EXHIBIT_C-_WBP_Seg_1_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

Florida Department of Transportation District Three

West Bay Parkway (CR 388), Segment 1

Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from SR 30 (US 98) to SR 79

Walton and Bay Counties, Florida

November 2019

FPID: 424464-1 and 424464-2 Federal Aid Project No: N/A ETDM Project No.: 11680

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated

December 14, 2016, and executed by FHWA and FDOT.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report i West Bay Parkway, Segment 1 424464‐1‐22‐01 & 424464‐2‐22‐01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.3. Commitments ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4. Description of Recommended Alternative .......................................................................................... 1-3

Section 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1. Existing Roadway Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1. Typical Section ............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2. Right of Way (ROW) ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.3. Roadway Classification ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.4. Vertical and Horizontal Alignment .............................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.6. Transit Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.7. Stormwater Management ............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.1.8. Crash Data .................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.9. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.10. Design and Posted Speed ........................................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.11. Traffic Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 2-6

2.1.12. Intersections and Signalization ................................................................................................... 2-9

2.2. Existing Structure Conditions .............................................................................................................. 2-9

2.3. Existing Environmental Conditions ................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.1. Natural Environment and Existing Land Use ............................................................................. 2-10

2.3.2. Wetlands and Surface Waters ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.3. Wildlife and Habitat ................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.4. Soils and Seasonal High Groundwater ....................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.5. Contamination Screening Evaluation ......................................................................................... 2-12

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report ii West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.3.6. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey ....................................................................................... 2-12

Section 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. Population Growth ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2. Traffic Demand ................................................................................................................................... 3-2

Section 4 DESIGN CONTROLS AND CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1. Design Controls ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2. Design Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2

Section 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1. Alternatives Development ................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1. No-Build Alternative .................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2. TSM&O Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.3. Build Alternatives......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.4. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ...................................................................................... 5-6

5.2. Alternatives Analysis and Evaluation .................................................................................................. 5-9

5.2.1. Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5-11

5.2.2. Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 5-11

5.2.3. Alternatives Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 5-12

5.2.4. Alternatives Comparative Evaluation ......................................................................................... 5-22

Section 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & PROJECT COORDINATION ....................................................... 6-1

6.1. Agency Coordination and Consultation ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.2. Local Government, Non-Governmental, and Public Coordination ..................................................... 6-3

6.2.1. Non-Governmental Agency Coordination.................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2. Public Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3. Public Hearing ..................................................................................................................................... 6-4

Section 7 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................ 7-1

7.1. Alignment ............................................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.1. Typical Section ............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1.2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 7-1

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report iii West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

7.1.3. Right of Way (ROW) ................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.4. Access Management ..................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.5. Design Traffic .............................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.1.6. Variations and Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 7-2

7.1.7. Stormwater Management Facilities .............................................................................................. 7-2

7.1.8. Structures ...................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.9. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.10. Intersection Concepts ................................................................................................................. 7-3

7.1.11. Aesthetics and Landscaping ....................................................................................................... 7-3

7.1.12. Special Features .......................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.1.13. Preliminary Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 7-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map - West Bay Parkway, Segment 1 .................................................................. 1-2

Figure 2-1 Functional Classification .................................................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2 FEMA Floodplain Map .................................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-3 Project Study Area and Existing Roadway Network ....................................................................... 2-7

Figure 2-4 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 2-10

Figure 3-1 Bay Walton Sector Plan Land Uses ................................................................................................. 3-2

Figure 3-2 Existing and Future Years AADTs and LOS ................................................................................... 3-3

Figure 5-1 Conservation Areas within and adjacent to the Study Area ............................................................. 5-7

Figure 5-2 Viable Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 5-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 WBP Segment 1 Existing Utilities ................................................................................................. 2-5

Table 2-2 Existing Roadway Characteristics .................................................................................................. 2-8

Table 2-3 Existing Bridge Conditions ............................................................................................................ 2-9

Table 4-1 Geometric Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 4-2

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report iv West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Table 5-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the No-Build Alternative ......................................................... 5-1

Table 5-2 Alternative Involvement with Conservation Units ......................................................................... 5-8

Table 5-3 Purpose and Need Evaluation Category Matrix ........................................................................... 5-14

Table 5-4 Social Environment Evaluation Subcategory Matrix ................................................................... 5-16

Table 5-5 Natural Environment Matrix Subcategory Evaluation ................................................................. 5-18

Table 5-6 Physical Environment Evaluation Subcategory Matrix ................................................................ 5-20

Table 5-7 Engineering Evaluation Category Matrix ..................................................................................... 5-21

