20150955 Ver 1_Concurrence Points 2A and 3_20120810

0SOL \DSII)
-111� PARK _..�.- '="s, ' •��';' =: -= _ -
vi
Saab c - 0F14 I ORTH CqA �
h 9
9� PO 0 Nz
OFTRANSeO �,�ea� �i O`
Sl Oe
oar y
.21
e
191-M
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Table of Contents
Page
1.0
Introduction .................................................................................... ...............................
1
1.1
Concurrence Point 2A and 3 Meeting Purpose ............................. ...............................
1
1.2
Project Description ....................................................................... ...............................
1
2.0
Merger Process History and Schedule ......................................... ...............................
2
2.1
Concurrence Point 1 ..................................................................... ...............................
2
2.2
Concurrence Point 2 ..................................................................... ...............................
2
2.3
Project Schedule .......................................................................... ...............................
2
3.0
Public Involvement Leading -Up to Concurrence Point 2A and 3 ...............................
3
3.1
Citizens Informational Workshop #1 (CIW #1) .............................. ...............................
3
3.2
Citizens Informational Workshop #2 (CIW #2) .............................. ...............................
3
3.3
Corridor Public Hearing ................................................................ ...............................
3
4.0
Section 4(f) Resources — Adverse Impacts ................................... ...............................
4
4.1
Bridge No. 16 — Existing Swing Bridge ......................................... ...............................
4
4.2
Soundside Park ............................................................................ ...............................
5
5.0
Existing Natural Resources ........................................................... ...............................
7
5.1
Natural Resources Technical Report ............................................ ...............................
7
6.0
DSA — Alignment and Bridging Review for CP 2A ....................... ...............................
9
6.1
Low -Level Moveable Bridge Alternatives ...................................... ...............................
9
6.2
Mid -Level Moveable Bridge Alternatives ....................................... ...............................
9
6.3
High -Level Fixed Bridge Alternatives ............................................. .............................11
7.0
Concurrence Point 2A - Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement ........
14
8.0
Concurrence Point 3 ....................................................................... .............................15
8.1
Human Environment Effects .......................................................... .............................15
8.2
Physical Environment Effects ........................................................ .............................16
8.3
Natural Environment Effects .......................................................... .............................16
8.4
Costs ............................................................................................. .............................17
9.0
Concurrence Point 3 - Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement ..........18
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
List of Tables
Table 1:
Jurisdictional Streams (Project Study Area) .................................. ............................... 7
Table 2:
Jurisdictional Wetlands (Project Study Area) ................................ ...............................
8
Table 3:
Federally Protected Species Listed for Pender County ................. ...............................
8
Table 4:
Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................ .............................10
Table 5:
Detailed Study Alternatives Bridge Lengths ................................... .............................10
Table 6: Human Environment Effects Summary .......................................... .............................15
Table 7: Physical Environment Effects Summary ........................................ .............................16
Table 8: Natural Environment Effects Summary .......................................... .............................16
Table 9: Estimated Costs ............................................................................ .............................17
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
List of Appendices
Appendix A — Figures
Figure 1:
Study Area
Figure 2:
Detailed Study Alternatives
Figure 3:
Terrestrial Communities
Figure 4:
Alternative 6 Affected Environment
Figure 5:
Alternative 6 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 6:
Alternative 7 Affected Environment
Figure 7:
Alternative 7 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 8:
Alternative 4 Affected Environment
Figure 9: Alternative 4 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 10: Alternative 5 Affected Environment
Figure 11: Alternative 5 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 12: Alternative 5R Affected Environment
Figure 13: Alternative 5R Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 14: Alternative 11 Affected Environment
Figure 15: Alternative 11 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Figure 16: Alternative 17 Affected Environment
Figure 17: Alternative 17 Begin & End Bridge Locations
Appendix B — Detailed Study Alternatives Environmental Effects Summary
Appendix C — Corridor Public Hearing Newsletter and Summary of Citizens' Comments
Appendix D — Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Appendix E — Summary of August 17, 2011 Meeting with the Town of Surf City
(Sound side Park Impacts Coordination)
Appendix F — Project Photographs
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Concurrence Point 2A and 3 Meeting Purpose
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to replace the existing
Topsail Island Bridge (Bridge No. 16) along NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway in
Pender County, NC — NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project number
B -4929.
