Public Location/Design Hearings

November 17, 2010 Laughlin, Nevada

November 18, 2010 Bullhead City, Arizona

Project Team Members

Federal Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Nevada Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Regional Transportation Commission of Southern NV Clark County and Town of Laughlin City of Bullhead City Other resource agencies

1. Develop Scope

2. Purpose & Need

3. Develop Initial Alternatives

4. Public Information Meetings

5. Develop & Evaluate Alternatives

6. Administrative Draft Document

7. Final Document

8. Location / Design Hearings (Public Comment Period)

9. FHWA Environmental Decision for Project

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Project Purpose

To provide:

- better connectivity between the two communities

- improved access to and delivery of emergency services

- enhanced service on Arizona State Route 95

- additional crossing for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians

- accommodations for present and future traffic demand

Existing and future traffic demand

Changing land-use patterns and increased growth

Lack of alternative routes when current bridge is partially or fully closed due to maintenance or incidents

Project Need

Evaluated Build Alternatives

Alternatives Eliminated

Transportation Systems Management and Transit Alts. Widening of Existing Bridge Proposed Pass Canyon Alternative

Proposed Silver Creek Alternative Proposed Colorado Rio Vista

Alternative Proposed Lakeside Alternative Proposed Hancock Alternative Proposed Marina Alternative

Deficiencies of Eliminated Alternatives

Unable to accommodate present and/or future traffic

Would not alleviate congestion on existing bridge

Unable to efficiently increase regional connectivity

Would not efficiently and conveniently improve access

Would not provide additional access for efficient delivery of emergency services between communities

Presented significant engineering constraints

Project Design

Roadway and bridge each consist of four travel-lanes Posted speed of 35 MPH Includes ADA-compliant sidewalks and paved multi-use

pathways Conceptual image of typical bridge at no specific location

Alternatives Analysis

Preliminary engineering Modeled traffic Environmental and social impacts Land use planning conformity Infrastructure compatibility Cost

Alternatives Studied in Detail

No Build Alternative Proposed Riverview Alternative Proposed Rainbow Alternative Proposed Parkway Alternative (Preferred)

Visualization of Proposed Bridge Design Concept for Discussion Purposes Only

Proposed Build Alternatives

Proposed Riverview Alternative

Length of roadway: ~ 15,875 feet (about 3 miles)

Length of bridge: ~ 1,768 feet Right-of-way: ~ 23 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 37,700

vehicles Project cost: ~ $59.3 million Greater noise and visual impacts Impacts to mobility and access Impacts to Rotary Park

Proposed Riverview Alternative

– Added frontage road and parking lane

– Conversion of curve to T-intersection at west end of Riverview Drive

Visualization of Proposed Roadway DesignConceptual for Discussion Purposes Only

Modified design:

– Reduced impacts to Rotary Park

– Required purchase of private parcel

De Minimis

De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not “adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes” of a Section 4(f) resource.

De Minimis Determination

Could not be sustained for proposed Riverview Alternative based on potential impacts to Rotary Park:

- Noise Impacts

- Visual Impacts

- Land Use Impacts

Proposed Riverview Alternative is no longer considered a viable build alternative in the Environmental Assessment

Proposed Rainbow Alternative

Length of roadway: ~ 21,308 feet (about 4 miles)

Length of bridge: ~ 1,359 feet Right-of-way: ~ 45 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 26,200

vehicles Project cost: ~ $48.1 million Greater impact to wetlands than proposed

Parkway Alternative Would not conform with land-use plans

Proposed Parkway Alternative (Preferred Alternative)

Length of roadway: ~ 23,124 feet (about 4.4 miles) Length of bridge: ~ 1,286 feet Right-of-way: ~ 56 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 20,600 vehicles Project cost: ~ $55.2 million Higher ranking in alternatives analysis than proposed

Rainbow Alternative Less environmental and social impacts Conforms with land use plans

Preferred Alternative (agency coordination)

Colorado River Nature Center Arizona Game & Fish Department, Bureau of Land

Management, and City of Bullhead City Potential noise impacts to wildlife Potential light pollution (visual impacts) to wildlife

Colorado River Nature Center(potential “constructive use”)

Mitigation includes:

- installing light shields

- constructing a vegetated earthen berm

- extracting fill to create a wetland

- installing fencing Determination concluded no “constructive use”

impacts

Funding

Nearly $18 million in federal funding available for the Project.

The balance of funding for design, right-of-way acquisition and construction will be secured by local jurisdictions.

Tentative Project Schedule

2007 through

early 2011

2012 through

2014

2011through

2012

Environmental Assessment &

Preliminary Engineering

Final Design, Rights-of-Way &

Permitting

Bid Process & Construction

www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/projects/Laughlin

Project Information and Contacts

Regional Transportation Commission Nevada Department of Transportation of Southern Nevada Environmental Services DivisionDavid Swallow, P.E., Proj. Mgr. Steve M. Cooke, P.E., Chiefswallowd@rtcsnv.com scooke@dot.state.nv.us(702) 676-1500 telephone (775) 888-7013 telephone(702) 676-1713 fax (775) 888-7104 fax

Public Comment Process

Three minute verbal comment per individual

Five minute verbal comment per group / organization

Meet with on-site court reporter

Complete comment form

E-mail, mail, or fax NDOT your comments (reference this project in your correspondence)

NDOT must receive your comments by 5 p.m.,

December 3, 2010.

Questions and Comments

Thank you for attending and please remember to state your name prior to your question or comment.