Table 5-8 Alternatives Comparative Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................... 5-23

Table 7-1 Estimated Costs (in million dollars) by Build Alternative ............................................................. 7-3

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

LIST OF APPENDICES

Build Alternatives (Concept Plans)

Recommended Alternative (Concept Plans)

Typical Section Package

Design Variation Package

Cost Estimates

Utility Impact Assessment Report

Section 1

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 1‐1 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Section 1 PROJECT SUMMARY

1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The West Bay Parkway (WBP) is a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regional transportation improvement that is being studied in three segments. Segment 1, which extends from SR 30 (US 98) in Walton

County to SR 79 in Bay County, is being addressed in this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the

Environmental Assessment (EA). Segment 2, which has had the proposed improvements documented in a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and is in the design phase, will widen existing SR 388 between SR

79 and SR 77 to four lanes and improve the intersections of SR 388 at SR 79 and SR 77. The proposed improvements for Segment 3 of the West Bay Parkway, which are being evaluated in an Alternative Corridor

Evaluation study, are expected to provide a four-lane highway from SR 77 to US 231 through a combination of roadway on new alignment and widening existing SR 388.

The proposed action is the provision of a new, ultimately four-lane, divided suburban roadway, between 11.5 and 19.5 miles in length, depending on the alternative selected, that would connect SR 30 (US 98) in Walton

County with SR 79 in Bay County near the realigned intersection of SR 79 and SR 388 in Bay County (Figure

1-1). The proposed improvement consists of a high speed suburban roadway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, 36-foot curbed median, 6.5-foot inside paved shoulders, and 10-foot outside flush shoulders with

7-foot buffered bicycle lanes. In addition, there will be a 6-foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway and a 12-foot shared use path on the other side. The entire typical section would be located within a 200-foot right-of-way consistent with the Regional General Permit for the Bay Walton Sector Plan which encompasses most of the study area. All alternatives under consideration would require a new high-level crossing of the Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), a navigable waterway which traverses the study area and connects

Choctawhatchee Bay in Walton County with West Bay in Bay County.

1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED

The primary purpose of the proposed WBP Segment 1 is to provide improved access to the Northwest Florida

Beaches International Airport (NWFBIA) for travelers from the coastal areas of Walton County by connecting

SR 30 (US 98) to SR 79 at or near SR 388 in Bay County. Secondary purposes are to provide an alternative evacuation route for residents of coastal Walton County, who are limited to SR 83 (US 331) across

Choctawhatchee Bay, the only northbound route from coastal Walton County and to avoid adding to future congestion on SR 30/SR 30A (US 98) by diverting through traffic around Panama City Beach and Panama City, Florida.

The proposed transportation improvement has been identified in response to the need to improve access to intermodal and freight activity centers, especially the NWFBIA. The NWFBIA, which opened in 2010, relocated the previous Panama City Bay County Airport, affecting traffic patterns in Panama City and Bay and Walton

Counties and creating a need for improved access in the southeast Walton County and northwest Bay County region.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 1‐2 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Secondary needs that would benefit from the project include: providing an alternate evacuation route for south

Walton County, which currently has only one northbound evacuation route; improving regional connectivity, especially the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS); providing for future traffic demand; providing for congestion relief, particularly at the intersection of SR 30 (US 98) and SR 79; providing for an efficient detour route, drastically reducing detour times if existing network roads were closed; providing for planned population and employment growth; improving the safety and reducing crashes along existing roadways; and improving the availability and connectivity of multimodal options for the area.

Figure 1‐1 Project Location Map ‐ West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 1‐3 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

1.3. COMMITMENTS

For a list of project commitments, please refer to Section 5 of the EA. These commitments are in addition to measures that will be implemented as part of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT’s) Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

1.4. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

Based on the analysis conducted to date, Alternative 10 performs best overall and will be presented to the public as the recommended alternative. Alternative 10 begins at SR 30/30A (US 98) in Walton County, approximately

1.5 miles northwest of Breakers Street, and proceeds northeast for approximately 1.5 miles to a proposed new bridge crossing over the GICW. The GICW crossing is approximately half a mile in length in the same northeastern direction. From this point, Alternative 10 continues northeasterly for 2 miles before slightly bending northerly for 2.5 miles. Alternative 10 then bends east and runs parallel to Steel Field Road for 1.75 miles just three-quarters of a mile to the south of Steel Field Road’s existing right-of-way. Alternative 10 then bends southeast for 2 miles before bending eastward for .75 miles and then continues its southeast trajectory for

1 mile. Alternative 10 then bends east and continues for .5 miles where it terminates on SR 79, approximately

1.25 miles north of the SR 388 and SR 79 intersection. The total length of Alternative 10 is approximately 11.9 miles and total acreage of ROW is 303.0 acres.