In accordance with the Merger Process, NCDOT has compiled within this document the subject
project's background information and technical data to be utilized in seeking consensus from the
Merger Project Team for the following Concurrence Points:
Concurrence Point 2A — Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
F1 Concurrence Point 3 - LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
Concurrence Point 2A consists of identifying bridge locations and approximate lengths as well
as a review of the preliminary alignment for each bridge. Concurrence Point 3 is the selection of
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), also known as the
Preferred Alternative.
Included in this report is a description of the project, summaries from previous concurrence
points, as well as environmental impact summaries for each of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA) previously carried forward by the Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team members
(Merger Team).
1.2 Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing Topsail Island Bridge ( NCDOT Bridge No. 16) along
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway in Pender County, NC (Figure 1 — all figures are
included in Appendix A). The NCDOT has initiated studies for this replacement project in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended.
The 2009 bridge inspection report indicates that the
bridge is in poor condition with a sufficiency rating of
two out of one hundred with restricted loads of 14
tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for truck tractor
with semi - trailer.
Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over the Intracoastal
Waterway entails removal and replacement of an
existing swing span bridge currently providing
access to Topsail Island. This bridge is one of only
two access points onto Topsail Island, the other
bridge being located approximately seven miles
north in the Town of North Topsail Beach.
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
A-:r
1I E�
I 1� � MpbS.W
Aerial view of the existing Topsail Island Bridge
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
2.0 MERGER PROCESS HISTORY AND SCHEDULE
2.1 Concurrence Point 1
On August 20, 2009, the Merger Team met to discuss concurrence on Purpose and Need and
Study Area Defined — Concurrence Point (CP) 1. During the meeting, NCDOT presented the
existing conditions, the study area, project need, and project purpose to the participating
environmental agencies. Subsequent to the presentation and discussion, the Merger Team
reached a consensus and signed the formal Concurrence Point 1 form — Purpose and Need and
Study Area Defined. Under this agreement, the purpose and need of the project was defined as
follows:
Purpose of Proposed Action
Improve bridge safety and functionality
Need for Proposed Action
F1 Structurally deficient, functionally obsolete
bridge
Study Area
-1 See Figure 1
2.2 Concurrence Point 2
Study Area
Functional design plans and preliminary impact and qualitative cost analysis were prepared for
16 feasible design alternatives. A summary of this analysis was presented to the Merger Team
members on December 14, 2010, at the CP 2 meeting — Detailed Study Alternatives Carried
Forward (DSA). Based on the information provided, the Merger Team members eliminated nine
of the original 16 design alternatives and selected the following seven alternatives as the DSA
(Figure 2):
DSAs Carried Forward
❑ Northern Alternatives Group: Alternatives 4, 5, and 5R (high -level fixed bridges)
❑ Central Alternatives Group: Alternatives 6 and 7 (low -level /mid -level bridges,
respectively)
-1 Southern Alternatives Group: Alternatives 11 and 17 (high -level fixed bridges)
In addition, the following other alternatives were eliminated from further study: No Build
Alternative; Repair and Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Alternative; Alternative Modes of Travel and
Traffic Management Alternatives.
2.3 Project Schedule
The subject project's current schedule is as follows:
Li Selection of LEDPA (CP 3) - Summer, 2012
D FONSI - Spring, 2013
i Right -of -Way - 2015
I- = Construction — 2017
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEADING -UP TO CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
3.1 Citizens Informational Workshop #1 (CIW #1)
CIW #1 was conducted on June 25, 2009 in the Surf City Community Center with three Local
Officials Meetings held immediately prior to the workshop. More than 350 citizens attended.
Citizens were shown a voice -over PowerPoint presentation followed by a series of aerial
mapping boards of the project site. Four stations were available and citizens interacted with
NCDOT team members. Many citizens drew their alignment suggestions onto the aerial
mapping. Citizens completed 170 comment cards and other comments were received via
phone calls, email, or regular mail prior to and subsequent to the meeting. The comments have
been categorized and tallied to provide an overall picture of the responses and the
corresponding citizens' preferences.
