = 3%% Minority = 9%% Poverty = 22%% Over Age 65 = 15%% Youth = 26%% Households with at least 1 person with a disability = 20%CENSUS BLOCK 3Tract: 112.02Block Size (Acres) = 59,626Population = 8355% Block in Study Area = 0.1%% Households with Limited English Speaking = 2%% Minority = 10%% Poverty = 39%% Over Age 65 = 37%% Youth = 36%% Households with at least 1 person with a disability = 12%COLLIER COUNTYPopulation = 356,774% Households with Limited English Speaking = 6%% Minority = 11%% Poverty = 13%% Over Age 65 = 30%% Youth = 18%% Households with at least 1 person with a disability = 23%Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates% MinorityUnderline indicates above Collier County percentage
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-23
2.2.1.4 Historic and Archaeological Resources
A Desktop Cultural Resource Assessment and Windshield Survey (Appendix C) was conducted in
February 2019 to identify known and potential cultural resources within the study area. The study area
was surveyed to locate and assess any potential sites of archaeological and/or historical significance.
The assessment was not implemented to meet agency guidelines for a Phase 1 assessment. Figure 2-21
presents a map of potential archaeological and historical resources in the study area.
Prior to conducting fieldwork in the project parcel, relevant archives and literature were reviewed,
including but not limited to studying previous archaeological reports for sites in Collier County, reviewing
information from the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), and examining US Geological Survey maps of the
project area. Black and white as well as color aerial photographs of the project area were interpreted to
potentially aid in revealing anthropogenic changes to the topography and floral communities.
Review of the Florida Division of Historic Resources revealed one previously recorded historical resource
in the project area. The Enterprise Tram Linear Resource, 8CR00965, is a historic trail occurring to the
east of the corridor. While most of the trail appears to retain its integrity, the portion of the trail
extending into the project corridor has been obscured and destroyed by modern clearing, improvements,
and development. This segment of the trail should be documented and the FMSF form (8CR00965)
updated, if a Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) is performed. Table 2-8 presents the historic
resources within the study area and their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP).
Four bridges were identified crossing the two north-south canals. These bridges are common types, three
of which were built between 1965 and 1966, and therefore, by being 50 years old or older, are
considered historic, and will require documentation for the FMSF if a CRAS is conducted. Table 2-9
presents the archaeological resources within the study area and their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP.
Table 2-8. Historic Resources Within Project Area
FMSF ID Site Name Style Built NRHP Eligibility
8CR00965 Collier Enterprises Tram Farm Road and Trestle/Linear resource 1950 Unlikely
n/a Bridge No. 030148 Concrete - Crosses over
Golden Gate Main Canal
On Randall Boulevard
1965 Unlikely
n/a Bridge No. 030150 Concrete – Crosses over Faka Union Canal on
Oil Well Road
1966 Unlikely
n/a Bridge No. 034050 Concrete – Crosses over Faka Union Canal on
Randall Boulevard
1965 Unlikely
Archival reviews determined that historically the area was flat and relatively featureless with seasonal
marsh ponds. Much of the pine flatwoods are hydric in nature with seasonal flooding in the summer
months. Based on the overall lack of observed uplands, the project corridor is considered to have a low
probability for archaeological sites. Only one remnant hammock, with some larger established oak trees
was identified. This hammock is considered to have a low to medium probability for having
archaeological sites and shovel testing is recommended to determine if cultural materials occur in this
area.
Table 2-9. Archaeological Resources Within Project Area
FMSF ID Site Name Style Built NRHP Eligibility
n/a Remnant Hammock Oak Hammock n/a Unlikely
BRIDGE
034050
1965
BRIDGE
034048
1965
BRIDGE
030150
1966
Remnant
Hammock
8CR965
Enterprise Tram
Linear Trail
Figure 10. 2017 aerial photograoh of the Randall Blvd / Oil Well Road corridor showing previously recorded and potential cultural resources.
Figure 2-21. Cultural Resources Map
Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study
Contract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065
Collier County, Florida
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-25
2.2.3 Natural Environment
The natural environment includes wetlands, floodplains, water quality, and listed species and their
habitat. Considering the project’s initial alternatives included a combination of the same roadways to
complete a network in the corridor, the study area was broken into segments for ease in evaluating
impacts for any network combination. Natural resources were evaluated along each segment
approximately 250 feet from the existing edge of pavement on each side of the roadway to evaluate the
most conservative project footprint along that segment. The project’s Natural Resources Technical
Memorandum is presented in Appendix D.
2.2.3.1 Soils
The soils surveys of Collier County, Florida, published by the United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service were reviewed for the project study area. According to the Soil
Survey of Collier County (2018) only 40% of the soils in the study area are classified as state hydric. The
most prevalent soils in the natural resources project boundary are Immokalee Fine Sand (Map ID 7),
Malabar Fine Sand (Map ID 3), Basinger Fine Sand (Map ID 17), Oldsmar Fine Sand (Map ID 16), and Boca
Fine Sand (Map ID 21). Of these soils, Bassinger Fine Sand and Malabar Fine Sand are the soils classified
as state hydric. The project study area soil maps and soil types are described in more detail in
Appendix D.
2.2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters
Wetlands were identified through the review of available literature, Geographic Information System
data, and field verification. Following the review of all available materials, field assessments were
conducted on November 8-10, 2017 to identify the presence of wetland vegetation, evidence of
hydrology, and hydric soil indicators. The jurisdictional limits of the wetlands were estimated using the
criteria stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Final Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineations Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (October 2010), and
Florida statewide unified wetland delineation methodology as adopted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Water Management Districts per Chapter 62-340 of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and described in The Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Habitat and land use mapping (upland and wetland) was done in accordance with the methodology set
forth in the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT, 1999). Figure 2-22
presents the type and location of jurisdictional wetlands documented within the natural resources
project boundary. The most prevalent jurisdictional wetlands in the boundary are wetland shrub
(FLUCCS 6318 and 6319), hydric pine flatwoods (FLUCCS 625 and 6259), and mixed wetland hardwoods
(FLUCCS 617). Surface waters were also present in the project boundary including streams and
waterways (FLUCCS 510), major canals (FLUCCS 512), and ditches (FLUCCS 514). Per Chapter 62.600(D)
F.A.C., boundaries of surface waters with slopes of 4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper are
estimated using the top of bank. The canals in the area which drain the surrounding residential
communities include the Golden Gate Main Canal and the Faka Union Canal. During the field visit, water
was present in ditches along Randall Boulevard, and some ditches along Everglades Boulevard, however
these ditches are typically dry during the dry season. The project’s Natural Resources Technical
Memorandum is presented in Appendix D and includes further discussion on delineated wetlands in the
project area.
'(6272%/9'2 ,/:(//*5 $'(5 '(9(5*/$'(6%/9'7+671(7+671(5$1'$//%/9'2,/:(//5'7+$9(1(7+$9(1(RV\VWHPWHUVKHG:LQFKHVWHU+HDG45674567&<hE/KEE>'K> E'd E>KZE' dZ E>O )HHWLast Updated:20190417Randall_WetlandsSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEP, Johnson Eng, SWFWMD)LJure:HWODQGV/HJHQG 3URMHFW6WXG\$UHD&DQDOV&ROOLHU&RXQW\3DUNVRandallBoulevardandOilWellRoadCorridorStudyContract#16Ǧ6617/CollierCountyProject#60065CollierCounty,Florida6XUIDFH:DWHUV)LHOG9HULILHGE\-RKQVRQ(QJLQHHULQJ6XUIDFH:DWHU:HWODQGV
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-27
2.2.3.3 Water Quality
Water quality (treatment) and water quantity (attenuation) criteria are based on SFWMD and FDOT
stormwater regulations. The project study area is located within the jurisdiction of the SFWMD and
within the Big Cypress Basin. The surface hydrology within the Big Cypress Basin is shaped by a system of
drainage canals and structures. The drainage system is separated into eight major basins. The project
study area is within the Golden Gate Canal Basin. The FDEP identifies the Golden Gate Canal Basin as
Water Body Identification number (WBID) 3278S, which is impaired for dissolved oxygen and iron. There
is no Basin Management Action Plan for this basin. The WBID number for the Faka Union Canal Basin is
3278H; this basin has no impairments.
2.2.3.4 Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Collier
County, Community Panel Numbers 12021C0240H, 12021C0254H, and 12021C0265H (all dated May 16,
2012), indicates that the study area lies within the 100-year floodplain areas Zone AH and Zone AE.
Within the study area, the 100-year floodplain is identified by FEMA as being in the following zone
types:
• Zone AH: Areas with a 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with
an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses
are shown at selected intervals within these zones.
• Zone AE: Base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided.
Most of the project area east of the Golden Gate Main Canal is within the 100-year floodplain. Within
the 100-year floodplain area of the study area, the base flood elevation (BFE) ranges from less than
elevation 15 feet along the southern end (Randall Boulevard) to 17 feet at the northern end (Oil Well
Road). Based on review of the FEMA Firm Maps, there are no designated regulatory floodways within
the study area. Therefore, there will be no floodplain involvement with federally defined floodplains.
Appendix D presents the FEMA floodplain map and FEMA FIRM maps.
2.2.3.5 Protected Species and Habitat
This project was evaluated for impacts to wildlife and habitat resources, including protected species, in
accordance with 50 CFR Part 402 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, the Florida
Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Florida Statutes (FS), and Part 2, Chapter 16
of the FDOT PD&E Manual titled Protected Species and Habitat.
Literature reviews, agency database searches, and field reviews of potential habitat were conducted to
identify state and federally protected species occurring or potentially occurring within the project area.
The Collier County Soil Survey, recent aerial imagery (2018), and SFWMD land use/land cover mapping
was reviewed to determine habitat types occurring within and adjacent to the project corridor. Land
use/land cover mapping was updated to reflect the current field conditions.
The project area does not fall within U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS)-designated Critical Habitat for any
species. The project falls entirely within the USFWS Consultation Areas and Focal Area of the Florida
bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). The project falls within the Core Foraging Areas of wood stork
colonies 619041, 619310, Corkscrew, and North Catherine Island II. The western portion of the project
area falls within the consultation area for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The project
is within the Florida panther primary and secondary zones. A Florida panther road kill was documented
on April 15, 2016, on Randall Boulevard and 16th Street NE. The Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) notes a Bald eagle’s nest north of the study area but was last active in 2016.
Figure 2-23 presents a map of the documented occurrences of listed species. Table 2-10 presents the
potentially occurring and observed listed wildlife species in the study area. Field reviews consisted of
vehicular surveys and pedestrian surveys through natural areas and altered habitats with the potential
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-28
to support protected species. In the absence of physical evidence of a protected species, evaluation of
the appropriate habitat was conducted to determine the likelihood of a species being present. Project
scientists conducted initial general surveys on November 13-14, 2017.
Using vehicular and pedestrian survey methods during daylight hours, appropriate habitat along the
natural resources project boundary segments, was visually scanned for evidence of listed species as well
as general wildlife. All natural areas were considered as appropriate wildlife habitat and protected floral
species habitat. All occurrences of wildlife in the study area were recorded and observation locations
were depicted on project aerials. These occurrence records could include observations of the actual
species, or signs of their presence including tracks, burrows, dens, scat, nests, or calls. Special attention
was given to identifying signs of listed species.
To further summarize the results of desktop and field data collection efforts, each potential occurring
species was assigned a likelihood for occurrence of “none”, “low”, “moderate”, or “high” within habitats
found on the project corridor and an indicator of suitable habitat proximity to the project area of
“distant”, “near”, or “contiguous”. The Natural Resources Technical Memorandum is presented in
Appendix D.
2.2.3.6 Conservation Lands
There are no conservation lands within the study area. However, northeast and southeast of the study
area, are multiple conservation lands as shown in the Regional Location Map (Figure 1-1).
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-30
TTable 2--110.. Pottentially OOcccurring and OObbserved LLiisted WWiildlife SSppecies in tthe SSttudy AArrea
Species Common Name FWC USFWS Habitat
Habitat
Occurrence
Relative to
Project
Footprint
Probability of
Species
Occurrence
REPTILES
Drymarchon corais
couperi
Eastern indigo
snake FT T
Gopher tortoise burrows, canal
banks, hydric hammock, palustrine,
sandhill scrub, upland pine forest,
mangrove swamp
Contiguous High
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise T C
Old field, sandhill, scrub, xeric
hammock, ruderal, dry prairie, pine
flatwood
Contiguous Moderate
BIRDS
Antigone canadensis
pratensis
Florida sandhill
crane T -
Basin marsh, depression marsh, dry
prairies, marl prairie, pastures,
human-altered suburban landscapes
Contiguous High
Aphelocoma
coerulescens
Florida scrub-
jay FT T
Relict dune ecosystems or scrub on
well drained to excessively well
drained sandy soils
Near Low
Athene cunicularia
floridana
Florida
burrowing owl T -Native prairies and cleared areas
with short groundcover Near Low
Calidris canutus rufa Red knot FT T
Coastal marine and estuarine areas
with large areas of exposed
intertidal sediment
Distant Low
Caracara cheriway Crested
caracara FT T
Wet and dry prairies, rangeland,
citrus groves; nests primarily in
cabbage palms and live oaks in
Florida
Contiguous Moderate
Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT T
Sandy upper beaches, sparsely
vegetated shores of shallow lakes,
ponds, rivers, and impoundments
Distant Low
Charadrius nivosus Snowy plover T -Beaches, dry mud or salt flats, sandy
shores of rivers, lakes, and ponds Distant Low
Egretta caerulea Little blue
heron T -Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal
marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous High
Egretta rufescens Reddish egret T -Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal
marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous Low
Egretta tricolor Tricolored
heron T -Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal
marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous High
Falco sparverius
paulus
Southeastern
American kestrel T-Sandhill, mesic flatwoods, ruderal,
dry prairie Contiguous Moderate
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus Bald eagle - *
Forests, estuarine, lacustrine,
riverine, tidal marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous Moderate
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-31
TTable 2--110.. Pottentially OOcccurring and OObbserved LLiisted WWiildlife SSppecies in tthe SSttudy AArrea
Species Common Name FWC USFWS Habitat
Habitat
Occurrence
Relative to
Project
Footprint
Probability of
Species
Occurrence
Mycteria americana Wood stork FT T
Estuarine tidal swamps/marshes,
lacustrine, seepage stream, ditches,
ruderal
Contiguous High/Observed
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker FE E Mature pine forests containing
living longleaf pine trees Distant Low
Platalea ajaja Roseate
spoonbill T - Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal
marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous High
Rostrhamus sociabilis
plumbeus
Everglade snail
kite FE E Lowland freshwater marshes and
littoral shelves of lakes Near Moderate
Rynchops niger Black skimmer T - Open sand on beaches, sandbars,
and dredge material islands Distant None
Sterna dougallii Roseate tern FT T
Shell-sand beaches, exposed
limestone, rock and marl fill, dredge
material, rooftops, forage over open
water, coasts, tidal channels
Distant None
Sternula antillarum Least tern T - Coastal beaches, estuaries, and
bays, occasional use of rooftops Distant Low
MAMMALS
Eumops floridanus Florida
bonneted bat FE E
Roosts in palms, snags, cavity trees,
buildings, bridges. Forages above
natural and human-altered
landscapes
Contiguous
High
Occurrence of
Foraging
Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther FE E
Extensive blocks of forests, large
wetlands, can use human-altered
landscapes
Contiguous High
Trichechus manatus West Indian
Manatee FT T Coastal waters, bays, rivers, estuaries,
sometimes lakes and canals Distant Low
Ursus americanus
floridanus
Florida black
bear ** - Forests and forested wetlands,
bayheads Contiguous High
Sources:
USFWS – USFWS status, Official lists of Threatened and Endangered species, 50 CFR 17.11
FWC – FWC, Florida’s Imperiled Species Management Plan 2016-2026, Updated November 16, 2016
FWC - Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species, Updated December 2018.
USFWS ECOS – Environmental Conservation Online System, accessed November 10, 2017
FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory Tracking List, accessed November 10, 2017
Notes:
*The Bald Eagle is afforded federal protection through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA).
**The Florida black bear is no longer listed as threatened, however is protected under the FAC 68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear
Conservation
Key: E – endangered, T – threatened, C – candidate for listing, FE – federally endangered, FT – federally threatened
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONDITIONS
SL0331171122ORL 2-32
2.2.3.7 Special Designations
There are no designated Outstanding Florida Waters as defined in Chapter 62-302 of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C) in the study area. According to the State of Florida, F.A.C, Chapter 62-
302.400 (August 5, 2010), all other waters within the study area have been designated as Class III
waters. Because these canals do not provide breeding or nursery area for marine fish species, no
essential fish habitat occurs in the study area.
2.2.4 Physical Environment
The physical environment includes potential contamination sites, navigable waterways, noise sensitive
sites, utilities, and railroads. There are no navigable waterways or railroads within the project study
area.
2.2.4.1 Contamination
A desktop review of the FDEP Contamination Locator Map along with FDEP resources on the Florida
Geographic Data Locator map, indicate that no active contamination sites exist in the project study area.
The Valencia Golf Course is registered as a hazardous waste facility as it stores chemicals considered
hazardous waste on its property for golf course maintenance.
On the basis of the electronic database search and available public references, there are no sites
identified within the vicinity of the study area expected to have adverse impacts on the project.
However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment including an area reconnaissance should be
conducted during the design phase, to confirm the results of the desktop review and to further identify
any potential contamination sites.
2.2.4.2 Utilities
Existing utilities along the study corridor were approximated by field observations and desktop analysis.
Major utilities are limited to Oil Well Road between Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard.
Appendix E presents a map of the utilities within the study corridor. Utility locations and coordination
will be done during the project’s design phase.
2.2.4.3 Noise Sensitive Sites
A noise analysis was conducted as part of this study and is documented in the Noise Study Technical
Memorandum (Appendix F). A review of noise sensitive sites (performed in February 2019) in the study
areas, included residential areas, a recreational use (golf course at Valencia Golf and Country Club)
located on the north side of Randall Boulevard (near 16th Street NE), and a place of worship (Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the northwest corner of Randall Boulevard and Everglades
Boulevard.
Based on the noise sensitive land uses identified in the project area, noise contours were prepared to
estimate the distance to an approach (within one dB(A) of the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)), or
65 dB(A)) for Activity Category B (residential) and Activity Category C (recreation) land uses. Since the
place of worship does not have a frequent exterior use area (playground, etc.), it was evaluated as
Activity Category D of the NAC, which considers interior traffic noise levels. As the building is of masonry
construction, a reduction of 25 dB(A) can be expected, consistent with guidance found in the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) document Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance 4.
The existing noise levels were based on the LOS C traffic data for the study area and consider the sound
level contributions from Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, and Everglades Boulevard. The noise levels
predicted at the four locations were averaged, resulting in a level of 46.025 dB(A).
SL0331171122ORL 3-1
SECTION 3
Corridor Alternatives Development
The reasonable alternatives for this project are identified and evaluated in a multistep process to allow
opportunities for public and agency input throughout the study. The process for identifying alternatives
to be evaluated is called alternatives development. Initial alternatives are screened to a limited number
of viable alternatives that are further screened and result in a final recommendation (called a Preferred
Alternative). All alternatives are compared against the no-build alternative which serves as a baseline for
Development and Screening of Alternatives.
3.1 Evaluation Analysis and Criteria
The evaluation of alternate corridors began with the documentation of existing conditions within the
study area. Full color uncontrolled aerial mapping was used for land use suitability, preliminary
alignment/corridor location and display boards used at public information meetings. Available
documentation included as-built drawings, County tax maps, and local government comprehensive
plans. Information was also collected based on input received from public agencies through the public
involvement outreach.
Evaluation of ROW and ROW use, cultural resources (i.e., historic, archaeological, agriculture,
government/public), geotechnical features, community/special land use facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals,
churches, neighborhoods, parks/recreation) and environmental features (i.e., wetlands,
threatened/endangered species, contamination sites) were identified to determine the location of
potential impacts associated with the proposed improvements.
3.2 Design Criteria
The design criteria and standards are based on design parameters in accordance with the FDOT 2016
Florida Greenbook (effective June 19, 2017), and FDOT Design Manual (effective January 1, 2019). The
design criteria for the project will be refined further after reasonable alternatives are identified because
the geometric criteria depend upon the facility type of the alignments recommended for further
analysis. The corridors were developed using consistent design criteria to ensure a reasonable
comparison. Table 3-1 presents the design criteria applicable to the corridor development.
SECTION 3—CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
SL0331171122ORL 3-2
TTable 33--11.. DDesign Criteria
Design Element
Randall
Boulevard
Oil Well Road
(CR 858)
Everglades
Boulevard
DeSoto
Boulevard Source General Functional
Classification Minor Collector Minor
Collector
Minor
Collector
Minor
Collector
Map 1 - Federal
Functional
Classification - Collier
County
Access Management 7* 3 * 4* 6*
Resolution 13-257
Table 3
*proposed
Design Speed 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH FGB Table 3-1
Posted Speed 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH Typical Section No. Lanes (Ultimate) 4 (6) 4 (6) 4 4
Lane Width 11' 11' 11' 11' FGB Table 3-8
Bike Lane Width - 4' (min.) 4' (min.) 4' (min.) FGB Figure 9-1
Sidewalk Width 6' 6' 6' 6' CCULDC 6.06.02,
FGB 3. C.7.d Shoulder Width Inside Full
(Paved) - - - - FGB Table 3-11
Outside Full
(Paved) - - - - FGB Table 3-11
Inside Bridge - - - - FGB Table 3-11
Outside Bridge - - - - FGB Table 3-11
Median Width 22' 22' 22' 22' FGB Table 3-14 (15.5' min.) (15.5' min.) (15.5' min.) (15.5' min.)
Border Width 12' 12' 12' 12' FDM Table 210.7.1
Clear Zone 4' 4' 4' 4' FGB Table 3-15
ROW Width 180' (204') 204' 180' 180' Record plans,
CCULDC 6.06.01. N Horizontal Min. Stopping Sight
Distance 360' 360' 360' 360' FGB Table 3-3
Max. Deflection w/o
Curve 1° 00' 1° 00' 1° 00' 1° 00' FDM 210.8.1
Length of Curve 675' 675' 675' 675' FDM Table 210.8.1,
(400' min.) (400' min.) (400' min.) (400' min.) FGB 3. C.4.a
Max. Curvature (Min.
Radius) 8°15' (680') 8°15' (680') 8°15' (680') 8°15' (680') FGB Table 3-5
Max. Superelevation 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 FGB 3. C.4.b Vertical Max. Grade 8% 8% 8% 8% FGB Table 3-7
Max. Change in Grade
w/o VC 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 FGB Table 3-8
Base Clearance above
BCWE 3' 3' 3' 3' FDM 210.10.3. (2)
Crest Curve K 61 61 61 61 FGB Table 3-9
Sag Curve K 79 80 81 82 FGB Table 3-9
Vertical Clearance 16.5' 16.5' 16.5' 16.5' FGB 3. C.7. j.4. (b)
FGB – 2016 FDOT Florida Green Book; FDM – 2018 FDOT Design Manual
SECTION 3—CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
SL0331171122ORL 3-3
3.3 Typical Sections
3.3.1 Four-Lane Cross-Section
Under this alternative, the typical section for the roadway includes a 22-foot center median, two 11-foot
travel lanes in each direction, 7-foot bike lanes with curb and gutter, a grassed separator and 6-foot
concrete sidewalks or 12-foot shared-use pathway (on one side). The typical section also includes a
closed drainage system. The required ROW width for this typical section is 180 feet. This typical section
alternative was considered for the S-Connector, Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard, and DeSoto
Boulevard alternatives.
FFigure 3-1. Proposed 4-Lane Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
3.3.2 Four-Lane Cross-Section (expandable to Six-Lane)
This alternative provides for a four-lane typical section with the ability to provide one additional lane in
each direction in the future by widening to the inside with a 44-foot center median. This typical section
alternative was considered for Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Everglades Boulevard, and DeSoto
Boulevard alternatives. In order to accommodate the existing portion of the SunTrail alignment, a
shared use path is proposed on the north side of Oil Well Road in both the 4-lane and 6-lane
alternatives.
Figure 3-2. Proposed 4-Lane Typical Section – Expandable 6-Lanes (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
SECTION 3—CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
SL0331171122ORL 3-4
3.3.3 Six-Lane Cross-Section
This alternative includes a 22-foot center median, three 11-foot travel lanes in each direction, 7-foot
bike lanes with curb and gutter, a grassed separator and 6-foot concrete sidewalks or 12-foot pathways.
The typical section also includes a closed drainage system. The required ROW width for this typical
section is 204 feet. This alternative would provide the capacity to accommodate the existing and future
traffic demand and provide future needed channelization in the median to improve safety by allowing
left-turning vehicles to be removed from the flow of thru traffic. This typical section alternative is
proposed for Randall Boulevard (Figure 3-3).
FFigure 3-3. Proposed 6-Lanes Typical Section (Urban with Curb & Gutter)
3.3.4 Bridges
There are four existing bridges in the study area that cross over either the Golden Gate Main Canal or
the Faka Union Canal. Three of the bridges (2-lane bridges) are considered functionally obsolete. The
proposed typical sections for the bridges include either a 4-lane, or 6-lane typical section, depending on
the location. The bridges will be widened or replaced in accordance with current requirements of the
SFWMD. The bridges will be designed to maintain the capacity of the canals without any constrictions. It
is noted that the existing bridge along Oil Well Road over the Golden Gate Main Canal is already
configured to expand to 6-lanes. The typical sections are detailed in Figure 3-4.
SECTION 3—CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
SL0331171122ORL 3-5
FFigure 3-4. Proposed Bridge Typical Sections
3.4 Traffic Circulation Plan
Within the project study limits, all roadways are owned and maintained by Collier County. Table 2-2 in
Section 2 lists the roadway classifications based on Collier County’s current Growth Management Plan
which also notes that Everglades Boulevard is a Collier County Hurricane Evacuation Route. The Collier
MPO 2040 LRTP notes that Oil Well Road between Immokalee Road and SR 29 is a Freight Distribution
Route.
The specific purpose of the project is to enhance mobility and develop a traffic circulation plan for the
local system connection to the primary facilities of Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Everglades
Boulevard, DeSoto Boulevard that promotes safe local traffic, bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Figure 3-5 shows the existing roadway network east of I-75 and the current number of lanes. This figure
illustrates that the only major east-west routes east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) are Immokalee Road,
Golden Gate Boulevard and Oil Well Road.
The proposed improvements to this corridor, combined with the surrounding area planned
improvements including the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and the future Big Cypress Parkway (by
others), will provide adequate transportation capacity to meet future traffic development and planned
growth as approved in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The network of improvements will
provide additional capacity in the east-west direction to meet the travel demands of the growing Golden
Gate Estates community and developing communities to the east.
DESOTO BLVDOIL W
E
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
EVERGLADES BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD39TH AVE NERed MapleSwampPreserveRiversRoadPreserveCorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHeadCampKeaisStrand45678464567858Ave MariaSHADY HOLLOW BLVD45TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE29TH AVE NEFAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALUNKNOWNCURRY CANALORANGE TREE CANALCOCOHATCHEE CANALCYPRESS CANALMILLER CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALCORKSCREW CANALCYPRESS CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALO2,000 0 2,0001,000 FeetLast Updated:20190227Randall_ExistingRdsSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEPFigXUHExisting RoadwayNetworkLegend:Project Study AreaCanalsCollier County ParksFlorida Managed LandsRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaAva MariaTown BoundarySurface WatersCollier County Future ParksLanesStewardship Sending Areas2 Lane4 Lane6 Lane
SL0331171122ORL 4-1
SECTION 4
Initial Alternatives
The corridors were developed to evaluate an east-west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. The development
of potential corridors to be studied as part of this project was carried out in stages. Initially, the project
was broken into segments defined as follows:
x New Alignment "S-Connector" – connecting Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road
x Randall Boulevard - from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard (or the S-Connector
proposed intersection)
x Randall Boulevard - from Everglades Boulevard (or the S-Connector proposed intersection) to
DeSoto Boulevard
x Randall Boulevard - from DeSoto Boulevard to Oil Well Road (new alignment)
x Oil Well Road – from Everglades Boulevard (or the S-Connector proposed intersection) to Oil
Well Grade Road
x Everglades Boulevard – from Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road
x DeSoto Boulevard – from Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road
Initial alternatives were developed based on the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP as stated in Section 1.2. All
alternatives proposed a new extension of Randall Boulevard east of DeSoto Boulevard N to Oil Well
Road just west of Oil Well Grade Road. Four alternatives were developed and presented at the Initial
Alternatives Public Meeting on May 24, 2018.
4.1 Alternative 1 – New Alignment “S-Connector”
Alternative 1 (Figure 4-1) proposes a new alignment along the Golden Gate Main Canal that would
include a reverse curve (S-Connector) alignment north to connect to Oil Well Road at a point west of
Everglades Boulevard. The new alignment is proposed as free-flow movements from/to Oil Well Road
and Randall Boulevard.
FFigure 4-1. Alternative 1
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-2
Randall Boulevard would be 4-lanes east of the Golden Gate Main Canal. Traffic would be able to bypass
the existing north-south connections of Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard, thus allowing
potential roundabouts or improved intersections at those locations with a 4-lane Randall Boulevard.
Table 4-1 presents the benefits and limitations of Alternative 1.
TTable 44--11. Alternative 1 –– BBenefits & Limitations
New Alignment Benefits New Alignment Limitations
x Diverts away from neighborhood / avoids school
zones along Oil Well Road
x Free flow of traffic operations (at peak hours)
x Uses existing ROW on Oil Well Road for 6 Lane
expansion
x Improves travel time and emergency response
time
x Proposed S-Connector requires additional new
ROW
x Does not make use of existing 6-lane infrastructure
on Everglades Boulevard
x Introduces driveway access impacts to homes
along Randall Boulevard by restricting left-turn
movements
x Requires new canal bridges
As part of the new alignment, access to existing roads (27th Avenue NE, 29th Avenue NE and 31st Avenue
NE) were considered and were shown at the Alternative Public Information Meeting held in 2018. As
shown in Figure 4-2, three options were presented: (1) three Connection Points with all three streets
connected, (2) one Connection Point with all three streets connected via a frontage road, and (3) no
streets connected. The benefit of the options with connections is that they provide for improved local
traffic circulation by providing direct access to the proposed S-Connector, thereby reducing travel time
and emergency response time. Based on public comment received at the Alternative Public Information
Meeting, the option with no connections was recommend for further analysis due to the concerns of
increased traffic (local cut thru) due to the new access.
FFigure 4-2. Alternative 1 New Alignment Access Options
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-3
4.2 Alternative 2 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 4-Lane
Everglades Boulevard
Alternative 2 (Figure 4-3) proposes widening Everglades Boulevard and eliminating the S-Curve. It also
proposes widening Randall Boulevard to six (6) lanes instead of four (4). Alternatives 2 through 4 are
variations of the “conventional” response to a congestion issue, that is to widen the existing roadways
rather than construct a new roadway. In Alternative 2, traffic would have the option to use an expanded
4 Lane Everglades Boulevard as a bypass to reach an expanded 6 Lane Randall Boulevard. The
intersections with Everglades Road would require a traffic signal, causing some delays. Roundabouts are
not viable on this roadway in a 6-lane configuration. Table 4-2 presents the benefits and limitations of
Alternative 2.
FFigure 4-3. Alternative 2
Table 4--2. Alternative 2 –– BBenefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
x Widening of existing network
x Widening of Everglades is consistent with Collier
MPO LRTP needs and evacuation routes
x Diverts away from neighborhood / avoids school
zones
x Uses existing ROW on Oil Well Road for 6 Lane
expansion
x Does not require new bridges
x Increases commute time compared to Alternative
1
x Greater delays at intersections
x Potential impacts associated with Everglades
Boulevard expansion to 4 lanes (expandable to 6
lanes)
x Requires more ROW on Randall Boulevard for 6-
lane expansion
4.3 Alternative 3 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 4-Lane
Everglades Boulevard and 4-Lane DeSoto Boulevard
Alternative 3 (Figure 4-4) is another variation of conventional widening to the existing roadways within
the study area. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 with the 4-lane Everglades Boulevard
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-4
connection, but it also adds another 4-lane bypass at DeSoto Boulevard to distribute some of the traffic.
Table 4-3 presents the benefits and limitations of Alternative 3.
FFigure 4-4. Alternative 3
Table 4--3. Alternative 3 –– BBenefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
x Same benefits as Alternative 2
x Adds a second 4-Lane option for north-south travel
with use of both Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto
Boulevard
x May reduce delays at intersections with two options
for users
x Same limitations as Alternative 2
x Potential impacts associated with DeSoto
Boulevard expansion to 4 lanes
4.4 Alternative 4 – 6-Lane Randall Boulevard plus 6-Lane
Everglades Boulevard
Alternative 4 (Figure 4-5) is like Alternative 2 but proposes widening Everglades Boulevard to six (6)
lanes and eliminate widening DeSoto Boulevard. Table 4-4 presents the benefits and limitations of
Alternative 4.
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-5
FFigure 4-5. Alternative 4
Table 4--4. Alternative 4 –– BBenefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
x Same benefits as Alternative 2
x Expanded Everglades Boulevard to 6 lanes would
further reduce congestion and meet traffic
demand
x Same limitations as Alternative 2
x Potential impacts associated with Everglades
Boulevard expansion to 6 lanes
4.5 No Build Alternative
The No Action (No Build) Alternative includes highway facilities that are likely to exist in 2040. This
includes the existing highway network, which is part of all alternatives in addition to the highway
improvements that are identified in the Collier County MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan and
the FDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program Projects. The No Build Alternative includes those
projects that provide for an increase in capacity, such as new roadway construction, widening projects,
and major interchanges. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the travel benefits
of other alternatives.
The No Build Alternative would avoid ROW and construction costs associated with the proposed
improvements, eliminate the short-term disruption that would occur along the existing roadways during
construction activities, and prevent business or residential impacts or impacts to other undeveloped
lands or wetlands. However, the No Build Alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the
project. The disadvantage of the No Build Alternative is that there would be no provision to
accommodate the anticipated growth in traffic volumes. Without mobility improvements within the
study area, operating conditions of Immokalee Road, Randall Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and
DeSoto Boulevard would deteriorate at an accelerated rate. The increased traffic congestion on these
roadways would delay motorists and increase the potential for crashes. Specifically, the No Build
Alternative will offer no benefits to the existing or future traffic congestion within the area. Table 4-5
presents the distinct benefits and limitations associated with the No Build alternative.
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-6
TTable 44--55.. NNo Build Alternative –– BBenefits & Limitations
Benefits Limitations
x No impedance to traffic flow during construction
x No expenditure of funds for ROW acquisition,
engineering, design or construction
x No impact to the adjacent natural, physical, and
human environments
x No disruption to existing land uses due to
construction-related activities
x Increase in traffic congestion and road user costs,
unacceptable LOS, and an increase in accidents associated
with an increase in travel times and traffic volumes due to
excessive delays
x Increase in carbon monoxide levels and other air pollutants
caused by an increase in traffic congestion
x Increase in maintenance costs due to roadway and structure
deterioration
x Increase in emergency service response time in addition to an
increase in evacuation time during weather emergencies
because of heavy congestion
x Increase in safety-related accidents due to heavy congestion
x Potential increase in safety-related accidents due to less than
desirable levels of service and access management
The No Build Alternative shall remain a viable alternative through the public involvement process. The
final selection of an alternative will not be made until all impacts are considered and responses to the
public comments have been evaluated.
4.6 Evaluation Matrix of Initial Alternatives
An analysis was initiated to reduce and refine the initial alternative roadway networks down to a specific
improvement program, thereby eliminating from consideration infeasible or non-viable alternatives.
Following this qualitative analysis, a quantitative evaluation matrix was developed to compare the initial
alternative roadway networks. For each of the initial alternatives, seven criteria were further evaluated.
These criteria included overall ROW impacts, business impacts, residential impacts, community facility
impacts, special land use impacts, cultural and historical impacts, and natural environment and physical
impacts. Table 4-6 presents the results of the evaluation in matrix format.
Additionally, a traffic analysis was performed for each initial alternative and is presented in Figure 4-6.
The Modeling Technical Memorandum is located in Appendix B. The traffic analysis backup (presented
in Appendix B) shows the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and volume to capacity (V/C) by 2045 for
facilities within the study area for each initial alternative. Based on the FDOT Urban Area 1-Mile Buffer
Hendry & Collier Counties l map, the urban areas are defined (U) as everything west of Everglades. It is
noted that a V/C greater than one (1) indicates facility deficiency.
l Urban Area 1-Mile Buffer Hendry & Collier Counties, FDOT, February 26, 2015
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-7
TTable 4--66.. Initial Alternatives Comparative Matrix
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1
with New Alignment
"S-Connector" Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
ROW Impact MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM
Total Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
Vacant Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM
Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Non-Residential Parcels Impacted LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Potential Residential Displacements (No.) 1 0 1 0
Potential Business Displacements (No.) 0 0 0 0
Community Use Parcel Impacts (No.) 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts (acres) 16 13 21 13
T&E Species Habitat Potential Effects MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM
Canal crossings (No. of bridges) 4 2 2 2
Estimated Preliminary Project Cost
(in 2018 $ Millions) LOW LOW HIGH MEDIUM
SL0331171122ORL 4-8 FFigure 4-6. Initial Alternatives 2045 Traffic Analysis
SL0331171122ORL 4-ϵ
4.7 Selection of Viable Alternatives
Based on public comment, traffic analysis, the comparative evaluation (as presented in Table 4-6) and
careful consideration, a consensus was reached to eliminate Initial Alternatives 3 and 4 from further
consideration. Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated since they provided no additional benefit over
Alternatives 1 and 2 for the following reasons:
Purpose and Need: All Initial Alternatives satisfy the purpose and need of the project by increasing
capacity on the network and enhancing access, safety and mobility.
Natural Environment: Overall, Alternative 1 on a new alignment has higher natural environmental
impacts. Wetland impacts range from 6 to 15 acres approximately. Alternatives 1 and 3 have higher
wetland impacts compared to Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 1 also has the potential for higher
surface water impacts and threatened and endangered (T&E) species habitat impacts. Alternative 3 has
the highest impacts associated with Florida panther primary zone habitat. The study area is located
within the Florida Bonneted Bat Focal Area, and the entire project footprint was identified for potential
effects.
Social Impacts: Overall, Alternative 1 has the least social impacts and least impacts related to
community cohesion. With most buildings sitting toward the front of their lots, acquiring ROW along the
existing streets would diminish the front offsets to the buildings and result in the buildings being closer
to the roadway. As a result, Alternatives 2 and 3 which included the six-lane widening of Randall
Boulevard (from Everglades Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard) had significantly more impacts to the
residential parcels property, driveways and access than Alternatives 1. There are no displacement of
homes or businesses associated with the Build Alternatives. No impacts to community services or parks
are anticipated.
Access Management Impacts: By reconstructing the existing roadways as part of this project, the
existing driveways would be reconnected to the widened road. This would create access/conflict points
along a major portion of the project between the thru vehicles and vehicles entering and exiting
driveways. Multiple U-turn points would be required to allow the local traffic to access both directions
of the roadway, creating additional conflict points and further degrading the LOS of the roadway. Due
the continuous flow movement of the S-Connector, Alternative 1 presents access impacts to residential
parcels at the intersection with Randall Boulevard.
Traffic Demand: The existing 2-lane Randall Boulevard (west of Everglades Boulevard) is expected to fail
by 2021. Review of Figure 4-6 indicates that all Build Alternative traffic volumes on Randall Boulevard
(west of Everglades Boulevard) support the need for 6 lanes. In the No Build condition, Randall
Boulevard (east of Everglades Boulevard) will be near failing by 2045 (LOS D); however, the traffic
volumes for all Build Alternatives indicates that Randall Boulevard (east of Everglades Boulevard) only
requires widening to 4 lanes and that 6 lanes are not necessary within the design year horizon.
Additionally, the traffic volumes for all 2045 Build Alternatives along Everglades Boulevard, indicates
that only 4 lanes are needed along this facility, which would also minimize impacts to community
cohesion. In comparing the No Build and Build Alternatives, Initial Alternative 1 seems to operate with
the lowest traffic volumes along the constrained portion of Oil Well Road.
SECTION 4—INITIAL ALTERNATIVES
SL0331171122ORL 4-ϭϬ
Conclusion: Based on the traffic analysis of the network initial alternatives, there was no improvement
or benefit in the LOS on the roadways analyzed (Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road, Everglades Boulevard,
DeSoto Boulevard, and the proposed S-Connector) between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.