The recommended typical section for this project has been designed to match the proposed SR 388 (WBP

Segment 2) project, a high-speed suburban controlled access arterial; except, the proposed facility will be located within 200 feet of right-of-way as required by the Regional General Permit (RGP)/Ecosystem Management

Agreement (EMA) III. The proposed typical section utilizes a 60-mph design speed and includes a 36-foot raised median, two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, 6.5-foot inside shoulders, 10-foot outside shoulders (7-foot paved for buffered bicycle lanes), a 6-foot sidewalk along the north side of the road, and a 12-foot shared use path along the south side of the road.

The recommended alternative and typical section are shown on the Concept Plans in Appendix B. It should be noted that the recommended alternative is not finalized, and may be subject to change, until the Lead Agency has reviewed the public and agency comments on the recommendation.

Section 2

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐1 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Section 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The following sections document the inventory of existing roadway elements, structural elements, and environmental features within the study area.

2.1. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS

2.1.1. Typical Section

Since WBP Segment 1 is a new alignment roadway, no existing typical section can be improved. However, there is one typical section within the project limits that has the potential to be affected by the new roadway. Steel

Field Road is an existing 2-lane county road within the study area limits that intersects with SR 79 approximately

2.25 miles north of the SR 388 at SR 79 intersection. Steel Field Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and an existing typical section that consists of two 10-feet wide travel lanes, unpaved shoulders, and roadside ditches within a 66-feet to 80-feet right-of-way width.

2.1.2. Right of Way (ROW)

The existing ROW to be investigated for WBP Segment 1 is limited to where the new alignment will begin at

SR 30 (US 98), crosses the GICW, nears Steel Field Road, and ends at SR 79. The ROW along SR 30 (US 98) is approximately 250-feet wide; along SR 79 varies between 220-feet to 280-feet wide in the rural sections and

130-feet to 176-feet in the urban sections; along the GICW is approximately 3,000-feet wide; and along Steel

Field Road varies between 66-feet and 80-feet.

2.1.3. Roadway Classification

The functional classification of a roadway describes the character of service that the road provides in relation to the total road network. The following is a brief description of the functional classification of the existing transportation system within the study area. The three primary classifications that make up the major road network are as described below and included in Figure 2-1.

1) Principal Arterials: An urban principal arterial carries most of the long trips made within and through an urban area and between urban areas. There are two principal arterials (SR 30 and SR 77) and one minor arterial (SR 79) whose traffic patterns are important to the study area.

2) Minor Arterials: Minor arterials connect collector roadways to the principal arterial and emphasize both traffic movement and land access. They carry a combination of short and long trips, carrying less traffic than principal arterials, but more than collectors. SR 388 itself is classified by FDOT as a rural minor arterial, functioning primarily for east-west travel between SR 79 and SR 77, but also for access to private land.

3) Collectors: Collector facilities interconnect the local roadways to the minor arterial and generally carry shorter trips, primarily serving land access. Steel Field Road is a collector within the traffic study area.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐2 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Figure 2‐1 Functional Classification

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐3 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.1.4. Vertical and Horizontal Alignment

At the western and eastern termini of WBP Segment 1, the terrain is flat with minimal vertical curvature, except for the crest vertical curve on SR 79 at the B.V. Buchanan Bridge over the GICW.

At the western terminus of WBP Segment 1, the existing SR 30 (US 98) roadway is in a straight tangent and contains no horizontal curves. At the eastern terminus of WBP Segment 1, the existing SR 79 roadway is predominantly in a straight tangent, except the section near Steel Field Road, which contains one horizontal curve. Additionally, there are two horizontal curves along Steel Field Road just west of SR 79 that could be impacted by the project.

2.1.5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Since WBP Segment 1 is a new alignment roadway, there are no existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

However, there are existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along SR 30 (US 98) and SR 79.

At the beginning of WBP Segment 1, there are no sidewalks along SR 30 (US 98), but there are 5-foot paved shoulders with bicycle lane keyholes at most right turn lanes.

At the end of WBP Segment 1, there are 6-foot sidewalks and 4-foot bicycle lanes along the urban sections of

SR 79 and 5-foot paved shoulders with bicycle lane keyholes at most right turn lanes along the rural sections.

2.1.6. Transit Facilities

There is no transit service is available within the project area.