3.2 Citizens Informational Workshop #2 (CIW #2)
A similar outreach location and format was chosen for CIW #2, conducted on October 21, 2010,
with one combined Local Officials Meeting held immediately prior to the workshop. A series of
maps displayed the 16 functional design alternatives with corresponding artistic renderings. For
easier comparison, the study alternatives were divided into three groups, including alternatives
north of existing location, at the existing location, and south of existing location.
More than 300 citizens attended CIW #2, from which over 200 questionnaire /comment cards
were collected. Other comments were received via phone calls, email, or regular mail prior to
and subsequent to the meeting.
3.3 Corridor Public Hearing
The Project Team conducted a Corridor Public Hearing on December 8, 2011 at the Surf City
Community Center. This Corridor Public Hearing was divided into two sessions: an informal
Pre - Hearing Open House was held, followed by a formal Public Hearing. A total of 270 citizens
and public officials from Topsail Beach, Surf City, North Topsail Beach, and surrounding area
attended the Corridor Public Hearing.
During the Open House, the attendees were first shown a presentation that provided an
overview of the seven DSAs, summaries of the environmental impacts for each alternative, as
well as the project's schedule. After watching the video, citizens were encouraged to review
maps of the alternatives along with corresponding artistic renderings. NCDOT Project Team
members were available to answer questions and listen to citizens comments.
Following the Open House, NCDOT conducted the formal Public Hearing providing a formal
presentation of the project's history, status, schedule, and alternatives. Citizens were then
asked to formally express their comments. Sixteen citizens presented their verbal comments
during the formal Corridor Public Hearing. A total of 140 comment cards were received during
or subsequent to the Corridor Public Hearing. Other comments were received via phone calls,
email, or regular mail prior to and subsequent to the hearing.
A summary of the comments and a copy of the newsletter announcing the Corridor Public
Hearing are included in Appendix C of this report.
3
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
4.0 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES — ADVERSE IMPACTS
Two Section 4(f) properties exist within the study area, including Bridge No. 16 and Soundside
Park (owned and maintained by the Town of Surf City).
4.1 Bridge No. 16 — Existing Swing Bridge
Bridge No. 16 was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as
part of the NCDOT's 1995 Historic Bridge Inventory Report as an early and intact example of a
riveted Warren through truss, swing span bridge. Although moved from Sunset Beach to its
current location in 1954, Pender County Bridge No. 16 remains in an operable condition and
retains c. 1930 gearing and mechanical systems. The historic boundary for the bridge includes
the 254 -foot long Warren through truss, operator's house, and concrete tee beam approach
spans.
4.1.1 Adverse ImDact Determination
The seven DSAs carried forward during CP #2 will
replace Bridge No. 16. NCDOT met with NC HPO's
representative on April 5, 2011, and concluded that all
seven DSAs would result in an "adverse effect" because
the existing Bridge No. 16 would be removed. The draft
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation and concurrence
form for effects to Bridge No. 16 are included in
Appendix D.
4.1.2 Avoidance Alternatives
Existing Topsail Island Bridge
During the CP 2 meeting, feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of this Section 4f resource
were explored and rejected. These avoidance alternatives included a No -Build Alternative,
Build on New Location without using the Old Bridge, and Repair and Rehabilitate Existing
Bridge.
4.1.3 Measures to Minimize Harm
Currently, NCDOT is investigating reuse options for the existing swing span at a different
location. Resulting information on these options will be included in subsequent documentation.
4
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
4.2 Soundside Park
Soundside Park is a municipal park owned and maintained by the Town of Surf City and located
adjacent to Bridge No. 16 in the southeast quadrant. The park has 45 parking spaces, boat
access ramps, picnic facilities, a performance stage, a children's playground, bathroom
facilities, a boat patrol landing, and a boardwalk open to the public year- round.
4.2.1 Adverse Impact Determination
Alternatives 6 and 7 require a temporary detour bridge,
which will accommodate the bridge traffic during the
construction of the permanent bridge. The detour bridge
would temporarily impact approximately 0.4 acres of park
land, requiring relocation of the performance stage, boat
patrol landing, and picnic facilities. These facilities would
not be available for public usage during the two -year
construction period, resulting in temporary adverse
impacts to Soundside Park and therefore considered a
Section 4(f) use of the resource.
Soundside Park
In addition to the temporary impacts, Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in 0.03 and 0.01 acres of
permanent impacts to the park, respectively. This portion of the park land is undeveloped with
no recreational facilities present.