Therefore, Initial Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons:
x higher parcel impacts
x higher costs
x higher social impacts to community cohesion along Randall Boulevard
x higher environmental impacts
x no significant improvement in meeting the future traffic demand
Alternatives 1 and 2 were recommended for further evaluation with the following considerations:
x Traffic analysis supports the need for 6-lane widening along Randall Boulevard (west of
Everglades Boulevard).
x Traffic analysis supports the need for 4-lane widening along Randall Boulevard (east of
Everglades Boulevard).
x Access impacts associated with the S-Connector at the intersection of Randall Boulevard should
be further evaluated.
x Regional mobility and the future corridor network needs should be considered in the next
update of the Collier MPO LRTP.
SL0331171122ORL 5-1
SECTION 5
Viable Corridor Alternatives Evaluation
Initial Alternatives 1 and 2 were carried forward in the study for further evaluation as Viable Alternatives
1 and 2. Both viable alternatives were refined based on public and agency comments, future traffic
demand, planning consistency and the minimization and/or avoidance of environmental impacts and
costs. As a result, the proposed Randall Boulevard extension from east of DeSoto Blvd to Oil Well Road
was eliminated and networks with the future Big Cypress Parkway (by others) were considered to be
consistent with the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP Needs Plan. The viable alternatives were further refined and
presented at the Viable Alternatives Public Information Meeting on April 11, 2019. The No Build
Alternative shall remain a viable alternative through the public involvement process.
5.1 Transportation System Management & Operations
Transportation System Management and Operations (TSM&O) Alternatives are defined as low capital
cost transportation improvements designed to maximize the utilization and efficiency of the existing
transportation system through improved system management. The various forms of TSM&O activities
include:
x Traffic signal improvements
x Intersection/interchange improvements
x Widening of parallel arterials
x Ridesharing programs
x High Occupancy Vehicular (HOV) lanes
x Reversible flow roadway systems
x Transit
x Intelligent Transportation System
x Ramp-to-ramp auxiliary lanes
Although the implementation of TSM&O strategies would certainly aid in localized operations of the
existing roadway network, the projected traffic volumes for the design year 2045 require additional
capacity in excess to any improvements possible through TSM&O measures to maintain or improve the
existing levels of service. Therefore, the TSM&O Alternative is not considered a viable alternative and no
further evaluation of the TSM&O Alternative will be conducted during this study. The improvements
contained in the TSM&O and Build Alternatives are improvements that could be made in addition to
those contained in the No Build Alternative.
5.2 Viable Alternative 1 – New Alignment “S-Connector”
Viable Alternative 1 is similar to Initial Alternative 1 with no connections to 27th Avenue NE, 29th Avenue
NE and 31st Avenue NE. Viable Alternative 1 (Figure 5-1) proposes a new alignment, S-Connector, along
the Golden Gate Main Canal between Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road at a point west of Everglades
Boulevard. The proposed S-Connector includes free-flow movements from/to Oil Well Road and Randall
Boulevard. Table 5-1 presents the distinct benefits and limitations associated with Viable Alternative 1
when compared to Viable Alternative 2.
SECTION 5—VIABLE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SL0331171122ORL 5-2
TTable 55--11.. VViable AAlternative 11 –– BBenefits & Limitations WWhen Compared to Viable Alternative 2
Benefits Limitations
x Provides the best traffic operations for the road
network and relieves congestion along constrained
portion of Oil Well Road east of Immokalee Road to
Everglades Boulevard
x Has less impacts on residential parcels and as a result
affects less property owners
x Predicted to operate at an acceptable LOS by moving
the traffic westbound faster and more efficiently
x Requires significantly more ROW than Viable
Alternative 2
x More impacts to the natural environment,
including wetland and T&E species habitat
x Higher costs
x By moving the traffic westbound faster and
more efficiently, intersections along Immokalee
Road at Oil Well Road, Randall Boulevard, and
Wilson Boulevard are likely to fail sooner in the
planning horizon
x No potential future connection to Vanderbilt
Beach Road
FFigure 5-1. Viable Alternative 1 New Alignment
5.3 Viable Alternative 2 – 4-Lane Everglades Boulevard
Viable Alternative 2 (Figure 5-2) is similar to Initial Alternative 2 as it proposes widening Everglades
Boulevard without the S-Connector and widening Randall Boulevard to four (4) lanes instead of six (6)
lanes east of Everglades Boulevard, to minimize impacts to the environment and community cohesion.
Table 5-2 presents the distinct benefits and limitations associated with Viable Alternative 2 as
compared to Viable Alternative 1.
SECTION 5—VIABLE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SL0331171122ORL 5-3
TTable 55--22.. VViable AAlternative 22 –– BBenefits & Limitations WWhen Compared to Viable Alternative 1
Benefits Limitations
x Requires less ROW than Viable Alternative 1
x Has less impacts to the natural environment
including wetland and T&E species habitat
x Lower costs
x Most compatible with the future roadway network
(see Section 1.3.4.1)
x Predicted to operate at an acceptable LOS by moving
the traffic westbound faster and more efficiently
x Enhances an existing Collier County Evacuation
Route, Everglades Boulevard, with potential future
connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road
x More impacts to residential parcels and
property owners
x Does not divert as much traffic to Randall
Boulevard and, therefore, does not provide as
much relief to traffic operations along the
constrained portion of Oil Well Road west of
Everglades Boulevard compared to Alternative 1
x Similar to Viable Alternative 1, by moving the
traffic westbound faster and more efficiently,
intersections along Immokalee Road at Oil Well
Road, Randall Boulevard, and Wilson Boulevard
are likely to fail sooner in the planning horizon
FFigure 5-2. Viable Alternative 2
5.4 Evaluation Matrix of Viable Alternatives
A quantitative evaluation matrix was developed to compare the viable build alternatives and the No
Build alternative. The objective of this effort was to further refine the alternative roadway segments and
carry forward the most viable alternative for a more detailed analysis during the design phase. Table 5-4
presents the results of the evaluation in matrix format. This information was presented at the April 2019
public meeting. The cost estimate applicable to viable alternatives are summarized in Appendix G.
SECTION5—VIABLECORRIDORALTERNATIVESEVALUATION
5Ͳ4
Table5Ͳ4.ViableAlternativesComparativeMatrix
5.5 ViableAlternative2PlusFutureNetwork
Consideringprogrammedandplannedprojectsnearthestudyarea(discussedinSection1.3.4.1),each
viablealternativewasanalyzedforcompatibilityandenhancementwiththefuturenetwork.The
plannedextensionsofVanderbiltBeachRoadpresentanopportunityforthisfacilitytoactasaparallel
relievertoRandallBoulevard.Therefore,connectionsbetweenVanderbiltBeachRoadandRandall
Boulevardwouldimprovethefutureregionalnetworkmobility.Analysisofeachviablealternativewith
thefuturenetworkindicatesthefollowing.
x ViableAlternative1(withSͲConnector)providesaconnectiononlybetweenOilWellRoadand
RandallBoulevard.Duetotheareaconstraints,therearenofutureplanstoextendVanderbilt
BeachRoadsouthofRandallBoulevard.
x ViableAlternative2(viaEvergladesBoulevard)hasthepotentialtoconnecttotheplanned
VanderbiltBeachRoadextension.VanderbiltBeachRoadasaparallelrelievertoRandall
BoulevardallowstraffictobypassthecongestedintersectionsalongImmokaleeRoadbetween
OilWellRoadandWilsonBoulevard.
Therefore,ViableAlternative2providesabetterlongͲtermregionalbenefitthanViableAlternative1
whencombinedwiththefuturenetwork(seeFigure5Ͳ3).
SL0331171122ORL
SECTION 5—VIABLE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SL0331171122ORL 5-5
“Viable Alternative 2 Plus” the future network (Figure 5-3) was presented at the Viable Alternatives
Public Information Meeting on April 11, 2019.
FFigure 5-3. Viable Alternative 2 Plus Future Roadway Network
5.6 Traffic Evaluation
Traffic analysis was performed on the viable future roadway networks including: the future No Build
network, Viable Alternatives 1 and 2 without the future network, and “Viable Alternative 2 Plus” the
future network as described in Figure 5-4. The following is observed for the segments in the study area
comparing the build alternatives to the no build alternative.
x Immokalee Road:
o From west of Wilson Boulevard to Randall Boulevard, all alternatives indicate these
segments fails; however, Viable Alternative 2 Plus the future network, decreases traffic
volumes to well below the No Build volumes for the segment between Wilson Boulevard
and Randall Boulevard; Viable Alternative 2 decreases traffic volumes to below the No
Build volumes west of Wilson Boulevard.
o Between Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road, all build alternatives indicate this
segment operates at a LOS C; however, traffic volumes decrease significantly with Viable
Alternative 1.
x Oil Well Road:
o Between Immokalee Road to the Golden Gate Main Canal (constrained portion of Oil
Well Road), all build alternatives indicate an improvement from the No Build; however,
Viable Alternative 1 improves the traffic volumes significantly.
o Between Golden Gate Main Canal and Everglades Boulevard, only Viable Alternative 1
and Viable Alternative 2 Plus the future network improve the traffic operations;
however, Viable Alternative 2 Plus the future network improves this segment the best.
SECTION 5—VIABLE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SL0331171122ORL 5-6
x Randall Boulevard:
o From 8th Street NE to 16th Street NE, only Viable Alternative 2 and Viable Alternative 2
Plus the future network improve traffic operations, with the future network providing
the greatest congestion relief.
o From 16th Street NE to the Golden Gate Main Canal, all viable build alternatives improve
the No-Build Condition from LOS F to LOS C; however, the future network provides the
greatest congestion relief.
o All viable build alternatives allow this segment to operate as LOS C; however, Viable
Alternative 2 Plus the future network, provides the greatest congestion relief.
x Everglades Boulevard:
o All alternatives allow this segment to operate as LOS C; however, Viable Alternative 1
has the lowest traffic volumes.
x DeSoto Boulevard:
o All alternatives allow this segment to operate as LOS C; however, Viable Alternative 2
Plus the future network has significantly lower traffic volumes.
SL0331171122ORL 5-7FFigure 5-4. dƌĂĨĨŝĐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ2045 Viable Alternatives
SL0331171122ORL 5-ϴ
5.7 Purpose and Need Evaluation
Further evaluation of viable build alternatives was performed to determine which viable alternative
satisfies the primary objectives of the project Purpose and Need.
x Reduce congestion for future traffic needs due to population and employment growth: While
Viable Alternative 1 seems to relieve congestion the best along the constrained portion of Oil
Well Road, it causes the segment of Randall Boulevard between 8th Street NE and 16th Street NE
to fail. Viable Alternative 2 does reduce traffic volumes along the constrained portion of Oil Well
Road, but not as well as Viable Alternative 1. Due to Everglades Boulevard potentially
connecting with the Vanderbilt Beach Road extensions in the future, traffic can bypass the
congested intersections along Immokalee Road. Oil Well Road congestion improves with Viable
Alternative 2 Plus the future network.
x Enhance regional mobility and access between I-75 and eastern Collier County, as well as
improve freight (truck), transit, bicycle and pedestrian access: While Viable Alternative 1
relieves congestion along Oil Well Road, it does not enhance regional mobility, nor does it
improve traffic volumes along Immokalee Road near the intersections of Wilson Boulevard and
Randall Boulevard. Transit will be enhanced along Oil Well Road, but not along Immokalee Road
due to congestion. Given that Viable Alternative 2 connects to the future network via Everglades
Boulevard, it enhances regional mobility. Further review of traffic data indicates that Viable
Alternative 2 Plus the future network, provides an acceptable LOS along the Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension to the Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road intersection (west of the study
area), allowing drivers to bypass the congested Immokalee Road and Wilson Boulevard/Randall
Boulevard intersections for greater mobility options in the region. Viable Alternative 2 Plus the
future network provides enhanced regional mobility, enhances pedestrian and bicycle access by
allowing bicyclists/pedestrians to travel further south towards Vanderbilt Beach Road, and
enhances travel reliability for transit users due to reduced wait times along Randall Boulevard
and Oil Well Road.
x Improve safety by reducing vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian user conflicts: Viable Alternative 1
improves congestion along the constrained portion of Oil Well Road and, therefore, is
anticipated to reduce the number of crashes in front of the neighborhoods and schools.
Immokalee Road is considered a High Crash Corridor in the Collier MPO 2040 LRTP. Because
Viable Alternative 1 does not reduce traffic volumes along Immokalee Road (at the
intersections), it does not improve safety along this corridor. Viable Alternative 2 allows traffic
to bypass the congested intersections of Immokalee Road. Viable Alternative 2 Plus provides
motorists options to use Everglades Boulevard or future Big Cypress Parkway to connect to
Vanderbilt Beach Road, avoiding the constrained portion of Oil Well Road and, therefore,
potentially reducing the number of crashes in front of the schools and neighborhoods.
x Improve emergency evacuation by increasing the number of residents from eastern Collier
County that can be evacuated and access times for emergency responders: The two emergency
facilities near the study area are along Immokalee Road, and Everglades Boulevard is a Collier
County Emergency Evacuation Route. Viable Alternative 1 does not reduce traffic volumes at the
intersections along Immokalee Road, potentially increasing emergency response times and
evacuation time for residents in eastern Collier County. The two emergency facilities along
Immokalee Road, are anticipated to experience improved response times with Viable
Alternative 2 Plus because of its connection to the region. Viable Alternative 2 Plus improves the
existing Everglades Boulevard, allowing higher through traffic volumes, and connects to
Vanderbilt Beach Road which gives residents in eastern Collier County additional mobility options
during evacuations.
SECTION 5—VIABLE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SL0331171122ORL 5-ϵ
Table 5-3 presents summary analysis of each of the viable alternatives and their individual satisfaction of
the objectives of the Purpose and Need.
TTable 5-3. Purpose and Need Evaluation
Purpose and Need Objectives
Project Purpose and Need
Satisfaction
Viable
Alternative
Reduce
congestion
Enhance
regional
mobility and
access Improve safety
Improve
emergency
evacuation and
access times
Does the alternative satisfy
all objectives?
No Build No No No No No
1 No No Yes No No
2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Plus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
SL0331171122ORL 6-1
SECTION 6
Recommended Alternative
Based on public comment, the evaluation matrix (as presented in Table 5-4), purpose and need
evaluations including the traffic analysis, and the regional long-range plan, a consensus was reached to
eliminate Viable Alternative 1 with the S-Connector from further consideration and recommend Viable
Alternative 2 Plus the future network for the following reasons:
Purpose and Need: Viable Alternative 2 Plus satisfies the purpose and need of the project significantly
better than Viable Alternative 1.
Natural Environment: Overall, Viable Alternative 1 on a new alignment has higher natural environment
impacts. Viable Alternative 1 has higher wetland/surface water impacts and T&E species habitat impacts
compared to Viable Alternative 2 Plus.
Social Impacts: Overall, Viable Alternative 1 has the least social impacts and least impacts related to
community cohesion because of the new alignment. However, impacts to residential parcels along
Randall Boulevard east Everglades Boulevard, as well as Everglades Boulevard (Viable Alternative 2 Plus),
were minimized with the selection of the 4-lane typical section (in a 4-lane footprint). Neither of the
viable alternatives are anticipated to involve residential or business displacements, nor impact
community focal points.
Access Management Impacts: Viable Alternative 1 presents access impacts to residential parcels at the
intersection with Randall Boulevard. Viable Alternative 2 Plus has the least amount of access impacts.
Traffic Demand: In comparison to the No Build and Build Alternatives, Viable Alternative 1 operates with
the best LOS and relieves congestion along the constrained portion of Oil Well Road east of Immokalee
Road to Everglades Boulevard. However, Viable Alternative 1 appears to cause Randall Boulevard to fail
between 8th Street NE and 16th Street NE. Traffic analysis of Viable Alternative 2 Plus, indicates that it
also improves the mobility along the constrained segment of Oil Well Road. Further, Viable Alternative 2
Plus allows for Vanderbilt Beach Road to act as a parallel reliever to Randall Boulevard. While none of
the alternatives improve traffic operations at the intersections of Immokalee Road and Wilson/Randall
Boulevard, Viable Alternative 2 Plus reduces those traffic volumes and also allows an option for drivers
to completely bypass those intersections via Vanderbilt Beach Road to Collier Boulevard to Immokalee
Road.
Emergency Evacuation: Viable Alternative 2 Plus improves the existing Everglades Boulevard, a
designated Collier County Evacuation Route, allowing higher thru traffic volumes. It will also connect to
the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, giving residents in eastern Collier County additional
mobility options during evacuations.
Costs: Viable Alternative 2 provides a greater economic benefit since it is roughly 17 million dollars less
than Viable Alternative 1 and provides greater results for the region.
Public Input: A live survey took place during the meeting that asked the public if they supported Viable
Alternative 1 or Viable Alternative 2 Plus. An overwhelming majority supported the Viable Alternative 2
Plus.
Typical Sections: The typical sections for the Recommended Alternative include:
x Randall Boulevard – west of Everglades Boulevard: 6 Lanes; see Figures 3-3 and 3-4 (bridge)
x Randall Boulevard – east of Everglades Boulevard: 4 Lanes; see Figures 3-1 and 3-4 (bridge)
x Everglades Boulevard – Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard: 4 Lanes; see Figure 3-1
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-2
x Oil Well Road – east of Everglades Boulevard: 4 Lanes expandable to 6 Lanes; see Figure 3-2 and
Figure 3-4 (bridge)
6.1 Recommended Alternative Potential Impacts
The Recommended Alternative is not anticipated to have significant natural, social, cultural, or physical
impacts. Below is a summary of the impacts anticipated.
6.1.1 Social Resources
The Recommended Alternative includes the widening of existing roadways. No displacements are
anticipated with ROW acquisition. Approximately 78 acres of ROW easement and 60 acres of additional
ROW is needed for the proposed improvements.
6.1.1.1 Community Cohesion
The Recommended Alternative is not anticipated to adversely impact elderly persons, disabled persons,
minorities, or transit-dependent individuals. The proposed improvements include addition of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities which are anticipated to provide an enhanced experience that increases walking,
cycling, and transit use in the area.
The proposed improvements include widening along existing roadways within the residential area of
Golden Gates Estates, which include individual lots of 1 to 5 acres in size. The widening of roadways with
areas of existing higher residential properties, is limited to 4 lanes, to minimize impacts to community
cohesion. Additionally, the proposed improvements will not significantly impact the existing community
focal points/resources or isolate them from the community.
6.1.1.2 Economic
The improvements are anticipated to provide a positive economic effect for regional freight mobility and
are consistent with the economic goals of the County. The project supports the County's plans for a
transportation network that connects workforce residences with concentrated areas of economic
activity. In that way, the proposed improvements will facilitate commuting to economic centers. In
addition, improving regional mobility in the area and reducing travel delay may attract new businesses.
6.1.1.3 Land Use Changes
The proposed project is expected to support the planned development near the study area and is
consistent with Collier County's Growth Management Plan. Potential drainage pond locations are
anticipated to use currently vacant, undeveloped land.
6.1.1.4 Mobility
The Recommended Alternative will the enhance mobility of the area. Additionally, regional mobility is
enhanced between I-75 and eastern Collier County for both vehicles and freight. Regional mobility is
further enhanced as the Recommended Alternative provides greater connectivity to the future regional
network of future Big Cypress Parkway (by others), the planned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, canal
bridges, and intersection improvements at Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard, just west of the
study area.
The Recommended Alternative includes the addition of 6-foot sidewalks and 7-foot (buffered) bicycle
lanes adjacent to the outside travel lanes in both directions of the improved roadways; as well as a
shared use path proposed along the north side of Oil Well Road (east of Everglades Boulevard) for
connection to the future SunTrail alignments. These improvements create a safer mode of travel for
pedestrians and bicyclists by reducing conflicts between all modes of travel. Improvements to bicycle
and pedestrian facilities within the study area will provide a quality experience that increases walking,
bicycling, and transit use, thereby increasing mobility for all modes of travel.
SECTION6—RECOMMENDEDALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL6Ͳ3
6.1.2 CulturalResources
Limitedreviewsofculturalresourcesindicatethatnosignificantimpactsareanticipated.ACRASmaybe
necessaryduringthedesignphasetofurtherconfirmanyhistoricresourcesthatmaybeimpactedby
theproposedproject.Basedontheoveralllackofobserveduplands,theprojectcorridorisconsidered
tohavealowprobabilityforarchaeologicalsites.Oneremnanthammock,withsomelargerestablished
oaktreeswasidentifiedandisconsideredtohavealowtomediumprobabilityforhavingarchaeological
siteseligibleforinclusionintheNRHP.Shoveltestingisrecommendedduringthedesignphaseto
determineifculturalmaterialsoccurinthisarea.
6.1.3 NaturalResources
6.1.3.1 WetlandsandSurfaceWaters
Impactstowetlandsandsurfacewatersareminimal.Approximately5.0acresofwetlandsand1.1acres
ofsurfacewatersareanticipatedtobeimpactedbytheRecommendedAlternative.Impactstowetlands
includeMixedWetlandHardwoods(FLUCCS6170),Cypress(FLUCCS6210),CypressͲPineͲCabbagePalm,
disturbed(FLUCCS6249),HydricPineFlatwoods(FLUCCS6250and6259),WetlandForestedMixed
(FLUCCS6309),andWetlandShrub(FLUCCS6318and6319).ImpactstosurfacewatersincludeStreams
andWaterways(FLUCCS5100),MajorCanals(FLUCCS5120)andDitches(FLUCCS5140).
Thepotentiallyaffectedwetland/surfacewaterareaswereevaluatedusingtheUniformMitigation
AssessmentMethod(UMAM)toassesstheirecologicalfunctionsanddeterminetheamountof
mitigationnecessarytooffsettheloss.TheUMAMassessmentoftheUSACEandSFWMDͲjurisdictional
wetlandsandsurfacewatersfortheRecommendedAlternativeisestimatedat2.58federalmitigation
UMAMcredits(doesnotincludepotentialponds).TheNaturalResourceReportincludestheUMAM
assessments.
Indirectandsecondaryeffectsarethoseimpactsthatarereasonablycertaintooccurlaterintimeasa
resultoftheproposedproject.Theymayoccuroutsideoftheareadirectlyaffectedbytheproposed
project.Cumulativeeffectsincludetheeffectsoffuturestate,local,orprivateactionsthatare
reasonablycertaintooccurintheprojectarea.Indirectimpactsareanticipatedtobeminorasaresult
oftheRecommendedAlternative.Becausethedirectjurisdictionalwetlandandsurfacewaterimpacts
arerestrictedtothoseadjacenttotheexistingroadwayandhavebeenminimizedtoonlytheamount
requiredtoachievetheprojectpurpose,secondaryimpactsareanticipatedtobeminimal.Duetothe
developednatureofthesurroundingareaandtheproject'sminorsurfacewaterandwetlandimpacts,
nocumulativeimpactsareanticipatedtooccur.
Itisanticipatedthatmitigationofsurfacewaterandwetlandimpactswouldberequiredbyboththe
SFWMDandUSACE.Mitigationcreditswouldbepurchasedfromoneofthefederallyapproved
mitigationbankswhoseserviceareacoverstheprojectstudyarea,suchas:PantherIslandMitigation
Bank,PantherIslandExpansionMitigationBank,BigCypressMitigationBank,andCorkscrewRegional
MitigationBank.AllUMAMscores,UMAMcalculations,preliminarysurfacewaterboundaries,and
determinationsdiscussedaresubjecttorevisionsandapprovalbyregulatoryagenciesduringthe
permittingprocess.TheexacttypeofmitigationtooffsetimpactswillbecoordinatedwiththeUSACE
andtheSFWMDduringthepermittingphase(s)ofthisproject.Todemonstratenonetlossofwetland
functionwithintheproject’sdrainagebasin,mitigationthatmayberequiredforthewetland/surface
waterimpactswilleitherbeprovidedinthesamedrainagebasinoritwillbedemonstratedthrougha
cumulativeimpactanalysisattimeofpermittingthatoutofbasinmitigationwillnotresultina
cumulativeimpact.
6.1.3.2 Floodplains
Mostoftheeasternportionofthestudyareaiswithinthe100Ͳyearfloodplain,andthereforeimpacts
areanticipatedtoseveralFEMAmappedfloodplains.Preliminaryevaluationindicatesthat
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-4
approximately 138 acres of floodplain encroachment are anticipated as a result of the proposed
improvements. As required by the SFWMD, floodplain compensation measures will be provided to
minimize potential impacts. The overall floodplain encroachment and floodplain compensation will be
further analyzed during the design phase.
6.1.3.3 Water Quality
Pond options for water quality treatment and attenuation were not explored for this study. However, a
stormwater facility design will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements for water quality
impacts as required by SFWMD in Chapter 40E-4.091(1)(a) and Rule 62-330.010, F.A.C. The FDEP
identifies the Golden Gate Canal Basin (WBID 3278S), as impaired for dissolved oxygen and iron. There
are no nutrient or pollutant impairments that require additional water quality treatment, therefore, no
further mitigation for water quality impacts is anticipated. All other basins in the study area are not
impaired.
6.1.3.4 Protected Species and Habitat
Based on the review of available information from the FWC and USFWS in relation to the potential
habitat impacts that may be associated with the proposed project, an effect determination was
established for each federal and state-listed/protected species (including protected nonlisted wildlife
species) that may occur in the project vicinity.
Considering mitigation measures (compensatory mitigation for the potential loss of listed species
habitat and standard protection measures) that will be implemented prior to project construction, the
following preliminary effect determinations are provided:
The Recommended Alternative is anticipated to have no effect on the following federally protected
species:
Shorebirds: The roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and red knot
(Calidris canutus rufa) are all coastal nesting and foraging birds with federal Endangered species status.
Piping plover do not nest in Florida but instead are winter migratory visitors, preferring to roost and
forage on beaches, mudflats, sandflats, and barrier islands. The roseate tern is a colonial-nesting marine
bird known to breed between Marathon and the Dry Tortugas in the Florida Keys. It is strictly a coastal
species, foraging along shorelines, and in winter is primarily pelagic. The red knot also does not breed in
Florida but used to winter on Florida’s Gulf Coast in large numbers. They are primarily marine shorebirds
where they feed on coastal invertebrates. The project site contains neither nesting or foraging habitat
for these three coastal species and therefore, the project is expected to have no effect on these
shorebird species.
Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coelurescens): The project site is located within the USFWS Consultation
Area for this federally Threatened species. However, no appropriate scrub habitat for this species occurs
within the project limits or on immediately adjacent properties. No Florida scrub-jay nests or individuals
were observed during the initial listed species surveys. According to the FWC database, the closest
documented Florida scrub-jay occurrence was in 1993, approximately 10.1 miles to the northeast of the
project site. Given the distance and age of the nearest observation and that optimal habitat for the
Florida scrub-jay is not available within the project limits, the project is anticipated to have no effect on
the Florida scrub jay.
Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabillis plumbeus): The project site is located within the USFWS
Consultation Area for this federally Endangered species. However, the project site is not located in or
near designated critical habitat or a priority management zone for this species. Snail kite foraging
habitat consists of relatively shallow wetland vegetation, either within extensive marsh systems, or in
lake littoral zones. Emergent vegetation, including spike rushes, maidencane, and bulrushes are
important components of habitat because they allow apple snails to occupy the area. Dense, thick
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-5
vegetation is not optimal for snail kite foraging because kites cannot readily see apple snails to capture
them. The snail kite typically nests over open water in areas with good foraging habitat nearby, and
most foraging occurs in marshes immediately surrounding the nest. No large, marsh systems or lake
littoral zones occur on the project site, which reduces the adequacy of the habitat for snail kites. The
surface waters that occur adjacent to the project site (man-made canals) do not provide preferred water
depth or clarity for foraging opportunities for the snail kite. No snail kite nests or individuals were
observed within the site boundary during initial protected species surveys. The nearest documented
observation is approximately 18 miles to the southeast of the project limits and occurred in 1992. The
nearest documented nesting site is approximately 25 miles to the northwest of the project area and
occurred in 2010. Given that no evidence of the species was observed, documented occurrences are far
from the project area, and mitigation will be provided for permanent impacts to surface waters, it is
expected that the project will have no effect on the Everglade snail kite.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): The western portion of the project is located within the
USFWS Consultation Area for this federally Endangered species. Nesting habitat for this species consists
of open old-growth pine forests >60-80 years old, comprised largely of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
and/or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Red-cockaded woodpeckers excavate cavities in the live wood of
these trees for nesting. Stands of mature pine (>50 years of age) comprise preferred foraging habitat,
and red-cockaded woodpeckers usually forage within 0.5 mile of cavity trees. There were no suitable
nesting habitat/live cavity trees identified in the project corridor. The project site could potentially be
adjacent to mature pine trees, but no red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees or individuals were
observed during initial protected species surveys. The closest documented occurrence was located
approximately 8.95 miles west of the site in 2006. The potential for red-cockaded woodpeckers to nest
or forage on-site is considered low because the site does not support suitable habitat for this species,
but Collier County will implement best management practices during construction to ensure no live
cavity trees are disturbed or removed. Therefore, the Recommended Alternative is anticipated to have
no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus): The manatee is a federally endangered mammal that can
be found in Florida year-round. They prefer marine and freshwater systems near the shore with
abundant underwater vegetation like seagrass or eelgrass for foraging. Manatees can occasionally be
found a far distance from the coast when they follow rivers or man-made canals inland. The project site
overlaps or is adjacent to man-made canals that have some connectivity with coastal waters, though at
least one control structure is located along that path. It is unlikely that a manatee could navigate the
canals to within distance of the project area, but Collier County will ensure that all construction over or
adjacent to the canals will be temporary in nature and observe FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road
and Bridge Construction for the West Indian Manatee. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have no
effect on the West Indian manatee.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Although the Bald eagle is no longer listed under the Endangered
Species Act, it receives federal protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). There are currently no active nests within 660 feet of the project
(federal protection standards) that would be impacted by project construction; therefore, the project is
anticipated to have no effect on the bald eagle.
No adverse effects are anticipated to the following state-listed species as a result of the
Recommended Build Alternative:
Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia): The Florida burrowing owl is the state’s smallest and only
diurnal owl and is listed as State Threatened by the FWC. Their primary preferred habitat consists of
open prairies with very little understory vegetation and can include human-influenced areas like golf
courses, pastures, and vacant lots. Small tracts of suitable dry prairie habitat are present within the
project limits, and suboptimal habitat is available in the surrounding area. However, no burrows were
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-6
observed during field reviews and the habitat is fragmented. Therefore, the project is anticipated to
have no adverse impacts on the Florida burrowing owl.
Shorebirds and wading birds: The snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), least tern (Sternula antillarum),
and black skimmer (Rynchops niger) are shorebirds with a state designation of Threatened. The snowy
plover is a resident of Florida and breeds along the Gulf Coast, though in greater numbers in the
Panhandle. They require open, sandy beaches for nesting and the closest confirmed nest, recorded in
2002, is 20.45 miles to the east. The least tern nests along the coast and forages in nearby waters for
fish. The black skimmer is a colony- and beach-nesting bird and sometimes does so in association with
least terns, though there have been a few rare confirmed inland nests of skimmers on rooftops or
agricultural fields. Black skimmers need open surface water in order to forage for fish. The tricolored
heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), and
roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) are wading birds with the state designation of Threatened. The reddish
egret is almost entirely restricted to the coast where it forages in shallow waters for fish and most
nesting in Florida occurs in the Keys. The tricolored heron is most numerous in saltwater or brackish
water but can be observed foraging inland. They are colony nesters with other herons and ibis using
trees or bushes over standing water. Roseate spoonbills nest in Tampa Bay, Merritt Island, and Florida
Bay and are uncommon, local visitors to coastal and slightly inland areas of Peninsular Florida for
foraging. The little blue heron is the only bird listed here with a preference for freshwater habitats and it
can be observed foraging in canals. There is not adequate nesting habitat within or adjacent to the
project corridor for either of the three shorebirds or four wading birds listed here. The man-made canals
that are within or adjacent to the project area could provide foraging habitat for the little blue heron but
since these birds travel long distances to forage, the temporary impacts to these canals from
construction is not excepted to impact these species. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have no
adverse effects on snowy plover, least tern, black skimmer, tricolored heron, little blue heron, reddish
egret, or roseate spoonbill.
Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius Paulus): A non-migratory subspecies of kestrel, this
species is listed as Threatened by the state. Their preferred habitats include open woodlands, prairie,
and pastures. High-quality kestrel habitat must provide both suitable nesting and adequate foraging.
Kestrels nest in cavities of large, dead trees previously hollowed by woodpeckers but will also use
human-provided nest boxes. Kestrels readily perch along roadsides to hunt for small vertebrates and
invertebrates. The project site may contain some foraging habitat for kestrels, but nesting habitat was
not identified during survey. For these reasons, there is no adverse effect anticipated on the
southeastern American kestrel.
It is anticipated the Recommended Build Alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the
following federally-listed species:
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi): This species is listed as Threatened by the USFWS,
primarily due to habitat loss. Indigo snakes are found in a variety of habitats, including pine flatwoods,
dry prairie, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, dunes, and human-altered habitats,
including along man-made ditches and canals. They have been known to utilize gopher tortoise burrows.
Based on available data from the FWC, there was a sighting of an Eastern indigo snake in 1980 near the
current intersection of Everglades Parkway and Randall Boulevard, but no individuals were observed
during the initial protected species survey. Collier County will adhere to the most recent version of the
USFWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake during land clearing activities and
construction to minimize potential impacts to indigo snakes. Given this commitment, it is anticipated
that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Eastern indigo snake.
Wood stork (Mycteria Americana): The wood stork is listed as federally Threatened. The species is
known to use freshwater marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, flooded fields, depressional areas, open
pine-cypress wetlands, and manmade wetlands (i.e., ditches, canals, and stormwater retention ponds)
SECTION6—RECOMMENDEDALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL6Ͳ7
forforaging.Woodstorksaretypicallycolonialnestersandconstructtheirnestsinmediumtotalltrees
locatedwithinwetlandsoronislands.TheUSFWShasdefinedtheCoreForagingArea(CFA)forawood
storkcolonyastheareawithinan18.6Ͳmileradiusfromthecolonylocation.Theprojectsiteislocated
withintheCFAofwoodstorkcolonies619041(Corkscrew)and619310(NorthCatherineIslandII),with
theNorthCatherineIslandcolonybeinglocatedapproximately5.08milessoutheastoftheprojectarea.
Althoughnowoodstorknestsorindividualswereobservedwithinthesiteboundaryduringinitial
protectedspeciessurveys,thesurfacewatersandwetlandswithintheprojectcorridorwouldbe
consideredsuitableforaginghabitat.CoordinationwiththeUSFWSwillbeinitiatedduringthedesign
phaseforthewoodstork,andmitigationforsurfacewaterimpactswilllikelyexceedwhatisrequiredto
offsetimpactstowoodstorksuitableforaginghabitat.Therefore,theprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikely
toadverselyaffectthewoodstork.
Crestedcaracara(Caracaracheriway):TheprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultation
AreaforthisfederallyThreatenedspecies,althoughtherewasaconfirmednestlocated1.69milesto
thesoutheastoftheprojectsitein2009.Dryprairieswithscatteredcabbagepalmsareareaswhich
constitutethetypicalhabitat,althoughitalsooccursinimprovedpasturelandsandeveninrelatively
woodedareaswithmorelimitedstretchesofopengrasslands.Caracaratendtonestincabbagepalm
andliveoak,buthavealsobeenfoundnestinginpine,cypress,cedar,andevenmanͲmadestructures
suchasabillboard.Themajorityoftheprojectcorridordoesnotcontainsuitablenestinghabitatforthis
species,buttheeasternendoftheRecommendedAlternativedoescrossintoagriculturallandsthat
mayprovidesomehabitatvalue.Nocaracaranestsorindividualswereobservedduringinitialprotected
speciessurveys,butduetothepresenceofsomepotentialforcaracaranestinghabitatwithinthe1,500Ͳ
meters(4,920ft)bufferrequiredbyUSFWS,additionalcaracaraͲspecificsurveysmaybeadvisedaround
suitablehabitatpriortoconstruction.Assuch,adeterminationthattheprojectmayaffectbutisnot
likelytoadverselyaffectthecrestedcaracaraisbeingsuggestedinsteadofanoeffectdetermination
thatmaynormallybeassociatedwithaprojectoutsidetheconsultationarea.
Floridabonnetedbat(Eumopsfloridanus):TheprojectislocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreafor
theFloridabonnetedbatandoccurswithinoneoftheUSFWSdesignatedFocalAreasforthisfederally
Endangeredspecies.ThenearestdocumentedFloridabonnetedbatobservationis5.8milestothe
northwest.ThiswasanacousticobservationthatoccurredinMarch2016.Relativelylittleisknown
regardingthehabitatrequirementsandrangeoftheFloridabonnetedbat.Mostdocumentedroosts
occurinmanmadestructuressuchasbathousesandresidentialhomes.Tominimizeadverseimpactsto
theFloridabonnetedbat,Section7consultationwiththeUSFWSwillbeinitiatedduringthedesignand
permittingphaseoftheproject.Duetotheprojectsizeandlocation,bothacousticandroostsurveys
fortheFloridabonnetedbatwilllikelyberequiredduringtheconsultationprocess.Thus,theproject
mayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridabonnetedbat.
Floridapanther(Pumaconcolorcoryi):TheFloridapantherisafederallyEndangeredspeciesfound
primarilyinsouthFlorida.TheprojectareaislocatedwithintheUSFWSFloridapantherprimaryand
secondaryzones.Approximately6.6acresofpantherprimaryzoneand131acresofpanthersecondary
zoneareanticipated.AccordingtoFWCmortalitydatacollectedthrough2018,thenearestFlorida
panthervehicleͲcausedmortalitytothisprojectoccurredin2016andwasdocumentedintheproject
studyareaalongRandallBoulevardat16thStreetNE.ThevalueofimpactedhabitatstotheFlorida
pantherispreliminarilycalculatedusingtheUSFWSPantherTool.Thistoolassignsahabitatsuitability
valueforeachtypeofpantherhabitatimpacted,andalandscapemultiplierbasedonthehabitat’s
locationineithertheUSFWSprimaryzone/dispersalzone,secondaryzone,orotherzone.Thetoolalso
includesabaseratiomultiplierof1.98thataccountsforestimatedpantherhabitatlostperyear,lossof
habitatduetosingleͲfamilyresidentialdevelopments,andincreasedpotentialtrafficduetoproposed
developmentprojectsinpantherhabitat.Usingthistool,313.7pantherhabitatunit(PHU)creditsare
expectedtobesufficientmitigationfortheRecommendedAlternativeandthereforetheprojectmay
affectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridapanther.
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-8
It is anticipated the Recommended Build Alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the
following state-listed species:
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus): The gopher tortoise is listed as state Threatened and is
protected under Florida law, Chapter 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Tortoise utilize upland
habitats containing well-drained sandy soils found in pine flatwoods, scrub, dray prairies, and coastal
dunes. A gopher tortoise relocation permit is required before disturbing burrows and conducting
construction activities, including any type of work within 25 feet of a burrow. No tortoises or burrows
were observed during initial protected species surveys, but potential gopher tortoise habitat does occur
within the project area and adjacent to the site. If at any point prior to or during construction gopher
tortoises or burrows are located, Collier County will ensure all proper permitting and relocations are
implemented by an FWC Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent. Therefore, this project may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect the gopher tortoise.
Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis): The Florida sandhill crane is a year-round
resident and protected as Threatened by the state. They primarily inhabit freshwater marshes, prairies,
and pastures but are commonly seen foraging in and near human landscapes like golf courses,
neighborhoods, and roadsides. There is no sandhill crane nesting habitat within the project area, but
foraging habitat does occur within the project boundary and in adjacent areas. Impacts to roadside ROW
where cranes might forage is temporary, as after construction the new ROW will consist of the same
vegetation, therefore this project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida sandhill
crane.
Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia): The Big Cypress fox squirrel has been listed as state
Threatened since 1990. They prefer habitats of pine flatwoods, cypress swamp, and mixed hardwood-
pine forest, but will forage in a much wider range of habitats including golf courses, pastures with
scattered trees, and rural residential areas. Slash pine is a primary food source which is found within and
adjacent to the project site. No Big Cypress fox squirrels or nests were observed during initial surveys,
but pre-construction surveys for nests may be recommended based on available habitat adjacent to the
project corridor. Collier County will employ best management practices during construction to ensure no
individuals or nests are disturbed. Thus, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the
Big Cypress fox squirrel.
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus): The Florida black bear is no longer listed as a
threatened species by the FWC. While it was removed from the state list of protected species in August
2012, it is still protected through the F.A.C. 68A-4.009 Florida Black Bear Conservation. The project area
occurs within the primary range of the Big Cypress population, and the FWC bear mapping unit indicates
this area has abundant black bears. Because the Recommended Alternative includes improvements to
existing paved roadways to which bears have acclimated, the Recommended Alternative may affect but
is not likely to adversely affect the Florida black bear.