2.1.7. Stormwater Management

The dominant water feature in the WBP Segment 1 study area is the GICW. The existing drainage patterns of the areas bordering the GICW are generally towards the GICW. The northwest corner of the study area above the GICW drains towards the northwest and Devil’s Swamp; the southernmost part of the study area below the

GICW drains toward Lake Powell; and the southwestern part of the study area below the GICW drains toward

SR 79 and West Bay.

The study area encompasses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplains. The floodplains are a mix of Zones X, AE, A, and IN. Flood Zone “A” is classified as an “area of the 100-year flood where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors are not determined”. Areas identified as Zone “AE” are

“areas of the 100-year floodplain where the base flood elevation is determined”. These areas are displayed on

Figure 2-2.

There are no regulatory floodways within the limits of this project. A regulatory floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐4 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Figure 2‐2 FEMA Floodplain Map

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐5 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.1.8. Crash Data

There is no crash data available for WBP Segment 1 because it is a new alignment roadway. However, existing crash data for SR 30 (US 98) and SR 79 within the limits of the study corridor was analyzed.

Crash data for SR 30 (US 98) and SR 79 was collected from the FDOT Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) for the period from 2011 through 2015 (most recent data year). There were a total of 36 crashes reported on SR

79 and 34 crashes reported on SR 30 (US 98) during this period.

The crashes on SR 79 consisted of 4 rear-end collisions, 7 angle collisions, 9 overturn/rollovers, and 16 other/unknown and resulted in 33 injuries and 0 fatalities. There were 12 crashes near the intersection of SR 79 and CR 388 (one involving a pedestrian/bicyclist) and 1 crash near the intersection of SR 79 and Steel Field

Road.

The crashes on SR 30 (US 98) consisted of 3 rear-end collisions, 4 angle collisions, 15 overturn/rollovers, and

12 other/unknown and resulted in 25 injuries and 1 fatality. There were 2 crashes involving pedestrians/bicyclists (one near Serenoa Road and one near CR 395).

2.1.9. Utilities

With the exception of above ground high voltage transmission lines owned by Gulf Power that traverse the study area, the locations of existing utilities within the study area are limited to the project beginning at SR 30 (US

98), the project ending at SR 79, and along the eastern end of Steel Field Road near the vicinity of SR 79. Both buried and overhead utilities exist within these roadway right-of-ways. Existing utilities include gas, electric power, telephone, cable, potable water, and sanitary sewer. A list of existing utility owners and contact information is summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2‐1 WBP Segment 1 Existing Utilities

Utility Owners

Company Utility Type Contact Person Contact Number Walton County

Bay County

AT&T/ DISTRIBUTION Telephone DINO FARRUGGIO 561‐997‐0240 X X

ATT / T Cable & Fiber NANCY SPENCE 770‐918‐5424 X

CENTURYLINK Telephone & Fiber BILL MCCLOUD 850‐599‐1444 X

GULF POWER PCB Electric AREA ENGINEERING 850‐505‐5567 X X

KNOLOGY Cable TIM CARMICHAEL 850‐527‐1208 X

MEDIACOM Cable EDDIE ARNOLD 850‐934‐2560 X

OKALOOSA GAS Gas ESSA RHEBI 850‐729‐4870 X

SOUTHERN LIGHT Fiber D.J. MCAULEY 251‐259‐0807 X X

WALTON REG. UTIL. Water & Sewer NEIL O’CONNELL 850‐231‐5114 Ext. 216 X

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐6 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.1.10. Design and Posted Speed

There are no existing speeds for WBP Segment 1 because it is a new alignment roadway. However, at the beginning of the project on SR 30 (US 98) the posted speed limit is 65 mph; at the end of the project on SR 79 the posted speed limit varies from 45 mph to 55 mph; and within the study corridor along Steel Field Road the posted speed limit is 45 mph.

2.1.11. Traffic Characteristics

The project study area and existing roadway network is displayed in Figure 2-3 and a summary of existing roadway characteristics is provided in Table 2-2. For detailed information on existing traffic characteristics please refer to the West Bay Parkway Design Traffic Technical Memorandum, updated January 2018.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐7 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Figure 2‐3 Project Study Area and Existing Roadway Network

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐8 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Table 2‐2 Existing Roadway Characteristics

Existing Roadway Description Functional

Classification Facility Type Area Type Length

Number of Signals

Class Number of

Lanes

Bay County

CR 388 (SR 79 to Airport Entrance) Minor Arterial Undivided Urban 4.15 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

CR 388 (Airport Entrance to SR 77) Minor Arterial Undivided Urban 8.19 1 Uninterrupted 2

CR 388 (SR 77 to Bay County Urban Boundary) Minor Arterial Undivided Urban 1.45 0 Uninterrupted flow 2

SR 79 (North of Power Line Road to CR 388) Principal Arterial Divided Transitioning into Urban

4.29 1 Uninterrupted flow 4

SR 79 (CR 388 to Washington County Line) Principal Arterial Divided Transitioning into Urban

8.56 0 Uninterrupted flow 4

SR 77 (CR 2300 to CR 388 West) Principal Arterial Divided Urban 1.51 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 77 (CR 388 West to CR 388 East) Principal Arterial Divided Urban 0.96 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 77 (CR 388 East to SR 20) Principal Arterial Divided Transitioning into Urban

6.99 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 30A / US 98 (Walton County Line to Front Beach Road)

Principal Arterial Divided Urban 1.55 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 30A / US 98 (Front Beach Road to Cobb Road)

Principal Arterial Divided Urban 4.90 1 Uninterrupted flow 4

SR 30A / US 98 (Cobb Rd to the beginning of the 6‐lane section)

Principal Arterial Divided Urban 0.46 1 II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 30A / US 98 (Beginning of the 6‐lane section to SR 79)

Principal Arterial Divided Urban 0.45 1 II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile)

SR 30A / US 98 (SR 79 to Mandy Lane) Principal Arterial Divided Urban 0.70 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

Walton County

SR 30 / US 98 (CR 395 to Bay County Urbanized Area Boundary)

Principal Arterial Divided Transitioning into Urban

7.94 1 Uninterrupted 4

SR 30 / US 98 ( Bay County Urbanized Area Boundary to the Bay County Line)

Principal Arterial Divided Urban 2.52 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

CR 30A (CR 395 to SR 30 / US 98) Minor arterial Undivided Urban 8.80 1 I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile)

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐9 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.1.12. Intersections and Signalization

There are no existing intersections for WBP Segment 1 because it is a new alignment roadway. However, there are two existing intersections within the project study area: SR 388 at SR 79 (signalized) and Steel Field Road at SR 79 (stop-controlled).

2.2. EXISTING STRUCTURE CONDITIONS

There are no existing bridges along any of the proposed new alternative alignments for WBP Segment 1.

However, the B.V. Buchanan Bridge crossing the GICW on SR 79 is within the Segment 1 study area.

There are two parallel bridges that comprise the B.V. Buchanan Bridge: Bridge Nos. 460077 and 460128.

Bridge No. 460077 was completed in 1989 and consists of eight (8) and ten (10) approach spans with a series of six (6) 72” Florida bulb-tees per span for a total length of 2,075’. The channel is spanned by three (3) span continuous steel plate girder beams for a total length of approximately 580’ with a center channel span of approximately 220’. The steel plate girders have a depth equal to the approach span’s 72” depth. The total bridge length is approximately 2,645’.

Bridge No. 460128 was completed in 2004 and consists of four (4) Florida Bulb-T 72” on the approach spans and five (5) Florida Bulb-T 78” on the center three (3) span channel section for a total length of 558’ with a center channel span of 220’. The total bridge length is approximately 2,645’.

A summary of the exiting conditions documented from FDOT inspection reports is provided in Table 2-3.

Table 2‐3 Existing Bridge Conditions

BRIDGE NUMBER: 460077 460128

DATE BUILT: 1989 2004

DECK RATING: 7 Good 9 Excellent

SUPERSTRUCTURE RATING: 7 Good 9 Excellent

SUBSTRUCTURE RATING: 7 Good 9 Excellent

CHANNEL: 9 9

SUFFICIENCY RATING: 85 100

HEALTH INDEX: 87.26 100

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐10 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

2.3.1. Natural Environment and Existing Land Use

The project is located within a forested setting and most of the study area is in one of two land use designations, agriculture or conservations/preservation/recreation. The natural areas are primarily wetlands, creek channels, and forested uplands. The developed areas are mostly residential with pockets of mixed use and commercial land uses concentrated at the beginning and end of project limits along SR 30 (US 98) and SR 79. The existing land uses within the project study area are displayed in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2‐4 Existing Land Use

2.3.2. Wetlands and Surface Waters

Wetland habitat identified within the study area includes: Hydric Tree Plantations, Hydric Pine Plantations, Hydric Forest Regeneration Areas, Titi Swamps, Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Wetland Coniferous Forests, Cypress, Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Hydric Pine Savanna, Wetland Forest Mixed, Vegetated Non-Forested

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐11 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Wetlands, Freshwater Marshes, Saltwater Marshes, and Hydric Electric Transmission Lines. Surface waters consist of Streams and Waterways and Hydric Ditches.

For detailed information on wetlands and surface waters, please refer to the Natural Resource Evaluation, updated March 2018, and the Water Quality Impact Evaluation Report, updated March 2018.

2.3.3. Wildlife and Habitat

Within the study area, 67 state and federally-protected species and 3 habitats that qualify as Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH) have been identified. FDOT has determined that 48 species are not affected by the project and 19 species that may be affected are either Not Likely Adversely Affected (MANLAA) or No Adverse Effect Anticipated

(NAEA), depending upon whether they are federally or state listed, respectively. The EFH includes estuarine emergent marsh, estuarine water column, and mud/sand/shell/rock substrates (non-vegetated bottom) that also provide foraging areas and shelter for a variety of species.

For detailed information on the federal- and state-listed species and habitats, please refer to the Natural Resource

Evaluation, updated March 2018.

2.3.4. Soils and Seasonal High Groundwater

The soils within the Walton County portion of the study area have been mapped in the Soil Survey for Walton

County by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The mapping has indicated that the project area located within Walton County consists primarily of Foxworth, Pickney, and Hurricane fine sands. These soil types consist of one to two feet of silty fine sand (SM/A-2-4), underlain by one to two feet of fine sand (SP-

SM/A-3) overlying a layer of loamy to clayey fine sand (SC/CL/A-6/A-7) that extends to a depth of at least eight feet. The ground surface is fairly flat to slightly rolling with surface drainage slow to moderate. The seasonal high groundwater is typically at a depth of three to six feet below the ground surface. The yearly fluctuation of the groundwater table is two to three feet. There are some areas of highly organic mucky soils, but most of these areas are limited to the top five feet. However, occurrence of areas where the highly organic muck is much deeper may be expected. The soils in the Walton County portion of the project are likely to be extremely aggressive with respect to corrosion because of low pH and high chloride content.

The soils within the Bay County portion of the study area have also been mapped in the Bay County Soil Survey by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The mapping has indicated two (2) areas of distinct soil types within the Bay County portion of the project area. The northern two-thirds and eastern and western boundaries of the project area are composed primarily of Leon, Pottsburg, and Rutlege organic fine sands. This soil type generally consists of two to three feet of fine sand (SM-SP/A-3) underlain by at least three feet of silty fine sand (SM/A-2). The ground surface is fairly flat with surface drainage being slow over most of the area.

The seasonal high groundwater is typically at or above the ground surface. The yearly fluctuation of the groundwater table is normally one to two feet. In many areas, there will be significant pockets of highly organic mucky soil. Since the northern portion of the project area has historically been used for silviculture, the near surface soils are extremely aggressive with respect to corrosion because of low pH.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 2‐12 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

2.3.5. Contamination Screening Evaluation

Within the study area, eleven properties were identified as potential contamination sources. Of the eleven sites, seven were rated as having a HIGH potential for contamination impact, three were rated as having a MEDIUM potential for contamination impact, and two were rated as having a LOW potential for contamination impact.

A rating of MEDIUM is indicative of sites that have a known history of, or reasonable suspicion of, hazardous material storage or documented pollutant discharge; have not received regulatory clearance and/or rehabilitation status for pollutant cleanup; and may have a significant impact on the Project. These sites may warrant further investigation.

A rating of HIGH is indicative of sites that have a known history of hazardous material storage or documented pollutant discharge, have not received regulatory clearance and/or rehabilitation status for pollutant cleanup, and have a High likelihood of significant impact on the Project due to contamination history and immediate proximity to the corridor.

For detailed information on potential contamination sources, please refer to the Contamination Screening

Evaluation Report, updated March 2018.

2.3.6. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

A review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) records and a field survey was conducted for the study area.

Archival research also included an examination of other documentation relative to generating effective search and field methodologies for the project. A total of 190 shovel tests were excavated along the Area of Potential

Effect (APE) and 68 shovel tests were excavated at potential stormwater pond sites. No cultural material or intact cultural deposits were encountered. The project also intersects the GICW; however, it has been determined that the project will have no effect on the attributes which may contribute to the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP) eligibility of the GICW or any other historic property.

For detailed information on cultural resources, please refer to the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, updated

March 2018.

Section 3

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 3‐1 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Section 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS

The following sections discuss future population growth and traffic demand.

3.1. POPULATION GROWTH

Florida’s growth management legislation encourages local governments to be proactive in planning for future growth and provide the necessary infrastructure needed to support the projected level of growth.

Bay County

The population of Bay County per the 2010 Census was 168,852 persons. This is an increase of 13.7 percent over the 2000 population of 148,217. Population projections from the Bureau of Economic and Business

Research (BEBR) indicate that, at a medium growth rate, the population of Bay County is expected to increase to 213,800 by 2035, an increase of 26.6 percent.

Walton County

The population of Walton County per the 2010 Census was 55,043 persons. This is an increase of 35.6 percent over the 2000 population of 40,601. The BEBR estimates that in 2035, using a medium growth rate, the population of Walton County would be 86,600, an increase of 57.3 percent. However, the Walton County

Evaluation and Appraisal Report, adopted March 1, 2011 asserts that the BEBR has underestimated the future population in Walton County, and predicts a 2025 population of 150,250 (BEBR predicts a 2025 population of

73,700 or 51 percent fewer persons).

Bay-Walton Sector Plan

Both Bay and Walton Counties have adopted the St. Joe Company’s Bay-Walton Sector Plan as part of their comprehensive plans. The primary purpose of the Sector Plan, which covers approximately 110,500 acres of land in eastern Walton County and western Bay County, is to “establish a long-term land use framework, to ensure cohesive and fully integrated planning for future development”. Included as part of the plan is the provision of a “rational road network” that is based on the principles of “connectivity, hierarchy and safety.”

To adequately prepare for the anticipated growth and development along the Gulf Coast in west Bay County and south Walton County, improved access is needed between SR 30 (US 98) in south Walton County and SR 79 and SR 388 (WBP Segment 2) in Bay County.

The Bay-Walton Sector Plan Land Uses within the project study area are displayed in Figure 3-1.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 3‐2 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Figure 3‐1 Bay Walton Sector Plan Land Uses

3.2. TRAFFIC DEMAND

For detailed information on traffic analysis performed for this project, please refer to the Design Traffic

Technical Memorandum, updated January 2018.

For the design year (2040) this analysis assumed that projects shown in the transportation plans for Bay and

Walton County have been implemented. These include the SR 388 WBP Segment 2 widening and realignment of the existing intersection at SR 79 and the existing intersection at SR 77; widening of SR 79 to four lanes from

SR 30 (US 98A) to SR 30A (US 98); widening of SR 30A (US 98) to six lanes from Mandy Lane to Thomas

Drive; and the grade separation of SR 30A (US 98) east of the Hathaway Bridge. Assuming these improvements are implemented by the Design Year (2040), the average Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes on the principal arterial roadways in the project vicinity will operate within their LOS targets as shown in Figure 3-2.

It should be noted that the segment of SR 30A (US 98) in Bay County between the Walton County line and SR

79 is forecasted to be operating near capacity in 2040, largely because it is classified as an uninterrupted arterial highway. Should some of the planned improvements be delayed, or should some currently unsignalized intersections become signalized, there is the potential for some of the SR 30A (US 98) road segments to exceed their LOS standard.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 3‐3 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Figure 3‐2 Existing and Future Years AADTs and LOS

Section 4

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 4‐1 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Section 4 DESIGN CONTROLS AND CRITERIA

The build alternatives consist of alignments within right-of-way limits based on the typical section width required to meet future traffic demand in each corridor. The alignment is also developed considering the type of facility to be provided and the design standards and criteria applicable to the type of facility. The following briefly summarizes the factors employed in developing alternative alignments for the Build Alternatives.

4.1. DESIGN CONTROLS

Design controls are characteristics and conditions that influence or regulate the selection of the design criteria and standards. Examples of design controls include width of roadway, side slopes, horizontal and vertical alignment, drainage considerations and intersecting roads. Selection of the appropriate criteria and standards is influenced by traffic volume and composition, desired levels of service, functional classification, terrain features, roadside developments, environmental considerations, etc. The design controls utilized in the conceptual design of the Build Alternatives include the following:

Functional Classification

WBP Segment 1 is a new roadway and therefore is not currently identified as part of the Strategic Intermodal

System (SIS), a statewide network of high-priority transportation facilities. However, because the proposed project would connect to an Emerging SIS roadway (SR 388 and SR 79) it will have the same functional classification as SR 388 (WBP Segment 2) east of SR 79, which is Principal Arterial.

Access Classification

WBP Segment 1 will be a controlled access facility with minimum traffic signal, median opening, and connection spacings for Access Classification 3.

Design Speed

WBP Segment 1 will have a design speed of 60 mph. A Design Variation for Design Speed was approved by the Department and is included in Appendix D.

Traffic Volumes

The Northwest Florida Regional Planning Model (NWFRPM) version 2.1 was used to develop the future traffic demand for the opening year (2020), an interim year (2030), and the design year (2040). The roadway geometric design for WBP Segment 1 shall be based on the projected traffic of 8,700 AADT for the design year (2040).

Level of Service

WBP Segment 1 will be designed to meet a minimum peak hour LOS standard of “D” in urbanized areas and

LOS of “C” outside of urbanized areas.

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 4‐2 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

Pedestrian and Bicycle Requirements

For controlled-access facilities, the safe movement of bicycles and pedestrians must be carefully considered and accommodated in such a way as to have no adverse impact to safety, capacity, or speed. Bicycle facilities shall be consistent with the requirements of the FDOT Design Manual (FDM) Section 222 (Pedestrian Facilities) and

FDM, Section 223 (Bicycle Facilities).

For details of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on WBP Segment 1, please refer to the

Concept Plans in Appendix B and Typical Section Package in Appendix C.

4.2. DESIGN CRITERIA

Design standards are specific values selected from the design criteria and used in the development of the Build

Alternatives. The design standards for WBP Segment 1 are shown below in Table 4-1.

Table 4‐1 Geometric Design Criteria

DESIGN ELEMENT S.R. 388

Source

FDOT Design Manual

Context Classification C3R: Suburban Residential FDOT Context Classification

Functional Classification Suburban SIS Arterial Concurrence by FDOT District 3

Roadway Design Engineer

Access Classification 3 Table 201.3.2

Design Speed (V, mph) 60 1,2 Table 201.4.1

Minimum Design Vehicle WB‐62 FL Section 201.5

Horizontal Alignment

Minimum Curve Radius (ft) 3262.92'

(e Max = 0.05) Table 210.9.1

Minimum Curve Length (ft)

900' (Length shall be the greater of the lengths based on design speed and on deflection angle, but shall not be < 400')

Table 210.8.1

Minimum curve length in which to provide full superelevation

200' Section 210.9

Maximum Superelevation (ft/ft)

0.05 N/A

Maximum Degree of Curvature Without Superelevation

0° 15' Table 210.9.1

Maximum Degree of Curvature (e Max = 0.10)

5° 15' Table 210.9.1

Maximum Deflection Without Horizontal Curve

0° 45' 00" Section 211.7.1

Superelevation Transition Ratio

1 : 180 (Future 6 Lane)

Table 210.9.3

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 4‐3 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

DESIGN ELEMENT S.R. 388

Source

FDOT Design Manual Minimum Superelevation Transition

100' Table 210.9.3

Standard SE Transition on Tangent

80% Section 210.9.1

Standard SE Transition on Curve

20% Section 210.9.1

In SE Transition Section when travel lane cross slope < 1.5% provide one of the following:

1. Minimum Profile Grade, or

2. Minimum EOP Grade

0.5% 0.2%

Section 210.9.1

Tangent Length Between Superelevated Reverse Curves

≥ the sum of the two 80% transition lengths for each curve

Section 210.9.1

Vertical Alignment Stopping Sight Distance (ft) (Adjust for Grades >2%)

570' Table 210.11.1

Minimum Vertical Curve Length (ft)

400' (Crest) 300' (Sag)

Table 210.10.4

Maximum Profile Grade (%) (Maximum grade used should not exceed 4% when truck volume ≥ 10%)

N/A Table 210.10.1

Maximum Change in Grade Without Vertical Curve (%)

0.40 Table 210.10.2

Min. 'K' value, Crest Vertical Curve

K= 245 Table 210.10.3

Min. 'K' value, Sag Vertical Curve

K= 136 Table 210.10.3

Roadway Base Clearance Above Seasonal High Water

3' Section 210.10.3(2)

Vertical Clearance (ft)

Overhead Signs 17'‐6" Section 210.10.3(6)

Cross Section

Lane Width (ft) 12' Table 210.2.1

Shoulder Width (ft) (Outside)

Road 8' Table 210.4.1

(Median‐Inside)

Road 6.5' Table 210.4.1

Cross Slopes (ft/ft)

Outside shoulder 0.06 Section 210.4.1

Median‐Inside shoulder 0.05 Section 210.4.1

Travel Lanes 0.02 Figure 210.2.1

Median Width (ft) 36' 1,2 Table 210.3.1

Minimum Border Width (ft) 40' Table 210.7.1

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report 4‐4 West Bay Parkway, Segment 1

DESIGN ELEMENT S.R. 388

Source

FDOT Design Manual Max. Algebraic Difference in Cross Slope at Crossover Line

5% Table 210.2.2

Clear Zone (ft) 36' Table 215.2.1

Front Slope

Maximum 1:4 Table 215.2.3

Desirable 1:6

Back Slope

Maximum 1:3 Table 215.2.3

D…