On August 17, 2011, NCDOT met with the Town of Surf City and FHWA officials to discuss
Alternative 6 and 7's impacts to the Soundside Park. Based on an assessment of impacts to
Soundside Park and comments received from the Town of Surf City, FHWA has determined that
the impacts to the park would be adverse and therefore considered a Section 4(f) use. A
summary of these meeting notes are included in Appendix E.
4.2.2 Avoidance Alternatives
Replacing the on -site detours for Alternatives 6 and 7 with an off -site detour has been discussed
with emergency services and Town officials, as well as the community. The off -site detour
option includes use of the North Topsail Bridge approximately seven miles north of the project
site, requiring approximately 30 to 45 minutes of additional travel time. This off -site detour has
been rejected by all stakeholders due to public safety concerns, economic impacts, and
unreasonable travel times.
During the Corridor Public Hearing, several area residents requested a re- evaluation of
Alternative 6 and 7's detour alignments and associated impacts to the Soundside Park.
Subsequently, the Project Team evaluated options to minimize these impacts.
On March 29, 2012, NCDOT held a Constructability Review meeting with skilled contractors
having previous experience constructing moveable bridge types. During this meeting, the
attendees indicated that moving the detour bridge closer to the existing bridge would result in
substantial increases to construction costs and duration.
5
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
The Project Team developed a new detour alignment for Alternative 6, minimizing the distance
between the detour and proposed bridge. On June 7, 2012, NCDOT met with FHWA to present
the revised Alternative 6 detour alignment. FHWA reviewed the preliminary plans and
concluded that the revised detour alignment would remain an adverse impact to Soundside
Park, due to proximity of construction and direct impacts to facilities within the Park.
For Alternative 7, the Project Team reviewed options of relocating the detour alignment closer to
the proposed bridge, potentially reducing Park impacts; however, it was determined that traffic
operations could not be maintained due to the bifurcated profiles associated with this mid -level
replacement; therefore, Soundside Park impacts would remain adverse.
4.2.3 Measures to Minimize Harm
Given the adverse impacts associated with Alternatives 6 and 7, NCDOT recommends that
these alternatives be dropped from further consideration; instead, moving forward with the
remaining five feasible and prudent alternatives.
0
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
5.0 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES
5.1 Natural Resources Technical Report
A Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was prepared by NCDOT in September 2010.
The following is a summary of the findings of this report. These features are shown in Figure 3.
The study area lies in the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
Topography in the project vicinity varies from nearly level to gently rolling. Elevations in
the study area range from 5' to 30' above sea level. Water resources in the study area
are part of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin: 03- 060 -24).
No waters classified as Water Supply Watershed Critical /Protected Areas (WS -I:
undeveloped watersheds; WS -II: predominately undeveloped watersheds; WS -III:
moderately developed; WS -IV: highly developed; or WS -V: upstream) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) exist in the study area. Topsail Sound is classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW).
Ponds: Two ponds with a combined area of 2.7 acres are located within the immediate
vicinity of the study bridge. These ponds consist of artificially excavated pits that are
sustained by high groundwater levels and have no surface water connection to
jurisdictional stream features. No waters listed on the North Carolina 2010 Draft 303(d)
list of impaired waters for sedimentation occur within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Streams: As shown in Table 1, two jurisdictional streams, Topsail Sound and one
unnamed tributary to Topsail Sound were identified in the study area, as part of the
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), September 2010.
Table 1: Jurisdictional Streams (Project Study Area)
Map ID*
Length
(feet)
Classification
River Basin
Buffer
Topsail Sound
5,350
Perennial
Not Applicable
SA
1,385
Perennial
Not Applicable
* Also shown in Figure 3
Wetlands: Four jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. Wetland
classification and North Carolina Department of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) quality rating
data are presented in Table 2.
7
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Table 2: Jurisdictional Wetlands (Project Study Area)
Map ID*
NCWAM Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ Wetland
Rating
Area
(acres)
WA
Wet Pine Flatwood
Non - Riparian
55
32.9
WB
Headwater Forest
Riparian
47
0.6
WC
Estuarine Woody Wetland
Riparian
60
5.7
WD
Salt /Brackish Marsh
Tidal /CAMA
Not Applicable
155.5
Total
194.7
* Also shown in Figure 3
Federally Protected Species: As shown in Table 3, twelve federally protected species
were identified for Pender County. The biological conclusion for these twelve species
were categorized as not required, no effect, may affect — not likely to adversely affect.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has identified Topsail Sound as an Essential Fish
Habitat, but the proposed project is likely to result in negligible net effect to this habitat.
Table 3: Federally Protected Species Listed for Pender County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status*
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion **
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
T (S /A)
Yes
Not Required
Charadrius melodus
Piping plover
T
No
No Effect
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded woodpecker
E
Yes
No Effect
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose sturgeon
E
No
No Effect
Trichechus manatus
West Indian manatee
E
Yes
MA /NLAA
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead sea turtle
T
Yes
MA /NLAA
Chelonia mydas
Green sea turtle
T
No
No Effect
Thalictrum cooleyi
Cooley's meadowrue
E
Yes
No Effect
Carex lutea
Golden sedge
E
Yes
No Effect
Schwalbea americans'
American chaffseed
E
Yes
No Effect
Amaranthus pumilus
Seabeach amaranth
T
No
No Effect
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Rough - leaved loosestrife
E
Yes
No Effect
* E — Endangered; T — Threatened; T(S /A) — Threatened due to similarity of appearance
** MA /NLAA — May Affect /Not Likely to Adversely Affect
+ Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
0
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
6.0 DSA — ALIGNMENT AND BRIDGING REVIEW FOR CP 2A
As described earlier, on December 14, 2010, the Merger Team concurred to carry forward
seven DSAs for further study (Concurrence Point 2), including Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 6, 7, 11 and
17. Summaries of the bridge lengths and corresponding impacts to Jurisdictional Waters are
included in Tables 4 and 5. Impact area calculations have assumed a 25' construction buffer
from the proposed roadway footprint (slope stakes). During final designs, it is expected that
these buffer areas can be reduced, resulting in lower impact areas than those provided herein.
6.1 Low -Level Moveable Bridge Alternatives
❑ Alternative 6 (Figure 4) replaces the bridge in the same location as the existing
bridge with a moveable bascule type structure. This alternative requires an
adjacent temporary detour bridge during construction. The temporary detour
bridge and the permanent bridge would have approximately 15 -foot vertical
navigational clearance (VNC), similar to the existing bridge. The proposed
bridge lengths for the permanent and temporary bridges are 520' and 1,487'
respectively.
The permanent bridge end locations are shown in Figure 5. These bridge ends
closely match the existing end abutments, with the proposed bridge length
spanning the Topsail Sound and being controlled by the limits of the existing
channel.
The temporary detour bridge ends will span the Topsail Sound.
0.3 acres of CAMA wetland impacts are expected with this alternative.
6.2 Mid -Level Moveable Bridge Alternatives
F Alternative 7 (Figure 6) replaces the bridge in the same location as the existing
bridge with a moveable bascule type structure. This alternative requires an
adjacent temporary detour bridge during construction. The temporary detour
bridge would have approximately 15 feet of VNC, similar to the existing bridge.
The permanent bridge would have approximately 30 feet of VNC. The proposed
bridge lengths for the permanent and temporary bridges are 1,020' and 1,487'
respectively.
The bridge end locations are shown in Figure 7. As a result of the higher bridge
span, the Alternative 7 bridge ends extend beyond the existing bridge end
abutments in order to avoid fill extending into the Topsail Sound as well as fill
impacts into adjacent properties.
The temporary detour bridge ends will span the Topsail Sound.
0.1 acres of CAMA wetland impacts are expected with this alternative.
0
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Table 4: Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Detailed Study
Alternative
No.
CAMA Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
Non - Riparian
Wetland Impacts
(acres)
Riparian
Wetland Impacts
(acres)
Alt 4
-
2.0
0.1
Alt 5
-
2.0
0.2
Alt 5R
-
2.0
0.2
Alt 6
0.3
-
-
Alt 7
0.1
-
-
Alt 11
-
1.3
-
Alt 17
0.4
0.8
-
Table 5: Detailed Study Alternatives Bridge Lengths
Detailed Study
Alternative
No.
Begin
Station
End Station
Roadway /Hydraulic
Control Bridge
Length (feet)
Alt 4
516 +40
553 +90
3,750
Alt 5
615 +40
652 +16
3,676
Alt 5R
615 +40
651 +94
3,654
Alt 6
1316 +50
1321+70
520
Alt 6 - Detour
21+13
36 +00
1,487
Alt 7
1511+50
1521+70
1,020
Alt 7 - Detour
21+13
36 +00
1,487
Alt 11
919 +00
959 +40
4,040
Alt 17
406 +75
444 +00
3,725
10
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
6.3 High -Level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations dictate that high -level fixed bridge
types provide a minimum 65 feet of VNC spanning the Intracoastal Waterway. A high -
level fixed bridge type eliminates bridge openings and thereby accommodates both vessel
and vehicular traffic unimpeded. None of the high -level fixed bridge alternatives require
either a detour bridge or a temporary closure of the existing bridge.
ri Alternative 4 (Figure 8) is located approximately 800 feet north of the existing
bridge location, beginning on the mainland side just east of Sea Oaks Drive and
ending on the island side at Goldsboro Avenue. This alternative forms a new
island tie -in location along New River Drive (NC 210), approximately 1,100 feet
north of Roland Avenue. The proposed bridge length for this alternative is
3,750'.
Bridge end locations are shown in Figure 9. The mainland bridge end is
controlled by roadway design features, including the grade separation at
Atkinson Point Road and adjacent buildings to the west of this crossing.
Previously, in the EA, this end location was shown extended to the west
spanning non - riparian /riparian wetlands; however, subsequent data indicated
these wetlands to be of lower quality, resulting in filling of the wetlands and
reducing of bridge length by approximately 500'.
The island bridge end is controlled by the existing landfall location, with the
proposed bridge spanning the entire Topsail Sound.
A total of 2.0 acres of non - riparian and 0.1 acres of riparian wetland impacts are
expected with this alternative.
-i Alternative 5 (Figure 10) is located approximately 500 feet north of the existing
bridge location, beginning on the mainland side just west of Atkinson Point
Road, and ending on the island side at Roland Avenue. The proposed bridge
length for this alternative is 3,676'.
Bridge end locations are shown in Figure 11. Similar to Alternative 4, the
mainland bridge end is controlled by roadway design features, including the
grade separation at Atkinson Point Road and adjacent buildings to the west of
this crossing. Previously, in the EA, this end location was extended to the west
spanning non - riparian /riparian wetlands; however, subsequent data indicated
these wetlands to be of lower quality, resulting in filling of the wetlands and
reducing the bridge length by approximately 400'.
The island bridge end is controlled by the existing landfall location, with the
proposed bridge spanning the entire Topsail Sound.
A total of 2.0 acres of non - riparian and 0.2 acres of riparian wetland impacts are
expected with this alternative.
11
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
Alternative 5R (Figure 12) is a small alignment adjustment to Alternative 5 that
was developed after CIW #2 to address marina access comments received from
the community. This alternative is located approximately 400 feet north of the
existing bridge location, beginning on the mainland side just west of Atkinson
Point Road, and ending on the island side at Roland Avenue. The small
alignment adjustment will avoid the navigable water channel leading to the
marina at the island terminus. The proposed bridge length for this alternative is
3,654'.
Bridge end locations are shown in Figure 13. Similar to Alternative 4 and 5, the
mainland bridge end is controlled by roadway design features, including the
grade separation at Atkinson Point Road and adjacent buildings to the west of
this crossing. Previously, in the EA, this end location was extended to the west
spanning non - riparian /riparian wetlands; however, subsequent data indicated
these wetlands to be of lower quality, resulting in filling of the wetlands and
reducing the bridge length by approximately 400'.
The island bridge end is controlled by the existing landfall location, with the
proposed bridge spanning the entire Topsail Sound.
A total of 2.0 acres of non - riparian and 0.2 acres of riparian wetland impacts are
expected with this alternative.
Alternative 11 (Figure 14) is located approximately 1,200 feet south of the
existing bridge location, beginning on the mainland side just west of Little Kinston
Road, and ending on the island side between Raleigh Avenue and Durham
Avenue. This alternative forms a new island tie -in location along Topsail Drive
(NC 50), approximately 1,500 feet south of Roland Avenue. The proposed bridge
length for this alternative is 4,040'.
Bridge end locations are shown in Figure 15. The mainland bridge end is
controlled by roadway design features, including the grade separation at Little
Kinston Road and adjacent buildings to the east of this crossing. Previously, in
the EA, this end location was extended to the west spanning non - riparian
wetlands; however, subsequent data indicated these wetlands to be of lower
quality, resulting in filling of the wetlands and reducing the bridge length by
approximately 140'.
The island bridge end is controlled by the existing landfall location, with the
proposed bridge spanning the entire Topsail Sound.
A total of 1.3 acres of non - riparian wetland impacts are expected with this
alternative.
12
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
Alternative 17 (Figure 16) is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the
existing bridge location. This alignment begins on the mainland side just west of
Little Kinston Road and ends on the island side at Topsail Drive (NC 50),
forming a new island tie -in location along Topsail Drive, approximately 300 feet
south of Roland Avenue. This alternative was developed after CIW #2 in an
effort to minimize impacts to Southside Park. The proposed bridge length for this
alternative is 3,725'.
Bridge end locations are shown in Figure 17. The mainland bridge end is
controlled by the spanning of CAMA wetlands; however, there remains a small
impact to the CAMA wetlands due to the proximity of existing Roland Avenue
and associated maintenance of traffic issues.
The island bridge end is controlled by the existing landfall location, as well as
efforts to stay two feet above mean high water. The end span girder depth was
reduced to allow for a maximum bridge span; however, a small CAMA wetland
impact remains.
A total of 0.8 acres of non - riparian wetland impacts are expected with this
alternative.
0.4 acres of CAMA wetland impacts are expected with this alternative.
13
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
7.0 CONCURRENCE POINT 2A - SECTION 404 /NEPA MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
Project Name /Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pender County, NC
TIP Project No.: B -4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP -50 (10)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Bridging and Alignment
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and alignments of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives and agreed to carry five of the seven DSAs forward into the Concurrence Point 3.
Alternatives 6 and 7 have been eliminated due to their adverse impacts to Soundside Park, a
Section 4(f) resource. Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 11, and 17 will be carried forward to Concurrence
Point 3. Table below shows the begin and end stations and associated roadway /hydraulic
bridge lengths for each DSA.
Detailed Study
Alternative No.
Begin Station
End Station
Roadway /Hydraulic Control
Bridge Length (feet)
Alt 4
516 +40
553 +90
3,750
Alt 5
615 +40
652 +16
3,676
Alt 5R
615 +40
651 +94
3,654
Alt 6
1316 +50
1321+70
520
Alt 6 - Detour
21 +13
36 +00
1,487
Alt 7
1511+50
1521+70
1,020
Alt 7 - Detour
21 +13
36 +00
1,487
Alt 11
919 +00
959 +40
4,040
Alt 17
406 +75
444 +00
3,725
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of August 16, 2012:
USACE
USEPA
NCDCR
FHWA
USCG
NCDMF
RPO
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NCDCM
NMFS
14
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
8.0 CONCURRENCE POINT 3
NCDOT recommends selecting Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
The Alternative 17 LEDPA/Preferred Alternative recommendation is made after a careful review
and evaluation of the environmental impacts presented in the Environmental Assessment
Document (EA); comments received from the elected officials and public before, during and
subsequent to the Corridor Public Hearing; and comments received from the regulatory
agencies to date. Appendix B provides the seven DSAs' environmental effects, and upon
comparison, specific reasons for selecting Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
are outlined below:
8.1 Human Environment Effects
➢ Alternative 17 was the most preferred from the citizen comments.
➢ Alternative 17 maintains a connection to the existing central business district (CBD).
Alternative 4 and 11 do not connect to the CBD.
➢ Alternative 17 results in the least number of residential and business relocations, where
as Alternative 5R results in the highest number of relocations.
➢ Alternative 17 does not affect local marinas, whereas Alternative 5 impacts the only
marina on Topsail Island.
➢ Alternative 17 replaces the existing swing bridge with a 65' high -level fixed bridge,
resulting in elimination of vehicular /vessel delays from bridge openings /closings.
Table 6: Human Environment Effects Summary
15
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
Moveable Bridge
Alternatives
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 5R
Alt 11
Alt 17
Alt 6
Alt 7
(Low - Level)
(Mid - Level)
Citizens preference at
11%
4%
2%
14%
32°x,
Corridor Public Hearing
Direct connection to the
Central Business
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
es
District (CBD)
Residential /Business
4/5
2/4
13/7
4/1
1/3
0/1
0/3
Relocations (number)
Right -of -Way Costs
$12,625,000
$13,975,000
$22,250,000
$9,925,000
00
$4,975,000
$6,875,000
Church
(Faith Harbor United
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
Methodist Church -
property only)
15
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
8.2 Physical Environment Effects
Alternative 17 does not adversely affect the Soundside Park property, resulting in only
de minimis impacts. Alternatives 6 and 7 are eliminated due to adverse impacts to
Soundside Park.
➢ Alternative 17 impacts to three known or potential hazardous material sites will have
minimal impacts to the project's cost and schedule.
Table 7: Physical Environment Effects Summary
8.3 Natural Environment Effects
➢ Alternative 17 has no impacts to ponds or streams.
➢ Alternative 17 has the smallest area of non - riparian wetland impacts.
➢ Alternative 17 impacts approximately 0.4 acres of CAMA wetlands, assuming a 25'
construction buffer. Without this buffer the impact is reduced to 0.15 acres.
Table 8: Natural Environment Effects Summary
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives I Moveable Bridge Alternatives
Category
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
Moveable Bridge
Alt 5R
Alt 11
Alternatives
Category
Alt 7
(Mid - Level)
Ponds
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Crossings (number)
2
2
2
1
1
Alt 6
Alt 7
Wetlands: non - riparian (acres)
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 5R
Alt 11
Alt 17
Wetland: riparian (acres)
0.1
0.2
0.2
-
-
(Low - Level)
(Mid - Level)
Soundside Park property impacts
-
_
_
I _
0.2
0.03/0.4
0.01/0.4
-- Permanent /temporary (acres)
Known or Potential Hazardous
_
1
2
-
3
1
1
Material Sites (number)
8.3 Natural Environment Effects
➢ Alternative 17 has no impacts to ponds or streams.
➢ Alternative 17 has the smallest area of non - riparian wetland impacts.
➢ Alternative 17 impacts approximately 0.4 acres of CAMA wetlands, assuming a 25'
construction buffer. Without this buffer the impact is reduced to 0.15 acres.
Table 8: Natural Environment Effects Summary
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives I Moveable Bridge Alternatives
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 5R
Alt 11
Alt 17
Alt 6
(Low - Level)
Alt 7
(Mid - Level)
Ponds
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Crossings (number)
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Wetlands: non - riparian (acres)
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
0.8
Wetland: riparian (acres)
0.1
0.2
0.2
-
-
Wetlands: CAMA (acres)
-
I -
I -
I -
1 0.4
0.3 I
01
Wetlands: Total (acres) 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.3 1 1.2 0.3 0.1 I
r.
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
8.4 Costs
➢ Alternative 17 has the lowest construction costs.
➢ Alternative 17 has the lowest total costs.
➢ Other alternatives are approximately 10% to 75% higher costs.
Table 9: Estimated Costs
17
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
Moveable Bridge
Alternatives
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 5R
Alt 11
Alt 17
Alt 6
(Low - Level)
Alt 7
(Mid - Level)
Right -of -Way
$12,625,000
$13,975,000
$22,250,000
$9,925,000
$8,125,000
$4,975,000
$6,875,000
Costs
Utility Pole
Relocation Costs
$939,090
$1,361,538
$1,430,662
$1,040,170
$1,015,778
$12,580,030
$12,580,030
Construction
Costs
$47,200,000
$45,600,000
$45,400,000
$49,000,000
$44,600,000
$50,200,000
$55,900,000
Bridge Operations
and Maintenance
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$25,964,500
$25,964,500
Cost (75 Years)
[Total
$64,395,590
$64,568,038
$72,712,162
$63,596,670
$57,372,278
$93,719,530
$101,319,530
17
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW — LEDPA SELECTION
9.0 CONCURRENCE POINT 3 - SECTION 404 /NEPA MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
Project Name /Description: Bridge No. 16 - Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pender County,
NC
TIP Project No.: B -4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP -50 (10
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging