1. Public Location/Design Hearings November 17, 2010 Laughlin, Nevada November 18, 2010 Bullhead City, Arizona

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5.  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

6. Evaluated Build Alternatives

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Alternatives Analysis  Preliminary engineering  Modeled traffic  Environmental and social impacts  Land use planning conformity  Infrastructure compatibility  Cost

11. 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

12. Proposed Build Alternatives

13. 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

14. 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 Design Conceptual for Discussion Purposes Only  Modified design: –Reduced impacts to Rotary Park –Required purchase of private parcel

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. Tentative Project Schedule 2007 through early 2011 2012 through 2014 2011 through 2012 Environmental Assessment & Preliminary Engineering Final Design, Rights-of-Way & Permitting Bid Process & Construction

23. www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/projects/Laughlin Project Information and Contacts Regional Transportation Commission Nevada Department of Transportation of Southern Nevada Environmental Services Division David Swallow, P.E., Proj. Mgr. Steve M. Cooke, P.E., Chief swallowd@rtcsnv.com scooke@dot.state.nv.us (702) 676-1500 telephone (775) 888-7013 telephone (702) 676-1713 fax (775) 888-7104 fax

24. 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.

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