6.1.4 Physical Impacts
6.1.4.1 Contamination
Desktop review indicates that there are no sites identified within the vicinity of the study area expected
to have adverse impacts on the project. However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment including an
area reconnaissance should be conducted during the design phase, to confirm the results of the desktop
review and to further identify any potential contamination sites.
6.1.4.2 Utilities
Utility locations and coordination will be done during the project design phase. Preliminary impacts to
major utilities include overhead electric, water main, and sanitary force main/sewer lines.
SECTION 6—RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
SL0331171122ORL 6-9
6.1.4.3 Noise
Results of the noise analysis indicates that the noise contour for Activity Category D land uses will not
extend outside the ROW for either the four or six-lane typical sections. As such, no impacts to the single
Activity Category D land use (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are anticipated. Table 6-1
presents the results of the noise analysis conducted for the initial alternatives.
TTable 6--11. Potential Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative
Initial
Alternative
Activity Category B
(Residential)
Activity Category C
(Recreation)
Activity Category D (Place of
Worship – Interior) Total Potential Impacts
Alternative 1 83 11 0 84
Alternative 2 141 11 0 142
Alternative 3 145 11 0 146
Alternative 4 157 11 0 148
I Includes portions of three golf course holes at Valencia Golf and Country Club on the north side of Randall Boulevard (the entire
golf course is considered one noise sensitive land use)
As presented in Table 6-1, the number of potential traffic noise impacts to recreational facilities is the
same for all alternatives, in that portions of three golf course holes at the Valencia Golf and Country
Club may be impacted (the entire golf course is considered a single noise sensitive land use). As also
shown, the number of potentially impacted residences varies with each alternative, ranging from 83
under Alternative 1 to up to 157 with Alternative 3. The difference in the number of potentially
impacted residences is directly attributable to the different typical sections (four-lane vs. six-lane) for
each of the roadways with each alternative. Considering that the Recommended Alternative (Viable
Alternative 2) will have a reduced footprint as compared to Initial Alternative 2, the Recommended
Alternative total potential impacts are anticipated to be less than 142. Noise abatement is not
anticipated as a result of the proposed improvements.
SL0331171122ORL 7-1
SECTION 7
Public Involvement
Public involvement is integral during the initial stages of the project to provide awareness of community
values and concerns and to gain insight on existing constraints and issues that may affect the
development and evaluation of corridor alternatives.
7.1 Public and Agency Outreach
Multiple public meetings were held to gain public input throughout the study. Representatives from
Collier County and key project study team members were in attendance at each public meeting to
answer questions and discuss the project with meeting attendees. In preparation for each meeting,
several notification techniques were utilized including notification letters, emails, a newsletter, a press
release, and newspaper advertisements. Notifications of the meetings were distributed to all individuals
on the project mailing list including local officials, agencies, stakeholders, special interest groups and
property owners within the study area. Table 7-1 summarizes the public meetings conducted. The
Comments and Coordination Report presents a detailed summary of each public meeting.
TTable 7--11. Public Meetings Summary
Item Description Date Location
Kickoff Public
Information Meeting
#1
Informal open house format to provide the public the
opportunity to review and comment on the purpose
and need for the project, project schedule, and initial
data collection, typical sections, and study area.
Wednesday March
22, 2017
6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
UF/IFAS Extension
Office – 14700
Immokalee Road,
Naples FL 34120
Initial Alternatives
Public Meeting #2
Informal open house format to provide the public the
opportunity to review and comment on the initial
alternatives, typical sections, updated project
schedule and comparative evaluation. A formal
presentation was given at 6 PM which included an
interactive survey to gain specific public input.
Thursday
May 24, 2018
5:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Peace Lutheran
Church (Fellowship
Hall)
– 9850 Immokalee
Road, Naples FL
34120
Viable Alternatives
Public Meeting #3
Informal open house format to provide the public the
opportunity to review and comment on the viable
alternatives, recommended alternative to move
forward to the next phase of project development,
and potential impacts and costs. A formal
presentation was given at 6 PM which included an
interactive survey to gain specific public input.
Thursday
April 11, 2019
5:30 PM to 7:30 PM
Peace Lutheran
Church (Fellowship
Hall) – 9850
Immokalee Road,
Naples FL 34120
Continuous public outreach throughout the study was used to engage stakeholders to identify
community values and concerns that may have affected corridor development and evaluation. Elected
Officials, Appointed Officials, Agencies (including FDOT District One, and consistent with FDOT District
One Environmental Technical Advisory Team members), and other interested parties were notified by
email and/or letter for each of the public information meetings (see summary presented in Table 7-2).
Property Owners within 300 feet minimum of proposed improvements were notified with a newsletter
distribution by mail.
SECTION 7—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
SL0331171122ORL 7-2
TTable 7-2. Summary of Public and Agency Opportunity
Meeting Meeting
Format Date
Meeting Notification Format
Number of
Invitations
Mailed
Attendees
(excluding
project
team
members)
Number of
Comments
Received Invitation Letters /
Emails
Posted
on
Project
Web Site
Other
Kickoff
Public
Information
Meeting #1
Informal
Open House-
Displays for
Review
3/22/2017
Elected Officials
Appointed Officials,
Agency; Special
Interest. Property
Owners within 300
feet min. of
proposed
improvements.
9
Newspaper
ads; Press
Release
3,364 106 60
Initial
Alternatives
Public
Meeting #2
Presentation
-Displays for
Review
5/24/2018
Elected Officials
Appointed Officials,
Agency; Special
Interest. Property
Owners within 300
feet min. of
proposed
improvements.
9
Newspaper
ads; Press
Release
1,240 82 69
Viable
Alternatives
Public
Meeting #3
Presentation
-Displays for
Review
4/11/2019
Elected Officials
Appointed Officials,
Agency; Special
Interest. Property
Owners within 300
feet min. of
proposed
improvements.
9
Newspaper
ads; Press
Release
1,121 65 65
7.1.1 Project Website
A project website (www.colliergov.net/randalloilwell) was created for this project by Collier County. The
website includes meeting information, displays (which are available for viewing and downloading), and a
public comment form (available for download with instructions to return ƚŽ County project manager).
The website is updated as needed prior to and following significant project milestones.
7.2 Summary of Public and Agency Input
For more detailed information on the public meetings and information provided, a summary of the
display, handouts, notifications, attendees, and an overview of the input received (including written
comments) is provided in the Comments and Coordination Report.
7.2.1 Kickoff Public Meeting #1 (March 22, 2017)
A Public Kickoff Meeting was held on March 22, 2017. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the
Study, review the purpose of and need for the improvements, and present the project corridors and
study area. The meeting was informal open house format to provide an opportunity for interested
persons to give input, ask questions, and discuss the project. Comment forms were available at the
meeting and on the project website and included a survey. In order to gather information on public
support for the purpose and need of the project, a survey question asked participants to indicate what
priority the County should give to “Providing relief for current and future congestion within the Corridor
Study Area.” Based on the responses received, 87% of the participants highly supported the project
purpose and need.
SECTION 7—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
SL0331171122ORL 7-3
7.2.2 Initial Alternatives Public Meeting #2 (May 24, 2018)
An Initial Alternatives Public Meeting on May 24, 2018. The purpose of the meeting was to present the
project corridor initial alternatives and comparative analysis of impacts and costs. The meeting also
provided an opportunity for interested persons to give input, ask questions and discuss the project.
Comment forms were available at the meeting and on the project website, and a live survey took place
during the meeting. Typical section options were on display, and participants were asked if they
preferred suburban or urban typical sections. Based on all responses received, 74% supported the urban
typical section with curb and gutter.
7.2.3 Viable Alternatives Public Meeting #3 (April 11, 2019)
A Viable Alternatives Public Meeting was held on April 11, 2019. The purpose of this meetings was to
present the viable alternatives, a comparative analysis of impacts and costs, as well as the survey results
from the previous meetings. Comment forms were available at the meeting and on the project website,
and a live survey took place during the meeting. The Recommended Alternative was on display and
participants were asked how much they supported the Viable Alternative 2 Plus. Based on responses
received, 60% supported the Recommended Alternative.
87%
13%
What Priority Do You Give to Providing Relief for
Current and Future Congestion within the Study Area?
High Priority Medium Priority Low
26%
74%
Which Typical Section do you Prefer?
Suburban Urban
60%26%
11%3%
How supportive are you of the Viable Alternative 2
Plus Future Network?
Very Much/Very Mostly Somewhat Not at All
SL0331171122ORL 8-1
SECTION 8
Next Steps
As Collier County continues to identify economic development opportunities that result in increased
growth and use of transportation facilities, the transportation needs, and priorities will be reevaluated
on a regular basis. Following references are provided to ensure future updates of the LRTP reflect the
evolving needs of Collier County.
x Roadway Priority Plan. Transportation Needs are categorized into the following focus areas: design
deficiencies, pavement deficiencies, safety concerns, access needs, community and economic
development transportation needs, scenic byways and tourism, intermodal transportation, other
transportation needs, and cultural and environmental considerations. Short term needs are
evaluated based on safety concerns, degree of need, number of users, economic development
implications, and public and agency input. The needs are reviewed, and financial and time
estimations are assigned to each project individually. The following projects were identified as part
of this study to be included in the roadway priority plan to ensure future updates of the Collier
MPO LRTP reflect the evolving needs of Collier County:
o Randall Boulevard Widening from 8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard (6-lane)
o Randall Boulevard Widening from Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway (4-lane)
o Access Management / Safety along Oil Well Road from Immokalee Road to Everglades
Boulevard
o Intersection Analysis Studies for any intersections that require special evaluation (for example:
Immokalee Road at Wilson Boulevard)
o Everglades Boulevard Widening from Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard (4-lane)
o Everglades Boulevard Widening from Randall Boulevard to Vanderbilt Beach Road (4-lane)
o Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension from 16th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard
o Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension from Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway
o New corridor alignment of Big Cypress Parkway from Golden Gates Parkway to Vanderbilt
Beach Road (extension)
o New corridor alignment of Big Cypress Parkway from Vanderbilt Beach Road (extension) to
Randall Boulevard
o New corridor alignment of Big Cypress Parkway from Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road
o New corridor alignment of Big Cypress Parkway from Oil Well Road to Oil Well Grade Road
o Future paving of Oil Well Grade Road
x Procedures for Site Development. New roads and improvements to existing roads are often
developed as a result of site development on a specific residential property or commercial
development, or new development. Individuals or businesses (i.e. developers) who plan to construct
new developments are required to conduct a traffic impact study to determine any impact to
surrounding roads or identify any planned roads or improvements needed to support the
development. As part of the site development approval process, transportation funding allocations
could be secured from developers to support future transportation projects. Policies and guidelines
for developers exist that ensure proper planning, design, construction, and maintenance of County
facilities. The congestion along Immokalee Road is problematic because most of the Activity Centers
(major settings for commerce, employment, housing, and entertainment, centered on the
convergence of regional infrastructure)m are along Immokalee Road east of Wilson Boulevard.
m Towards Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, April 2001
May 2019
Prepared for
DraftAppendicesforCorridor AlternativesAnalysis Report
D R A FT
Appendices for Corridor
Alternatives Analysis Report
for the
Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road
Corridor Study
Prepared for
Collier County
April 25, 2019, revised May 3, 2019
JACOBS ENGINEERING
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 505
Naples, Florida 34108
Appendix A
Collier MPO LRTP Excerpts
COLLIER 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan
We Plan so that Tomorrow’s Horizon is as Inspirational as Today’s Needs Assessment | 4-6
Figure 4-4 | Forecasted 2040 Highway Congestion
MONROE CO.
2040 LRTP Amendment
Adoption Report
Approved May 25, 2018
2021-2040 2041-2050 PE ROW CST PE ROW CST PE ROW CST Project Totals YOE CST 43 SR 29 North of SR 82 Collier/Hendry Line 2 2.42‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$7.89$10.02$10.0260 SR 29 I‐75 (SR 93) Oil Well Rd 2 10.22‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)n/a$6.19 $3.63 $9.824I‐75 Collier Blvd (CR 951) Interchange, Single Point Urban$41.40$55.87$55.8735 SR 82 Gator Slough SR 29 2 3.2 2‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes$34.54$34.54$34.54TMA BOX (20%) Bridgesn/a$4.66 $4.66 $9.34 $18.66TMA BOX (40%) Pathways (Bike/Ped)n/a$9.32 $9.32 $18.67 $37.31TMA BOX (40%) CMPn/a$9.32 $9.32 $18.67 $37.312Golden Gate Parkway I‐75 (New) 2‐Lane Ramp $2.00 $0.59 $2.54$3.133Pine Ridge Rd I‐75 Intersection Traffic Signalization $5.00 $0.80 $6.35$7.157 Immokalee Rd I‐75 interchange Intersection Traffic Signalization $2.75 $0.51 $3.49$4.0012 Old US 41 US 41 (SR 45) Lee/Collier County Line 2 1.52‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$15.03 $2.72 $22.55 $25.2718 SR 84 (Davis Blvd) Airport Pulling Rd Santa Barbara Blvd 4 34‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes , and Curb & Gutter with Inside Paved Shoulder (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$33.11 $6.85 $77.66 $84.51 $82.7819aCritical Needs Intersection (Randall Blvd at Immokalee Road)Immokalee Road 8th Street Interim At‐Grade Intersection improvements, including 4‐laning to 8th Street; $4.00 $5.08$5.0821 US 41 Goodlette Rd N/A Intersection $2.00 $0.37 $2.54$2.9141 SR 951 (Collier Blvd) South of Manatee Rd North of Tower Rd 4 14‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$13.35 $2.02 $20.03 $22.0515 US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail East) Greenway Rd 6 L Farm Rd 2 2.62‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$21.83 $6.01 $25.59 $41.70 $73.309US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail East) Collier Blvd (SR 951) Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) ‐ Mainline Over Crossroad $44.14$10.30 $10.30 $110.355CR 951 (Collier Blvd) Golden Gate Canal Green Blvd 4 24‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalk, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$30.00 $3.66 $38.10$41.7619bCritical Needs Intersection (Randall Blvd at Immokalee Road)Immokalee Road 8th Street Ultimate intersection improvement $31.00$4.68 $53.48 $58.1613a / 14pVanderbilt Beach Rd CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 16th St 0 & 27Expand from 0 & 2 lanes to building 3 lanes of a six lane footprint from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd and 2 lanes from Wilson to 16th St$67.60 $67.60$67.6040 Airport Pulling Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd Immokalee Rd 4 24‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$5.00 $1.22 $6.35$7.5725 Oil Well Rd/CR 858 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Grade Rd 2 3.92‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulders (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$20.00$30.00 $30.0016 Randall Boulevard 8th Street Everglades Blvd 2 3.44 lane divided to 6 lane divided (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$25.50 $6.22 $5.76 $25.73 $9.25 $46.96 $63.7465 Randall Boulevard Everglades Blvd Desoto Blvd 2 1.842‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$27.32 $5.81$32.03 $37.84 $68.2974 Randall Boulevard Desoto Blvd Big Cypress Parkway 0 0.25New 6‐Lane Roadway with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$5.79 $0.69$3.78 $4.47 $14.4775 Randall Boulevard Big Cypress Parkway Oil Well Road 0 1.6New 6‐Lane Roadway with Outside Paved Shoulder (includes corridor study to determine preferred alignment)$20.65 $4.11$24.22 $28.33 $51.6233 Veterans Memorial Blvd Livingston Road US 41 2 2.9 2‐Lane Undivided Roadway with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and Curb & Gutter $8.00 $1.95 $1.08 $12.00 $15.0320 Immokalee Rd Camp Keais Rd Carver St 2 2.52‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$25.04 $5.24 $23.01 $37.56 $65.8156 Benfield RoadCity Gate Boulevard NorthLords Way 0 3.9 2 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $56.47 $1.83 $20.69 $21.21 $43.72 $141.1629 Wilson Boulevard/Black Burn Road Wilson Boulevard End of Haul Road 0 2.6 2 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $29.31 $0.61 $6.90 $30.70 $38.20 $73.2813b Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext 16th St Desoto 0 3.7 2 lane roadway in a 4 lane footprint $35.00$0.00 $188.0551 Wilson Blvd. Golden Gate Blvd. Immokalee Rd. 2 3.3 2‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes $23.36 $2.85 $21.47 $44.63 $68.9473 Little League Rd. Ext. SR‐82 Westclox St. 0 3.7 New 2‐lane roadway $28.02 $3.86 $17.05 $53.52 $74.4213a / 14pVanderbilt Beach Road Ext Collier Boulevard 16th St 2 & 07Add remaining 3 lanes $48.05$91.78 $91.7834 Camp Keais Road Immokalee Road Pope John Paul Blvd. 2 2.62‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Outside Paved Shoulder (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$10.00 $2.76 $19.10 $21.8636 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road US 41 4 2.14‐Lane Roadway to 6 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$4.00 $3.10 $6.00 $9.1032 Immokalee Rd (CR 846) SR 29 Airpark Blvd 2 0.42‐Lane Roadway to 4 Lanes with Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Curb & Gutter (Includes milling and resurfacing of existing pavement)$4.06 $3.10 $4.69 $7.75 $15.55$731.21 $35.95 $6.84 $255.77 $58.50 $70.21 $151.43 $21.17 $249.81 $358.64 $1,208.32 $793.74Revenue Spent Remaining Revenue Spent Remaining Revenue Spent Remaining2021‐2025 2026‐2030TMA$23.32$23.29 $0.03$23.32$23.29 $0.03$46.64$46.69‐$0.05$0.01PE/PD&E 1.219 1.379OA$55.60$58.10‐$2.50$52.60$42.58 $10.02$115.10$144.95‐$29.85‐$22.33ROW 1.44 1.838SIS$100.43$100.43 $0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$9.82$9.82 $0.00$0.00CST 1.27 1.5County$106.82$106.07 $0.75$201.66$201.41 $0.25$430.84$417.87 $12.97$13.97Notes: Design phases funded by OA not included in totals#56 and #29 are only partial ROW & Mitigation costs2040 Cost Feasible Plan - Summary of Funded Projects Grouped by Funding Source with Costs Shown in Future Year of Expenditure (YOE) in Millions of DollarsCF# Facility From To# ofExistingLanesProjectLength(Miles)Project Type CST PDC2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-20402021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐20401.91Remaining BalanceProject PhaseInflation Factors2031‐20401.5612.345
SR 29CR 858
CR 846
SR 82
EVERGLADES BLVDSR 29 NCR 850IMMOKALEE RD E
DESOTO BLVD S1ST ST SDESOTO BLVD NLAKE TRAFFORD RD
MAIN ST W
NE
W MARKET RD
I-75
SSA 7
SSA 3
SSA 4
SSA 11
SSA 16
SSA 13
SSA 14
SSA 10
SSA 6
SSA 12SSA 15
SSA 9
SSA 2
SSA 5
SSA 15
SSA 1
Ave Maria SRA
Immokalee
Corkscrew RegionalEcosystem Watershed
Okaloacoochee SloughState Forest
Florida PantherNational Wildlife Refuge
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
Big Cypress National Preserve
4
0 2 41Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICPCOLLIER COUNTY OPERATIONS DIVISION/GMDFILE: SSA RLSA Overlay_2017_Kris.mxd
Legend
Adopted RLSA Program Area
Major Roads
Approved SSAs
Area of Critical State Concern
Public Lands
Ave Maria SRA
Rural Land West SRA
FSA
FSA
WRA
WRA
WRA
FSA
HSA
HSA
HSA
HSA
WRA
ACSC
ACSC
Ste wardship Are as
500 Foot Restoration Area
Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)
Habtitat Stewardship Area (HSA)
Water Retention Area (WRA)
R L S A S T A T U S M A PRLSA S T A T U S M A P(N O V . 2 0 1 7 )(N O V . 2 0 1 7 )
SSA 17
SSA 17
Rural LandsWest SRA
COLLIER 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan
We Plan so that Tomorrow’s Horizon is as Inspirational as Today’s Needs Assessment | 4-10
Figure 4‐5 | Freight Activity Centers & Freight Network
MONROE CO.
Appendix B
Traffic
Randall Blvd
Everglades BlvdDesoto BlvdRattlesnake Hammock Logan BLVDSanta Barbara BLVDCounty Barn Immokalee Rd
Orange Blossom
Thomasson Dr Wilson BlvdEverglades BlvdCamp Keais RdAve
Ma
r
iaBlvdBonita Beach Rd
Wiggins Pass SR 29Immokalee Rd
Collier BlvdSan Marco RDLivingston RdTamiami Trail NDavis Blvd
Pine Ridge Rd
Vanderbilt Beach Rd COUNTY LINE RDVanderbilt DrGolden Gate PKWYOld 41S 1st STAirport Pulling RdGoodlette-Frank RdRadio Rd
Green Blvd
Golden Gate Blvd W
Bayshore DrCollier BlvdOil Well Rd
ATTACHMENT C
Percentage Change In Peak Hour Directional Volume From 2017
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
µ
Growth Management DepartmentTransportation Planning
SR 82
S 1st StLake Trafford Rd
N 15th STWestclox St
W Main StSR 29 INSET MAP
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
§¨¦75
$+41
$+41
$+41
!(951
!(951
!(951
!(846
!(846
$+41
GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICPGrowth Management DepartmentDate: June, 2018GulfofMexico LakeTrafford
!(29
!(29
LEE COUNTY
-This map evaluates changes in measured background trips; not trip bank changes.
Legend
Percentage Change In Peak Hour Directional Volume From 20175%-10% Decrease From 201710%-20% Decrease From 2017
5%-10% Increase From 2017
10%-20% Increase From 2017
>20% Increase From 2017
< +/- 5% Change From 2017
Page 11 of 262
Attachment "F"56 57 58 56 57 58 61 63 64 65 66Collier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic Counts2016 2017 20182017 20172017 2018Traffic 1/7th TripPeak Hour Peak Peak Peak2018 20182017 1/7thVer. B2018 1/7th 1/7th TBCount BankPeak Dir Hour Hour Hour Actual Percent2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB2018 L Year YearExist Cnt. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation VariationTrip Trip Trip2017Trip Trip Trip2018 Remain.1/7th TBO Expected ExpectedID# CIE# Proj# Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std Dir Volume Volume Volume Volume To Volume To VolumeBank Bank BankVolumeBank Bank BankVolume Capacity V/C S Deficient Deficient45 45 541.0 99910 CR31 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,2001230 1240 1220(20) -1.61%10 0 10 1250 25 0 25 1245 955 56.6% C2.1 55 62031 CR31 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 6D 599 E N 3,0001950 1970 1810(160) -8.12%70 0 70 2040 66 0 66 1876 1124 62.5% C2.2 55 62031 CR31 Airport Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road 6D 503 E N 3,000 1830 1860 1770(90) -4.84%94 0 94 1954 54 0 54 1824 1176 60.8% C3.0 39 60121 CR31 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 1770 1980 2330 350 17.68% 7 0 7 1987 14 0 14 2344 656 78.1% D4.0 99906 CR31 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 533 E N 2,800 2060 2290 2310 20 0.87% 18 0 18 2308 22 0 22 2332 468 83.3% D 20285.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Radio Road Davis Boulevard 6D 553 E N 2,800 2040 2100 2230 130 6.19% 17 0 17 2117 11 0 11 2241 559 80.0% D6.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 552 E S 2,700 1590 1610 1650 40 2.48% 10 0 10 1620 73 2 75 1725 975 63.9% C7.0 99911 Bayshore Drive US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Thomasson Drive 4D 521 D S 1,800 600 650 620(30) -4.62%45 0 45 695 116 2 118 738 1062 41.0% B8.0 31 60021 CR 865 Bonita Beach Road West of Vanderbilt Drive Hickory Boulevard 4D 653 D E 1,9001050 1070 1060(10) -0.93%0 0 0 1070 0 0 0 1060 840 55.8% C9.0 Carson Road Lake Trafford Road Immokalee Drive 2U 610 D N 600 310 320 330 10 3.13% 0 0 0 320 0 0 0 330 270 55.0% C10.0 33 60101 County Barn Road Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 320 326 380 54 16.42% 65 0 65 391 123 1 124 504 396 56.0% C11.0 99912 CR29 CR 29 US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Everglades City 2U 582A D S 1,000 100 190 160(30) -15.79%0 0 0 190 0 0 0 160 840 16.0% B12.0 SR84 Davis Boulevard US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Airport Road 6D 558 E E 2,700 1520 1550 1610 60 3.87% 33 0 33 1583 56 0 56 1666 1034 61.7% C13.0 48 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Airport Road Lakewood Boulevard 4D 559 D E 2,000 1550 1500 1580 80 5.33% 4 0 4 1504 0 0 0 1580 420 79.0% D14.0 49 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 4D 658 D E 2,000 1530 1610 1670 60 3.73% 61 0 61 1671 61 0 61 1731 269 86.6% D 202615.0 83 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1460 1440 1460 20 1.39% 144 0 144 1584 196 0 196 1656 544 75.3% D16.1 83 SR84 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road 6D 560D EE 3,300 650 700 74040 5.71% 24 139 163 863 86 139 225 965 2335 29.2% B16.2 83 SR84 Davis BoulevardRadio RoadCollier Boulevard6D 601D EW 3,300 1050 1080 112040 3.70% 34 214 248 1328 82 214 296 1416 1884 42.9% B17.0 62 63041 CR876 Golden Gate Boulevard Collier BoulevardWilson Boulevard4D 531 D E 2,300 1660 1600 1710 110 6.88% 0 0 0 1600 0 0 0 1710 590 74.3% C18.0 99913 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 530 E E 2,700 1210 1230 12300 0.00% 13 0 13 1243 13 0 13 1243 145746.0% B19.0 5 60027C CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 507 E E 3,300 2780 2710 2930 220 8.12% 5 0 5 2715 5 0 5 2935 365 88.9% D202420.1 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 508 E E 3,300 2280 2200 229090 4.09% 0 0 0 2200 12 0 12 2302 998 69.8% C20.2 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston RoadI-756D 691 E E 3,300 2890 2770 2610(160) -5.78%1 0 1 2771 0 0 0 2610 690 79.1% D21.0 74 60027 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-75Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 1980 1960 2140 180 9.18% 14 0 14 1974 14 0 14 2154 1146 65.3% C22.0 99916 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard4D 605 D E 1,800 1450 1550 161060 3.87% 59 8 67 1617 43 8 51 1661 139 92.3% D202323.0 19 68041 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 860 930 820(110) -11.83%15 0 15 945 46 0 46 866 134 86.6% D202624.1 65 60134 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Drive 4D 595 E N 2,4001340 1350 137020 1.48% 73 0 73 1423 73 0 73 1443 957 60.1% C24.2 65 60134 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Drive Pine Ridge Road6D 581 E N 2,400 1530 1550 1680 130 8.39% 0 0 0 1550 0 0 0 1680 720 70.0% C25.0 88 60005 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway6D 505 E N 3,000 1850 1890 2220 330 17.46% 0 0 0 1890 0 0 0 2220 780 74.0% C 26.0 99917 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 504 E N 2,700 2250 2190 2480 290 13.24% 0 0 0 2190 0 0 0 2480 220 91.9% D 2023 202327.0 87 68055 Green BoulevardSanta Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard2U 642 D E 900 720 730 680(50) -6.85%0 0 0 730 0 0 0 680 220 75.6% D29.0 66011 Gulfshore Drive111th AvenueVanderbilt Beach Road 2U583a D N 800 230 235 220(15) -6.22%0 0 0 235 0 0 0 220 580 27.5% B30.1 37 65061 CR951 Collier BoulevardImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 655 E N 3,0001450 1520 1680 160 10.53% 273 174 447 1967 419 128 547 2227 773 74.2% C30.2 37 65061 CR951 Collier BoulevardVanderbilt Beach Road Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,0001200 1220 12200 0.00% 48 38 86 1306 79 39 118 1338 1662 44.6% B31.1 85 68056 CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road6D 536 D N 3,000 1867 1904 1780(124) -6.51%26 16 42 1946 48 30 78 1858 1142 61.9% C31.2 85 68056 CR951 Collier BoulevardPine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard6D 536 D N 3,000 1867 1904 1780(124) -6.51%32 12 44 1948 38 22 60 1840 1160 61.3% C32.1 76 65062 CR951 Collier BoulevardGreen BoulevardGolden Gate Pwky4D 525 D N 2,300 1370 1410 150090 6.38% 27 0 27 1437 27 0 27 1527 773 66.4% C32.2 76 68056B CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate PwkyGolden Gate Main Canal 4D 607 D N 2,300 1250 1260 1370 110 8.73% 53 162 215 1475 55 162 217 1587 713 69.0% C32.3 76 68056B CR951 Collier BoulevardGolden Gate Main Canal I-758D 607 E N 3,600 1250 1260 1370 110 8.73% 55 258 313 1573 66 258 324 1694 1906 47.1% B33.0 61 60092 SR951 Collier BoulevardI-75Davis Boulevard8D 573 E N 3,600 2810 2820 2960 140 4.96% 12 347 359 3179 13 277 290 3250 350 90.3% D202434.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier BoulevardDavis BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 1490 1400 1660 260 18.57% 141 377 518 1918 209 297 5062166 834 72.2% C35.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier BoulevardRattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 6D 603 E N 3,200 1770 1860 190040 2.15% 102 245 347 2207 195 143 338 2238 962 69.9% C36.1 12 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Wal-Mart Driveway6D 557 E N 2,500 1581 1500 153030 2.00% 26 183 209 1709 111 127 238 1768732 70.7% C36.2 SR951 Collier BoulevardWal-Mart DrivewayManatee Road4D 557 D N 2,000 1734 1769 1530(239) -13.49%29 108 137 1906 123 104 227 1757 243 87.9% D202637.0 12 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardManatee RoadMainsail Drive4D 627 D N 2,200 1560 1670 1770 100 5.99% 0 103 103 1773 68 103 171 1941 259 88.2% D202438.0 51 64041 SR951 Collier BoulevardMainsail DriveMarco Island Bridge4D 627 D N 2,200 1560 1670 1770 100 5.99% 0 31 31 1701 0 31 31 1801 399 81.9% D202839.0 64 99901 CR846 111th Avenue N.Gulfshore DriveVanderbilt Drive2U 585 D E 700 300 300 3066 2.00% 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 306 394 43.7% B40.0 1 60031 CR846 111th Avenue N.Vanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 613 D E 900 430 430 4399 2.09% 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 439 461 48.8% B41.1 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 566 E W 3,100 1910 2010 208070 3.48% 41 0 41 2051 175 0 175 2255 845 72.7% C41.2 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadGoodlette-Frank Road Airport Road6D 625 E E 3,100 2520 2570 263060 2.33% 41 0 41 2611 45 0 45 2675 425 86.3% D 2023 202342.1 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road6D 567 E W 3,100 2790 2790 2900 110 3.94% 5 0 5 2795 7 0 7 2907 193 93.8% D 2022 202242.2 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee RoadLivingston RoadI-756D/8D 679 E E 3,500 2460 2460 2580 120 4.88% 29 0 29 2489 49 0 49 2629 871 75.1% D43.1 8 66045 CR846 Immokalee RoadI-75Logan Boulevard6D/8D 568 E E 3,500 2410 2458 2390(68) -2.77%176 169 345 2803 410 170 580 2970 530 84.9% D202643.2 CR846 Immokalee RoadLogan BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 656 E E 3,200 1960 1980 202040 2.02% 228 357 585 2565 741 251 992 3012 188 94.1% D202144.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee RoadCollier BoulevardWilson Boulevard6D 674 E E 3,300 1620 1620 1770 150 9.26% 282 265 547 2167 633 216 849 2619 681 79.4% D45.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee RoadWilson BoulevardOil Well Road6D 675 E E 3,300 1830 1890 2020 130 6.88% 224 205 429 2319 296 93 389 2409 891 73.0% C46.0 73 60165 CR846 Immokalee RoadOil Well RoadSR 292U 672 D E 900 370 390 41020 5.13% 29 102 131 521 122 46 168 578 322 64.2% C47.0 66 99903 Lake Trafford Road Carson RdSR 292U 609 D E 800 470 470 50030 6.38% 38 0 38 508 47 4 51 551 249 68.9% C48.0 60166 Logan BoulevardVanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road2U 587 D N 1,000 610 710 670(40) -5.63%16 19 35 745 14 19 33 703 297 70.3% C49.0 22 68051 Logan BoulevardPine Ridge RoadGreen Boulevard4D 588 D S 1,900 1410 1570 161040 2.55% 0 0 0 1570 0 0 0 1610 290 84.7% D 2023 202350.0 79 60166 Logan BoulevardImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 2U 644 D N 1,000 590 560 57010 1.79% 0 30 30 590 29 30 59 629 371 62.9% C51.0 21 65041 CR881 Livingston RoadImperial StreetImmokalee Road6/4D 673 D N 3,000 1160 1180 126080 6.78% 99 0 99 1279 61 0 61 1321 1679 44.0% B52.0 57 62071 CR881 Livingston RoadImmokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 576 E N 3,1001610 1610 164030 1.86% 38 0 38 1648 28 0 28 1668 1432 53.8% C53.0 58 62071 CR881 Livingston RoadVanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road6D 575 E S 3,1001450 1480 149010 0.68% 18 0 18 1498 4 0 4 1494 1606 48.2% B54.0 52 60071 CR881 Livingston RoadPine Ridge RoadGolden Gate Parkway6D 690 E N 3,100 1470 1470 153060 4.08% 34 0 34 1504 46 0 46 1576 1524 50.8% B55.0 53 60061 CR881 Livingston RoadGolden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 687 E N 3,000 1220 1270 133060 4.72% 39 0 39 1309 8 0 8 1338 1662 44.6% B58.0 67 99904 N. 1st StreetNew Market RoadSR-29 (Main Street)2U 590 D N 900 550 590 63040 6.78% 0 0 0 590 18 8 26 656 244 72.9% C59.0 New Market RoadBroward StreetSR 292U 612 D E 900 520 570 59020 3.51% 0 0 0 570 10 5 15 605 295 67.2% C61.0 36 Camp KeaisOil Well RoadImmokalee Road2U 626A D S 1,000 220 190 26070 36.84% 0 108 108 298 132 72 204 464 536 46.4% B62.0 68 99905 CR887 Old US 41Lee County LineUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 547 D N 1,000 960 1050 107020 1.90% 37 0 37 1087 40 0 40 1110(110)111.0% F Existing ExistingMASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm
Page 14 of 262
2016 2017 20182017 20172017 2018Traffic 1/7th TripPeak Hour Peak Peak Peak2018 20182017 1/7thVer. B2018 1/7th 1/7th TBCount BankPeak Dir Hour Hour Hour Actual Percent2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB2018 L Year YearExist Cnt. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation VariationTrip Trip Trip2017Trip Trip Trip2018 Remain.1/7th TBO Expected ExpectedID# CIE# Proj# Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std Dir Volume Volume Volume Volume To Volume To VolumeBank Bank BankVolumeBank Bank BankVolume Capacity V/C S Deficient Deficient45 45 5463.099924 CR896 Seagate DriveCrayton RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 4D 511 D E 1,700 970 970 106090 9.28% 0 0 0 970 0 0 0 1060 640 62.4% C64.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road6D 512 E E 2,800 1870 1860 1990 130 6.99% 6 0 6 1866 6 0 6 1996 804 71.3% C65.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadGoodlette-Frank Road Shirley Street6D 514 E W 2,800 1940 1970 198010 0.51% 1 0 1 1971 6 0 6 1986 814 70.9% C66.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadShirley StreetAirport Road6D 515 E E 2,800 2250 2390 247080 3.35% 52 0 52 2442 24 0 24 2494 306 89.1% D202467.1 41 60111 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road6D 526 E E 3,000 2660 2550 261060 2.35% 35 0 35 2585 29 0 29 2639 361 88.0% D202567.2 41 60111 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadLivingston RoadI-756D 628 E E 3,000 2950 2990 303040 1.34% 103 0 103 3093 112 0 112 3142(142)104.7% F Existing Existing68.0 41 99907 CR896 Pine Ridge RoadI-75Logan Boulevard6D 600 E E 2,800 2130 2120 219070 3.30% 1 0 1 2121 1 0 1 2191 609 78.3% D69.0 15 65032 CR856 Radio RoadAirport RoadLivingston Road4D 544 D E 1,800 1120 1180 11800 0.00% 15 0 15 1195 3 0 3 1183 617 65.7% C70.0 15 65033 CR856 Radio RoadLivingston RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 527 D E 1,800 1110 1130 117040 3.54% 26 0 26 1156 6 0 6 1176 624 65.3% C71.0 16 65031 CR856 Radio RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard4D 685 D W 1,800 580 630 64010 1.59% 0 85 85 715 57 85 142 782 1018 43.4% B72.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Charlemagne Boulevard 4D 516 D W 1,800 1010 1010 103020 1.98% 0 55 55 1065 132 11143 1173 627 65.2% C73.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Charlemagne Boulevard County Barn Road4D 517 D W 1,800 700 740 83090 12.16% 0 48 48 788 108 11 119 949 851 52.7% B74.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road County Barn RoadSanta Barbara Boulevard 4D 534 D W 1,900 670 700 76060 8.57% 0 40 40 740 69 18 87 847 1053 44.6% B75.0 77 60169 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard6D 518 E W 2,900 490 490 53040 8.16% 56 115 171 661 95 75 170 700 2200 24.1% B76.0 56 62081BSanta Barbara Boulevard Green BoulevardGolden Gate Parkway4D 529 D N 2,100 1240 1270 1240(30) -2.36%0 0 0 1270 0 0 0 1240 860 59.0% C77.0 56 62081ASanta Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road6D 528 E N 3,100 1780 1810 188070 3.87% 54 0 54 1864 54 0 54 1934 1166 62.4% C78.0 56 62081ASanta Barbara Boulevard Radio RoadDavis Boulevard6D 537 E N 3,100 1290 1350 1450 100 7.41% 213 0 213 1563 221 0 221 1671 1429 53.9% C79.0Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis BoulevardRattlesnake-Hammock Road 6D 702 E S 3,100 930 890 95060 6.74% 112 0 112 1002 139 0 139 1089 2011 35.1% B80.0SR29 SR 29US 41 (Tamiami Trail) CR 837 (Janes Scenic Dr) 2U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%0 0 0 150 0 0 0 130 770 14.4% B81.0SR29 SR 29CR 837 (Janes Scenic Dr) I-752U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%0 0 0 150 0 0 0 130 770 14.4% B82.0SR29 SR 29I-75Oil Well Road2U 615A D N 900 90 150 130(20) -13.33%8 61 69 219 51 34 85 215 685 23.9% B83.0SR29 SR 29Oil Well RoadCR 29A South2U 665A D N 900 380 410 4100 0.00% 0 0 0 410 54 30 84 494 406 54.9% C84.0SR29 SR 29CR 29A South9th Street4D 664 D W 1,700 600 600 62020 3.33% 12 0 12 612 94 37 131 751 949 44.2% B85.0SR29 SR 299th StreetCR 29A North2U 663 D S 900 620 620 63010 1.61% 21 0 21 641 72 24 96 726 174 80.7% D86.0SR29 SR 29CR 29A NorthSR 822U 663 D S 900 620 620 63010 1.61% 0 0 0 620 50 23 73 703 197 78.1% D87.0SR29 SR 29Hendry County LineSR 822U 591A D S 800 350 360 37010 2.78% 0 0 0 360 7 4 11 381 419 47.6% B88.0SR82 SR 82Lee County LineSR 292U 661A D S 800 710 650 74090 13.85% 8 0 8 658 41 17 58 798 2 99.8% E 2022 201991.0 43US41 Tamiami Trail EastDavis BoulevardAirport Road6D 545 E E 2,900 1580 1700 1920 220 12.94% 23 47 70 1770 124 2 126 2046 854 70.6% C92.0 47US41 Tamiami Trail EastAirport RoadRattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 604 E E 2,900 2240 2300 2460 160 6.96% 13 248 261 2561 281 92 373 2833 67 97.7% E202093.0 46US41 Tamiami Trail EastRattlesnake Hammock Road Triangle Boulevard6D 572 E E 3,000 1960 1860 194080 4.30% 15 329 344 2204 474 158 632 2572428 85.7% D 94.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastTriangle BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 571 E E 3,000 1510 1620 170080 4.94% 0 203 203 1823 325 117 442 2142 858 71.4% C 95.1US41 Tamiami Trail EastCollier BoulevardJoseph Lane6D 608 D E 3,100 670 770 990 220 28.57% 134 107 241 1011 534 30 564 1554 1546 50.1% B95.2US41 Tamiami Trail EastJoseph LaneGreenway Road4D 608 D E 2,000 670 770 990 220 28.57% 53 102 155 925 53 93 146 1136 864 56.8% C95.3US41 Tamiami Trail EastGreenway RoadSan Marco Drive2U 608 D E 1,075 670 770 990 220 28.57% 53 4 57 827 84 1 85 1075 0 100.0% F 2021 201996.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastSan Marco DriveSR 292U 617A D E 1,000 140 240 200(40) -16.67%0 0 0 240 0 0 0 200 800 20.0% B97.0US41 Tamiami Trail EastSR 29Dade County Line2U 616A D E 1,000 150 210 170(40) -19.05%0 0 0 210 0 0 0 170 830 17.0% B98.0 71US41 Tamiami Trail North Lee County LineWiggins Pass Road6D 546 E N 3,100 1990 2090 2250 160 7.66% 97 8 105 2195 59 8 67 2317 783 74.7% C99.0 50US41 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass RoadImmokalee Road6D 564 E N 3,100 2560 2890 3000 110 3.81% 29 8 37 2927 26 8 34 3034 66 97.9% E 2020 2020100.0 45US41 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee RoadVanderbilt Beach Road 6D 577 E N 3,1002280 2320 1920(400) -17.24%18 0 18 2338 16 0 16 1936 1164 62.5% C101.0 45US41 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive6D 563 E N 3,1002300 2330 2460 130 5.58% 3 0 3 2333 1 0 1 2461 639 79.4% D102.0US41 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park DrivePine Ridge Road6D 562 E N 3,100 1860 1900 2010 110 5.79% 2 0 2 1902 2 0 2 2012 1088 64.9% C108.0Thomasson DriveBayshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 698 D E 800 490 500 51010 2.00% 41 53 94 594 105 4 109 619 181 77.4% D109.0 42 65071 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U/4D 524 E E 1,400 910 990 9900 0.00% 0 0 0 990 0 0 0 990 410 70.7% C110.1 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Goodlette-Frank Road4D 646 D E 1,9001480 1540 1410(130) -8.44%0 0 0 1540 7 0 7 1417 483 74.6% C110.2 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road4D/6D 666 D E 2,5001700 1760 1750(10) -0.57%0 0 0 1760 7 0 7 1757 743 70.3% C111.1 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport RoadLivingston Road6D 579 E W 3,0001850 1910 196050 2.62% 0 0 0 1910 4 0 4 1964 1036 65.5% C111.2 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston RoadLogan Blvd.6D 668 E E 3,0002000 2150 2070(80) -3.72%82 0 82 2232 71 0 71 2141 859 71.4% C112.0 24 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Logan BoulevardCollier Boulevard6D 580 E E 3,0001230 1530 1690 160 10.46% 260 2 262 1792 256 2 258 1948 1052 64.9% C114.0 25 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt DriveBonita Beach RoadWiggins Pass Road2U 548 D N 1,000 420 440 4499 2.05% 3 32 35 475 3 32 35 484 516 48.4% B115.0 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt DriveWiggins Pass Road111th Avenue2U 578 D N 1,000 440 440 4499 2.05% 3 13 16 456 3 13 16 465 535 46.5% B116.0 26 69021Westclox RoadCarson RoadSR 292U 611 D W 800 220 210 2100 0.00% 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 210 590 26.3% B117.0 99928 CR888 Wiggins Pass RoadVanderbilt DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) 2U 669 D E 1,000 400 430 4399 2.09% 3 13 16 446 17 13 30 469 531 46.9% B118.0Wilson BlvdImmokalee RoadGolden Gate Boulevard 2U 650 D S 900 320 320 34020 6.25% 24 0 24 344 0 0 0 340 560 37.8% B119.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well RoadImmokalee RoadEverglades Boulevard4D 725S D E 2,000 600 700 850 150 21.43% 117 216 333 1033 225 62 287 1137 863 56.9%C120.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well RoadEverglades Boulevard Desoto Boulevard2U 694 D W 1,100 280 280 35070 25.00% 13 210 223 503 137 72 209 559 541 50.8% B121.1Oil Well RoadDeSoto BoulevardOil Well Grade2U 694 D W 1,100 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 209 209 489 124 62 186 536 564 48.7% B121.2Oil Well RoadOil Well GradeAve Maria Blvd4D 694 D W 2,000 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 209 209 489 124 62 186 536 1464 26.8% B122.0Oil Well RoadAve Maria BlvdSR 292U 694 D W 800 280 280 35070 25.00% 0 65 65 345 116 54 170 520 280 65.0% C123.0 60040Golden Gate Boulevard Wilson Boulevard18th Street NE/SE4U 652 D E 2,300 1080 1102 119088 8.02% 0 0 0 1102 10 5 15 1205 1095 52.4% B123.1 60040Golden Gate Boulevard 18th Street NE/SEEverglades Boulevard2U 4D652 D E 2,300 1080 1102 1190 88 8.02% 0 0 0 1102 0 5 5 1195 1105 52.0% B124.0 60040Golden Gate Boulevard Everglades Boulevard DeSoto Boulevard2U Manual D E 1,010 218 223 2274 1.96% 0 0 0 223 0 0 0 227 783 22.5% B125.0CR896 Pine Ridge RoadLogan BoulevardCollier Boulevard4D 535 D E 2,400 1290 1320 134020 1.52% 1 7 8 1328 0 7 7 1347 1053 56.1% C132.0Randall BoulevardImmokalee RoadEverglades Boulevard2U 651 D E 900 850 870 820(50) -5.75%42 36 78 948 24 16 40 860 40 95.6% E 2023 2021133.0Randall BoulevardEverglades Boulevard DeSoto Boulevard2U Manual D E 900 614 626 63913 2.02% 0 20 20 646 0 0 0 639 261 71.0% C134.0Everglades Boulevard I-75Golden Gate Blvd2U 637S D S 800 410 430 45020 4.65% 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 450 350 56.3% C135.0Everglades Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road2U 636S D N 800 310 280 31030 10.71% 16 20 36 316 36 9 45 355 445 44.4% B136.0Everglades Boulevard Oil Well RoadImmokalee Road2U 635S D N 800 390 410 45040 9.76% 0 0 0 410 0 0 0 450 350 56.3% C137.0DeSoto BoulevardI-75Golden Gate Boulevard 2U 639A D S 800 140 140 15010 7.14% 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 150 650 18.8% B138.0DeSoto BoulevardGolden Gate Boulevard Oil Well Road2U 638A D S 800 100 100 11010 10.00% 0 0 0 100 8 0 8 118 682 14.8% B142.0Orange Blossom Drive Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road2D 647 D W 1,200 600 540 400(140) -25.93%19 0 19 559 19 0 19 419 781 34.9% B143.0Orange Blossom Drive Airport RoadLivingston Road2U 647 D W 1,000 600 540 400(140) -25.93%40 0 40 580 46 0 46 446 554 44.6% B144.0Shadowlawn DriveUS 41 (Tamiami Trail) Davis Boulevard2U 523 D N 800 230 230 2300 0.00% 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 230 570 28.8% BMASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm
Page 15 of 262
Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd Corridor Study ‐ Network Alternative AnalysisAreaRoadway No‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 2+ Type 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOS 2045 AADTLanes LOS D SVVol/Cap LOSImmokalee RdWest of Wilson Blvd 56706 58992 59077 58373 58367 57452 U 56139 6 53910 1.04 F 58402 6 53910 1.08 F 58486 6 53910 1.08 F 57789 6 53910 1.07 F 57783 6 53910 1.07 F 56877 6 53910 1.06 FWilson Blvd to Randall Blvd 78425 83292 84208 84121 84243 72132 U 776416 53910 1.44 F 82459 6 53910 1.53 F 83366 6 53910 1.55 F 83280 6 53910 1.54 F 83401 6 53910 1.55 F 71411 6 53910 1.32 FRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 57385 36426 51507 51553 51543 45630 U 568116 53910 1.05 F 36062 6 53910 0.67 C 50992 6 53910 0.95 C 51037 6 53910 0.95 C 51028 6 53910 0.95 C 45174 6 53910 0.84 CRandall BlvdImmokalee Rd to 8th St 28209 51571 39263 39116 39305 32476 U 27927 4 35820 0.78 C 51055 6 53910 0.95 C 38870 6 53910 0.72 C 38725 6 53910 0.72 C 38912 6 53910 0.72 C 32151 6 53910 0.60 C8th St to 16th St 26698 57458 44404 44023 44373 33352 U 26431 2 15930 1.66F 56883 6 53910 1.06 F 43960 6 53910 0.82 C 43583 6 53910 0.81 C 43929 6 53910 0.81 C 33018 6 53910 0.61 C16th St to "S" Connector 17938 46063 30942 30796 30988 17109 U 17759 2 15930 1.11 F 45602 6 53910 0.85 C 30633 6 53910 0.57 C 30488 6 53910 0.57 C 30678 6 53910 0.57 C 16938 6 53910 0.31 C"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 17938 24315 30942 30796 30988 17109 U17759 2 15930 1.11 F 24072 4 35820 0.67 C 30633 6 53910 0.57 C 30488 6 53910 0.57C 30678 6 53910 0.57 C 16938 4 35820 0.47 CEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 14051 19468 21616 21283 21353 11166 T 13910 2 15930 0.87 C 19273 4 31950 0.60 C 21400 6 48150 0.44 C 21070 6 48150 0.44 C 21139 6 48150 0.44 C 11054 4 48150 0.23 CDesoto Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 15538 17574 17292 17245 11595 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15383 4 31950 0.48 C 17398 6 48150 0.36 C 17119 6 48150 0.36 C 17073 6 48150 0.35 CDesoto Blvd to Big Cypress n/a12906 4 48150 0.27 COil Well RdImokallee Rd to "S" Connector41904 24013 38689 38851 38787 33914 U 41485 4 35820 1.16 F 23773 4 35820 0.66 C38302 4 35820 1.07 D 38462 4 35820 1.07 F 38399 4 35820 1.07 F 33575 4 35820 0.94D"S" Connector to Everglades Blvd 42146 43852 37226 37535 37318 33259 U41725 4 35820 1.16 F 43413 6 53910 0.81 D 36854 4 35820 1.03 F 37160 4 35820 1.04F 36945 4 35820 1.03 F 32926 4 35820 0.92 DEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd 37923 38048 35919 36735 36337 31550 T 37544 6 48150 0.78 C 37668 6 48150 0.78 C 35560 6 48150 0.74 C 36368 6 48150 0.76 C 35974 6 48150 0.75 C 31550 6 48150 0.66 CDesoto Blvd to Randall Blvd Ext 39511 40649 40835 41180 41315 T 39116 648150 0.81 C 40243 6 48150 0.84 C 40427 6 48150 0.84 C 40768 6 48150 0.85 C 409026 48150 0.85 CRandall Blvd Ext to Oil Well Grade Rd 47162 49824 49340 49391 49471 T46690 6 48150 0.97 C 49326 6 48150 1.02 F 48847 6 48150 1.01 F 48897 6 48150 1.02F 48976 6 48150 1.02 FDesoto Blvd to Big Cypress 39511 29978 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 29678 6 48150 0.62CBig Cypress to Oil Well Grade Rd 47162 29787 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 29489 6 48150 0.61 CEverglades BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 10414 5190 12332 12481 12881 13688 T 10310 214580 0.71 C 5138 2 14580 0.35 C 12209 4 35500 0.34 C 12356 4 31950 0.39 C 12752 648150 0.26 C 13551 4 31950 0.42 CRandall Blvd to VBR Ext14847 T14699 4 31950 0.46 CDesoto BlvdRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd 10034 3451 4227 4712 4142 2819 T 9934 2 145800.68 C 3416 2 14580 0.23 C 4185 2 14580 0.29 C 4665 4 31950 0.15 C 4101 2 14580 0.28 C 2791 2 14580 0.19 C"S" ConnectorRandall Blvd to Oil Well Rd n/a 26046 n/a n/a n/a n/a T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a28651 4 35820 0.80 C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aBig Cypress ParkwayRandall to Oill Well Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 34337 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 33994 4 31950 1.06 FRandall Blvd to VBR Extension n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 26625 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 26359 4 31950 0.83 CVBR Extension to Wilson n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51964 U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51444 6 53910 0.95 CWilson to 8th n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40351 U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39947 4 35820 1.12 F8th to 16th n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40449 U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40045 4 35820 1.12 F16th to Everglades Blvd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 36071 U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 35710 4 35820 1.00 FEverglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27789 T n/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a27511 4 31950 0.86 CDesoto Blvd to Big Cypress n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23535 T n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23300 4 31950 0.73 CCollier BlvdVBR to Immokalee Road n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51964 U n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42811 6 53910 0.79 C2045 AADT = 2040 PSWT * 90% MOCF * 110%Below Level of Service (LOS) TargetVolume to Capacity Ratio (Vol/Cap) > .9Alternative 2 +Alternative 42040 PSWT Volumes No‐Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TRAFFIC FORECAST MODELING
RANDALL BLVD AND OIL WELL RD
CORRIDOR STUDY
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
April 2019
Traffic Forecast Modeling Technical Memorandum
RANDALL BLVD AND OIL WELL RD CORRIDOR STUDY
Collier County, Florida
Introduction
This Technical Memorandum presents the details of the Model Traffic Forecasts developed in support of
a traffic study in the vicinity of Randall Blvd and Oil Well Rd in Collier County, Florida. A map showing
the study area is shown below.
This effort involved conducting a sub-area base year (2010) validation refinement for the study area,
development of a refined forecast (2040) No-Build model, as well as five Build corridor improvement
alternatives.
The traffic model applied for this study was based on the current adopted District 1 Cost Feasible 2040
Regional Planning Model (D1RPM v1.0.3). The D1RPM is a travel demand forecasting tool developed by
FDOT District 1, in conjunction with the six District MPO/TPOs in support of their current 2040 Long
Range Transportation Plans (LRTP). This model was adopted by the Collier County MPO for use in
developing traffic forecasts within the County.
Model Sub-Area Validation
The original 2010 base year model validation was refined for the project study area to ensure that the
base year model is replicating 2010 traffic conditions and counts. The model refinement was performed
by using the guidelines identified in “FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook”. Validation criteria
including volume over count (v/c) ratios were used to assess the accuracy of the base year model.
Study Area Map
The following network revisions were incorporated into the 2010 Base Year model as part of the sub-
area validation effort:
• Add Screenline 83 to links with counts within study area
• Oil Well Grade Rd from Oil Well Rd to Immokalee Rd – Facility Type (FT) 46 to FT 49
• TAZ 2250, 1966 - revise loading
• Correct 8th and 16th alignment (2010 and 2040)
• Update count to FDOT count - Randall Blvd E of Immokalee Rd
• Wilson Rd from Golden Gate Blvd to Immokalee Rd - FT 33 to FT 31
• Correct location of traffic count on Everglades Blvd from Immokalee Rd to Oil Well Rd
• TAZ 1975 - revise centroid loading
• Golden Gate Blvd, first line east of Wilson Blvd - Area Type (AT) 51 to AT 33
• Oil Well Rd from Camp Keais Dr to SR 29 - FT 46 to FT 45
N
These revisions resulted in acceptable validation performance for the study area. The following table
and plot show the resulting level of validation for the refined sub-area model.
REFINED VALIDATION
SL ROADWAY AT FT ANODE BNODE VOLUME COUNT V/C
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 23739 27168 2163 3,015 0.72
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 31 23 23998 26177 15,431 18,795 0.82
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 33 23 24027 26823 16,451 14,369 1.14
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 31 23 26177 23998 15,288 18,795 0.81
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 31 23 26177 26301 18,312 17,575 1.04
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 31 23 26301 26177 18,386 17,575 1.05
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 33 23 26823 24027 16,480 14,369 1.15
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 23 26823 26855 17,215 15,570 1.11
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 23 26855 26823 17,256 15,570 1.11
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 26919 26924 2,352 2,598 0.91
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 26924 26919 2,342 2,598 0.90
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 23 26936 26945 8,802 8,458 1.04
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 23 26945 26936 8,807 8,458 1.04
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 27163 27168 2,126 2,814 0.76
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 27168 23739 2,173 3,015 0.72
83 CR 846 (Immokalee Rd) 51 35 27168 27163 2114 2814 0.75
83 CR 858 51 31 26936 27050 5,947 5,709 1.04
83 CR 858 51 31 27050 26936 5,952 5,709 1.04
83 CR 858 (Oil Well Rd) 51 35 27223 27250 1712 2944 0.58
83 CR 858 (Oil Well Rd) 51 35 27250 27223 1,710 2,944 0.58
83 CR 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Blvd) 31 23 23957 26213 10,781 11,282 0.96
83 CR 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Blvd) 31 23 26213 23957 10,742 11,282 0.95
83 CR 876 33 23 26952 26830 9,731 8,864 1.10
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 47 24198 27180 4,997 3,410 1.47
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 46 27170 27171 4329 3189 1.36
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 46 27171 27170 4329 3189 1.36
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 46 27179 27180 2,756 3,145 0.88
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 47 27180 24198 4,997 3,410 1.47
83 CR 876 (Everglades Blvd) 51 46 27180 27179 2,672 3,145 0.85
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26177 26181 8,969 12,784 0.70
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26181 26177 8,753 12,784 0.68
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26213 26218 12,675 12,449 1.02
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26218 26213 12,512 12,449 1.01
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26224 26227 16,696 18,182 0.92
83 CR 951 (Collier Blvd) 31 23 26227 26224 16,626 18,182 0.91
83 Desoto Blvd 51 47 23821 24210 1,266 1,020 1.24
83 Desoto Blvd 51 47 24210 23821 1,308 1,020 1.28
83 Desoto Blvd 51 47 24210 24214 2,083 1,165 1.79
83 Desoto Blvd 51 47 24214 24210 2,083 1,165 1.79
83 Golden Gate Blvd 31 23 26223 26294 13,745 13,068 1.05
83 Golden Gate Blvd 31 23 26294 26223 13,649 13,068 1.04
83 Golden Gate Blvd 33 23 26771 26830 10,546 10,802 0.98
83 Golden Gate Blvd 33 23 26830 26771 10,504 10,802 0.97
83 Golden Gate Blvd 33 23 26830 26952 9,785 8,864 1.10
83 Randall Blvd 51 43 23797 26875 6,604 7,102 0.93
83 Randall Blvd 51 43 26875 23797 7,630 7,102 1.07
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 23813 26830 225 199 1.13
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 24019 26823 378 703 0.54
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26823 24019 379 703 0.54
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26823 26825 2,707 3,147 0.86
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26825 26823 2,696 3,147 0.86
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26827 26830 2,162 3,602 0.60
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26830 23813 225 199 1.13
83 Wilson Blvd 51 46 26830 26827 2,150 3,602 0.60
Study Area 402,709 411,920 0.98
Randall Blvd 14,234 14,204 1.00
Immokalee Rd 165698 166388 1.00
Oil Well Rd 15,321 17,306 0.89
D1RPMv1.0.3 Refined 2010 Validation (Licensed to Traf O Data)2010 PSWT Assigned Volume2010 PSWT CountVolume to Count RatioStudy AreaSAND RDE TERRY STSUN DEW LNSAND RDE TERRY ST5TH AVE NW5TH AVE NW1ST AVE NW1ST AVE NW9TH ST NW
15TH ST NW
21ST ST NW
27TH ST NW
29TH ST NW
31ST ST NW
1ST AVE SW21ST ST SW
19TH ST SW
11TH ST SW
27TH ST SW
29TH ST SW
31ST ST SW
23RD ST NW
3RD AVE SW7TH AVE NW72ND AVE NE68TH AVE NE66TH AVE NE66TH AVE NE64TH AVE NE62ND AVE NE60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE20TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE14TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE4TH AVE SE6TH AVE SE7TH ST SW
3RD ST SW
1ST ST SW
6TH ST SE
12TH ST SE
16TH ST SE
18TH ST SEIMMOKALEE RD40TH ST NE
39TH AVE NWIMMOKALEE RD
SAND RDRANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEMURLIN RD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE6TH AVE SE4TH AVE SE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
23RD ST SW
15TH ST SW
17TH ST SW
2ND ST SE
4TH ST SE
25TH ST NW
19TH ST NW
17TH ST NW70TH AVE NE68TH AVE NE66TH AVE NE24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE62ND AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE433560300.72142361420414493981.132575
2040
1.26
21523225640.95758
1406
0.54 32931287381.159994
6820
1.47
4166
2330
1.79
17722
25568
0.693669935150 1.0425186
24898
1.01 21050216040.975402
6294
0.861.114311
7204
0.6 19516177281.1469251960.917608
16916
1.041189711418 1.04424156280.758659
6378
1.36
5430
6290
0.86342358880.58
Forecast No-Build Model Development
The No-Build Forecast Model network was developed by applying appropriate base year validation
refinements to the 2040 LRTP Cost Feasible model network.
The 2040 model socioeconomic data was refined to include planned development within the study area
based on input from Collier County. This resulted in increases in 2040 model commercial employment
for TAZ 1975 (Shopping Center – Publix/CVS) from 40 to 182, and for TAZ 2088 (Randall Blvd Commercial
Subdistrict) from 49 to 908.
The 2040 Cost Feasible model network coding was revised for Vanderbilt Beach Rd Extension, from east
of Douglas St to 16th St, to reflect an uninterrupted flow facility (FT 23 to FT 22).
The following plot shows the resulting forecast No-Build 2040 Peak Season Weekday Traffic (PSWT)
traffic volumes.
D1RPM Study Area Model - No-Build PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE26822118
221691809459718093904
8603
10414
87 323951147162 140519596
4826
13406179381793811955
9072 7737
164406976
100
1006178
183944640
2820926698177471793878856
9 549
124041240437434100
1278
56472567067 0 1 2
7 0 9 1 228472 2 8 6 6
2
10034 8857 850
532734050253273372773318278425 33863 15974
4478239910642 2
28587
57 38 53799326665
29279
3397833876419043505942146421463505916536 3792313921 13921 1001 1 1 6505
1001133368
78244782
Forecast Build Alternative Model Development
2040 PSWT volumes and network geometry for the five defined Build Network Alternatives are shown in
the following plots.
D1RPM Study Area Model - Alternative 1 PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE22121534
215911573466815733928
8492
3661
51 9049824917340649 194683451
5335
1859610293
10036 6689
130676071
109
1098027
176548146
5157157458441904606377047
7 585
103261032636286100
1279
58749589926 6 4 5
6 7 2 2 235172 3 5 3 7
2
3287 7048 850
555083931255508355113414883292 34756 16457
4554037666564 7
26249
36 42 62004226142
28770
31690315792387531542240133154216508 380484385214218
2431514218 9822 1 5498
98223567934694
54026046
4554015538
D1RPM Study Area Model - Alternative 2 PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE22421694
217531613464616133935
8497
10700
1233249340850540835 216164227
5369
2075130942309429939
9532 6526
129456036
75
757890
173617774
3926344404311483094276513
7 025
9841984135977100
1279
58833590776 7 1 6
6 7 9 3 233832 3 4 0 4
2
3903 6514 85
555873902455587351643486884208 35498 16347
4571337143585 9
26335
51 50 73485026292
28911
3113431055386893098837226372263098816458 3591914548 14548 9966 1 5431
99663292634387
7134571317574
D1RPM Study Area Model - Alternative 3 PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE22121622
216791616465516163959
8553
10842
1248149391821241180 212834712
5480
20414307963079610181
9767 6350
129985853
95
957679
171787562
3911644023307693079676586
7 079
9765976535841100
1279
58129583736 6 2 9
6 7 0 5 234592 3 4 7 9
2
4387 6587 852
548833898054883351283542284121 36088 16615
4638537256577 5
26319
51 55 33502626232
28861
3132131224388513098237535375353098216564 3673514510 14510 9941 1 5401
99413325934376
3854638517292
D1RPM Study Area Model - Alternative 4 PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE22421623
216821612465016123935
8500
11248
1288149471815641315 213534142
5357
20486309883098810027
9619 6592
130966106
101
1017865
174337755
3930544373311073098876526
7 037
9846984636080100
1279
58122583676 6 1 8
6 6 9 5 234932 3 5 1 3
2
3819 6529 85
548763903554876351833559684243 36179 16240
4649837032577 9
26276
51 54 33494826223
28845
3111731012387873101937318373183101916471 3633714557 14557 1003 0 1 5470
100303342734423
4984649817245
D1RPM Study Area Model - Alternative 5 PSWT Volumes (4-19-19) (Licensed to Traf O Data)Study LimitsDirectional Lanes = 1Directional Lanes = 2Directional Lanes = 3Directional Lanes = >3Centroid Connector9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
15TH ST NW60TH AVE NE58TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE56TH AVE NE54TH AVE NE52ND AVE NE46TH ST NE
47TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE18TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
14TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE33RD AVE NE2ND ST NE
WILSON BLVD N
2ND ST NW
4TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW 24TH AVE NE24TH AVE NW22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NE22ND AVE NW20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE20TH AVE NE18TH AVE NEJUNG BLVD EJUNG BLVD W16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE16TH AVE NW14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE14TH AVE NW12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NE12TH AVE NW10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NE10TH AVE NW8TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE6TH AVE NE4TH AVE NE2ND AVE NE2ND AVE NE22ND ST NE
14TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
18TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
12TH ST NE
6TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NW
3RD ST NW
7TH ST NW 2ND AVE SE2ND AVE SE7
1
40TH ST NE
41ST AVE NW39TH AVE NW33RD AVE NWSHADY HOLLOW BLVD WEE RD RANDALL BLVD18TH AVE NEGOLDEN GATE BLVD ERANDALL BLVD13TH ST NWIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RDOIL WELL RDOIL WELL RD52ND AVE NE24TH AVE NE47TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE39TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE37TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE14TH AVE NE16TH AVE NE8TH AVE NE8TH ST NE
17TH ST NW24TH AVE NE35TH AVE NE39TH AVE NE48TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE45TH AVE NE43RD AVE NE54TH AVE NE60TH AVE NE31ST AVE NE33RD AVE NE41ST AVE NE18TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE27TH AVE NE21121528
215971359467213593884
8188
12085
136882978729787 115952819
244512906
1116617109171097471
6311 4329
40449360714089
142
1425635
403514840
3247633352207171710974390
3 080
4102410233272100
1279
57205574524 3 2 5
4 4 7 2 4 3 9 5 4 4 2 1
2
2327 2917
27789235358802567
539553648953955327542829072132 29472 14772
5196429846525 4
26378
45 63 03039726210
28883
2296222816339141898133259332591898116411 3155014882 14882 1484 7 1 5652
16476299782844333866
9645196428179
266253433728443
2568
2610228443
Appendix C
Desktop Cultural Resource Assessment
and Windshield Survey
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC.
A DESKTOP CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT and WINDSHIELD SURVEY
of the RANDALL BOULEVARD
and OIL WELL ROAD CORRIDOR,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AHC PROJECT NO. 2018.213
AHC TECHNICAL REPORT NO5
JANUARY 2019
AHC PROJECT NO. 2019.212
AHC TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 1222
FEBRUARY 2019
AHC PROJECT NO. 2019.21
AHC TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 1222
FEBRUARY 2019
By:
John G. Beriault, B.A.
Ryan Franklin, Ph.D.
Alan M. Noe, B.A.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC.
4800 SW 64th Avenue, Suite 107
Davie, Florida 33314
archlgcl@bellsouth.net
(954) 792-9776
For:
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
A DESKTOP CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT and WINDSHIELD SURVEY
of the RANDALL BOULEVARD
and OIL WELL ROAD CORRIDOR,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTANT SUMMARY 1
PREVIOUS RESEARCH 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 8
METHODOLOGY 11
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 12
REFERENCES CITED 18
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. USGS map of the project area 2
Figure 2.1874 Plat map of the project area 3
Figure 3. 1943 Copeland map of the project area 4
Figure 4. 1962 aerial photograph of the project area 5
Figure 5. 2017 aerial photograph of the project area 6
Figure 6. Previously recorded cultural resources within 500m of project area 10
Figure 7. Randall Blvd, looking east 12
Figure 8. Project area setting photo 13
Figure 9. Project area setting photo 13
Figure 10. 2017 aerial photograph showing known and potential cultural resources 14
Figure 11. Historic trail, 8CR965, looking east away from project corridor 15
Figure 12. Historic trail, 8CR965, looking west into project corridor 15
Figure 13. Randall Blvd, looking west towards oak hammock 16
Figure 14. Remnant oak hammock, looking north 16
Figure 15. Easternmost bridge on Oil Well Road 17
Figure 16. Bridge number and date 17
1
CONSULTANT SUMMARY
In February, 2019, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. (AHC)
conducted a desktop cultural resource assessment and windshield survey for Jacobs
Engineering Group of the Randall Blvd and Oil Well Road Corridor located in Collier
County. The 3700 acre project area is in Township 48S, Range 28E, Sections 19, 20, 21,
22, and 23 (Figure 1). The study area was surveyed to locate and assess any potential
sites of archaeological and/or historical significance. This assessment was not
implemented to meet agency guidelines for a Phase I assessment.
Historically, the subject corridor was part of an extensive slash pine/saw palmetto
flatwoods and wire grass prairies with four separate discrete linear cypress sloughs. The
project area is characterized by circular shallow grass marshes surrounded by wire grass
prairies and slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods. Vegetation today is predominantly pine,
cabbage palm, palmetto plus landscaped plants and invasive species but residences occur
along much of the corridor.
A search was requested on February 8, 2019 with the Florida Division of Historic
Resources (FDHR) and revealed one previously recorded cultural resource within the
project corridor. The Enterprise Tram Linear Resource, 8CR965, is a historic trail
occurring to the east of the corridor, although the very westernmost extent enters the
project area in the northeast corner and curves to the south, terminating within the
northeast corner. While most of the trail to the east of the project area appears to retain its
integrity, the portion of the trail extending into the project area has been obscured and
destroyed by modern clearing, improvements and development (Figure 12). The segment
of the trail within the study area will have to be documented and the Florida Master Site
File (FMSF) form for 8CR965 updated if a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS)
is conducted.
This project area contains no previously recorded archaeological sites and has an overall
low probability for containing archaeological sites. A few potential higher probability
targets were identified on historic aerials, however when assessed by windshield survey
the majority were determined to be either ponds, pine flatwoods or cypress domes. Only
one remnant hammock, with some larger established oak trees was identified (see Figures
10, 13, 14). This hammock is considered to have a low to medium probability for having
archaeological sites and shovel testing is recommended to determine if cultural materials
occur there.
Four bridges were identified crossing the two north-south canals. These bridges are of a
common type, but three were built between 1965 and 1966 and therefore, by being 50
years old or older, are considered historic, and will require documentation for the FMSF
if a CRAS is conducted.
2
3
4
5
6
7
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880s,
although much of the early work was directed toward the recovery of museum quality
artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes. Griffin (1988:48 -50) discussed
some of the very early references to archaeological sites in South Florida and noted that
these early reports were mostly casual observations, and few appear to refer to southwest
Florida, but rather to southeast Florida and the Florida Keys.
The first attempt to systematically survey of the area’s archaeological sites was by Ales
Hrdliĉka, who visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove estuaries in
1918, focusing on the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdliĉka 1922). Hrdliĉka noted that
southwest Florida was a distinct region within south Florida and made an attempt to type
sites by function.
John M. Goggin was the first to define a south Florida cultural area (Glades Area), and
describe south Florida ceramics (Glades ware), establishing a basis for later
archaeological work. He published an analysis of the ceramic sequence in south Florida
(Goggin 1939, 1940). In later reports (Goggin, 1947, 1949a, 1949b), he formulated a
basic framework of cultural areas and chronologies that is still current (although
modifications with additional data have been made, see further discussion below).
Goggin (1949b) summarized much of this information in an unpublished manuscript,
which Griffin (1988) described.
Most of the earlier studies focused on the coastal sites. Recent work in the interior has
made significant advances in documenting the extent of inland sites, especially in the Big
Cypress and Everglades parks (Ehrenhard et al. 1978, 1979; Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980).
Griffin’s (1988) synthesis of the Everglades Park data is the defining work on south
Florida archaeology to date.
Three miles west of the project study area AHC surveyed the Piper’s Grove Parcel (aka
Twin Eagles) (Carr et al. 1994). Other studies were done to the northwest between
Moulder and Rivers Roads on the 20-acre Hunt Parcel (Beriault 1998) and on the four-
square-mile SR 846 Parcel (Beriault 2001). In 2002 AHC archaeologists conducted a
Phase I assessment of a 500-acre area to the north and east at the Immokalee Road South
Parcel in which ten archaeological sites were assessed (Beriault et al. 2006). All of these
projects resulted in the discovery of archaeological sites, indicating that the general area
has the potential to contain a high concentration of archaeological features and sites.
Other work by AHC at the 150-acre Woodsedge Parcel yielded no sites, suggesting the
sites may mostly occur in high-ground areas vegetated in hammock (Beriault 2005).
8
LITERATURE REVIEW
A search was requested on February 8, 2019 with the Florida Division of Historic
Resources for archives and literature associated with the project area. This included site
forms and cultural resource reports from the Master Site File in Tallahassee on and within
one mile of the project parcel.
Table 1. Literature Review Summary
Previously Recorded Sites: 1 (linear resource 8CR965)
Within Project Parcel 1
Within Mile of Project Parcel 0
Previous Assessments: 9
In Project Parcel 5
Within One Mile of Project Parcel 4
A review of Florida site files determined that one previously recorded sit e occurs within
the project parcel (Table 2). The Collier Enterprise Tram Linear Resource, 8CR965 is an
approximately 1 mile in length and 2m wide linear trail with a dilapidated wooden
bridge. The majority of the trail occurs to the east of the project area, although the very
westernmost extent of the trail enters the project area in the northeast corner and curves
to the south (terminating within the northeast corner of the project area). The trail was
first reported in 2006 (Archaeological Consultants 2006), and while noted as being
important to understanding local historic settlement, was similar to other trails and
bridges found throughout the State.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Summary1
Site No. Site Name Site Type References In Survey
Parcel
Outside of
Parcel
8CR965 Collier Enterprises
Tram
1950s farm road and
trestle/linear resource
Archaeological
Consultants, 2007 X
Note: 1Based on sites within or within one mile of the project parcel.
A review of the state report files indicated nine cultural resource assessments previously
conducted within one mile of the project parcel (Table 3).
Table 3. Previous Cultural Resource Assessments
Date Survey
Number Author Title In Parcel Out of
Parcel
1986 1108 Florida Preservation
Services
Historical/Architectural Survey of Collier
County, Florida X
2001 6608 Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy
An Archaeological Survey of the County Road
846 (Immokalee Road) Expansion, Collier
Boulevard (CR951) to Oil Well Road (CR858),
Collier County, Florida
X
9
Date Survey
Number Author Title In Parcel Out of
Parcel
2005 16859 Panamerican
Consultants
An Archeological and Historical Survey of the
Orange Blossom Ranch Project Area in Collier
County, Florida
X
2005 11274 Janus Research, Inc.
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the
FPL Collier-Orange River #3 230 KV
Transmission Line: Segment E, Collier County,
Florida
X
2006 20017 Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Oilwell
Road (CR 858), Collier County, Florida X
2007 14434 Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
An Addendum to the Cultural Resource
Predictive Model Collier Enterprises, LTD, Big
Cypress Stewardship District, Collier County,
Florida
X
2014 21625 Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Project
Development and Environment Study Golden
Gate Estates- Three Bridges 8th Street NE, 16th
Street NE, and 47th Avenue NE, Collier County,
Florida FPID No. 431895-1
X
2014 20785 Suncoast Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the
Golden Gate LDS Church, Collier County,
Florida
X
2018 25172 Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.
Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the
Big Corkscrew Park Property, Collier County,
Florida
X
Note: 1Based on assessments within one mile of the project parcel.
10
Figure 6. Previously recorded cultural resources within 500m of the project area.
11
METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork in the project parcel, relevant archives and literature were
reviewed. This included, but was not limited to, studying previous archaeological reports
for sites in Collier County, reviewing information from the Master Site File, and
examining USGS maps of the project area. Also, black and white as well as color aerial
photographs of the project area that could aid in revealing anthropogenic changes to the
topography and floral communities, were interpreted.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The principal project goal was to identify known and potential cultural resources within
the proposed project area. A predictive archaeological site model was used based on
topographic and vegetative attributes that are associated with prehistoric and historic sites
in interior Collier County. This model postulates that live oak, tropical hardwood, and
cabbage palm hammocks in close proximity to drainage sloughs, marshes, and
creeks/rivers are medium to high probability areas for archaeological sites. The
elevational information on the USGS quadrangle map for the area also was used.
Based on a review of historic aerial photographs the project parcel was determined to
have a low to moderate probability for archaeological sites based on the project area
being characterized by circular shallow grass marshes surrounded by wire grass prairies
and slash pine/saw palmetto flatwoods. Water sources in the project parcel were limited
to several shallow grass ponds. Only a few small possible hardwood hammocks were
identified and considered to be possible higher probability than the surrounding area.
FIELDWORK
In addition to the archival review, a reconnaissance survey was conducted across the
proposed project area to document the project, noting any potentially historic structures
or linear features and ground-truthing possible higher probability areas for archaeological
sites. Photographs were taken across the project area. No subsurface testing was
conducted.
12
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The archival review determined that historically the area was flat and relatively
featureless with seasonal marsh ponds as indicated in the 1874 plat map (Figure 2). Much
of the pine flatwoods are hydric in nature with seasonal flooding in the summer months.
Based on the overall lack of observed uplands, the project corridor is considered to have a
low probability for archaeological sites.
The few observable higher probability areas were subject to a reconnaissance windshield
assessment and determined to be low-lying pine flatwoods, ponds, or cypress domes.
One remnant hammock with larger established oak trees was observed (see Figures 10,
13, 14), That hammock directly abuts Randall Blvd, and within a formal CRAS should be
considered medium probability and shovel tested at 50m intervals.
One previously recorded historical resource extends into the project area. The site,
8CR965, is a historic trail. While most of the trail is to the east of the project area appears
to retain its integrity (Figure 11), the portion of the trail extending into the project
corridor has been obscured and destroyed by modern clearing, improvements and
development (Figure 12). This segment of the trail will have to be documented and the
site form for 8CR965 updated if a CRAS is conducted of the project corridor.
Four bridges were identified crossing the two north-south canals. These bridges are
common types, but were built between 1965 and 1966 and therefore, by being 50 years
old or older, are considered historic, and will require documentation for the FMSF if a
CRAS is conducted.
Figure 7. Randall Blvd, looking east in project corridor.
13
Figure 8. Project area, showing typical pine flatwoods.
Figure 9. Project area, vegetated in pine and palmetto.
14
15
Figure 11. Historic trail, 8CR965, looking east outside of project area.
Figure 12. Location of historic trail, 8CR965, looking west into project area, showing
trail to be obscured/destroyed by improvements and development.
16
Figure 13. Randall Blvd, looking west, showing remnant oak hammock.
Figure 14. Remnant oak hammock, looking north.
17
Figure 15. Easternmost bridge on Oil Well Road, looking northeast.
Figure 16. Easternmost bridge on Oil Well Road, bridge number and date.
18
REFERENCES CITED
Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
2006 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Oilwell Road (CR 858), Collier County,
Florida. Survey #20017 on file, Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee,
Florida.
Beriault, JG
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Standerfer Parcel, Lee County, Florida.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami, FL. AHC Technical Report
#226.
2001 An Archaeological Survey of the County Road 846 (Immokalee Road)
Expansion, Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to Oil Well Road (CR 855), Collier
County, Florida. Survey #6608 on file, Division of Historic Resources,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Beriault, JB, JF Mankowski, and J Crump
2005 A Phase II Archaeological Assessment of Archaeological Sites 8CR831, 8CR832,
8CR834, and 8CR836, Immokalee Road South Parcel, Collier County, Florida.
Carr, RS, W Steele and J Davis
1994a A Phase I Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Piper Tract, Collier
County, Florida. April, 1994.
1994b A Phase II Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the Piper Tract, Collier
County, Florida. June, 1994.
Ehrenhard, JE, RS Carr, and RC Taylor
1978 The Archaeological Survey of Big Cypress National Preserve: Phase I. National
Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 2. National
Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.
Goggin, JM
1939 A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 3:36-40.
1940 The distribution of pottery wares in the Glades Archaeological Area of South
Florida. New Mexico Anthropologist 4:22-33.
1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological areas and Periods in Florida.
American Antiquity 13:114-127.
19
1949a Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2(3-
4): 65-91.
1949b The Archaeology of the Glades Area. Unpublished MS on file, SE Archaeological
Research Center, NPS, Tallahassee, Fl.
1949c Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In J.W. Griffin (editor) The Florida
Indian and his Neighbors. Winter Park, Florida: Rollins College.
Griffin, JW
1974 Archaeology and Environment in South Florida. In P.J. Gleason (ed.),
Environments of South Florida: Present and Past II. Coral Gables: Miami
Geological Society, pp 342-346.
Hrdliĉka, A
1922 The Anthropology of Florida. Deland, Florida: Publications of the Florida State
Historical Society 1.
Appendix D
Natural Resources Technical
Memorandum
Natural Resource Evaluation Report
Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
Johnson Engineering, Inc.
(Sub to CH2M/Jacobs)
April 30, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
Executive Summary
Collier County initiated the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study) to evaluate
potential roadway network improvements near Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road in Collier County,
Florida.
Based on the review of available information from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in relation to the potential habitat impacts that may be
associated with the proposed project, an effect determination was established for each federal and state‐
listed/protected species (including protected nonlisted wildlife species) that may occur in the project
vicinity.
Considering mitigation measures (compensatory mitigation for the potential loss of listed species habitat
and standard protection measures) that will be implemented prior to project construction, the following
preliminary effect determinations are provided for the Recommended Build Alternative:
Protected Species and Habitats
No effect on the following federally protected species:
Shorebirds including the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and
red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)
Florida scrub‐jay (Aphelocoma coelurescens)
Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus)
Red‐cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
May affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally‐listed species:
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)
Wood stork (Mycteria americana)
Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway)
Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus)
Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)
No adverse effects are anticipated to the following state‐listed species:
Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia):
Shorebirds including the snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), least tern (Sternula antillarum), and
black skimmer (Rynchops niger)
Wading birds including the tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea),
reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja)
Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus)
May affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following state‐listed species:
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis)
Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ii
Two species which may occur in the project vicinity are not listed as threatened, endangered, or species
of special concern (SSC), but receive other legal protection. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus
floridanus) may be affected, but it is not likely to be adversely affected. The project has no effect on the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
Based on USFWS current guidelines, compensatory mitigation will be required to address the loss of
panther habitat and potentially the loss of woodstork foraging biomass. Preliminary analysis indicates
approximately 313.68 Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) may be required. The project’s anticipated wetland
mitigation (2.58 credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank) would provide 89.78 PHUs, with each
wetland credit providing 34.80 PHUs. Remaining PHUs (± 223.90) would need to be purchased from an
approved conservation bank. Currently, Panther Passage is selling each PHU for approximately $850,
resulting in the purchase of $190,315 for additional panther mitigation. Each wetland credit at PIMB also
has 0.31 Kg long hydroperiod & 1.06 Kg short hydroperiod wood stork credits associated with it, to help
offset the potential loss of woodstork foraging associated with wetland impacts and/or permanent loss of
surface waters. Preliminary analysis indicates the 2.58 wetland credits would offset lost foraging biomass
associated with the project’s wetland impacts.
Wetlands and Surface Waters
For the Recommended Build Alternative, approximately 21.62 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional surface waters and 5.00
acres of jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated to be temporarily or permanently impacted. These impacts
occur in manmade, excavated canals/ditches and disturbed wetland communities adjacent to the existing
roadway. Collier County will address impacts to wetland and surface waters that require mitigation during
the future permitting phase of this project. Preliminary functional assessment (UMAM) conducted for the
wetland impacts indicate approximately 2.58 mitigation credits are needed to compensate for project
impacts. The current price per wetland mitigation credit at Panther Island Mitigation Bank is currently
$105,000, resulting in an initial cost estimate for wetland mitigation at $270,900.
Essential Fish Habitat
In accordance with the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (50 CFR
Section 600.920), as amended through January 12, 2007 and as administered by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), federal agencies must
consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be
authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
No essential fish habitat is documented within or adjacent to the project limits; therefore, no essential
fish habitat will be impacted.
CONTENTS
iii
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i
Contents ............................................................................................................................................. iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1
1.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study.................................................................................................................... 1‐2
1.3 Project Needs ....................................................................................................................................... 1‐2
2.0 Alternatives Development .......................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Initial Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.3 Viable Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.4 Recommended Build Alternative ......................................................................................................... 2‐2
3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions .............................................................................................. 3‐1
3.1 Habitat and Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.3 Conservation Lands and Special Designations.................…………………………………………………………........3‐1
4.0 Protected Species and Habitat ...................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 4‐1
4.3 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 4‐3
4.3.1 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 4‐6
4.3.2 Protected Plant Species ............................................................................................................ 4‐11
4.4 Evaluation of Alternatives……………........……………………………………………………..................................... 4‐14
4.4.1 Direct Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4‐14
4.4.2 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative ........................................................................................ 4‐16
5.0 Wetland Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.3 Results...................................................……………………………………………………………….............................5‐1
6.0 Conclusions and Next Steps ........................................................................................................ 6‐1
6.1 Protected Species and Habitats .......................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 6‐2
6.3 Implementation Measures ................................................................................................................... 6‐2
7.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 7‐1
CONTENTS
iv
Appendices
A. Project Area Land Use Descriptions
B. Representative Photographs
C. Project Area NRCS Soil Type Descriptions
D. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake
E. Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) Calculations
F. UMAM Datasheet
Tables
3‐1 Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCCS) within the Study Area
3‐2 Existing NRCS Soil Types within the Study Area
4‐1 Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Wildlife Species
4‐2 Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Plant Species
4‐3 Proposed Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCCS) Impacts by Alternative
Figures
1‐1 Regional Location Map
1‐2 Project Location Map
2‐1 Recommended Build Alternative Map
3‐1 FLUCCS within Project Study Area Maps
3‐2 NRCS Soils Map
3‐3 Conservation Lands Map
4‐1 Documented Occurrences of Listed Species Map
4‐2 Florida Panther: Protection Zones and Location Data Map
4‐3 Black Bear Locations Map
ACRONYMS
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BGEPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
CA – Consultation Area
CFA – Core Foraging Area
CH – Critical Habitat
CREW – Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
EFH – Essential Fish Habitat
ESA – Endangered Species Act
FAC – Florida Administrative Code
FDACS – Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services
FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOT – Florida Department of Transportation
FLUCCS – Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System
FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory
FS – Florida Statute
FWC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
GIS – Geographic Information Systems
LOS – Level of Service
LRTP – Long Range Transportation Plan
MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MUID – Map Unit Identified
ROW – Right‐of‐Way
SFH – Suitable Foraging Habitat
SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District
SSC – Species of Special Concern
UMAM – Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology
USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1‐1
SECTION 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
Collier County initiated the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study (Study) to evaluate
potential roadway network improvements near Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road in Collier County,
Florida. The study is located in northern Collier County, east of I‐75. Figure 1‐1 presents the Regional
Location Map.
Figure 1‐1. Regional Location Map
The Study involves the evaluation of potential improvements to existing Randall Boulevard, Oil Well Road,
Desoto Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, as well as potential corridors on a new alignment. Figure 1‐2
presents the Project Location Map. The study process involves the development of alternatives, a
comparative evaluation of the social and environmental effects and the overall cost of each option.
SECTION 1—1.0 INTRODUCTION
1‐2
Figure 1‐2. Project Location Map
1.2 Purpose of Corridor Study
The Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
approved in December 2015, identified the following facilities with a high degree of future congestion:
Randall Boulevard east of Immokalee Road
Oil Well Road between Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Grade Road
During the development of the Needs Plan for the LRTP, this Study was identified to better define the
most appropriate multi‐lane improvements and/or new roadway within the study area.
The purpose of the project is to develop an east‐west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. Without the
proposed improvements, Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are projected to be highly congested
before the year 2040. This Study considers traffic operation improvements such as roundabouts, grade
separated overpasses, frontage roadways, access management, and new traffic signal locations for the
Recommended Build Alternative.
1.3 Project Needs
Oil Well Road and Randall Boulevard are parallel east‐west routes. They serve as a primary connection to
Immokalee Road for the existing and future developments of Orangetree, northern Golden Gate Estates,
rural residential areas, and future planned development. Immokalee Road is critical in facilitating
movement of local and regional traffic (including truck traffic) in northern Collier County. Additionally,
Immokalee Road is one of three east‐west connections to I‐75 in Collier County and is the only east‐west
connection from I‐75 in northern Collier County that connects to northeastern Collier County.
The needs of the project are to:
Reduce congestion for future traffic needs due to population and employment growth
Enhance regional mobility and access between I‐75 and eastern Collier County, as well as improve
freight (truck), transit, bicycle and pedestrian access
Improve safety by reducing vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian user conflicts
Improve emergency evacuation by increasing the number of residents from eastern Collier
County that can be evacuated and access times for emergency responder
SECTION 2 – ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
2‐1
2.0 Alternatives Development
2.1 Initial Alternatives
The corridors were developed to evaluate an east‐west corridor that will reduce congestion and improve
traffic flow in the study area and accommodate future travel demand through 2045. The development of
potential corridors to be studied as part of this project was carried out in stages. Initially, the project was
broken into segments defined as follows:
New Alignment "S‐Connector" – connecting Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road
Randall Blvd ‐ from Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd (or the S‐Connector proposed
intersection)
Randall Blvd ‐ from Everglades Blvd (or the S‐Connector proposed intersection) to DeSoto Blvd
Randall Blvd ‐ from DeSoto Blvd to Oil Well Road (new alignment)
Oil Well Road – from Everglades Blvd (or the S‐Connector proposed intersection) to Oil Well Grade
Road
Everglades Blvd – from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road
DeSoto Blvd – from Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road Initial alternatives were developed based on the Collier
MPO 2040 LRTP as stated in Section 1.2. All alternatives propose a new connection from Randall Boulevard
east of Desoto Boulevard N to Oil Well Road just west of Oil Well Grade Road. Four alternatives were
developed and presented at the Initial Alternatives Public Meeting on May 24, 2018.
The No Build Alternative is included in the study and serves as a baseline for comparison with the
Recommended Build Alternative.
2.2 No Build Alternative
The No Build (No Action) Alternative includes highway facilities that are likely to exist in 2040. This includes
the existing highway network, which is part of all alternatives in addition to the highway improvements
that are identified in the Collier County MPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan and the FDOT’s
Transportation Improvement Program Projects. The No Build Alternative includes those projects that
provide for an increase in capacity, such as new roadway construction, widening projects, and major
interchanges. Distinct benefits and limitations associated with this alternative are described below.
Benefits:
No impedance to traffic flow during construction,
No expenditure of funds for right of way acquisition, engineering, design or construction,
No impact to the adjacent natural, physical, and human environments, and
No disruption to existing land uses due to construction‐related activities.
Limitations:
Increase in traffic congestion and road user costs, unacceptable level of service, and an increase in
accidents associated with an increase in travel times and traffic volumes due to excessive delays,
Increase in carbon monoxide levels and other air pollutants caused by an increase in traffic
congestion,
Increase in maintenance costs due to roadway and structure deterioration,
Increase in emergency service response time in addition to an increase in evacuation time during
weather emergencies because of heavy congestion,
Increase in safety‐related accidents due to heavy congestion, and
SECTION 2 – ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
2‐2
Potential increase in safety‐related accidents due to less than desirable levels of service and access
management.
The No Build Alternative shall remain a viable alternative through the public involvement process. The
final selection of an alternative will not be made until all impacts are considered and responses to the
public hearing comments have been evaluated.
2.3 Viable Alternatives
A qualitative analysis was initiated to reduce and refine a wide range of roadway alignments for each
initial alternative segment down to a specific improvement program, thereby eliminating from
consideration infeasible or non‐viable alternatives. Based on public comment, traffic analysis, a
comparative evaluation, and careful consideration, a consensus was reached to eliminate Initial
Alternatives 3 and 4 from further consideration, since they provided no additional benefit over Initial
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Initial Alternatives 1 and 2 were carried forward in the study for further evaluation as Viable Alternatives
1 and 2. Both viable alternatives were refined based on public and agency comments, future traffic
demand, planning consistency and the minimization and/or avoidance of environmental impacts and
costs.
2.4 Recommended Build Alternative
Based on the analysis of the viable alternatives, public comment, and purpose and need satisfaction,
including the traffic analysis and regional long‐range plans, a consensus was reached to eliminate Viable
Alternative 1. The proposed S‐Connector cannot provide a connection to Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension, and moves more traffic to Immokalee Road and, therefore, does not provide the long‐term
benefit to the region. Given the regional mobility needs, and higher environmental impacts and costs,
Viable Alternative 1 was eliminated from further evaluation. Therefore, Viable Alternative 2 is proposed
as the Recommended Build Alternative.
Viable Alternative 2 improvements are presented on the following page as Figure 2‐1 and include:
Widening Randall Boulevard from 2 lanes to 6 lanes between 8th Street NE and Everglades
Boulevard
Widening Randall Boulevard from 2 lanes to 4 lanes between Everglades Boulevard and the
Future Big Cypress Parkway
Widening Everglades Boulevard from 2 lanes to 4 lanes between Oil Well Road and Randall
Boulevard
Widening Oil Well Road from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Everglades Boulevard and Oil Well Grade
Road
SECTION 2 – ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
2‐3
Figure 2‐1. Recommended Build Alternative
SECTION 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
3‐1
3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions
3.1 Habitat and Land Use
Habitat and land use mapping were classified in accordance with the methodology set forth in the Florida
Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT, 1999). Land use was first reviewed
within the study area using the 2008 data layers from the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). Habitats were subsequently field verified on November 8‐10, and a project‐specific FLUCCS
map was prepared. The FLUCCS map was then updated in April 2019 to reflect obvious changes in land
use that had occurred since the initial 2017 mapping exercise. Figure 3‐1 depicts the most current land
use and land cover classifications within the study area. Table 3‐1 provides a summary of the land
use/land cover types. Descriptions of the project area land uses are provided in Appendix A.
The major land use/land cover classifications within the study area include rangeland (~29%) with varying
degrees of disturbance, such as Dry Prairie (FLUCCS 3110), Mixed Rangeland (FLUCCS 3300), Shrub and
Brushland (FLUCCS 3200), and Palmetto Prairie (FLUCCS 3210); upland forest habitat (~17%) such as Pine
Flatwoods (FLUCCS 4110) and Brazilian Pepper (FLUCCS 4220); agricultural land uses (~14%) such as
Improved Pasture (FLUCCS 2110) and Row Crops (FLUCCS 2140); urban and built up land uses (~13%)
comprised of varying density residential and commercial uses; Roads and Maintained Right‐of‐Way
(FLUCCS 8140~12%); wetland habitats with varying degrees of disturbance (~9%) including Mixed Wetland
Hardwoods (FLUCCS 6170 and 6172), forested Cypress habitats (FLUCCS 6210, 6216, 6240, and 6249),
Hydric Pine Flatwoods (FLUCCS 6250 and 6259), Wetland Forested Mix (FLUCCS 6309), Wetland Shrub
(FLUCCS 6318 and 6319) and Freshwater Marsh (FLUCCS 6410); surface waters (~4%) comprised of major
canals (FLUCCS 5120) such as the Golden Gate Canal and Faka Union, Ditches (FLUCCS 5140), and
Reservoirs less than 10 acres (FLUCCS 5340). Appendix B contains representative photos of the disturbed
nature of the natural wetland habitats along the existing roadways.
3.2 Soils
The soils surveys of Collier County, Florida, published by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) were reviewed for the project study area.
According to the Soil Survey of Collier County (2018) approximately 40% of the soils in the study area are
classified as state hydric. The most prevalent soils in the Recommended Build Alternative (greater than
5% cover), include Immokalee Fine Sand (MUID 7 – non‐hydric), Basinger Fine Sand (MUID 17, hydric),
Malabar Fine Sand (MUID 3, hydric), and Oldsmar Fine Sand (MUID 16, non‐hydric). Project study area soil
types are described in more detail in Appendix C. Figure 3‐2 illustrates the location of hydric soils in and
around the project corridor.
3.3 Conservation Lands and Special Designations
Conservation Lands
Based upon review of the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) data layers, there are no Florida managed
conservation lands within the study area. However, there are a number of State managed lands in the
project vicinity, including the Corkscrew Swamp Regional Ecosystem Watershed, Red Maple Swamp
Preserve, and Winchester Head, as illustrated on the Conservation Lands Map (Figure 3‐3). Although none
overlap with the recommended alignment, there are also a number of private preserves adjacent to the
project corridor that are under a conservation easement granted to the SFWMD as part of an approved
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for the associated development.
Special Designations
There are no designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) as defined in Chapter 62‐302 of the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) in the study area. According to the State of Florida, F.A.C, Chapter 62‐302.400
SECTION 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
3‐2
(August 5, 2010), all other waters within the study area have been designated as Class III waters. Because
these canals do not provide breeding or nursery area for marine fish species, no essential fish habitat
occurs in the study area.
Table 3‐1. Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCCS) within the Study Area
FLUCCS Description Approx. Area in
Acres
Percent of Total
Project Area
1100 Low density residential 44.03 4.94%
1110 Low density fixed single family units 5.23 0.59%
1180 Residential rural ‐ 1 unit on 2 or more acres 172.14 19.33%
1210 Medium density fixed single family units 21.60 2.43%
1260 Medium density residental golf 8.77 0.98%
1410 Commercial shopping center 1.35 0.15%
1722 Church 4.58 0.51%
1754 Florida Forest Service 1.19 0.13%
1820 Golf course 7.26 0.82%
Total 266.15 29.89%
2110 Improved pasture 22.48 2.52%
2140 Row crops 91.32 10.26%
Total 113.80 12.78%
3100 Herbaceous (dry prairie) 10.03 1.13%
3109 Herbaceous (dry prairie), disturbed 0.42 0.05%
3200 Shrub and brushland 12.57 1.41%
3209 Shrub and brushland, disturbed 32.82 3.69%
3210 Palmetto prairie 18.02 2.02%
3300 Mixed rangeland 23.28 2.61%
3309 Mixed rangeland, disturbed 67.94 7.63%
Total 165.08 18.54%
4110 Pine flatwoods 62.63 7.03%
4220 Brazilian pepper 24.52 2.75%
Total 87.15 9.79%
5120 Major canals 4.73 0.53%
5140 Ditches 21.59 2.42%
5300 Streams and waterways 9.21 1.03%
5340 Reservoirs less than 10 acres 8.62 0.97%
Total 44.15 4.96%
6170 Mixed wetland hardwoods 2.89 0.32%
6172 Mixed wetland hardwoods ‐ mixed shrubs 22.96 2.58%
6200 Wetland coniferous forest 4.54 0.51%
6210 Cypress 16.04 1.80%
6216 Cypress ‐ mixed hardwoods 4.54 0.51%
6240 Cypress‐pine‐cabbage palm 0.23 0.03%
6249 Cypress‐pine‐cabbage palm, disturbed 0.68 0.08%
6250 Hydric pine flatwoods 20.84 2.34%
6259 Hydric pine flatwoods, disturbed 1.46 0.16%
6309 Wetland forested mixed, disturbed 1.26 0.14%
6318 Wetland shrub, predominantly willow 1.48 0.17%
6319 Wetland shrub, disturbed 1.23 0.14%
6410 Freshwater marsh 2.21 0.25%
Total 80.36 9.02%
7400 Disturbed land 8.34 0.94%
7401 Disturbed land, hydric 1.96 0.22%
Total 10.30 1.16%8000: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & UTILITIES8140 Road and maintained right‐of‐way 123.49 13.87%
!!
Total 123.49 13.87%
890.48 100.00%Totals for Alignment +250‐foot buffer area
\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252‐000\Environmental\arcgis\shapefiles\[flucfcs4_April2019.xlsx]table700: BARREN LAND6000: WETLANDS5000: WATER2000: AGRICULTURE1000: URBAN AND BUILT UPFLUCCS Code
4000: UPLAND FOREST3000: RANGELAND
April 201920170252-000 -- As ShownFig. 3-1 (1)Index MapPreliminary FLUCCS MapsVIEW ASHEET 2VIEW BSHEET 2VIEW DSHEET 3VIEW ESHEET 3VIEW GSHEET 3VIEW HSHEET 4VIEW ISHEET 4VIEW JSHEET 4VIEW FSHEET 3GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALFAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE ORANGE CANALCORKSCREW CANALVIEW CSHEET 2Oil Well RDRandall BLVD18th AVE NEEverglades BLVD N43rd AVE NEImmokalee RDDesoto BLVD N31st AVE NE16th AVE NE12th AVE NE20th AVE NE14th AVE NE10th AVE NE29th AVE NE47th AVE NE27th AVE NE45th AVE NE48th AVE NE24th AVE NE41st AVE NE35th AVE NE37th AVE NE39th AVE NE22nd AVE NEO il W e ll G r a d e R D
4th ST NE2nd ST NE8th ST NEJung BLVD E40th ST NE10th ST NE12th ST NE14th ST NE16th ST NE18th ST NE20th ST NE22nd ST NE33rd AVE NEGrove DRP a r D R
Birdie DRShady Hollow BLVD E25th AVE NEFairmont LNVermont LNValencia DR Tangelo DRPotomac CTLema CTV a r d i n P L
Sarazen PLA p p r o a c h B LV D
Inlet Cove LN WChesapeake Bay CTAllegheny CTSatsuma LNVictor y LN 22nd AVE NE16th AVE NE47th AVE NE8th ST NE10th AVE NE16th AVE NE47th AVE NE24th AVE NE18th AVE NEGrove DR22nd AVE NE41st AVE NE31st AVE NE12th AVE NE35th AVE NE24th AVE NE33rd AVE NE14th AVE NE47th AVE NE33rd AVE NE12th AVE NE22nd AVE NE20th AVE NE29th AVE NE20th AVE NE24th AVE NE12th AVE NE27th AVE NE45th AVE NEJung BLVD E20th AVE NE14th AVE NE16th AVE NE16th AVE NE45th AVE NE22nd AVE NE14th AVE NE14th AVE NE24th AVE NE47th AVE NE37th AVE NE12th AVE NE39th AVE NE16th ST NEq030001500SCALE IN FEETNOTES1. The FLUCCS mapping shown is based onthe SFWMD 2008/2009 land use / land coverand aerial photo intprepretation.2. Nomenclature and delineations as per theFlorida Land Use Cover and Forms andClassification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT, 1999).3. The wetlands and Surface Waters shownhave not been GPS-located or agencyapproved and are subject to change.4. AbbreviationsN = Non-wetlandW = WetlandOSW = Other Surface Water5. The aerial photographs shown were providedby Collier County government and were taken in2018.LEGEND(applies to Sheets 1-4)Project boundary250-foot bufferFLUCCS polygonsWetlandsOther Surface WatersMatch lines\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\FLUCFCS index map revised April2019.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:06:04 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALE SHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaNote: The Oil Well Road segment shown (Views H, I and J) is not part of the Recommended Build Alternative. It is part of the No Build Alternative.
1260320932091410110041103209310017544110512074007400814081408140110081403209121062504110321011008140320932106240620017543209530031001210512031004110111053001820411041103300126012606250MATCH LINE -SEE VIEW BGOLDEN GATEORANGE CANALMATCH LINE - SEE VIEW CMATCH LINE - SEE VIEW CO range G rove T R L
Blossom
CT
BergamotLN4th ST NEV alen ciaLakesB L V D
25th AVE NECitrus KeyLime CTAmberwood LNFishtail Palm CTRandall BLVD8th ST NE16th ST NEAppr oa c h BLV D
Immokalee RDIn le t C o v e L N WBirdie DRApril 201920170252-000--As ShownFig. 3-1 (2)Preliminary FLUCCS Mapq0600300SCALE IN FEETVIEW A1180411074001180411011803209118051405140514011001100411051401100625941103209411051206309320974001260814081401180740062505120411062506210814062505120740041101180110041104110512012604110411041101100630911801180118041104110740011804110MATCH LINE -SEE VIEW AGOLDEN GATEMAIN CANALMATCH LINE -SEE VIEW D(SHEET 3)Randall BLVDVIEW B6200814081401100321033094110111041108140814011001100MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW A (EAST SIDE)MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW A (WEST SIDE)24th AVE NE8th ST NE16th ST NE24th AVE NEVIEW Cq0600300SCALE IN FEETq0600300SCALE IN FEETSee Sheet 1 for Notes applicable to this sheet,legend and FLUCFCS table.\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\FLUCFCS map April2019 1.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:59:38 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALESHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, Florida
62101180172262101180118063183209118011801180320962496318118031003209118051405140411032091180118032096210320962103209512051203209118011801180320911808140617033091180514051405140514081408140814081406210330911804110118081403100621011801180621611801180118061723300512011806250512053003200118033001180411033003100118011805140514062106172330961701722118062161180118033003209118062593300MATCH LINE -SEE VIEW EMATCH LINE - SEE VIEW B(SHEET 2)MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW GMATCH LINE - SEE VIEW FEverglades BLVD NRandall BLVDApril 201920170252-000--As ShownFig. 3-1 (3)Preliminary FLUCCS Mapq0600300SCALE IN FEETVIEW D11803309118033093309310951405140330941101180118041101180118081404220740011804110814033001180330011803100330011801180320011802140422042203200422081403309320011806319422051404110118033001180118033091180MATCH LINESEE VIEW DDesotoBLVD NRandall BLVDVIEW E33096170814033006172118061723300411062103309330981403309617061708140330911801180330933093300118011803309MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW D(SHEET 2)Everglades BLVD N24th AVE NEVIEW Fq0600300SCALE IN FEETq0600300SCALE IN FEETSee Sheet 1 for Notes applicable to this sheet,legend and FLUCFCS table.814033091180330933095140514011801180330932093209118011801180118033091180330933093309118011803309118062101180118081403309814033098140172211801180320932098140330981401180118033091180310011803309330933091180118033091180814033091180814011803100118062106210MATCH LINE -SEE VIEW D(SHEET 2)MATCH LINE -SEE VIEW H(SHEET 3)EvergladesBLVD N29th AVE NE31st AVE NE33rd AVE NE27th AVE NEVIEW G0600300SCALE IN FEETq
\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\FLUCFCS map April2019 2.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 3:00:02 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALESHEETSee Sheet 1 for Notes applicable to this sheet,legend and FLUCCS table.Randall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, Florida
April 201920170252-000--As ShownFig. 3-1 (4)Preliminary FLUCCS Map81403309118081403309617261723309118033098140814033093309MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW G(SHEET 2)MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW IOil Well LNEverglades BLVD NOil Well RD33rd AVE NEVIEW Hq0600300SCALE IN FEET8140512051208140422042202110422021402140631963196319740063196172617281405120321032105120530033092110411032006172214021403200814074008140118032106319330941104110110011001100320011803309MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW HMATCH LINE - SEE VIEW JDesotoBLVD N33rd AVE NE33rdAVE NEOil Well RDVIEW Iq0600300SCALE IN FEETSee Sheet 1 for Notes applicable to this sheet,legend and FLUCCS table.81402140617062507401814021402140625061726410621021406172625062101100814061722140740062503209MATCH LINE - SEE VIEW IOil Well RDO il W e ll G r a d e R D
VIEW J0600300SCALE IN FEETq\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\FLUCFCS map April2019 3.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:28:15 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALESHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaNote: The Oil Well Road segment illustrated in Views H, I, and J is not part of the Recommended Build Alternative. It is part of the No Build Alternative.
SECTION 3 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
3‐8
Table 3‐2. Existing NRCS Soil Types within the Recommended Alignment
MUID Soil Type Hydric Status Percent within
Alignment
3 Malabar Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Hydric 17.34%
6 Riviera, Limestone Substratum‐Copeland Fine Sand
Association, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Hydric 2.65%
7 Immokalee Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Non‐hydric 41.09%
14 Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum, 0 to 2 Percent
Slopes
Hydric 3.25%
16 Oldsmar Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Non‐hydric 7.89%
17 Basinger Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Hydric 18.90%
21 Boca Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Hydric 4.40%
23 Holopaw‐Okeelanta, Frequently Ponded, Association, 0
to 1 Percent Slopes
Hydric 0.22%
25 Boca, Riviera, Limestone Substratum, and Copeland Fine
Sands, Depressional
Hydric 1.14%
27 Holopaw Fine Sand, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes Hydric 2.90%
99 Water N/A 0.22%
Totals 100.00%
Golden Gate Main CanalRANDALL BLVDCR 846 / IMMOKALEE RD.OIL WELL ROADEVERGLADES BLVD. N.77325177171776732517337218211410161472563271121141772514182731425253251616173212114992516316327143211031761671627212125217720212111321171621171716201418277173179928212216172537171416167252710316721253172725233721171421182732571721161717662172320281716252137773399799102123217492125171772537253251672523252399102110231732323252525162377231023716252321171023251021212525991723252525252525325332225252532399999918179931499176212123161717171721237256239925182172525172516212525717325252111252525219917252525252117999925149922257799625169971625253251721April 201920170252-000 -- As ShownFig. 3-2Soils MapNOTES1. Soils information shown was provided byFlorida Geographic Data Library.2. The aerial photographs shown were providedby Collier County and were taken in 2018.LEGENDProject boundary (April2019)250-foot bufferHydric soilsNon-hydric soilsUnranked soilsq0 30001500SCALE IN FEET\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\soils map.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:08:13 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALE SHEETSoil IDSoil Type3 MALABAR FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES6RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM-COPELAND FINE SAND ASSOCIATION, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES7 IMMOKALEE FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES14 PINEDA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES16 OLDSMAR FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES17 BASINGER FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES21 BOCA FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES23HOLOPAW-OKEELANTA, FREQUENTLY PONDED, ASSOCIATION, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES25BOCA, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, AND COPELAND FINE SANDS, DEPRESSIONAL27 HOLOPAW FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES99 WATERRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaThe Oil Well Road segment shown is not part of the Recommended Build Alternative. It is part of the No Build Alternative.
PROJECTBOUNDARYIMMOKALEE ROADEVERGLADES BLVD. N.OIL WELL RD.RANDALL BLVD.WILSON BLVD. N.DESOTO BLVD. N.O IL W E L L G R A D E R D .GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALFAKA UNION CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALCORKSCREW REGIONALECOSYSTEM WATERSHEDRED MAPLE SWAMPPRESERVEWINCHESTERHEADApril 201920170252-000 -- As ShownFig. 3-3Conservation Landsq050002500SCALE IN FEETNOTES1. AbbreviationsSFWMD = South Florida Water Management DistrictFNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory2. The aerial photographs shown were provided by anESRI ArcGIS Online map service.LEGENDProject boundary (April 2019)Florida managed areas(conservation lands)(FNAI, 4/2019)SFWMD conservation easements(SFWMD, 10/2011)\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\conservation lands.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 3:09:51 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALE SHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaNote: The Oil Well Road segment is not part of the Recommended Build Alternative. It is part of the No Build Alternative.
SECTION 4 ‐PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT
4‐1
4.0 Protected Species and Habitat
This project was evaluated for impacts to wildlife and habitat resources, including protected species, in
accordance with 50 CFR Part 402 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, the Florida
Endangered and Threatened Species Act, Section 379.2291, Florida Statutes (FS), and Part 2, Chapter 16 of
the FDOT PD&E Manual titled Protected Species and Habitat. The project area does not fall within U.S. Fish
and Wildlife (USFWS)‐designated Critical Habitat (CH) for any species. The project falls entirely within the
USFWS Consultation Areas (CA) and Focal Area of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). The project
falls within the Core Foraging Areas (CFAs) of wood stork colonies 619041, 619310, Corkscrew, and North
Catherine Island II. The western portion of the project area falls within the consultation area for the red‐
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The project is within the Florida panther primary and secondary
zones.
4.1 Agency Coordination
As outlined above, the project is within the CAs of multiple federally protected species and the primary and
secondary zone of the panther focus area. Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) receives many black bear nuisance calls within the vicinity of this project. As discussed
below, panther habitat unit (PHU) credits are expected to be sufficient mitigation for the Florida panther.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will evaluate the PHU compensation calculations associated with
the project during the USACE permitting process. Collier County will follow best management practices
during construction to minimize human‐bear interactions associated with construction sites during project
construction. Therefore, no additional involvement with the panther or black bear is anticipated. Species‐
specific surveys will be conducted for the Florida bonneted bat as part of the USACE permitting process for
project construction and the need for further surveys during the design phase will be coordinated with the
appropriate regulatory agencies (FWC and USFWS) during the SFWMD and USACE construction permitting
processes, accordingly.
4.2 Methodology
Literature reviews, agency database searches, and field reviews of potential habitat were conducted to
identify state and federally protected species occurring or potentially occurring within the project area. The
Collier County Soil Survey, recent aerial imagery (2016 at time of initial survey) and SFWMD land use/land
cover mapping was reviewed to help determine habitat types occurring within and adjacent to the project
corridor. Land use/land cover mapping was updated to reflect the current field conditions.
Information sources and databases reviewed for the project include the following:
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Review (November 2017);
USFWS ECOS – Environmental Conservation Online System, accessed November 10, 2017
FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory Tracking List, accessed November 10, 2017
FWC Bald Eagle Nest Locator (2016‐2017 nesting season data);
FWC Scrub Jay (1993) and Red‐Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) (2005) Locations;
USFWS Scrub Jay Locations (2011)
USFWS Waterbird colony observations (2007);
USFWS database for CA and CH for threatened and endangered species (2017);
USFWS South Florida wood stork CFA (18.6‐mile radius); and
Documented caracara roosts and nest database (Morrison 2010 and 2014)
Figure 4‐1 depicts field observations as well as historic species occurrences from database searches. Based
on the results of database searches, preliminary field reviews, and review of aerial photographs and soil
surveys, field survey methods for specific habitat types and tables of potentially occurring protected fauna
and flora were developed.
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ3
Fieldreviewsconsistedofvehicularsurveysandpedestriansurveysthroughnaturalareasandaltered
habitatswithinthestudyareawiththepotentialtosupportprotectedspecies.Intheabsenceofphysical
evidenceofaprotectedspecies,evaluationoftheappropriatehabitatwasconductedtodeterminethe
likelihoodofaspeciesbeingpresent.Allnaturalareaswereconsideredpotentialhabitatforlistedwildlife
andplantspecies.Occurrencesoflistedspecieswererecordedonprojectaerials.Projectscientists
conductedthegenerallistedspeciessurveysonNovember13Ͳ14,2017.Ateachfieldevent,thefieldteam
consistedofanecologistwithabachelor’sdegreesinabiologicalscience,andseveralyearsoffield
experienceinFloridaecosystems,andacertifiedwildlifebiologistthatholdsaPh.D.,withresearchfocused
ontheFloridapanther.
Tofurthersummarizetheresultsofdesktopandfielddatacollectionefforts,eachpotentialoccurring
specieswasassignedalikelihoodforoccurrenceof“none”,“low”,“moderate”,or“high”withinhabitats
foundintheprojectcorridorandanindicatorofsuitablehabitatproximitytotheprojectareawasassigned
as“distant”,“near”,or“contiguous”.
LikelihoodofSpeciesPresence
None–SpecieshasbeendocumentedinCollierCounty,butduetocompleteabsenceofsuitablehabitat,
couldnotbenaturallypresentwithintheprojectcorridor.
Low–Specieswithalowlikelihoodofoccurrencewithintheprojectareaaredefinedasthosespeciesthat
areknowntooccurinCollierCountyorthebioͲregion,butpreferredhabitatislimitedintheprojectarea,
orthespeciesisrare.
ModerateͲSpecieswithamoderatelikelihoodforoccurrencearethosespeciesknowntooccurinCollier
ornearbycounties,andforwhichsuitablehabitatiswellrepresentedintheprojectarea,butno
observationsorpositiveindicationsexisttoverifypresence.
HighͲSpecieswithahighlikelihoodforoccurrencearesuspectedwithintheprojectareabasedonknown
rangesandexistenceofsufficientpreferredhabitatinthearea;areknowntooccuradjacenttotheproject;
orhavebeenpreviouslyobservedordocumentedinthevicinity.
HabitatProximity
DistantͲAppropriatehabitatisdistantfromtheprojectfootprintwhenaccountingforthespecies’home
rangesizeandlevelofmobility.
NearͲAppropriatehabitatisneartheprojectfootprintwhenaccountingforthespecies’homerangesize
andlevelofmobility.
ContiguousͲAppropriatehabitatoccurswithinorimmediatelyadjacenttotheprojectfootprint.
4.3Results
Table4Ͳ1onthefollowingpagepresentsthepotentiallyoccurringandobservedlistedwildlifespeciesinthe
studyarea.ListedspeciessurveyswillberequiredtobeupdatedfortheSFWMDandUSACEpermitting
processesandmayincludespeciesspecificsurveysnotconductedforthesubjectcorridorstudy.
SECTION4–PROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ4
Table4Ͳ1.PotentiallyOccurringandObservedListedWildlifeSpeciesintheStudyArea
Species
CommonNameFWCUSFWSHabitat
Habitat
Occurrence
Relativeto
Project
Footprint
Probability
ofSpecies
Occurrence
REPTILES
Drymarchoncorais
couperi
Easternindigo
snakeFTT
Gophertortoiseburrows,canalbanks,
hydrichammock,palustrine,sandhill
scrub,uplandpineforest,mangrove
swamp
ContiguousHigh
GopheruspolyphemusGophertortoiseTCOldfield,sandhill,scrub,xerichammock,
ruderal,dryprairie,pineflatwoodContiguousModerate
BIRDS
Antigonecanadensis
pratensis
Floridasandhill
craneTͲ
Basinmarsh,depressionmarsh,dry
prairies,marlprairie,pastures,humanͲ
alteredsuburbanlandscapes
ContiguousHigh
AphelocomacoerulescensFloridascrubͲjayFTT
Relictduneecosystemsorscrubonwell
drainedtoexcessivelywelldrainedsandy
soils
NearLow
Athenecunicularia
floridana
Floridaburrowing
owlTͲNativeprairiesandclearedareaswith
shortgroundcover
NearLow
CalidriscanutusrufaRedknotFTT
Coastalmarineandestuarineareaswith
largeareasofexposedintertidal
sediment
DistantLow
CaracaracheriwayCrestedcaracaraFTT
Wetanddryprairies,rangeland,citrus
groves;nestsprimarilyincabbagepalms
andliveoaksinFlorida
ContiguousModerate
CharadriusmelodusPipingploverFTT
Sandyupperbeaches,sparselyvegetated
shoresofshallowlakes,ponds,rivers,
andimpoundments
DistantLow
CharadriusnivosusSnowyploverTͲBeaches,drymudorsaltflats,sandy
shoresofrivers,lakes,andponds
DistantLow
EgrettacaeruleaLittleblueheronTͲEstuarine,lacustrine,riverine,tidal
marsh,tidalswamp
ContiguousHigh
EgrettarufescensReddishegretTͲEstuarine,lacustrine,riverine,tidal
marsh,tidalswamp
ContiguousLow
EgrettatricolorTricoloredheronTͲEstuarine,lacustrine,riverine,tidal
marsh,tidalswamp
ContiguousHigh
FalcosparveriuspaulusSoutheastern
AmericankestrelTͲSandhill,mesicflatwoods,ruderal,dry
prairie
ContiguousModerate
HaliaeetusleucocephalusBaldeagleͲ*Forests,estuarine,lacustrine,riverine,
tidalmarsh,tidalswamp
ContiguousModerate
MycteriaamericanaWoodstorkFTT
Estuarinetidalswamps/marshes,
lacustrine,seepagestream,ditches,
ruderal
ContiguousHigh/Observed
PicoidesborealisRedͲcockaded
woodpeckerFEEMaturepineforestscontainingliving
longleafpinetrees
DistantLow
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ5
Species
CommonNameFWCUSFWSHabitat
Habitat
Occurrence
Relativeto
Project
Footprint
Probability
ofSpecies
Occurrence
PlataleaajajaRoseatespoonbillTͲEstuarine,lacustrine,riverine,tidal
marsh,tidalswampContiguousHigh
Rostrhamussociabilis
plumbeusEvergladesnailkiteFEELowlandfreshwatermarshesandlittoral
shelvesoflakesNearModerate
RynchopsnigerBlackskimmerTͲOpensandonbeaches,sandbars,and
dredgematerialislandsDistantNone
SternadougalliiRoseateternFTT
ShellͲsandbeaches,exposedlimestone,
rockandmarlfill,dredgematerial,
rooftops,forageoveropenwater,coasts,
tidalchannels
DistantNone
SternulaantillarumLeastternTͲCoastalbeaches,estuaries,andbays,
occasionaluseofrooftopsDistantLow
MAMMALS
EumopsfloridanusFloridabonneted
batFEE
Roostsinpalms,snags,cavitytrees,
buildings,bridges.Foragesabovenatural
andhumanͲalteredlandscapes
Contiguous
High
Occurrenceof
Foraging
PumaconcolorcoryiFloridaPantherFEE
Extensiveblocksofforests,large
wetlands,canusehumanͲaltered
landscapes
ContiguousHigh
TrichechusmanatusWestIndian
ManateeFTTCoastalwaters,bays,rivers,estuaries,
sometimeslakesandcanalsDistantNone
SciurusnigeravicenniaBigCypressfox
squirrelTͲUplandandwetlandforests,golfcoursesContiguousHigh
Ursusamericanus
floridanusFloridablackbear**ͲForestsandforestedwetlands,bayheadsContiguousHigh
Sources:
USFWS–USFWSstatus,OfficiallistsofThreatenedandEndangeredspecies,50CFR17.11
FWC–FWC,Florida’sImperiledSpeciesManagementPlan2016Ͳ2026,UpdatedNovember16,2016
FWCͲFlorida’sEndangeredandThreatenedSpecies,UpdatedDecember2018.
USFWSECOS–EnvironmentalConservationOnlineSystem,accessedNovember10,2017
FNAI–FloridaNaturalAreasInventoryTrackingList,accessedNovember10,2017
Notes:
*TheBaldEagleisaffordedfederalprotectionthroughtheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA)andtheBaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct
(BGEPA).
**TheFloridablackbearisnolongerlistedasthreatened,howeverisprotectedundertheFAC68AͲ4.009FloridaBlackBearConservation
Key:
E–endangered,T–threatened,C–candidateforlisting,FE–federallyendangered,FT–federallythreatened
SECTION4–PROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ6
4.3.1 Wildlife
4.3.1.1 Recommended BuildAlternative,FederallyListedSpecies,NoͲEffect
Shorebirds
Theroseatetern(Sternadougallii),pipingplover(Charadriusmelodus),andredknot(Calidriscanutusrufa)
areallcoastalnestingandforagingbirdswithfederalEndangeredspeciesstatus.Pipingploverdonotnest
inFloridabutinsteadarewintermigratoryvisitors,preferringtoroostandforageonbeaches,mudflats,
sandflats,andbarrierislands.TheroseateternisacolonialͲnestingmarinebirdknowntobreedbetween
MarathonandtheDryTortugasintheFloridaKeys.Itisstrictlyacoastalspecies,foragingalongshorelines,
andinwinterisprimarilypelagic.TheredknotalsodoesnotbreedinFloridabutusedtowinteronFlorida’s
GulfCoastinlargenumbers.Theyareprimarilymarineshorebirdswheretheyfeedoncoastalinvertebrates.
Theprojectsitecontainsneithernestingorforaginghabitatforthesethreecoastalspeciesandtherefore,
theprojectisexpectedtohavenoeffectontheseshorebirdspecies.
FloridaScrubͲJay(Aphelocomacoerulescens)
TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreaforthisfederallyThreatenedspecies.
However,noappropriatescrubhabitatforthisspeciesoccurswithintheprojectlimitsoronimmediately
adjacentproperties.NoFloridascrubͲjaynestsorindividualswereobservedduringtheinitiallistedspecies
surveys.AccordingtotheFWCdatabase,theclosestdocumentedFloridascrubͲjayoccurrencewasin1993,
approximately10.1milestothenortheastoftheprojectsite.Giventhedistanceandageofthenearest
observationandthatoptimalhabitatfortheFloridascrubͲjayisnotavailablewithintheprojectlimits,the
projectisanticipatedtohavenoeffectontheFloridascrubjay.
Evergladessnailkite(Rostrhamussociabilisplumbeus)
TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreaforthisfederallyEndangeredspecies.
However,theprojectsiteisnotlocatedinorneardesignatedcriticalhabitatoraprioritymanagementzone
forthisspecies.Snailkiteforaginghabitatconsistsofrelativelyshallowwetlandvegetation,eitherwithin
extensivemarshsystems,orinlakelittoralzones.Emergentvegetation,includingspikerushes,maidencane,
andbulrushesareimportantcomponentsofhabitatbecausetheyallowapplesnailstooccupythearea.
Dense,thickvegetationisnotoptimalforsnailkiteforagingbecausekitescannotreadilyseeapplesnailsto
capturethem.Thesnailkitetypicallynestsoveropenwaterinareaswithgoodforaginghabitatnearby,and
mostforagingoccursinmarshesimmediatelysurroundingthenest.Nolarge,marshsystemsorlakelittoral
zonesoccurontheprojectsite,whichreducestheadequacyofthehabitatforsnailkites.Thesurfacewaters
thatoccuradjacenttotheprojectsite(manͲmadecanals)donotprovidepreferredwaterdepthorclarity
forforagingopportunitiesforthesnailkite.Nosnailkitenestsorindividualswereobservedwithinthesite
boundaryduringinitialprotectedspeciessurveys.Thenearestdocumentedobservationisapproximately
18milestothesoutheastoftheprojectlimitsandoccurredin1992.Thenearestdocumentednestingsite
isapproximately25milestothenorthwestoftheprojectareaandoccurredin2010.Giventhatnoevidence
ofthespecieswasobserved,documentedoccurrencesarefarfromtheprojectarea,andmitigationwillbe
providedforpermanentimpactstosurfacewaters,itisexpectedthattheprojectwillhavenoeffectonthe
Evergladesnailkite.
RedͲCockadedWoodpecker(Picoidesborealis)
ThewesternportionoftheprojectislocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreaforthisfederally
Endangeredspecies.NestinghabitatforthisspeciesconsistsofopenoldͲgrowthpineforests(>60Ͳ80years
old),comprisedlargelyoflongleafpine(Pinuspalustris)and/orloblollypine(Pinustaeda).RCWexcavate
cavitiesinthelivewoodofthesetreesfornesting.Standsofmaturepine(>50yearsofage)comprise
preferredforaginghabitat,andRCWsusuallyforagewithin0.5mileofcavitytrees.Therearenosuitable
nestinghabitat/livecavitytreesidentifiedintheprojectcorridor.Theprojectsitecouldpotentiallybe
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ7
adjacenttomaturepinetrees,butnoRCWcavitytreesorindividualswereobservedduringinitialprotected
speciessurveys.Theclosestdocumentedoccurrencewaslocatedapproximately8.95mileswestofthesite
in2006.ThepotentialforRCWtonestorforageonͲsiteisconsideredlowbecausethesitedoesnotsupport
suitablehabitatforthisspecies,butCollierCountywillimplementbestmanagementpracticesduring
constructiontoensurenolivecavitytreesaredisturbedorremoved.Therefore,theRecommendedBuild
AlternativeisanticipatedtohavenoeffectontheredͲcockadedwoodpecker.
WestIndianManatee(Trichechusmanatus)
TheWestIndianmanateeislistedasa federallythreatenedspecies.thatcanbefoundinFloridayearͲ
round.Theyprefermarineandfreshwatersystemsneartheshorewithabundantunderwatervegetation
likeseagrassoreelgrassforforaging.Manateescanoccasionallybefoundafardistancefromthecoast
whentheyfollowriversormanͲmadecanalsinland.TheprojectsiteoverlapsorisadjacenttomanͲmade
canalsthathavesomeconnectivitywithcoastalwaters,thoughatleastonecontrolstructureislocated
alongthatpath.Itisunlikelythatamanateecouldnavigatethecanalstowithindistanceoftheprojectarea
butCollierCountywillensurethatallconstructionoveroradjacenttothecanalswillbetemporaryinnature
andconsistofbestmanagementpracticessuchasbarrierfloats,therefore,theprojectisanticipatedto
havenoeffectontheWestIndianmanatee.
BaldEagle(Haliaeetusleucocephalus)
AlthoughtheBaldeagleisnolongerlistedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct,itreceivesfederalprotection
undertheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA)andtheBaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct(BGEPA).There
arecurrentlynoactivenestswithin660’oftheproject(federalprotectionstandards)thatwouldbe
impactedbyprojectconstruction;therefore,theprojectisanticipatedtohavenoeffectonthebaldeagle.
Asthereissuitablenestinghabitatwithin660’oftheproject,anupdatedreviewofcurrentnestlocations
shouldbeconductedpriortoprojectcommencement.
4.3.1.2RecommendedBuildAlternative,NoAdverseEffect,StateListedSpecies
FloridaBurrowingOwl(Athenecuniculariafloridana)
TheFloridaburrowingowlisthestate’ssmallestandonlydiurnalowlandislistedasStateThreatenedby
theFWC.Theirprimarypreferredhabitatconsistsofopenprairieswithverylittleunderstoryvegetation
andcanincludehumanͲinfluencedareaslikegolfcourses,pastures,andvacantlots.Smalltractsofsuitable
dryprairiehabitatarepresentwithintheprojectlimits,andsuboptimalhabitatisavailableinthe
surroundingarea.However,noburrowswereobservedduringfieldreviewsandhabitatisfragmented.
Therefore,theprojectisanticipatedtohavenoadverseimpactsontheFloridaburrowingowl.
Shorebirds
Thesnowyplover(Charadriusnivosus),leasttern(Sternulaantillarum),andblackskimmer(Rynchopsniger)
areshorebirdswithastatedesignationofThreatened.ThesnowyploverisaresidentofFloridaandbreeds
alongtheGulfCoast,thoughingreaternumbersinthePanhandle.Theyrequireopen,sandybeachesfor
nestingandtheclosestconfirmednestis20.45milestotheeastwasrecordedin2002.Theleastternnests
alongthecoastandforagesinnearbywatersforfish.TheblackskimmerisacolonyandbeachͲnestingbird
andsometimesdoessoinassociationwithleastterns,thoughtherehavebeenafewrareconfirmedinland
nestsofskimmersonrooftopsoragfields.Blackskimmersneedopensurfacewaterinordertoforagefor
fish.
WadingBirds
Thetricoloredheron(Egrettatricolor),littleblueheron(Egrettacaerulea),reddishegret(Egrettarufescens),
androseatespoonbill(Plataleaajaja)arewadingbirdswiththestatedesignationofThreatened.The
SECTION4–PROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ8
reddishegretisalmostentirelyrestrictedtothecoastwhereitforagesinshallowwatersforfishandmost
nestinginFloridaoccursintheKeys.Thetricoloredheronismostnumerousinsaltwaterorbrackishwater
butcanbeobservedforaginginland.Theyarecolonynesterswithotherheronsandibisusingtreesor
bushesoverstandingwater.RoseatespoonbillsnestinTampaBay,MerrittIsland,andFloridaBayandare
uncommonandlocalvisitorstocoastalandslightlyinlandareasofPeninsularFloridaforforaging.Thelittle
blueheronistheonlybirdlistedherewithapreferenceforfreshwaterhabitatsanditcanbeobserved
foragingincanals.Thereisnotadequatenestinghabitatwithinoradjacenttotheprojectcorridorforeither
ofthethreeshorebirdsorfourwadingbirdslistedhere.ThemanͲmadecanalsthatarewithinoradjacent
totheprojectareacouldprovideforaginghabitatforthelittleblueheronbutsincethesebirdstravellong
distancestoforage,thetemporaryimpactstothesecanalsfromconstructionisnotexceptedtoimpact
thesespecies.Therefore,theprojectisanticipatedtohavenoadverseeffectsonsnowyplover,leasttern,
blackskimmer,tricoloredheron,littleblueheron,reddishegret,orroseatespoonbill.
SoutheasternAmericanKestrel(Falcosparveriuspaulus)
AnonͲmigratorysubspeciesofkestrel,thisspeciesislistedasThreatenedbythestate.Theirpreferred
habitatsincludeopenwoodlands,prairie,andpastures.HighͲqualitykestrelhabitatmustprovideboth
suitablenestingandadequateforaging.Kestrelsnestincavitiesoflarge,deadtreespreviouslyhollowedby
woodpeckersbutwillalsousehumanͲprovidednestboxes.Kestrelsreadilyperchalongroadsidestohunt
forsmallvertebratesandinvertebrates.Theprojectsitemaycontainsomeforaginghabitatforkestrels,but
nestinghabitatwasnotidentifiedduringsurvey.Forthesereasons,thereisnoadverseeffectanticipated
onthesoutheasternAmericankestrel.
4.3.1.3RecommendedBuildAlternative,MayAffectbutNotLikelytoAdverselyAffect,
FederallyListedSpecies
EasternIndigoSnake(Drymarchoncoraiscouperi)
ThisspeciesislistedasThreatenedbytheUSFWS,primarilyduetohabitatloss.Indigosnakesarefoundin
avarietyofhabitats,includingpineflatwoods,dryprairie,edgesoffreshwatermarshes,agriculturalfields,
dunes,andhumanͲalteredhabitats,includingalongmanͲmadeditchesandcanals.Theyhavebeenknown
toutilizegophertortoiseburrows.BasedonavailabledatafromtheFWC,therewasasightingofanEastern
indigosnakein1980nearthecurrentintersectionofEvergladesParkwayandRandallBoulevard,butno
individualswereobservedduringtheinitialprotectedspeciessurvey.CollierCountywilladheretothemost
recentversionoftheUSFWSStandardProtectionMeasuresfortheEasternIndigoSnakeduringland
clearingactivitiesandconstructiontominimizepotentialimpactstoindigosnakes.Giventhiscommitment,
itisanticipatedthattheprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheEasternindigosnake.
WoodStork(Mycteriaamericana)
ThewoodstorkislistedasfederallyThreatened.Thespeciesisknowntousefreshwatermarshes,swamps,
lagoons,ponds,floodedfields,depressionalareas,openpineͲcypresswetlands,andmanmadewetlands
(i.e.,ditches,canals,andstormwaterretentionponds)forforaging.Woodstorksaretypicallycolonial
nestersandconstructtheirnestsinmediumtotalltreeslocatedwithinwetlandsoronislands.TheUSFWS
hasdefinedtheCoreForagingArea(CFA)forawoodstorkcolonyastheareawithinan18.6Ͳmileradius
fromthecolonylocation.TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheCFAofwoodstorkcolonies619041
(Corkscrew)and619310(NorthCatherineIslandII),withtheNorthCatherineIslandcolonybeinglocated
approximately5.08milessoutheastoftheprojectarea.Althoughnowoodstorknestsorindividualswere
observedwithinthesiteboundaryduringinitialprotectedspeciessurveys,thesurfacewatersandwetlands
withintheprojectcorridorwouldbeconsideredsuitableforaginghabitat.CoordinationwiththeUSFWS
willbeinitiatedduringthedesignphaseforthewoodstork,andmitigationforsurfacewaterimpactswill
likelyexceedwhatisrequiredtooffsetimpactstowoodstorksuitableforaginghabitat.Therefore,the
projectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffectthewoodstork.
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ9
CrestedCaracara(Caracaracheriway)
TheprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreaforthisfederallyThreatenedspecies,
althoughtherewasaconfirmednestlocated1.69milestothesoutheastoftheprojectsitein2009.Dry
prairieswithscatteredcabbagepalmsareareaswhichconstitutethetypicalhabitat,althoughitalsooccurs
inimprovedpasturelandsandeveninrelativelywoodedareaswithmorelimitedstretchesofopen
grasslands.Caracaratendtonestincabbagepalmandliveoak,buthavealsobeenfoundnestinginpine,
cypress,cedar,andevenmanͲmadestructuressuchasabillboard.Themajorityoftheprojectcorridor
doesnotcontainsuitablenestinghabitatforthisspecies,buttheeasternendoftheRecommendedBuild
Alternativedoescrossintoagriculturallandsthatmayprovidesomehabitatvalue.Nocaracaranestsor
individualswereobservedduringinitialprotectedspeciessurveys,butduetothepresenceofsome
potentialforcaracaranestinghabitatwithinthe1,500Ͳm(4,920ft)bufferrequiredbyUSFWS,additional
caracaraͲspecificsurveysmaybeadvisedaroundsuitablehabitatpriortoconstruction.Assuch,a
determinationthattheprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffectthecrestedcaracaraisbeing
suggestedinsteadofanoeffectdeterminationthatmaynormallybeassociatedwithaprojectoutsidethe
consultationarea.
FloridaBonnetedBat(Eumopsfloridanus)
TheprojectislocatedwithintheUSFWSConsultationAreafortheFloridabonnetedbatandoccurswithin
oneoftheUSFWSdesignatedFocalAreasforthisfederallyEndangeredspecies.Thenearestdocumented
Floridabonnetedbatobservationis5.8milestothenorthwest.Thiswasanacousticobservationthat
occurredinMarch2016.Relativelylittleisknownregardingthehabitatrequirementsandrangeofthe
Floridabonnetedbat.Mostdocumentedroostsoccurinmanmadestructuressuchasbathousesand
residentialhomes.TominimizeadverseimpactstotheFloridabonnetedbat,Section7consultationwith
theUSFWSwillbeinitiatedduringthedesignandpermittingphaseoftheproject.Duetotheprojectsize
andlocation,bothacousticandroostsurveysfortheFBBwilllikelyberequiredduringtheconsultation
process.Thus,theprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridabonnetedbat.
FloridaPanther(Pumaconcolorcoryi)
TheFloridapantherisafederallyEndangeredspeciesfoundprimarilyinsouthFlorida.Theprojectareais
locatedwithintheUSFWSFloridapantherprimaryandsecondaryzones.Approximately6.60acresof
pantherprimaryzoneand130.9acresofpanthersecondaryzoneareanticipatedwithinthefootprintof
theRecommendedBuildAlternative.AccordingtoFWCmortalitydatacollectedthrough2018,thenearest
FloridapanthervehicleͲcausedmortalitytothisprojectoccurredin2016andwasdocumentedinthe
projectstudyareaalongRandallBoulevardat16thStreetNE.ThevalueofimpactedhabitatstotheFlorida
pantherispreliminarilycalculatedusingtheUSFWSPantherTool.Thistoolassignsahabitatsuitabilityvalue
foreachtypeofpantherhabitatimpacted,andalandscapemultiplierbasedonthehabitat’slocationin
eithertheUSFWSprimaryzone/dispersalzone,secondaryzone,orotherzone.Thetoolalsoincludesabase
ratiomultiplierof1.98thataccountsforestimatedpantherhabitatlostperyear,lossofhabitatdueto
singleͲfamilyresidentialdevelopments,andincreasedpotentialtrafficduetoproposeddevelopment
projectsinpantherhabitat.Usingthistool,(AppendixE)approximately313.68pantherhabitatunit(PHU)
creditsareexpectedtobeneededtomitigatethehabitatlossassociatedwiththeRecommendedBuild
Alternative.Basedonthepurchaseofthismitigation,itisanticipatedthattheprojectmayaffectbutisnot
likelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridapanther.ThisfindingwillbereviewedandevaluatedbytheUSFWS
throughtheUSACEpermittingprocessforprojectconstruction.
352-(&7%281'$5<IMMOKALEE ROADEVERGLADES BLVD. N.OIL WELL RD.RANDALL BLVD.WILSON BLVD. N.DESOTO BLVD. N.O IL W E L L G R A D E R D .GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALFAKA UNION CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANAL4/30/20145/5/20146/7/19955/20/200212/28/20017/29/20025/22/200210/16/20186/25/20146/27/20149/21/20131/22/20141/02/201710/15/201812/28/200112/24/20017/7/200610/26/20184/2/20145/01/20134/15/2016April 201920170252-000 -- As ShownFig. 4-2Panther MapP040002000SCALE IN FEETNOTES1. AbbreviationsFGDL = Florida Geographic Data LibraryFFWCC = Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommissionUSFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service2. The aerial photographs shown were provided byCollier County government and were taken in 2018.LEGENDProject boundary (April 2019)Panther primary zone(USFWS, 2007)Panther secondary zone(USFWS, 2007)Panther telemetry(USFWS, 6/2018) Panther road kills(FGDL/FFWCC, 2017) Panther confirmed depradationsof domestic animals(FFWCC, 12/2018) Panther confirmed humaninteractions(FFWCC, 8/2018)\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\panther map.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:06:42 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALE SHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaNote: The Oil Well Road segment shown isnot part of the Recommended BuildAlternative. It is part of the No BuildAlternative.
SECTION4–PROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ11
4.3.1.4RecommendedBuildAlternative,MayAffectbutNotLikelytoAdverselyAffect,
StateListedSpecies
GopherTortoise(Gopheruspolyphemus)
ThegophertortoiseislistedasstateThreatenedandisprotectedunderFloridalaw,Chapter68AͲ27,
FloridaAdministrativeCode(FAC).TortoiseutilizeuplandhabitatscontainingwellͲdrainedsandysoils
foundinpineflatwoods,scrub,drayprairies,andcoastaldunes.Agophertortoiserelocationpermitis
requiredbeforedisturbingburrowsandconductingconstructionactivities,includinganytypeofwork
within25feetofaburrow.Notortoisesorburrowswereobservedduringinitialprotectedspeciessurveys,
butpotentialgophertortoisehabitatdoesoccurwithintheprojectareaandadjacenttothesite.Ifatany
pointpriortoorduringconstructiongophertortoisesorburrowsarelocated,CollierCountywillensure
allproperpermittingandrelocationsareimplementedbyanFWCAuthorizedGopherTortoiseAgent.
Therefore,thisprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffectthegophertortoise.
FloridaSandhillCrane(Antigonecanadensispratensis)
TheFloridasandhillcraneisayearͲroundresidentandprotectedasThreatenedbytheState.They
primarilyinhabitfreshwatermarshes,prairies,andpasturesbutarecommonlyseenforaginginandnear
humanlandscapeslikegolfcourses,neighborhoods,androadsides.Thereisnosandhillcranenesting
habitatwithintheprojectarea,butforaginghabitatdoesoccurwithintheprojectboundaryandin
adjacentareas.ImpactstoroadsiderightͲofͲwaywherecranesmightforageistemporary,asafter
constructionthenewrightͲofͲwaywillconsistofsimilarvegetation.Therefore,thisprojectmayaffectbut
isnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridasandhillcrane.
BigCypressFoxSquirrel(Sciurusnigeravicennia)
TheBigCypressfoxsquirrelhasbeenlistedasstateThreatenedsince1990.Theypreferhabitatsofpine
flatwoods,cypressswamp,andmixedhardwoodͲpineforest,butwillforageinamuchwiderrangeof
habitatsincludinggolfcourses,pastureswithscatteredtrees,andruralresidentialareas.Slashpineisa
primaryfoodsourcewhichisfoundwithinandadjacenttotheprojectsite.NoBigCypressfoxsquirrelsor
nestswereobservedduringinitialsurveys,butpreͲconstructionsurveysfornestsmayberecommended
basedonavailablehabitatadjacenttotheprojectcorridor.CollierCountywillemploybestmanagement
practicesduringconstructiontoensurenoindividualsornestsaredisturbed.Thus,theprojectmayaffect
butisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheBigCypressfoxsquirrel.
FloridaBlackBear(Ursusamericanusfloridanus)
TheFloridablackbearisnolongerlistedasathreatenedspeciesbytheFWC.Whileitwasremovedfrom
thestatelistofprotectedspeciesinAugust2012,itisstillprotectedthroughtheF.A.C.68AͲ4.009Florida
BlackBearConservation.TheprojectareaoccurswithintheprimaryrangeoftheBigCypresspopulation,
andtheFWCbearmappingunitindicatesthisareahasabundantblackbears.BecausetheRecommended
BuildAlternativeincludesimprovementstoexistingpavedroadwaystowhichbearshaveacclimated,the
RecommendedBuildAlternativemayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffecttheFloridablackbear.
4.3.2 ProtectedPlantSpecies
Table4Ͳ2liststhesixtyͲfive(65)protectedplantspeciesknowntooccurinCollierCounty.Ofthese,two
species,Garber’sspurge(Euphorbiagarberi)andaboriginalpricklyapple(Harrisiaaboriginum)are
federallylistedasthreatenedandendangered,respectively.TheremainderarelistedbytheFlorida
DepartmentofAgricultureandConsumerServices(FDACS)and/orFNAI.Thepreferredhabitatsofthese
plantspeciesaredescribedinthereferencedtablebelow.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111352-(&7%281'$5<21(0,/(%8))(5IMMOKALEE ROADEVERGLADES BLVD. N.OIL WELL RD.RANDALL BLVD.WILSON BLVD. N.DESOTO BLVD. N.O IL W E L L G R A D E R D .GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALFAKA UNION CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALApril 201920170252-000 -- As ShownFig. 4-3Black Bear LocationsP040002000SCALE IN FEETNOTES1. AbbreviationsFGDL = Florida Geographic Data LibraryFFWCC = Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission2. The aerial photographs shown were provided byCollier County government and were taken in 2018.LEGENDProject boundary (April 2019)1-mile buffer1Black bear locations(FGDL/FFWCC, 2017)1Black bear locations / nuisancereports(FGDL/FFWCC, 2017)1Black bear road kills(FGDL/FFWCC, 2017)\\ftms01\drawings\2017\20170252-000\Environmental\arcgis\bear locations.mxd Date: 4/30/2019 Time: 2:07:07 PM User: pmlDATEPROJECT NO. FILE NO.SCALE SHEETRandall Boulevard & Oil Well RoadCorridor StudyCollier County, FloridaNote: The Oil Well Road segment shown isnot part of the Recommended BuildAlternative. It is part of the No BuildAlternative.
Species CommonName USFWS FDACSͲDPI* Habitat ProbabilityofPresence
Acrostichumaureum Goldenleatherfern ͲͲ TBrackishandfreshwatermarshes None
Andropogonarctatus PineͲwoodsbluestem ͲͲ T
Wetpineflatwoodsthataresubjectedto
recurringfires None
Aspleniumerosum Auricledspleenwort ͲͲ E
Epiphyticontreetrunksandlogsin
swampsandhammocks Low
Aspleniumserratum Americanbird'snestfern ͲͲ E
Epiphyticorepipetriconmoistrocks,
fallenlogs,andtreebasesinswampsand
wethammocks Low
BulbophyllumpachyrachisRattailorchid ͲͲ Estrandswamps None
Burmanniaflava Fakahatcheeburmannia ͲͲ EMoistpinelands Low
Calopogonmultiflorus ManyͲfloweredgrassͲpink ͲͲ T
Open,damptodrierpinesavannasͲ
flatwoodsandmeadows None
Campylocentrumpachyrrhizum Ribbonorchid ͲͲ EOnhardwoodtreesincypressswamps Low
Campyloneurumangustifolium NarrowͲleavedstrapfern ͲͲ E Hammocks,epiphytic None
Campyloneurumcostatum Tailedstrapfern ͲͲ E Epiphytic,strandswamps,hammocksNone
Catopsisberteroniana Powderycatopsis ͲͲ E
Growontreesintropicalhammocksand
cypressswamps Low
Catopsisfloribunda ManyͲfloweredcatopsis ͲͲ E
Growontreesintropicalhammocksand
cypressswamps Low
Catopsisnutans Noddingcatopsis ͲͲ E
Growontreesintropicalhammocksand
cypressswamps Low
Celtisiguanaea Iguanahackberry ͲͲ E
Shellmoundsandmiddensintropical
coastalhammocks None
ChamaesycecumulicolaSandͲdunespurge ͲͲ ECoastalscrubandstabilizeddunes None
Ctenitissloanei Floridatreefern ͲͲ E
Inlandhammockforestswithdeepshade
andadequatesoilmoisture Low
Cyrtopodiumpunctatum Cowhornorchid ͲͲ E
Trunksandstumpsofcypresstreesin
swamps,branchesofbuttonwoodtrees
incoastalhammocks Low
DendrophylaxlindeniiGhostorchid ͲͲ E
Centraltrunkorlargemainbranchesof
pondͲappletrees,oroccasionallypop
ashtrees None
EltroplectriscalcarataSpurredneottia ͲͲ EMesichammock,rocklandhammock None
Epidendrumblanchaenum Acuna'sstarorchid ͲͲ E
Densewoodedswampsandsloughsof
tropicalregions None
Epidendrumnocturnum NightͲscentedorchid ͲͲ E
Hammocks,lowwoodlands,dryorwet
forests Low
Epidendrumstrobiliferum Pendantepidendrum ͲͲ E
Growingonbranchesofpopashand
pondappleinswamps None
Euphorbiagarberi**Garber'sspurge T E
Dry,sandysoilinecotonesbetween
hammocksandpinelandsorcoastal
hammocksandseaͲoatsdunes None
Glandulariamaritima Coastalvervain ͲͲ E
Sandyclearingsincoastalduneswales,
scrub,pinelands,andopenliveoakͲ
cabbagepalmwoods None
Glandulariatampensis Tampavervain ͲͲ E
Sandycoastalhammocksanddunes,
clearings,wellͲdrainedliveoakͲslashor
longleafpineͲsawpalmettoflats,and
disturbedareas None
Guzmaniamonostachia Fakahatcheeguzmania ͲͲ E
Branchesandtreetrunksinswampsand
wethammocks Low
Habenariadistans Hammockreinorchid ͲͲ E
Coastalberm,floodplainmarsh,strand
swamp None
HarrisiaaboriginumAboriginalpricklyapple E E
Opencoastalhammocksandshell
middensatlowelevations None
Ionopsisutricularioides DelicateIonopsis ͲͲ E Hammocks Low
Jacquemontiacurtissii Pinelandjacquemontia ͲͲ T
Pinerocklands,limestoneoutcrops,and
pinelandsonMiamiorTamiami
limestone None
Lantanadepressavar.sanibelensis pinelandlantana ͲͲ E
pinerockland,coastalstrand,marl
prairies None
Lecheacernua Noddingpinweed ͲͲ T Sandyopenings,evergreenscruboaks None
Lecheadivaricata Spreadingpinweed ͲͲ EScrubandscrubbyflatwoods Low
Lechealakelae Lakela'spinweed ͲͲ E Open,whitesandsincoastalscrub None
Lepanthopsismelanantha Tinyorchid ͲͲ E
TropicalmixedhardwoodͲcypress
swampsandwethammocks,epiphytic
onpondapple None
Linumcarterivar.smallii Small'sflax ͲͲ E
Pinerocklands,pineflatwoods,adjacent
disturbedareas None
LythrumflagellareLowlandloosestrife ͲͲ Eswamps,thickets Low
Table 4.2. Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species
Species CommonName USFWS FDACSͲDPI* Habitat ProbabilityofPresence
Maxillariacrassifolia Hiddenorchid ͲͲ E
Epiphyticonhammocks,rocks,tree
trunksincypressswampsandstrands Low
Microgrammaheterophylla Climbingvinefern ͲͲ E
EpiphyticonrelativelysmoothͲbarked
trees,orgrowingonlogsandrock,in
tropicalhammocks Low
MyriopterismicrophyllaSouthernlipfernͲͲE
Epipetricincrevicesoflimestone
outcropsandterrestrialonshellmounds
inpartialtofullsun None
Ophioglossumpalmatum Handfern ͲͲ E
Epiphyticonpersistentleafbasesof
sabalpalmettoinmoisthammocks Low
Passiflorapallens Pinelandpassionflower ͲͲ ECoastalandinteriorhammocks Low
Peperomiaglabellacypresspeperomia ͲͲ E hammocks,sloughs None
Peperomiahumilislowpeperomia ͲͲ E
maritimehammocks,uplandhardwood
forests,swamps None
Peperomiaobtusifolia BluntͲleavedpeperomia ͲͲ E
Epiphyte;inFloridausuallyonoaks,
tropicalhammocks,cypressswamps Low
PhlegmariurusdichotomusHangingclubͲmossͲͲE
Growingonpondappleinmature
swampforests None
Pleurothallisgelida FrostͲflowerorchid ͲͲ E
Generallyonpopashatcentralpondsof
cypresssloughs None
Prosthecheaboothianavar.erythronioidesDollarorchid ͲͲ E
Trunksandlowlimbsofhardwoodtrees
inrocklandhammocks None
ProsthecheacochleataClamshellorchidͲͲE
Growingonbranchesofpopashand
pondappleinswamps None
ProsthecheapygmaeaDwarfbutterflyorchidͲͲE
Growingonbranchesofpopashand
pondappleinswamps None
Pterisbahamensis Bahamaladderbrakefern ͲͲ Tpinerocklands,hammocks None
Pteroglossaspisecristata Giantorchid ͲͲ T Sandhill,scrub,pineflatwoods Low
Roystonearegia Floridaroyalpalm ͲͲ ETropicalhammocks Low
Schizaeapennula Rayfern ͲͲ E
Wet,richsoilundersawpalmetto&
gallberry;rottenstumps&trunksofred
bay Low
Stylismaabdita Scrubstylisma ͲͲ EDrysandysoilinoakorsandpinescrub None
Tephrosiaangustissimavar.corallicolaNarrowleafhoarypea ͲͲ Epinerocklands None
Thelypterisreptans CreepingstarͲhairfern ͲͲ ELimestonegrottoesandsinkholes None
Thrinaxradiata Floridathatchpalm ͲͲ ECoastalscrubandpinelandareasNone
Tillandsiaflexuosa BandedwildͲpine ͲͲ T Growsonshrubsandtreesinwetlands Moderate
Tillandsiapruinosa FuzzyͲwuzzyairplant ͲͲ EBranchesoftreesincypressswamps Moderate
TrichocentrumundulatumCapeSabledancingladyorchidͲͲ E
Buttonwoodstrandsinextremesouthern
Florida,infrequentlyfoundinremote
cypresssloughsinBigCypressNational
Park None
Trichomanesholopterum EntireͲwingedbristlefern ͲͲ E
Growsonmossyrottenlogsorstumpsin
moistforestedareas Moderate
Tripsacumfloridanum Floridagamagrass ͲͲ T
Low,rockypinerocklandsintheshallow
soilsofrockcreviceswhichhavesome
proportionoftheredlandsoil
characteristic None
Vachelliatortuosa Poponax ͲͲ EShellmiddensNone
Vanillaphaeantha Leafyvanilla ͲͲ EMarginsandopencypresssloughs Low
Zephyranthessimpsonii Simpson’szephyrͲlily ͲͲ T
wetpinelandsandpastures,wet
roadsides Low
*T=Threatened,E=Endangered,N=Notcurrentlylisted,norcurrentlybeingconsideredforlistingbutonFNAI'strackinglist**formerlyincludedinthegenusChamaesyce
Sources:
1.FNAIͲFloridaNaturalAreasInventory;CollierFlorida,accesedJanuary,2019
2.FDACS.NotesonFlorida’sEndangeredandThreatenedPlants.2010.PattiJAndersonandRichardEWeaver.
3.AtlasofFloridaPlantsͲInstituteforSystematicBotany,UniversityofSouthFloridahttp://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Results.aspx
4.FDACS.Florida'sFederallyListedPlantSpeciesSearchhttps://www.freshfromflorida.com/DivisionsͲOffices/FloridaͲForestͲService/OurͲForests/ForestͲ
5.Habitatsdescribedby:Hansen,B.F.andWunderlin,R.P.2003.GuidetothevascularplantsofFlorida.UniversityPressofFlorida.Gainesville.
Table 4.2 continued. Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ14
Duetothedisturbednatureofthehabitatalongtheexistingroadway,muchofwhichisroutinelymowed
intherightͲofͲway,noadverseeffectsareanticipatedfortheselistedplantspecies.Somenaturalhabitats
remainadjacenttotheroadway(e.g.pineflatwoods,forestedwetlands,dryprairie)thatsolelybasedon
mappingmayindicatethepotentialforcertainlistedplantstooccur.However,thesehabitatwithinthe
projectcorridorhavebeenlargelyfragmented/disturbedbyresidentialdevelopment.Assuch,the
habitatsareoftendefinedbyavarietyofnuisanceandexoticspecies,lesseningtheopportunityforthe
identifiedlistedplantspecies.
Althoughnoneweredocumentedduringtheinitialsurveys,thepineflatwoodsmayhavelimitedpotential
tosupportthegiantorchid(Pteroglossaspisecristata),rayfern(Schizaeapennula),andentireͲwinged
bristlefern(Trichomanesholopterum),whichareknowntooccurinthishabitattype.Forthisreason,the
projectmayaffect,butisnotlikelytoadverselyaffect,thesethree(3)species.
4.4 EvaluationofAlternatives
4.4.1DirectImpacts
Table4Ͳ3showstheexpecteddirectimpactsforeachalternativebyFLUCCScode.Impactstonatural
habitatsrepresentimpactstopotentialwildlifehabitat.TheimpactsfortheRecommendedBuild
AlternativewerecalculatedbysummingtheFLUCCScategoriesthatcouldpotentiallybeusedbyastate
orfederallylistedorotherwiseprotectedspecies.
4.4.1.1RecommendedBuildAlternative
TheimpactsforRecommendedBuildAlternativewerecalculatedbysummingtheFLUCCScategoriesfor
thatalternative.Thetotalimpactareaproposedforthisalternativeis137.50acres.Ofthisamount,
approximately62%oftheimpactwillbetoareasalreadydisturbedbytheexistingroadandmaintained
rightͲofͲway(FLUCCS8140:39.45acres,28.69%),theurbanandbuiltenvironment(FLUCCSseries1000:
43.66acres,31.75%),agriculturallanduse(FLUCCSseries2000:0.02acres,0.01%)andbarrenland
(FLUCCS7400:1.68acres,1.22%).Theremaining38%oftheRecommendedBuildAlternativeiscomprised
ofnaturaluplandandwetlandhabitatswithvaryingdegreesofdisturbance.
Rangeland(FLUCCSseries3000),whichisprimarilycharacterizedbydryherbaceous/shrubbyhabitats,
constitutesthelargestareaofnaturalimpactwithintheRecommendedBuildAlternativeat16.63acres
(12.09%).Uplandforests(FLUCCSseries4000),primarilycharacterizedbyPineFlatwoodsandBrazilian
pepperintheRecommendedBuildAlternative,represent9.44acres(6.87%)ofthenaturalhabitatimpact.
Wetlands(FLUCCSseries6000)accountfor5.00acres(3.64%)ofnaturalhabitatimpacts,whichare
comprisedpredominantlyofforestedhabitatandshrubbywetlandstoalesserdegree.Surfacewater
impacts(FLUCCSseries5000)arecomprisedlargelyofroadsideditches(20.79acres,15.12%)andtwo
lessercanalcrossings(0.83acres,0.60%)thatwillbeneededforprojectconstruction.Mostofthese
surfacewaterimpactswilllikelybetemporaryinnature,asadditionalroadsideditcheswillbecreated
duringconstruction.
Giventheseanticipatedhabitatimpacts,theUSFWSPantherToolwasusedtoevaluateimpactstohabitat
potentiallyusedbytheFloridapanther(AppendixE).ForimpactsassociatedwiththeRecommendedBuild
Alternative,approximately314PHUcreditsareanticipatedtobesufficientmitigation.
4.4.1.2NoBuildAlternative
Therearenodirectimpactstowildlifeand/orhabitatsassociatedwiththeNoBuildAlternative.
Table4Ͳ3.LandUse/LandCover(FLUCCS)ImpactsbyAlternative
NoBuildAlternative
FLUCCSDescription Impacts(Acres)PercentofTotal
ProjectArea Impacts(Acres)
1100 Lowdensityresidential 7.10 5.16% 0.00
1180 ResidentialruralͲ1uniton2ormoreacres 28.98 21.08% 0.00
1260 Mediumdensityresidentalgolf 6.36 4.63% 0.00
1722 Church 1.21 0.88% 0.00
1754 FloridaForestService0.01 0.01% 0.00
Total 43.66 31.75% 0.00
2110 Improvedpasture 0.01 0.01% 0.00
2140 Rowcrops 0.01 0.01% 0.00
Total 0.02 0.01% 0.00
3100 Herbaceous(dryprairie) 1.07 0.78% 0.00
3109 Herbaceous(dryprairie),disturbed 0.36 0.26% 0.00
3209 Shrubandbrushland,disturbed 8.46 6.15% 0.00
3309 Mixedrangeland,disturbed 6.74 4.90% 0.00
Total 16.63 12.09% 0.00
4110 Pineflatwoods 6.91 5.03% 0.00
4220 Brazilianpepper 2.53 1.84% 0.00
Total 9.44 6.87% 0.00
5120 Majorcanals 0.83 0.60% 0.00
5140 Ditches 20.79 15.12% 0.00
Total 21.62 15.72% 0.00
6170 Mixedwetlandhardwoods 0.02 0.01% 0.00
6210 Cypress 1.23 0.89% 0.00
6249 CypressͲpineͲcabbagepalm,disturbed 0.68 0.49% 0.00
6250 Hydricpineflatwoods 0.02 0.01% 0.00
6259 Hydricpineflatwoods,disturbed 1.34 0.97% 0.00
6309 Wetlandforestedmixed,disturbed 0.31 0.23% 0.00
6318 Wetlandshrub,predominantlywillow 1.29 0.94% 0.00
6319 Wetlandshrub,disturbed 0.11 0.08% 0.00
Total 5.00 3.64% 0.00
7400 Disturbedland 1.68 1.22% 0.00
7401 Disturbedland,hydric 0.00 0.00% 0.00
Total 1.68 1.22% 0.00
8000:TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATION&UTILITIES8140 RoadandmaintainedrightͲofͲway 39.45 28.69% 0.00
Total 39.45 28.69% 0.00
137.50 100.00% 0.00
Totalforprojectboundary1000:URBANANDBUILTUP3000:RANGELAND5000:WATER6000:WETLANDSBuildAlternative
FLUCCSCode
2000:AGRICULTURE4000:UPLANDFOREST700:BARRENLAND
SECTION4ͲPROTECTEDSPECIESANDHABITAT
4Ͳ16
4.4.2Indirect,Secondary,andCumulativeImpacts
Indirectandsecondaryeffectsarethoseimpactsthatarereasonablycertaintooccurlaterintimeasa
resultoftheproposedproject.Theymayoccuroutsideoftheareadirectlyaffectedbytheproposed
project.Potentialsecondaryeffectsincludeincreasednoise,traffic,anddevelopment,whichcouldimpact
wildlifeorresultinachangeinwildlifemigrationpatterns.Cumulativeeffectsincludetheeffectsoffuture
state,local,orprivateactionsthatarereasonablycertaintooccurintheprojectarea.Futurefederal
actionsthatareunrelatedtotheproposedprojectarenotconsideredinthedeterminationofcumulative
effectsbecausetheyrequireaseparateconsultationinaccordancewithSection7oftheESA.
4.4.2.1RecommendedBuildAlternative
IndirectimpactsareanticipatedtobeminorasaresultoftheRecommendedBuildAlternative.Because
thehabitatimpactsarerestrictedtothoseadjacenttotheexistingroadwayandhavebeenminimizedto
onlytheamountrequiredtoachievetheprojectpurpose,secondaryimpactsareanticipatedtobe
minimal.Theproposedroadwaycorridorislargelysurroundedbyresidentialdevelopment,withnewlots
beingclearedandbuiltuponregularly.ThemodificationsthathadtobemadetothecurrentFLUCCSmap
versuswhatwasestablishedatthestartofthecorridorstudyin2017areindicativeoftherapidlanduse
conversionshappeningwithinthestudyarea.Thereisanedgeeffect(secondaryimpact)relatedtothe
increaseofnuisance/exoticspeciesinadjacenthabitatoftenassociatedwithroadwaywidening,butmuch
oftheadjacenthabitatisalreadydisturbedbyresidentialdevelopment,agriculture,andsignificantATV
use.Althoughnuisance/exoticvegetationhasnegativeimpactstonativewildlife,thesecondaryimpacts
areanticipatedtobeminimalbasedonthedisturbednatureoftheexistingconditions.Baseduponthe
compensatorymitigationandstandardprotectionmeasuresthatwillberequiredforlistedspecieshabitat
duringconstructionlevelpermitting,nocumulativeimpactsareanticipatedfortheRecommendedBuild
Alternative.
4.4.2.2NoBuildAlternative
Therearenoindirect,secondary,orcumulativeimpactstowildlifeassociatedwiththeNoBuild
Alternative.
SECTION5–WETLANDEVALUATION
5Ͳ1
5.0WetlandEvaluation
5.1AgencyCoordination
Nodirectagencycoordinationregardingwetlandshasoccurredforthisproject.However,theUSACEand
SFWMDregulatewetlandswithinthestudyarea,andpermitswillneedtobeobtainedfromthese
agenciesforunavoidablewetlandimpactspriortoprojectauthorization/construction.Otheragencies,
includingtheUSFWS,FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(FDEP),andtheFWCreviewand
commentonwetlandpermittingandpotentialaffectstoprotectedwildlifespecies.
BasedontheprojectedwetlandandsurfacewaterimpactsassociatedwiththeRecommendedBuild
Alternative,itisanticipatedthattheprojectwillrequireanIndividualERPfromtheSFWMD,inaccordance
withF.A.C.Chapter62Ͳ330.054,aswellasanIndividualFederalDredgeandFillPermit(Section404
Permitting)fromtheUSACE.WiththeprojectalignmenthavingpotentialimpactstotheGoldenGateand
FakaUnionCanals,additionalreview/permittingmayberequiredforworkwithintheregulatedsystems.
5.2Methodology
Wetlandsandsurfacewaterswereidentifiedthroughthereviewofavailableliterature,GISdata,andfield
verification.Followingthereviewofallavailablematerials,fieldassessmentswereconductedon
November8Ͳ10,2017toidentifythepresenceofwetlandvegetation,evidenceofhydrology,andhydric
soilindicators.ThejurisdictionallimitsofthewetlandswereestimatedusingthecriteriastatedintheUS
ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)FinalRegionalSupplementtotheCorpsofEngineersWetland
DelineationsManual:AtlanticandGulfCoastalPlainRegion(October2010)andFloridastatewideunified
wetlanddelineationmethodologyasadoptedbytheFDEPandtheWaterManagementDistrictsper
Chapter62Ͳ340oftheFloridaAdministrativeCode(F.A.C.)anddescribedinTheFloridaWetlands
DelineationManual.PerChapter62.600(D)F.A.C.,boundariesofsurfacewaterswithslopesof4to1
(horizontaltovertical)orsteeperwereestimatedusingthetopofbank.Roadsideditchesthatcontained
standingwaterduringthefieldvisitwereapproximatedbaseduponbiologicalindicatorsofaveragewet
seasonwaterlevels.Agriculturalrimditchesthatwerecontainedwhollywithintheassociated
containmentbermwerenotdelineatedoutfromtheadjacentagriculturallanduse.
Thefollowingsourceswerereviewedpriortoconductingthefieldreview:
x USFWSNWIMaps;
x Landuseandlandcovermaps(SFWMD2008);
x NRCSSoilSurveyofCollierCounty,Florida;and
x GoogleEarthAerialImageryoftheStudyArea(1995Ͳ2018).
Ecologistsevaluatedthefunctionalvalueofthewetlandandsurfacewatersystemswithinthe
RecommendedAlignmentusingtheUniformMitigationAssessmentMethod(UMAM).Theresults
presentedinthisreportareacompilationofinformationcollectedfromfieldassessmentperformedby
projectecologistsandfromthedatasourcesdescribedabove.
5.3Results
ConsideringtheprojectfootprintassociatedwiththeRecommendedBuildAlternative(137.5acres),
impactstowetlandsandsurfacewatersareminimal.Wetlandsaccountforapproximately5.0acres
(3.64%)oftheRecommendedBuildAlternative.Asthisisalineartransportationproject,allwetlands
withintheprojectfootprintwillbeconsidereddirectlyimpactedduringthepermittingprocess.Impacts
towetlandsincludeMixedWetlandHardwoods(FLUCCS6170,0.02acres),Cypress(FLUCCS6210,1.23
SECTION5–WETLANDEVALUATION
5Ͳ2
acres),CypressͲPineͲCabbagePalm,disturbed(FLUCCS6249,0.68acres),HydricPineFlatwoods(FLUCCS
6250and6259,1.36acres),WetlandForestedMixed,disturbed(FLUCCS6309,0.31acres),andWetland
Shrub(FLUCCS6318and6319,1.40).Thewetlandsareillustratedthroughtheuseofgreenshadingon
theFLUCCSmapsincludedasFigure3Ͳ1.ImpactstosurfacewatersincludeMajorCanals(GoldenGate
MainCanalandtheFakaUnionCanal(FLUCCS5120,0.83acres)andDitches(FLUCCS5140,20.79acres).
TheditchesarelargelycomprisedofroadsideditchesalongRandallBoulevardandEvergladesBoulevard
thatcontainedwaterand/orobviousbiologicalindicatorsofabovegroundwaterlevelsatthetimeoffield
review;however,theseditchesaretypicallydryduringthedryseason.Mitigationisgenerallynotrequired
(andhasnotbeenproposed)forthesemanͲmade,seasonalconveyancesthatwerecreatedaspartofthe
permittedroadway’sstormwatermanagementsystem.
ThepotentiallyaffectedwetlandswithintheRecommendedAlignmentwereevaluatedusingtheUniform
MitigationAssessmentMethod(UMAM)toassesstheirecologicalfunctionsanddeterminetheamount
ofmitigationnecessarytooffsettheirloss.TheUMAMassessmentoftheUSACEandSFWMDͲ
jurisdictionalwetlandsresultsinanestimatedneedof2.58federalmitigationUMAMcredits(1.84
forestedand0.74herbaceousfreshwatercredits).TheUMAMAnalysisandsupportingUMAMformsare
providedinAppendixF.Notethatthisassessmentdoesnotincludepotentialponds.Additionally,
mitigationhasnotbeenproposedfortheroadsideditchesorthetemporaryimpactstothemajorcanals.
IndirectimpactsareanticipatedtobeminorasaresultoftheRecommendedBuildAlternative.Thedirect
jurisdictionalwetlandandsurfacewaterimpactsarerestrictedtothoseadjacenttotheexistingroadway,
whichhavealreadybeendisturbedbytheexistingroadwayandadjacentdevelopmentalongtheproject
corridor.Nocumulativeimpacts(netlossofwetlandfunctionwithintheproject’sdrainagebasin)are
anticipatedtooccurbasedonthemitigationthatwillberequiredforprojectimpacts.
ItisanticipatedthatmitigationofwetlandimpactswouldberequiredbyboththeSFWMDandUSACE.
Mitigationcreditswouldbepurchasedfromoneofthefederallyapprovedmitigationbankswhoseservice
areacoverstheprojectstudyarea,suchas:PantherIslandMitigationBank,PantherIslandExpansion
MitigationBank,BigCypressMitigationBank,andCorkscrewRegionalMitigationBank.AllUMAMscores,
UMAMcalculations,preliminarysurfacewaterboundaries,anddeterminationsdiscussedaresubjectto
revisionsandapprovalbyregulatoryagenciesduringthepermittingprocess.Theexacttypeofmitigation
tooffsetimpactswillbecoordinatedwiththeUSACEandtheSFWMDduringthepermittingphase(s)of
thisproject.Todemonstratenonetlossofwetlandfunctionwithintheproject’sdrainagebasin(West
CollierDrainageBasin),mitigationthatmayberequiredforthewetland/surfacewaterimpactswilleither
needtobeprovidedinthesamedrainagebasin,oritwillbedemonstratedthroughacumulativeimpact
analysisattimeofpermittingthatoutofbasinmitigationwillnotresultinacumulativeimpact.Currently
theonlyprivate,federallyapprovedmitigationwithintheWestCollierDrainageBasinisPantherIsland
MitigationBank(PIMB)anditsassociatedExpansion(PIMBE).Currently,thepriceperUMAMcreditis
approximately$105,000percreditatPIMB,witheachwetlandcreditalsoproviding34.80PHUsand
0.31Kglonghydroperiod&1.06Kgshorthydroperiodwoodstorkcredits,tohelpoffsetlistedspecies
habitatimpactsthatmaybeassociatedwiththeproject.
Basedontheestimatedneedof2.58UMAMcredits,theproject’swetlandmitigationcostwouldbe
approximately$270,900.SincethisisaCountyproject,costsavingsmaybeavailableiftheCounty’s
approvedregionalmitigationsite,PepperRanch,hasavailablecreditstohelpoffsettheimpacts
associatedwiththeRecommendedBuildAlternativefortheRandallBoulevardandOilWellRoadCorridor
Study.
SECTION6–CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPS
6Ͳ1
6.0ConclusionsandNextSteps
6.1ProtectedSpeciesandHabitats
TheprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffectfederallyandstateͲprotectedwildlifespecies.
Federallylistedspecieswhichmaybeaffected,butarenotlikelytobeadverselyaffectedbytheproject
include:
x Easternindigosnake(Drymarchoncoraiscouperi)
x Woodstork(Mycteriaamericana)
x Crestedcaracara(Caracaracheriway)
x Floridabonnetedbat(Eumopsfloridanus)
x Floridapanther(Pumaconcolorcoryi)
Theprojectisanticipatedtohavenoeffectonthefollowingfederallylistedspecies:
x Shorebirdsincludingtheroseatetern(Sternadougallii),pipingplover(Charadriusmelodus),and
redknot(Calidriscanutusrufa)
x FloridascrubͲjay(Aphelocomacoelurescens)
x Evergladessnailkite(Rostrhamussociabilisplumbeus)
x RedͲcockadedwoodpecker(Picoidesborealis)
x WestIndianmanatee(Trichechusmanatus)
ThereisnoadverseeffectanticipatedonthefollowingstateͲprotectedspecies:
x Floridaburrowingowl(Athenecunicularia):
x Shorebirdsincludingthesnowyplover(Charadriusnivosus),leasttern(Sternulaantillarum),and
blackskimmer(Rynchopsniger)
x Wadingbirdsincludingthetricoloredheron(Egrettatricolor),littleblueheron(Egrettacaerulea),
reddishegret(Egrettarufescens),androseatespoonbill(Plataleaajaja)
x SoutheasternAmericankestrel(Falcosparveriuspaulus)
TheprojectmayaffectbutisnotlikelytoadverselyaffectthefollowingstateͲlistedspecies:
x Gophertortoise(Gopheruspolyphemus)
x Floridasandhillcrane(Antigonecanadensispratensis)
x BigCypressfoxsquirrel(Sciurusnigeravicennia)
Twospecieswhichmayoccurintheprojectvicinityarenotlistedasthreatened,endangered,orspecies
ofspecialconcern(SSC),butreceiveotherlegalprotection.TheFloridablackbear(Ursusamericanus
floridanus),protectedunderFAC68AͲ4.009,maybeaffected,butitisnotlikelytobeadverselyaffected.
Theprojecthasnoeffectonthebaldeagle(Haliaeetusleucocephalus).
Multipleavenuesofprotectionwillbeemployedtonegateandminimizeanypotentialaffectstothese
species.Someofthemeasuresemployedmayincludedetailedsurveysandagencycoordinationduring
theprojectdesignphase,includingprovidingappropriatemitigationtooffsetimpacts.During
construction,bestmanagementpractices,adherencetoFDOT’s“StandardSpecificationforRoadand
BridgeConstructionanduseofpreconstructionsurveysarestrategiesthatwillbeconsidered,asneeded,
forprotectionoflistedspecies.
SECTION6–CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPS
6Ͳ2
Baseduponfindingsofthepreliminarydatacollection,generalcorridorsurveys,andstandardconditions
requiredbytheUSFWSandFWCthatareincorporatedintoSFWMDandUSACEpermits,thefollowing
protectionmeasuresandcompensatorymitigationareanticipated:
1.ImplementationofthemostrecentversionofUSFWS’StandardProtectionMeasuresfortheEastern
IndigoSnake(AppendixD).
2.PurchaseanynecessaryPHUcreditsfollowingformalconsultationandpriortoconstruction.
3.ContractoreducationtoadviseofhowtominimizehumanͲbearinteractionsassociatedwith
constructionsitesduringprojectconstruction.
4.PreͲconstructionsurveysforgophertortoise,BigCypressfoxsquirrel,andpeepingofanysnags/cavity
treeswithintheprojectvicinitytocheckforthepotentialofroostingbytheFloridabonnetedbat.
6.2Wetlands
TheNoBuildAlternativedoesnotproposeimpactstowetlandsorsurfacewaters,butitdoesnotfulfill
thebasicintentoftheproject.TheRecommendedBuildAlternativeproposesdirectwetlandimpactsto
5.7acres,generallycomprisedoflowtomidͲquality.Theditches,canals,anddevelopmentinthestudy
areahavealteredthehydrologyofthewetlandsystems,asevidencebydiminishedabovegroundwater
levelindicatorsandsignificantcoveragebynuisance/exoticvegetation.Thefunctionalanalysis(UMAM)
performedfortheprojectwetlandsindicatesapreliminaryestimateof2.58freshwatermitigationcredits
(1.84forestedcreditand0.74herbaceouscredits)maybeneededtooffsettheproject’sdirectwetland
impacts.Theproposedlimitsofwetlandsandsurfacewaterswillneedtobefieldflaggedandsurvey
locatedpriortoapplicationforprojectconstructionwiththeSFWMDandUSACE,soagencypersonnel
canverifyprojectimpacts.UntilsuchtimethatisdoneandtheUMAMhasbeenagencyreviewedand
approved,themitigationestimateshouldbeconsideredpreliminaryforplanningpurposesonly.
Thedirectimpactstothesurfacewaters(0.83acresofcanaland20.79acresofditches)willneedtobe
accountedforduringSFWMDandUSACEpermitting,butmitigationhasnotbeenproposedforthe
impacts.TheGoldenGateandFakaUnionCanalswilllikelybeimpactedbytheextensionofabox
culvert/bridgeduringroadwayconstruction,buttheconstructionisnotanticipatedtorepresenta
permanentlossofsurfacewaterfunction.Thecanalsareanimportantfeaturetoregionaldrainageand
theprojectdesignwillberequiredtodemonstratethereisnolossofcapacity/flowasaresultofthe
project.Likewise,theroadsideditchesmaybeimpactedbyroadwaywidening,butitislikelynewroadside
swales/ditcheswillbeconstructedaspartofthesurfacewatermanagementsystemtoreplacethosethat
are“lost”.
6.3ImplementationMeasures
Implementationmeasuresareactionsthatwillberequiredtoaddressspecialconditionsorotheragency
requirements,eitherduringthedesign/permittingphaseoftheprojectorthroughpostͲpermit
compliance.ProjectimplementationmeasuresthataddressprotectedspeciesandwetlandsͲrelateditems
include:
x Practicablemeasurestoavoidorminimizeimpactsduringfinaldesignoftheproject;
x BestManagementPractices(BMPs)duringconstructiontominimizeimpactstoanyadverse
secondaryimpactstowetlandsandsurfacewatersthatareaffectedbytheproposedproject;
x Purchasemitigationcreditsforunavoidablewetland/surfacewaterimpactsasmayberequired
bystate/federalpermits/regulations.;and
x Comprehensive,preͲconstructionlistedspeciessurveys(100percentgophertortoiseburrow
surveyinappropriatehabitat,conductaroostsurveyfortheFloridabonnetedbat,checkfor
nestingbyBigCypressfoxsquirrels).
SECTION7ͲREFERENCES
7Ͳ1
7.0References
Cowardin,LewisM.,Carter,Virginia,Golet,FrancisC.,andEdwardT.LaRoe.1979.Classificationof
WetlandsandDeepwaterHabitatsoftheUnitedStates.U.S.FishandWildlifeService
Publication,WashingtonD.C.
FloridaAssociationofEnvironmentalSoilScientists.2007.HydricSoilsofFloridaHandbook,4thEdition,
Gainesville,Florida.
FloridaDepartmentofTransportation.1999.FloridaLandUse,CoverandFormsClassificationSystem.
SurveyingandMappingThematicMappingSection.Tallahassee,Florida.
FloridaFishandWildlifeConservationCommission.2008.BaldEagleManagementPlan.FloridaFishand
WildlifeConservationCommission,Tallahassee,Florida.
FloridaFishandWildlifeConservationCommission<AccessedNovember3,2018>.
https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx#search
FloridaFishandWildlifeConservationCommission.2018.Florida’sOfficialEndangeredandThreatened
SpeciesList(UpdatedDecember2018).
NationalParkService.2015.<AccessedApril30,2019>https://www.nps.gov/bicy/learn/nature/bigͲ
cypressͲfoxͲsquirrel.htm
NationalParkService.2017.<AccessedApril30,2019>
https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/snailkite.htm
SouthFloridaWaterManagementDistrict.2014.EnvironmentalResourcePermitInformationManual.
RegulationDivisionSouthFloridaWaterManagementDistrict;WestPalmBeach,Florida.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersEnvironmentalLaboratory.2010.RegionalSupplementtotheCorpsof
EngineersWetlandDelineationManual:AtlanticandGulfCoastalPlainRegion(Version2.0).U.S.
ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,Mississippi.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.2018.NRCS.SoilSurveyofCollierCounty,Florida.<AccessedNovember
13,2018>https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=FL
U.S.FishandWildlifeService.2013.<AccessedApril30,2019>
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Florida_Panther/wah/birds/crca.html
Appendix A
Project Area Land Use Descriptions
1
AppendixA:ProjectAreaLandUseDescriptions
LowDensityResidential(FLUCCS1100)
Lowdensityresidentialdescribesresidentialdevelopmentswithlessthantwopermanentstructure
dwellingunitsperacre.Theseareasaregenerallymaintained(mowed)withgroundcoverconsisting
primarilyofSt.Augustinegrass(Stenotaphrumsecundatum),bahiagrass(Paspalumnotatum)and
shrubbyfalsebuttonweed(Spermacoceverticillata).
LowDensityFixedSingleFamilyUnits(FLUCCS1110)
LowdensityfixedsinglefamilyunitsdescribesfixedsingleͲfamilyunitswithlessthantwopermanent
structuredwellingunitsperacre.GroundcoverisgenerallyconsistentwithFLUCCCScode1100.
ExcludingthenonͲnativeplantedtreespecieswithinthelots,thecanopyissparsewithprimarilyslash
pine(Pinuselliottii),cabbagepalm(Sabalpalmetto)andoak(Quercusspp.)
ResidentialRural–1uniton2ormoreacres(FLUCCS1180)
Thislanduseclassificationdescribesaruralresidentialdevelopmentwithoneunitpertwoormoreacres.
VegetationcommunitiesaregenerallyconsistentwithFLUCCCScode1110withtheexceptionbeingan
increasedcanopycoverage.
MediumDensityResidential(FLUCCS1210)
Thislanduseclassificationdescribesaresidentialdevelopmentwithtwotofivepermanentstructure
dwellingunitsperacre.Establishedsubdivisionsmakeupthisclassification.Theseareasaregenerally
maintained(mowed)withgroundcoverdominatedbySt.Augustinegrass.
MediumDensityResidentialGolf(FLUCCS1260)
Thislanduseclassificationdescribesaresidentialdevelopmentwithgolfcoursesandsmallbodiesof
water.ThegroundcoverisgenerallyconsistentwithFLUCCcode1100.Thevegetationcommunitiesin
thesmallbodiesofwaterweremostlyabsentwiththebordersbeingsparsewithpatchesofarrowhead
(Sagittarialancifolia),pickerelweed(Pontederiacordata),spikerush(Eleocharisspp.)andcattail(Typha
spp.).
CommercialShoppingCenter(FLUCCS1410)
Thislanduseclassificationdescribesareasassociatedwithretailsales/servicesandincludesallbuildings,
amenities,driveways,parkingareasandlandscapeareasassociatedwithit.Canopyspeciesobservedin
theprojectareaincludeslashpine,liveoak(Quercusvirginiana),cabbagepalmandothercommon
landscapetrees.Furthermore,themidstoryandgroundcoveriscomposedoffloracharacteristicof
landscapeareas.
FloridaForestService(FLUCCS1754)
ThislanduseclassificationisusedtodescribeallbuildingsandfacilitieswhichareidentifiableasnonͲ
militarygovernmental.Inthisinstance,itisaFloridaForestServicefacility.Thecoveragetypeincludes
allbuildings,amenities,driveways,parkingareasandlandscapeareasassociatedwithit.
ImprovedPasture(FLUCCS2110)
Thiscategoryiscomposedoflandwhichhasbeencleared,tilled,reseededwithspecificgrasstypesand
periodicallyimprovedwithbrushcontrolandfertilizerapplication.Waterponds,troughs,feedbunkers
andcowtrailsareevident.Canopycoverageislargelyabsent.Groundcoverisdominatedbybahiagrass,
smutgrass(Sporobolusindicus),shrubbyfalsebuttonweedandSpanishneedles(Bidensalba).
2
RowCrops(FLUCCS2140)
Thislanduseclassificationisusedtodescribeagriculturalland,specifically,rowcrops.Corn,tomatoes,
potatoesandbeansaretypicalrowcropsfoundinFlorida.Additionally,rowscanremainwelldefined
evenaftercropshavebeenharvested.ThevegetationcommunityissimilartoFLUCCScode2110inthe
unplantedfields.
Herbaceous(DryPrairie)(FLUCCS3100)
HerbaceousDryPrairieareasarecharacterizedbyuplandprairiegrasseswhichoccuronnonͲhydricsoils
butmaybeoccasionallyinundatedbywater.Theseareasaregenerallytreelesswithavarietyof
vegetationtypesdominatedbygrasses,sedges,rushes,andotherherbsincludingwiregrasseswithsome
sawpalmetto(Serenoarepens)present.Thedryprairiehabitatlocatedwithinthestudyareaiscomprised
ofsawpalmetto,rosenatalgrass(Melinisrepens),grapevine(Vitisspp.),wiregrass(Aristidastricta)and
occasionalcabbagepalmandslashpine.
ShrubandBrushland(FLUCCS3200)
ShrubandBrushlandareasarecharacterizedbysawpalmetto,gallberry(Ilexglabra),waxmyrtle
(Morellacerifera),coastalscrubandothershrubsandbrush.Generally,sawpalmettoisthemost
prevalentplantcoverintermixedwithawidevarietyofotherwoodyscrubplantspeciesaswellasvarious
typesofshortherbsandgrasses.Theshrubandbrushlandlocatedinthestudyareaareinterspersed
betweenthedevelopedlotsanddominatedbysawpalmetto,gallberry,fetterbush(Lyonialucida)
wiregrass,andwaxmyrtle.
ShrubandBrushland,Disturbed(FLUCCS3209)
ThislanduseclassificationissimilartoFLUCCScode3200,withtheexceptionbeingevidenceofland
alterationprimarilyduetohumanactivityandanincreasedcoverageofexoticvegetation.
PalmettoPrairie(FLUCCS3210)
Thislanduseclassificationisusedtodescribemoreopenareas,inthisinstance,mostlikelypreviously
pineflatwoodsbutwereclearedwhenhousingdevelopmentstarted.Thepalmettoprairieslocatedin
thesurveyareaarecomprisedprimarilywithsawpalmettowithgallberryinterspersed.
Mixedrangeland(FLUCCS3300)
Thislanduseclassificationisusedtodescribearangelandwithamixedvegetationcommunity.
VegetationcommunityissimilartoFLUCCScode2110.
Mixedrangeland,disturbed(FLUCCS3309)
ThislanduseclassificationissimilartoFLUCCScode3300,withtheexceptionbeingevidenceofland
alterationprimarilyduetohumanactivityandanincreasedcoverageofexoticvegetation.
PineFlatwoods(FLUCCS4110)
PineFlatwoodsarecharacterizedbyaloosecanopyofslashpinewithafairlydensesawpalmetto
understory.Otherlesscommonshrubspeciesincludewaxmyrtle,rustystaggerbush(Lyoniaferruginea),
saltbush(Baccharishalimifolia),andgallberry.Vinessuchasgreenbrier(Smilaxspp.)andgrapevineare
alsopresent.Themajorityofthepineflatwoodslocatedwithinthestudyareaareovergrownandcontain
ahighdensityofslashpinewithalowerdensityofsawpalmetto.Otherspeciesobservedincludewax
myrtle,liveoakandBrazilianpepper(Schinusterebinthifolius).Theovergrownnatureofthehabitatsand
presenceofBrazilianpepperareindicativeoffiresuppression,aswouldbeexpectedfornaturalareas
immediatelyadjacenttodevelopment.
3
Brazilianpepper(FLUCCS4220)
ThishabitatiscomposedprimarilyofBrazilianpepper.Brazilianpepperisanexotic,pestilenttreespecies
foundonpeninsularFloridafromtheTampaBayareasouthward.Commonlyfoundondisturbedsites,
thisspeciesisanaggressiveinvaderofFlorida’splantcommunities.Areaslocatedwithinthestudyarea
thatshowcasedanapproximatecoverageofgreaterthan75%percentBrazilianpepperwhereclassified
asFLUCCScode4220.
MajorCanals(FLUCCS5120)
Thiscategoryincludesrivers,creeks,canalsandotherlinearwaterbodieswherethewatercourseis
interruptedbyacontrolstructure.Vegetationisgenerallyabsentinthemajorcanalslocatedinthestudy
area.TheGoldenGateCanalandFakaUnionCanaltraversethestudyarea.Bothhavesteepsideslopes
whichcontaingrassesandforbs.Thebermsaremaintainedasevidencedbyrecentmowingactivity.
Ditches(FLUCCS5140)
ThiscategoryincludesmanͲmadewaterwaysusedfordrainage.Theditcheslocatedinthestudyarea
weregenerallywithinthemaintainedroadrightͲofͲwayandwerecomprisedofhydrophyticplants,such
asspadeleaf(Centellaasiatica),andpennywort(Hydrocotylespp.).
ReservoirsLessThan10Acres(FLUCCS5340)
Reservoirsareartificialimpoundmentsofwater.Theyareusedforirrigation,floodcontrol,municipal
andruralwatersupplies,recreationandhydroelectricpowergeneration.Dams,levees,otherwater
controlstructuresortheexcavationitselfusuallywillbeevident.Thereservoirswithinthestudyarea
consistofexistingstormwatermanagementpondswithcontrolstructures.Theycontainedverylittle
standingwateratthetimeoffieldreviews.
MixedWetlandHardwoods(FLUCCS6170)
Thiswetlandhabitatclassificationisreservedforthosewetlandhardwoodcommunitieswhichare
composedofalargevarietyofhardwoodspeciestolerantofhydricconditions.Themixedwetland
hardwoodslocatedinthesurveyareaarecomposedofliveoak,laureloak(Quercuslaurifolia),wax
myrtleandCarolinawillow(Salixcaroliniana)witharedmaple(Acerrubrum)overstory.Theground
coverisdominatedbyelderberry(Sambucusnigra)andbuttonbush(Cephalanthusoccidentalis).
MixedWetlandHardwoods–MixedShrubs(FLUCCS6172)
ThiswetlandhabitatissimilartoFLUCCS6170,withtheexceptionbeingthemidͲstoryhaslargevariety
ofwetlandindicativevegetationaswellasthecanopy.
WetlandConiferousForest(FLUCCS6200)
Thishabitatclassificationisusedtodescribeawetlandwhichmeetsthecrownclosurerequirementsfor
coniferousforests(seeFLUCCS4110).Thesecommunitiesarecommonlyfoundintheinteriorwetlands
suchasriverfloodsplains,bogs,bayheadsandsloughs.
Cypress(FLUCCS6210)
Thishabitatclassificationisusedtodescribeawetlandthatiscomposedprimarilyofpondcypress
(Taxodiumascendens)orbaldcypress(Taxodiumdistichum).Themidstoryisgenerallycomprisedof
pondapple(Annonaglabra),Carolinawillowandbuttonbush.Inmostcasestheborderofthecypress
domeiscomprisedofswampfern(Telmatoblechnumserrulatum).
4
CypressͲMixedHardwoods(FLUCCS6216)
ThiswetlandhabitatissimilartoFLUCCS6210,withtheexceptionbeingthatthecanopyisnotonly
limitedtopondorbaldcypress,butalsoincludesmixedhardwoods(seeFLUCCS6170).
CypressͲPineͲCabbagePalm(FLUCCS6240)
Thiscommunityincludescypress(Taxodiumspp.),pine(Pinusspp.)and/orcabbagepalmin
combinationsinwhichnospeciesachievesdominance.Althoughnotstrictlyawetlandscommunity,it
formsatransitionbetweenmoistuplandandhydricsites.Locatedwithinthestudyarea,thesesystems
tendtobemorehydricanddominatedbycypressbuthaveahighconcentrationofslashpineand
cabbagepalminterspersed.ThisistypicalofthesecommunitiesinsouthFlorida.
CypressͲPineͲCabbagepalm,disturbed(FLUCCS6249)
ThishabitatissimilartoFLUCCScode6240,withtheexceptionbeingtheevidenceoflandalteration
primarilyduetohumanactivityandanincreasedcoverageofexoticvegetation.
HydricPineFlatwoods(FLUCCS6250)
HydricPineFlatwoodshasasparsetomoderatecanopyofslashpinesandcabbagepalms.The
understoryiscomposedofgrasses,wiregrassandforbsindicativeofawetland.Additionally,the
understorycanhavesparsesawpalmetto.Thehydricpineflatwoodslocatedinthesurveyareagenerally
haveagroundcovercomprisedofAlabamaswampsedge(Cyperusligularis),torpedograss(Panicum
repens),bushybluestem(Andropogonglomeratus)andbeaksedge(Rhynchosporaspp.)
HydricPineFlatwoods,Disturbed(FLUCCS6259)
ThishabitatissimilartoFLUCCS6250,withtheexceptionbeingtheevidenceoflandalterationprimarily
duetohumanactivityandanincreasedcoverageofexoticvegetation.
WetlandForestedMixed,Disturbed(FLUCCS6309)
Thislanduseclassificationisusedtodescribeawetlandhabitatinwhichneitherhardwoodsnorconifers
achievea66%dominanceofthecanopy.VegetationcommunityisconsistentwithbothFLUCCScode
6200andFLUCCScode6170.Disturbanceintheformofhumanalternationandcoverageby
nuisance/exoticspecieswasnotedduringthesurvey.
WetlandShrub,PredominantlyWillow(FLUCCS6318)
Thiscommunityisassociatedwithtopographicdepressionandpoorlydrainedsoil.Associatedspecies
includepondcypress,Carolinawillowandotherhydrophyticlowscrub.Inthisinstance,Carolinawillow
isthedominatespeciesinthesewetlandsthattransitionintoaroadsideditch.
WetlandShrub,Disturbed(FLUCCS6319)
ThishabitatissimilartoFLUCCScode6318,withtheexceptionbeingtheevidenceoflandalteration
primarilyduetohumanactivityandapredominatelyexoticvegetationcommunity.
FreshwaterMarsh(FLUCCS6410)
Thisclassificationisusedtodescribeawetlandgenerallycomposedofgrassyvegetationonhydricsoils.
Withinthefreshwatermarsheslocatedinthestudyarea,thegroundcoverisdominatedbymaidencane
(Panicumhemitomon)withsedges(Cyperusspp.)interspersed.Standingwaterwasobservedinthe
centerofthesystem.
5
DisturbedLand(FLUCCS7400)
Thisclassificationisusedtodescribeareaswhichhavebeenchangedprimarilyduetohumanactivities
otherthanmining.Inmostcases,theselandtypesshowcaseanincreaseofexoticvegetationcoverage
andanunnaturalgradient.
DisturbedLand,Hydric(FLUCCS7401)
ThishabitatissimilartoFLUCCScode7400withtheexceptionbeinggroundcoverspeciesaredominated
byhydrophyticspecies,suchastorpedograss,westIndianmarshgrassandPeruvianprimrosewillow
(Ludwigiaperuviana).
RoadandMaintainedRightͲofͲWay(FLUCCS8140)
Transportationfacilitiesareusedforthemovementofpeopleandgoods;therefore,theyaremajor
influencesonlandandmanylanduseboundariesareoutlinedbythem.Coveragetypeincludesall
roadwayswithinthesurveyarea,RandallBoulevardbeingthemostprevalent.
Appendix B
Representative Photographs
Representativehydricpineflatwoods,disturbed(FLUCFCS6259)
Representativehydricpineflatwoods,disturbed(FLUCFCS6259)
Representativewetlandforestedmixed,disturbed(FLUCFCS6309)
Representativewetlandforestedmixed,disturbed(FLUCFCS6309)
Representativewetlandshrub,disturbed(FLUCFCS6319)thatisslowlytransitioningtowetlandforested
mixed,disturbed(FLUCFCS6309)
Appendix C
Project Area NRCS Soil Type Descriptions
AppendixC.NRCSSoilTypeDescriptions
CͲ1
MALABARFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately17.34%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,verypoorlydrained,slowlypermeablesoilsinsloughs,shallowdepressionsand
alongfloodplains.Thewatertableiswithindepthsof10inchesfor2to6monthsduringmostyearsand
canrecedetoadepthofmorethan40inchesinextendeddryperiods.Nativevegetationconsistsof
scatteredslashpine,cypress,waxmyrtle,cabbagepalmandmaidencane.Indepressions,thevegetation
ispredominantlySt.John’swortormaidencane.
RIVIERA,LIMESTONESUBSTRATUMͲCOPELANDFINESANDASSOCIATION,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES
(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately2.65%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,poorlydrained,veryslowlypermeablesoilsonbroad,lowflats,flatwoodsandin
depressions.Thewatertableiswithin10inchesofthesurfacefor2to4monthsinmostyearsand10to
30inchesdeepmostoftherestoftheyear.Nativevegetationconsistsofslashpine,cabbagepalm,saw
palmetto,scatteredcypressandmaidencane.
IMMOKALEEFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(NonͲhydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately41.09%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,verypoorlyandpoorlydrainedsoilsthatformedinsandymarinesediments.The
watertableiswithin6to18inchesofthesurfacefor1to4monthsduringmostyears,18to36inchesfor
2to10monthsduringmostyears,anditisbelow60inchesduringextendeddryperiods.Nativevegetation
consistsoflongleafandslashpinewithanundergrowthofsawpalmetto,gallberryandwaxmyrtle.In
depressions,watertolerantplantssuchascypress,loblollybay,redmapleandmaidencanearecommon.
PINEDAFINESAND,LIMESTONESUBSTRATUM,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately3.25%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,nearlylevel,poorlydrainedsoilonbroadlowflats,hammocks,sloughs,
depressions,poorlydefineddrainagewaysandfloodplains.Thewatertableiswithindepthsof10inches
for1to6months.Duringtheremainderoftheyear,itistypicallyatadepthof10to40inchesbelowthe
surface.Itmay,however,recedebelow40inchesduringextendeddryperiods.Naturalvegetation
consistsofsouthFloridaslashpine,cypress,waxmyrtle,cabbagepalm,bluemaidencaneandchalky
bluestem.
OLDSMARFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(NonͲhydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately7.89%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,poorlydrainedandverypoorlydrainedsoilsthatformedinsandymarine
sedimentsoverlyingloamymaterials.Thewatertableiswithin0to12inchesofthesurfacefrom1to6
monthsduringmostyears,12to42inchesfortheremainderoftheyear,anditisbelow60inchesduring
extendeddryperiods.Nativevegetationconsistsofcabbagepalm,sawpalmetto,liveoak,slashpine,with
anundergrowthoflaureloakandwaxmyrtle.Indepressionsthetreesarecypress,pondpine,loblolly
bay,redmaple,andsweetbay.
BASINGERFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately18.90%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,verypoorlyandpoorlydrained,rapidlypermeablesoilinlowflats,sloughs,
depressionsandpoorlydefineddrainageways.Thewatertableisatdepthsoflessthan12inchesfor2to
6monthsannuallyandatdepthsof12to30inchesforperiodsofmorethan6monthsinmostyears.
AppendixC.NRCSSoilTypeDescriptions
CͲ2
Depressionsarecoveredwithstandingwaterforperiodsof6to9monthsormoreinmostyears.Native
vegetationconsistsofscatteredslashpine,longleafpine,cypresswithanunderstorydominatedby
gallberry,cabbagepalm,scatteredsawpalmetto,St.John’swort,cutthroatgrassandbluemaidencane.
BOCAFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately4.40%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbymoderatelydeep,poorlydrainedandverypoorlydrainedsoilsthatformedinsandyand
loamymarinesedimentsdepositedoverlimestonebedrock.Bocasoilsareonlowbroadflats,poorly
defineddrainageways,depressions,andadjacenttidalflatsinareasoftheflatwoods.Thewatertableis
withindepthsof12inchesofthesurfacefor4to9monthsduringmostyearsandisinthelimestone
duringdrierseasons.Depressionsarecoveredbystandingwater3to6monthsormoreeachyear.Native
vegetationconsistsofgallberry,sawpalmetto,cabbagepalmsandslashpine.
HOLOPAWͲOKEELANTA,FREQUENTLYPONDED,ASSOCIATION,0TO1PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately0.22%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Holopawsoilsare
describedbyverydeepandverypoorlydrainedsoilthatformedinsandyandloamymarinesediments.
Okeelantasoilisverydeep,verypoorlydrained,rapidlypermeablesoilsinlargefreshwatermarshesand
smalldepressionalareas.HolopawandOkeelantasoilsareonnearlylevellowͲlyingflats,poorlydefined
drainagewaysanddepressionalareas.ThewatertableforHolopawisatdepthsof6to12inchesfor2to
6months,duringtheremainderoftheyear,itistypicallyatadepthof12to40inches.Inundrainedareas
ofOkeelantasoil,thewatertableisatdepthsoflessthan10inchesbelowthesurfaceorthesoiliscovered
bywater6to12monthsduringmostyears.Nativevegetationisscatteredslashandpondpine,cabbage
palmandsawpalmettos,scatteredcypress,waxmyrtle,sandcordgrass,gulfmuhlyandchalkybluestem.
BOCA,RIVIERA,LIMESTONESUBSTRATUM,ANDCOPELANDFINESANDS,DEPRESSIONAL(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately1.14%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Copelandsoilsare
moderatelydeep,verypoorlydrained,moderatelypermeablesoilsindepressionsandflatsinpeninsular
Florida.Bocasoilsaremoderatelydeep,poorlydrainedandverypoorlydrainedsoilsthatformedinsandy
andloamymarinesedimentsdepositedoverlimestonebedrock.Rivierasoilsareverydeep,poorly
drained,veryslowlypermeablesoilsonbroad,lowflats,flatwoodsandindepressions.Thewatertable
forCopelandsoilsisatornearthesurfaceformorethan6monthsduringmostyears.Thissoilissubject
toveryfrequentfloodingforperiodsofonetoabout6months.ThewatertableforBocasoilsiswithin
depthsof12inchesofthesurfacefor4to9monthsduringmostyearsandisinthelimestoneduringdrier
seasons.Thewatertableiswithin10inchesofthesurfacefor2to4monthsinmostyearsand10to30
inchesdeepmostoftherestoftheyear.Nativevegetationconsistsofcabbagepalms,maples,cypress,
gumswithanundergrowthofvines,pinelandthreeawnandferns.Blueflags,rushes,sedges,andliliesare
commonindepressions.
HOLOPAWFINESAND,0TO2PERCENTSLOPES(Hydric)
Thissoiltypecomprisesapproximately2.90%ofthesoilslocatedinthestudyarea.Thissoiltypeis
describedbyverydeep,verypoorlydrainedsoilthatformedinsandyandloamymarinesediments.The
watertableisatdepthsof6to12inchesfor2to6months,duringtheremainderoftheyear,itistypically
atadepthof12to40inches.Nativevegetationisscatteredslashandpondpine,cabbagepalm,saw
palmetto,cypress,waxmyrtle,sandcordgrass,gulfmuhly,chalkybluestem,plumegrass,paspalum,blue
maidencane,andpinelandthreeawn.
Appendix D
Standard Protection Measures for the
Eastern Indigo Snake
STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
August 12, 2013
The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction
personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall
notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as
described below (North Florida Field Office:jaxregs@fws.gov; South Florida Field Office:
verobeach@fws.gov; Panama City Field Office: panamacity@fws.gov). As long as the signatory
of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and
brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the
applicant may move forward with the project.
If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the
approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is
adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the
applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e-
mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or
requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field
Office will fulfill approval requirements.
The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster
Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by
supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated
(see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below).
POSTER INFORMATION
Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction
site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11”
x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached):
DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North
America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the
glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they
have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported
to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will
attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be
handled.
SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern
indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE
if handled.
LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types
throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands
1
and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise
burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps,
roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June,
with young hatching in late July through October.
PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is
classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered
Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm,
harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct.
Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or
imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted.
Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association
with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to
handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so.
IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:
x Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move
away from the site without interference;
x Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status.
x Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes.
x Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent,and the appropriate
USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake.
x If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction
activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a
representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to
when activities may resume.
IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:
x Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated
agent,and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of
the snake.
x Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes.
x Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate
wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake.
Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead
eastern indigo snake is encountered:
North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336
Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552
South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909
2
PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and
throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible
to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached.
2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a
meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of
the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and
applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An
educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff
member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent
to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be
printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of
eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites.
3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead)
is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until
the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the
referenced posters and brochures.
DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether
habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example:
discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing
activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows).
2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow
excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance
which may result in further project consultation.
3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the
project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as
needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is
expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen.
POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring
report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project
completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed
on page one of this Plan.
3
Appendix E
Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) Calculations
AppendixE:PantherHabitatUnitCalculations RandallBlvd./OilWellRoadCorridorStudyrevisedApril29,2019TableFͲ1.ConversionfromFLUCFCSCodestoUSFWSLandCoverTypesFLUCFCSCode DescriptionJurisdictionalStatusAcreage FWSLandCoverType FWSHabitatValue1100,1180,1260,1722,1754ResidentialandCommercialClassifications N 43.66 Urban 0.02110ImprovedPasture N 0.01 ImprovedPasture 5.22140RowCrops N 0.01 Cropland 4.83100,3109Herbaceous(DryPrairie)9,Disturbed N 1.43 DryPrairie 6.33200,3209ShrubandBrushland(9)Disturbed N 8.46 DryPrairie 6.33309MixedRangeland(9)Disturbed N 6.74 DryPrairie 6.34110PineFlatwoods N 6.91 PineForest 9.5422 BrazilianPepper N 2.53 Exotic/NuisancePlants 3.05120,5140WaterClassifications SW 21.62 Water 0.06170MixedWetlandHardwoods Y 0.02 HardwoodSwamp9.26210 Cypress Y 1.23 CypressSwamp 9.26249 CypressͲPineͲCabbagePalm,Disturbed Y 0.68 HardwoodͲPine 9.36250,6259 HydricPineFlatwoods(9)Disturbed Y 1.36 PineForest 9.56309 WetlandForestedMixed,Disturbed Y 0.31 HardwoodSwamp9.26318,6319 WetlandShrub(8)Willow,(9)Disturbed Y 1.40 ShrubSwamp/Brush 5.57400 DisturbedLand N 1.68 Barren/DisturbedLands 3.08140 RoadandmaintainedrightͲofͲway N 39.45 Urban 0.0137.50TableFͲ2.PHUImpactCalculationsFLUCFCSCodes FWSLandCoverTypes PantherZonePreͲDevelopmentAcreage(A)FWSAssignedPHUValue(B)PreͲDevelopmentPHUs(A)(B)PostͲDevelopmentAcreage('C)PostͲDevelopmentPHUs(C)(B)1180 Residential Primary 0.85 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02140RowCrops Primary 0.01 4.8 0.0 0.00 0.03209ShrubandBrushland,Disturbed Primary 0.03 6.3 0.2 0.00 0.03309MixedRangeland,Disturbed Primary 1.08 6.3 6.8 0.00 0.04220 BrazilianPepper Primary 0.53 3.0 1.6 0.00 0.05140Ditches Primary 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.07400DisturbedLand Primary 0.95 3.0 2.9 0.00 0.08140 RoadandmaintainedrightͲofͲwayPrimary 3.06 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06.60 11.48 0.00 0.01100,1180,1260,1722,1754ResidentialandCommercialClassifications Secondary 42.81 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02110 ImprovedPasture Secondary 0.01 5.2 0.1 0.00 0.03100,3109 DryPrairie Secondary 1.43 6.3 9.0 0.00 0.03209,3309ShrubandBrushland;MixedRangeland,Disturbed Secondary 14.09 6.3 88.8 0.00 0.04110PineFlatwoods Secondary 6.91 9.5 65.6 0.00 0.04220 BrazilianPepper Secondary 2.00 3.0 6.0 0.00 0.05120,5140Canals,Ditches Secondary 21.53 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.06170 MixedWetlandHardwoodsSecondary 0.02 9.2 0.2 0.00 0.06210Cypress Secondary 1.23 9.2 11.3 0.00 0.06249 CypressͲPineͲCabbagePalm,DisturbedSecondary 0.68 9.3 6.3 0.00 0.06250,6259HydricPineFlatwoods,Disturbed Secondary 1.36 9.5 12.9 0.00 0.06309 WetlandForestedMixed,DisturbedSecondary 0.31 9.2 2.9 0.00 0.06318,6319 WetlandShrub(8)Willow,(9)DisturbedSecondary 1.40 5.5 7.7 0.00 0.07400 DisturbedLandSecondary 0.73 3.0 2.2 0.00 0.08140 RoadandmaintainedrightͲofͲwaySecondary 36.39 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0130.90 212.96 0.00 0.0PrimaryPantherHabitatImpacts=[PreͲDevelopmentPHUs(11.48)ͲPostͲDevelopmentPHUs(0.0)]X1.98LandscapeMultiplierX1.0(ImpactstoPrimaryZone/MitigationinPrimaryZone)=22.73PHUsrequiredSecondaryPantherHabitatImpacts=[PreͲDevelopmentPHUs(212.96ͲPostͲDevelopmentPHUs(0.0)]X1.98LandscapeMultiplierX0.69(ImpactstoPrimaryZone/MitigationinPrimaryZone)=290.95PHUsrequired313.68 PHUsSubͲTotalPrimaryZoneImpacts:SubͲTotalSecondaryZoneImpacts:TotalEstimatedPantherMitigation(PHUs)required=PreparedbyJohnsonEngineering,Inc.ProjͲfma:20170252/PHUCalcs_RandallPreferredAlternative.xlsx1
Appendix F
UMAM Datasheet
Appendix F: UMAM Analysis and Data Sheets Randall Blvd./Oil Well Road Corridor Study April 29, 2019HabitatType Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Delta Acres UnitsForested 6170 6 0 5 0 5 0 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.02 0.01Forested 6210 6 0 5 0 5 0 0.53 0.00 0.53 1.23 0.66Forested 6249 6 0 5 0 5 0 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.68 0.36Forested 6250 6 0 5 0 5 0 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.02 0.01Forested 6259 6 0 4 0 4 0 0.47 0.00 0.47 1.34 0.63Forested 6309 6 0 5 0 6 0 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.31 0.18Herbaceous 6318 6 0 5 0 5 0 0.53 0.00 0.53 1.29 0.69Herbaceous 6319 6 0 5 0 4 0 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.11 0.06TOTAL 5.00 2.58Overall Score Water Environment Community StructureForested/HerbaceousFunctional Units Lost = Mitigation Required: 1.84 Forested Credits + 0.74 Herbaceous Credits = 2.58 Total of Wetland Credits Needed to Offset Direct Wetland ImpactsLocation & Landscape Support
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
None
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd, Everglades Blvd N, Oil Well Rd Not unique
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas are wetland shrub habitats which have been previously degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential
properties.
Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III
6170 Mixed wetland hardwoods Impact 0.02
Basin/Watershed Name/Number
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.01-0.53
0.53 0.00
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
0.02w/o pres
or with
With - Impactedwith
50
Current - Assessment areas are wetland shrub habitats which have been previously degraded by roadway
ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to adjacent ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
50
with
With - Impacted60
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
Randall Blvd 6170
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
6210 Cypress Impact 1.23
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas are cypress-dominated habitats which have been previously degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential
properties.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd, Everglades Blvd N Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Randall Blvd 6210
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to adjacent ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas are cypress-dominated habitats which have been previously degraded by
roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
With - Impactedwith
50
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
1.23w/o pres
or with
0.53 0.00
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.66-0.53
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
6249 Cypress-pine-cabbage palm, disturbed Impact 0.68
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas characterized by cypress, pine and cabbage palm habitats which have been previously degraded by roadway ditch excavation
and nearby residential properties.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Randall Blvd 6249
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to adjacent ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas characterized by cypress, pine and cabbage palm habitats which have been
previously degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
With - Impactedwith
50
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
0.68w/o pres
or with
0.53 0.00
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.36-0.53
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Assessment areas hydric pine flatwoods habitats which have been previously degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby agriculture.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Oil Well Rd Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
6250 Hydric pine flatwoods Impact 0.02
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.01-0.53
0.02w/o pres
or with
0.53 0.00
With - Impactedwith
50
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
with
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas hydric pine flatwoods habitats which have been previously degraded by
roadway ditch excavation and nearby agriculture.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to adjacent ditching of roadway.
With - Impacted
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
Randall Blvd 6250
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
6259 Hydric pine flatwoods, disturbed Impact 1.34
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas hydric pine flatwoods habitats exhibiting exotic infestations and which have been significantly degraded by canals, roadway
ditch excavation, nearby residential properties and retention ponds.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd, Desoto Blvd N Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story, Caesar weed (Urena lobata) and torpedo grass (Panicum repens ) in
groundcover.
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Randall Blvd 6259
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to adjacent canal and ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
40
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current -
Assessment areas hydric pine flatwoods habitats exhibiting exotic infestations and which have
been significantly degraded by canals, roadway ditch excavation, nearby residential properties
and retention ponds.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
With - Impactedwith
40
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
1.34w/o pres
or with
0.47 0.00
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.63-0.47
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
6309 Wetland forested mixed, disturbed Impact 0.31
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas wetland forested mixed, disturbed habitats which have been degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential
properties.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Randall Blvd 6309
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas wetland forested mixed, disturbed habitats which have been degraded by
roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
With - Impactedwith
60
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
0.31w/o pres
or with
0.57 0.00
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.18-0.57
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
6318 Wetland shrub, predominantly willow Impact 1.29
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
Assessment areas wetland shrub, predominantly willow habitats which have been degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential
properties.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Randall Blvd 6318
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to ditching of roadway.
With - Impactedwith
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas wetland shrub, predominantly willow habitats which have been degraded by
roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
With - Impactedwith
50
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
1.29w/o pres
or with
0.53 0.00
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.68-0.53
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area I.D. / Polygon I.D.
Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size
Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):
Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]
Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):
None.
Additional relevant factors:
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia ) present in mid-story.
GFT 4/25/2019
Roadway corridor; flood attentuation
Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are
representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )
Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal
classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the
Small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians. Listed wading birds
Assessment areas wetland shrub, disturbed habitats which have been degraded by roadway ditch excavation and nearby residential properties.
Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional
Randall Blvd Not unique
Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use
West Collier III None
Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands
Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Assessment area description
6319 Wetland shrub, disturbed Impact 0.11
Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)
PART I – Qualitative Description
(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)
Randall Blvd
FLUCFCS code Further classification (optional)
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
w/o pres or
current
Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]
For impact assessment areas
Functional Loss (FL) = delta x acresDelta = [with-current]
-0.06-0.50
0.11w/o pres
or with
0.50 0.00
With - Impactedwith
40
Score = sum of above scores/30
(if uplands, divide by 20)
Impact Acres
with
50
.500(6)(c) Community structure
Current - Assessment areas wetland shrub, disturbed habitats which have been degraded by roadway ditch
excavation and nearby residential properties.1. Vegetation and/or
2. Benthic Community
with
With - Impacted60
.500(6)(b) Water Environment
(n/a for uplands)
Current - Hydrology reduced due to ditching of roadway.
With - Impacted
The scoring of each indicator is
based on what would be
suitable for the type of wetland
or surface water assessed
Condition is optimal and
fully supports
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is less than
optimal, but sufficient to
maintain most
wetland/surface
waterfunctions
Minimal level of support of
wetland/surface water
functions
Condition is insufficient to
provide wetland/surface
water functions
.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape
Support Current - Connected to roadway with drainage ditches/swales.
Impact GFT 4/25/2019
Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)
Randall Blvd 6319
Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:
PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)
(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)
Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number
Appendix E
Potential Utilities
#0#0#0#0DESOTO BLVDOIL WE
L
L
G
R
A
D
E
R
D
EVERGLADES BLVD16TH ST NE8TH ST NEWILSON BLVDRANDALL BLVDOIL WELL RD47TH AVE NECR 846/IMMOKALEE RD39TH AVE NERed MapleSwampPreserveCorkscrew RegionalEcosystem WatershedWinchesterHeadCampKeaisStrand45678464567858Ave MariBird RookerySwamp and TrailSABAL PALM WWTPNE UTILITIES WWTPNE UTILITIES WWTPBERGER, RONALDFLA POWER & LIGHT COMPANYSMITH, LOUISEGAVIOTA CARE, INC.GARGIULO FARMS SHOPGARGIULO HOUSING AREA 7 NPARADISE FACILITY HOME CAREDIVISON OF FORESTRY WORK SHOPCOLLIER COUNTY EMS STATION #10COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE CENTERNORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL DISTRICTNAPLES HOME CARE SERVICES OF SW FL, CORP.FAKA UNION CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALUNKNOWNCURRY CANALORANGE TREE CANALCYPRESS CANALMILLER CANALGOLDEN GATE MAIN CANALCORKSCREW CANALGOLDEN GATE CANALCORKSCREW CANALCYPRESS CANALCYPRESS CANALCORKSCREW CANALO1,90001,900950 FeetLast Updated:20190408Randall_UtilitiesSource Data: FDOT APLUS 2017, FDOT GIS Roads,Florida Geographic Library, Google Earth, ESRI, Collier County,Growth Management Department of Collier County, Collier County Florida Geographic Information Interactive Mapping, FDEP$SSHQGL[(Utilities MapLegend:Project Study AreaCanalsCollier County ParksFlorida Managed LandsRandall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor StudyContract # 16-6617/Collier County Project # 60065Collier County, FloridaAva MariaTown BoundarySurface WatersCollier County Future Parks#0Waster Water Treatment FacilitiesFlorida Power and Light/Electric SubstationDrinking Water LocationsUtility ParcelsPower Transmission LinesCATV Fiber (CATV)Overhead Electric (OE)Water (WM)Sanitary Force Main or Storm WaterTelephone Fiber (BT)Conduit Underground
Appendix F
Noise Study Technical Memorandum
Draft
RANDALL BOULEVARD & OIL WELL ROAD CORRIDOR
STUDY
NN o i se Stud y T e c h nical Mem o rand um
Prepared fo r March 2 0, 22019
Co l l i e r County Tra ns portatio n P lan ning
Draft
RANDALL BOULEVARD & OIL WELL ROAD CORRIDOR
STUDY
NN o i se Stud y T e c h nical Mem o rand um
Prepared fo r March 20, 2019
C ollier County Transportation Planning
4200 West Cypress Street
Suite 450
Tampa, FL 33607
813.207.7200
esassoc.com
D171224.00
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study i ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1, Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2, Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Noise Metrics .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Traffic Data .............................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................................ 4
2.4 Land Use and Study Process ................................................................................. 5
2.5 Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................... 6
Chapter 3, Noise Contour Results ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 4, References ........................................................................................................... 10
List of Tables
2-1 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) ....................................................................... 4
3-1 Noise Contour Distances .............................................................................................. 8
3-2 Potential Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative .............................................................. 9
List of Figures
1-1 Project Location Map..................................................................................................... 2
List of Appendices
A Traffic Data for Noise Contours
B Typical Sections
C Alternatives with Noise Contours and Potentially Impacted Noise Sensitive Land
Uses
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 1 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Collier County is currently conducting a corridor study to evaluate potential alternatives to
improve the roadway network in the vicinity of Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road. Several
alternatives are being considered to enhance traffic operations and safety conditions, as well as to
meet anticipated travel demand in the surrounding area. The project study area is provided on
Figure 1-1.
This study will evaluate potential improvements to the existing facilities for Randall Boulevard,
Oil Well Road, Desoto Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, and will also consider new
alignment alternatives within the study area.
The purpose of this Noise Study Technical Memorandum (NSTM) is to document the preliminary
traffic noise screening analysis conducted for each of the alternatives under consideration and
anticipate the potential number of traffic noise impacts that may result from each alternative.
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 2 ESA / 171224 Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019 Preliminary Subject to Revision
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 3 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 2
Methodology
Traffic noise studies are prepared in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise1. The
evaluation uses methodology and policy established by the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) and documented in Part 2, Chapter 18 Highway Traffic Noise of the Project
Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual (January 14, 2019)2. Additional guidance was
obtained from the Traffic Noise Modeling and Analysis Practitioners Handbook3.
As also required by 23 CFR Part 772, the prediction of existing and future traffic noise levels
with and without the proposed improvements was performed using the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA’s) computer model for highway traffic noise prediction and abatement
analysis – the Traffic Noise Model (TNM-Version 2.5). The TNM predicts sound energy, in one-
third octave bands, between highways and nearby receivers taking the intervening ground’s
acoustical characteristics/topography and rows of buildings into account.
Since this project is a corridor study, detailed future build traffic noise levels were not predicted
for each noise sensitive land use within the project limits. Rather, noise contours were prepared
for the four and six-lane typical sections that estimate the distance from the edge of the outside
travel lane to where noise impacts are anticipated to occur in the design year (2045) with each
alternative. Additionally, no abatement analysis was performed for any of the noise sensitive land
uses that are identified as potentially impacted in this report. It is anticipated that a detailed traffic
noise study will be conducted once a preferred alternative has been selected for the project.
2.1 Noise Metrics
Noise levels discussed in this report are expressed in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, or
dB(A). This scale most closely approximates the response characteristics of the human ear to
traffic noise. All noise levels are reported as equivalent level (Leq(h)) values, which is the
equivalent steady-state sound level for a one-hour period that contains the same acoustic energy
as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. Use of the Leq(h) metric and dB(A)
as the unit of measurement is specified by 23 CFR 772.
2.2 Traffic Data
Level of Service (LOS) C traffic volumes were modeled for the four and six-lane typical sections.
Vehicle speeds used in the model were based on the proposed posted speed limit of 45 miles per
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 4 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
hour (mph) for both the four and six-lane roadways. The traffic data used in the analysis is
provided in Appendix A.
2.3 Noise Abatement Criteria
To evaluate traffic noise, the FHWA established Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). As shown in
Table 2-1, the criteria vary according to a property’s activity category.
TABLE 2-1
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA (NAC)
Activity
Category
Activity
Leq(h)1 Evaluation
Location Description of Activity Category
FHWA FDOT
A
57
56
Exterior
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B2
67
66
Exterior
Residential
C2 67
66
Exterior
Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds,
cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
D
52
51
Interior
Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities,
places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit
institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and
television studios.
E2
72
71
Exterior
Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands,
properties or activities not included in A-D or F.
F - - -
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial,
logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail
facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical), and warehousing.
G - - - Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
(Based on Table 1 of 23 CFR Part 772)
1 The Leq(h) Activity Criteria values are for impact determination only, and are not design standards for noise abatement measures.
2 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.
Note: FDOT defines that a substantial noise increase occurs when the existing noise level is predicted to be exceeded by 15 decibels or
more as a result of the transportation improvement project. When this occurs, the requirement for abatement consideration will be
followed.
Consistent with the FDOT’s traffic noise policy contained in Part 2, Chapter 18 of the PD&E
Manual, a traffic noise impact occurs when either of the following conditions are met:
x When predicted design year, future build traffic noise levels “approach” or exceed the
NAC for a given Activity Category listed in Table 2-1. The FDOT defines the term
‘approach” to mean within one dB(A) of the NAC (i.e., one dB(A) less than the NAC).
x When predicted design year, future build noise levels increase substantially from existing
levels. A substantial increase is defined as an increase of 15 dB(A) or more above
existing noise levels as a direct result of a transportation improvement project.
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 5 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
As previously discussed, detailed traffic noise level predictions for the future build condition
were not made for individual noise sensitive land uses adjacent to the proposed alternatives. The
purpose of this study is to prepare noise contours for the four and six-lane typical sections that
estimate the distance from the roadway where traffic noise impacts may potentially occur in the
design year (2045) with the four alternatives currently under consideration.
2.4 Land Use and Study Process
A review of the study areas was conducted in February 2019. The current dominant land use in
the area is residential, and it is anticipated that this use will continue in the future. Additional
noise sensitive land uses include a recreational use (golf course at Valencia Golf and Country
Club) located on the north side of Randall Boulevard, and a place of worship (Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in the northwest corner of Randall and Everglades Boulevards.
Based on the noise sensitive land uses identified in the project area, noise contours were prepared
to estimate the distance to an approach (within one dB(A) of the NAC, or 65 dB(A)) for Activity
Category B (residential) and Activity Category C (recreation) land uses. Since the place of
worship does not have a frequent exterior use area (playground, etc.), it was evaluated as Activity
Category D of the NAC, which considers interior traffic noise levels. As the building is of
masonry construction, a reduction of 25 dB(A) can be expected, consistent with guidance found
in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) document Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and
Abatement Guidance4. As such, a 76 dB(A) noise contour was prepared to evaluate the potential
for traffic noise impacts at this location (i.e., 51 dB(A) is an approach of the NAC for Activity
Category D, plus the anticipated building reduction factor of 25 dB(A)).
Once the distances to an approach for each Activity Category was determined using the TNM for
both the four and six-lane typical sections, they were plotted on aerial mapping with each of the
four proposed alternatives, and the number of residences “inside” the contour are counted (i.e.,
considered impacted) if the noise contour line, at a minimum, reaches the edge of the residential
structure for category B land uses, any portion of the usable area of a recreational facility, or the
edge of the building structure for the place of worship nearest the roadway. The counts estimate
the number of potential traffic noise impacts that may result from each of the proposed
alternatives under consideration.
As discussed above, a traffic noise impact can also occur if predicted future build, design year
traffic noise levels increase 15 dB(A) or more when compared to existing levels as a direct result
of a transportation improvement project.
Since increases of this magnitude typically only occur adjacent to new roadway alignments where
no roadway previously existed, existing traffic noise levels were predicted using the TNM at four
locations between Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road, west of Everglades Boulevard. The four
locations are adjacent to the proposed alignment for the connector roadway linking Randall
Boulevard and Oil Well Road that is proposed as part of Alternative 1 (descriptions of each
alternative are provided in the following section). The existing noise levels are based on the LOS
C traffic data that was provided and consider the sound level contributions from Randall
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 6 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
Boulevard, Oil Well Road, and Everglades Boulevard. The noise levels predicted at the four
locations were averaged, resulting in a level of 46.025 dB(A). As such, 46.0 dB(A) was used to
represent the existing condition in the area, and an additional noise contour was prepared to
estimate the distance to 61 dB(A) which would be considered a substantial increase of at least 15
dB(A). That contour distance was calculated to be 214 feet from the edge of the outside travel
lane, and was rounded up to 215 feet to be conservative.
The following assumptions apply to the noise contour analysis presented in this report:
x Noise contour distances are estimates to be used for planning purposes only.
x Noise contour distances do not account for any reduction in noise levels that may occur as a
result of shielding, either from existing privacy walls/earth berms, or from other structures.
x Noise contour distances do not consider topography. A default ground type of “lawn” was
used in the TNM.
x Noise contour distances are not an indication of the reasonableness and feasibility of
providing noise abatement at potentially impacted locations.
x The estimated number of potential traffic noise impacts presented in this report assumes that
none of the noise sensitive land uses will be acquired to accommodate the right-of-way
(ROW) necessary to construct any of the proposed alternatives.
x A detailed traffic noise study for the preferred alternative may result in more, or less traffic
noise impacts than what is documented in this report.
2.5 Alternatives Considered
Four alternatives are being considered as part of this corridor study. A description of each is
provided below. The four and six-lane typical sections are provided in Appendix B.
x Alternative 1 – New Alignment: Alternative 1 includes a new alignment roadway
connecting Randall Blvd to Oil Well Road. Traffic would be able to bypass the existing
north-south connections of Everglades Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard, thus allowing
potential roundabouts at those connections with Randall Boulevard.
x Alternative 2 – Six-Lane Randall Boulevard Plus Four-Lane Everglades Boulevard:
Since Oil Well Road is constrained to four lanes near Immokalee Road, traffic would
have the option to use Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard as a bypass. This
increase in traffic demand could be met with widening Randall Boulevard to six lanes
and Everglades Boulevard to four lanes in the study area. Roundabouts are not likely to
be included with this alternative.
x Alternative 3 – Six-Lane Randall Boulevard Plus Four-Lane Everglades Boulevard
and Four-Lane Desoto Boulevard: Since Oil Well Road is constrained to four lanes
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 7 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
near Immokalee Road, traffic would have the option to use Randall Boulevard and
Everglades Boulevard and Desoto Boulevard as a bypass. This increase in traffic demand
could be met with widening Randall Boulevard to six lanes, Everglades Boulevard to four
lanes, and Desoto Boulevard to four lanes in the study area. Roundabouts are not likely to
be included with this alternative.
x Alternative 4 – Six-Lane Randall Boulevard Plus Six-Lane Everglades Boulevard:
Since Oil Well Road is constrained to 4 lanes near Immokalee Road, traffic would have
the option to use Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard as a bypass. This increase
in traffic demand could be met with widening Randall Boulevard to six lanes and
Everglades Boulevard to six lanes in the study area. Roundabouts are not likely to be
included with this alternative.
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 8 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 3
Noise Contour Results
Table 3-1 provides the predicted distances to an approach of the NAC for Activity Category B
and C land uses for each of the roadways included in this alternatives analysis. That distance is
100 feet from the edge of the outside travel lane for the four-lane roadways and 140 feet (rounded
up from the modeled distance of 137 feet in order to be conservative) for six-lane roadways.
Based on the results of the analysis, the noise contour for Activity Category D land uses will not
extend outside the ROW for either the four or six-lane typical sections. As such, no impacts to the
single Activity Category D land use (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) are anticipated
with any of the alternatives under consideration.
TABLE 3-1
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES1
Impact Category Four-Lane Typical
Section Six-Lane Typical Section
Approach of 67 dB(A) for
Category B and C2 100 feet 140 feet 3
Substantial Increase4 215 feet NA
NOTES:
1 Distances are measured from the outside edge of the nearest travel lane, do not account for any
reduction in noise levels due to shielding, and are to be used for planning purposes only.
2 As discussed in the paragraph above, the noise contour for Activity Category D is not predicted to
extend outside the ROW for either the four or six-lane typical sections.
3 Actual contour distance predicted to be 137 feet, and was rounded up to 140 feet to
be conservative.
4 Calculated only for the 4-lane new alignment typical section as part of Alternative 1.
Please see Section 2.4 for additional information.
SOURCE: ESA, 2019.
Table 3-2 contains the anticipated number of traffic noise impacts for Activity Category B and C
land uses, for each of the four alternatives under consideration. The exhibits in Appendix C
depict the noise contours and the anticipated impacts from each alternative.
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 9 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
TABLE 3-2
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Activity Category B
(Residential)
Activity Category C
(Recreation)
Activity Category D
(Place of Worship –
Interior)
Total Potential
Impacts by
Alternative
Alternative 1 83 11 0 84
Alternative 2 141 11 0 142
Alternative 3 145 11 0 146
Alternative 4 157 11 0 158
NOTES:
1 Includes portions of three golf course holes at Valencia Golf and Country Club on the north side of Randall Boulevard (the entire golf
course is considered one noise sensitive land use).
SOURCE: ESA, 2019.
As shown in Table 3-2, the number of potential traffic noise impacts to recreational facilities is
the same for all alternatives, in that portions of three golf course holes at the Valencia Golf and
Country Club may be impacted (the entire golf course is considered a single noise sensitive land
use). As also shown, the number of potentially impacted residences varies with each alternative,
ranging from 83 under Alternative 1 to up to 157 with Alternative 3. The difference in the
number of potentially impacted residences is directly attributable to the different typical sections
(four-lane vs. six-lane) for each of the roadways with each alternative. As previously mentioned,
no impacts to the single Activity Category D land use are anticipated with any of the four
alternatives evaluated.
Randall Boulevard & Oil Well Road Corridor Study 10 ESA / 171224
Draft Noise Study Technical Memorandum March 2019
Preliminary Subject to Revision
CHAPTER 4
References
1. 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772: “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise and Construction Noise.” Federal Highway Administration; July 13, 2010.
2. Florida Department of Transportation Project Development and Environment Manual, Part 2,
Chapter 18 “Highway Traffic Noise”. January 14, 2019.
3. Florida Department of Transportation “Traffic Noise Modeling and Analysis
Practitioners Handbook.” January 1, 2016.
4. Federal Highway Administration; “Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement
Guidance.” December 2011.
APPENDIX A
7UDIILF'DWDIRU1RLVH&RQWRXUV
Prepared By:Colleen Ross - JacobsDate:1/0/1900Approved for Use By: Date:Federal Aid Number(s):Section Number:0FPID Number(s):Mile Post To/From:0State/Federal Route No.:Road Name:Project Description:Segment Description:Note: Data sheets are to be completed for each segment having a change in traffic parameters (i.e., volume posted speed, typical section)Year:2019Year:2045Year:2045Posted Speed:45Posted Speed:45Posted Speed:45Number of Travel Lanes:2Number of Travel Lanes:2Number of Travel Lanes:4AutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalNumber of Vehicles639FDOT TRAFFIC DATA FOR NOISE STUDIES - DETAILED OUTPUTVehicle TypePeak or Off-Peak DirectionDemand Peak Hour/LOS CPeak DirectionOff-Peak DirectionPeak DirectionOff-Peak DirectionDemand Peak HourLOS CExisting No Build (Design Year) Build (Design Year)Number of Vehicles0000Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study4-Lane Facility-3111111111-316133639193163961331931193193161336396133111111111-3621566Number of Vehicles621566150381-311111See Columns to Right > for Which Volumes To Use (Demand or LOS C) Use Demand Volumes Use Demand Volumes Use Demand Volumes47-3111111503847-31
Prepared By:Colleen Ross - JacobsDate:2/28/2019Approved for Use By: Date:Federal Aid Number(s):Section Number:0FPID Number(s):Mile Post To/From:0State/Federal Route No.:Road Name:Project Description:Segment Description:Note: Data sheets are to be completed for each segment having a change in traffic parameters (i.e., volume posted speed, typical section)Year:2019Year:2045Year:2045Posted Speed:45Posted Speed:45Posted Speed:45Number of Travel Lanes:2Number of Travel Lanes:2Number of Travel Lanes:6AutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalAutosMed TrucksHeavy TrucksBusesMotorcyclesTotalSee Columns to Right > for Which Volumes To Use (Demand or LOS C) Use Demand Volumes Use Demand Volumes Use Demand Volumes72-31111123071272-311022403Number of Vehicles10224032307121-3111111111-3111116133639613319319311613363919316396133193111111-3-311110000Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study6-Lane FacilityNumber of Vehicles639FDOT TRAFFIC DATA FOR NOISE STUDIES - DETAILED OUTPUTVehicle TypePeak or Off-Peak DirectionDemand Peak Hour/LOS CPeak DirectionOff-Peak DirectionPeak DirectionOff-Peak DirectionDemand Peak HourLOS CExisting No Build (Design Year) Build (Design Year)Number of Vehicles
APPENDIX B
7\SLFDO6HFWLRQV
APPENDIX C
$OWHUQDWLYHVZLWK1RLVH&RQWRXUVDQG3RWHQWLDOO\,PSDFWHG1RLVH6HQVLWLYH/DQG8VHV
ALTERNATIVE 1
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 1 Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 1 of 3!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.Begin Alternative 1End Alternative 1Randall BlvdRandall BlvdRandall BlvdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourNew Alignment Noise Contour
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendCollier CountyBegin Alternative 1End Alternative 1Alternative 1 Noise ContoursSheet 2 of 3Oil Well RdOil Well RdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourNew Alignment Noise Contour
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
.0 750 1,500FeetLegendCollier CountyEnd Alternative 1Alternative 1 Noise ContoursSheet 3 of 3Randall BlvdRandall Blvd!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourNew Alignment Noise Contour
ALTERNATIVE 2
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 2Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 1 of 3!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.Begin Alternative 2Randall BlvdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourRandall Blvd
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 2 Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 2 of 3Begin Alternative 2Oil Well RdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourOil Well RdEnd Alternative 2
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
.0 750 1,500FeetLegendCollier CountyAlternative 2Noise ContoursSheet 3 of 3Randall BlvdEverglades Blvd!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise Contour
ALTERNATIVE 3
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 3 Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 1 of 3!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.Begin Alternative 3Randall BlvdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourRandall Blvd
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 3 Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 2 of 3!.!.Begin Alternative 3Oil Well RdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourOil Well RdEnd Alternative 3
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
.0 750 1,500FeetLegendCollier CountyAlternative 3Noise ContoursSheet 3 of 3Randall BlvdEverglades Blvd!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise Contour
ALTERNATIVE 4
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 4Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 1 of 3!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.Begin Alternative 4Randall BlvdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourRandall Blvd
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!..0 750 1,500FeetLegendAlternative 4Noise ContoursCollier CountySheet 2 of 3Begin Alternative 4Oil Well RdMatch Line
Match Line!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise ContourOil Well RdEnd Alternative 4
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
.0 750 1,500FeetLegendCollier CountyAlternative 4Noise ContoursSheet 3 of 3Randall BlvdEverglades Blvd!.Potential Residential Impacts!.Potential Recreational Impacts4-Lane Noise Contour6-Lane Noise Contour
Appendix G
Viable Alternative Costs
ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚĂŶĚKŝůtĞůůZĚŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ^ƚƵĚLJŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞͲZ&dsŝĂďůĞůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ ^ĞŐŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ WƌŽũĞĐƚhŶŬŶŽǁŶƐ ^ƵƌǀĞLJͲĞƐŝŐŶͲ / ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůDŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ZŝŐŚƚŽĨtĂLJ WƌŽũĞĐƚŽƐƚϭtŝĚĞŶϱŵŝůĞƐŽĨZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ;ϲͬϰͲůĂŶĞͿǁŝƚŚŶĞǁϭŵŝůĞΗ^ΗŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌ;ϰͲůĂŶĞͿнϭннϭн&ϭн'ϱϲ͕ϲϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϰ͕ϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϰ͕ϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϱ͕ϳϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϲ͕ϵϱϴ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϵϳ͕ϳϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨϮtŝĚĞŶϱŵŝůĞƐŽĨZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ;ϲͬϰͲůĂŶĞͿĂŶĚǁŝĚĞŶϭŵŝůĞŽĨ ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ;ϰͲůĂŶĞͿнϮнн Ϯн&н'ϰϳ͕ϴϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϰ͕ϴϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϰ͕ϭϳϵ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϴϬ͕ϴϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨEŽƚĞƐ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚhŶŬŶŽǁŶƐсϮϱй^ƵƌǀĞLJͲĞƐŝŐŶͲ /сϮϱй ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůDŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶсϭϬй^ĞŐŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƌĞĚĂƌĞzKd, Z^ĂŶĚŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƐZKtĐŽƐƚĂƐƐƵŵĞƐΨϳϬ͕ϬϬϬƉĞƌĐƌĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚdŽƚĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽƐƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ZKt͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵƚĚŽŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƵƚŝůŝƚLJƌĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕&ůŽƌŝĚĂWĂŶƚŚĞƌŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶŚĂďŝƚĂƚĐƌĞĚŝƚ͕ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƉĞƌŵŝƚĨĞĞƐ͕ĚƵŵƉĨĞĞƐ͕ŽƌĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůŽĨĐŽŶƚĂŵŝŶĂƚĞĚƐŽŝůƐ͘EŽŝƐĞďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ͘WƌŽũĞĐƚŽƐƚϰͬϮϰͬϮϬϭϵ
ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚĂŶĚKŝůtĞůůZĚŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ^ƚƵĚLJŽƐƚ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞͲZ&dZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚĂŶĚKŝůtĞůůZĚŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ^ƚƵĚLJŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ͕&>Ɖƌŝůϭ͕ϮϬϭϵ>ŽŶŐZĂŶŐĞ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞŽĨ^ĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ^ĞŐŵĞŶƚ ůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŽ>ĞŶŐƚŚ;ŵŝͿ /ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ŽƐƚƉĞƌŵŝůĞ ZŽĂĚǁĂLJŽƐƚ ƌŝĚŐĞƐ ŽƐƚƉĞƌďƌŝĚŐĞ ƌŝĚŐĞŽƐƚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽƐƚ ZĞŵĂƌŬƐ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ ϴƚŚ^ƚ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ůĂĚĞƐĂŶĂů ϭ͘ϴ ϮƚŽϲtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϴ͕Ϯϭϱ͕ϯϳϴΨ ϭϰ͕ϴϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϲ͕ϳϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϴϭ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ůĂĚĞƐĂŶĂů ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ ϭ ϮƚŽϰtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϳ͕ϰϰϴ͕ϱϰϰΨ ϳ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϵ͕ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϱϮ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ůĂĚĞƐĂŶĂů ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ ϭ ϮƚŽϲtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϴ͕Ϯϭϱ͕ϯϳϴΨ ϴ͕ϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϬ͕ϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϴ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ ĞƐŽƚŽZĚ Ϯ ϮƚŽϰtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϳ͕ϰϰϴ͕ϱϰϰΨ ϭϰ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϲ͕ϰϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϱϭ ^ͲĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŽƌ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ KŝůtĞůůZĚ ϭ͘ϭ EĞǁϰͲ>ĂŶĞ ϳ͕ϰϰϴ͕ϱϰϰΨ ϴ͕ϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ Ϯ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭϭ͕ϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϱ Ϯ ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ ZĂŶĚĂůůůǀĚ KŝůtĞůůZĚ Ϭ͘ϲ ϮƚŽϰtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϳ͕ϰϰϴ͕ϱϰϰΨ ϰ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ͲΨ ϰ͕ϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϱ&ϭ KŝůtĞůůZĚ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ůĂĚĞƐĂŶĂů ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ Ϭ͘ϳ ϰƚŽϲtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϰ͕ϲϴϯ͕ϰϱϰΨ ϯ͕ϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ͲΨ ϯ͕ϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϮϮ'ͲďLJŽƚŚĞƌƐ KŝůtĞůůZĚ ǀĞƌŐůĂĚĞƐůǀĚ KŝůtĞůů'ƌĂĚĞZĚ ϯ͘ϵ ϮƚŽϲtŝĚĞŶŝŶŐ ϴ͕Ϯϭϱ͕ϯϳϴΨ ϯϮ͕ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ Ϯ ϭ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯ͕ϴϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ ϯϱ͕ϵϬϬ͕ϬϬϬΨ hϬϴEŽƚĞƐ͗ŽƐƚƉĞƌŵŝůĞĨƌŽŵ&Kd>Z ŵŽĚĞůƐŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨĚŽƚ͘ŐŽǀͬƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚͬ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐͬ>Z ͬŽƐƚWĞƌDŝůĞDŽĚĞůƐͬWD^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ͘ƐŚƚŵŽƐƚƉĞƌďƌŝĚŐĞсďƌŝĚŐĞǁŝĚƚŚΎϭϮϱΖďƌŝĚŐĞůĞŶŐƚŚΎΨϭϮϱͬƐĨ^ĞŐŵĞŶƚŽƐƚƐĂƌĞŵƵƚƵĂůůLJĞdžĐůƵƐŝǀĞͲ^ĞĞůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞŽƐƚĨŽƌƌĞƐƵůƚƐ^ĞŐŵĞŶƚŽƐƚϰͬϮϰͬϮϬϭϵ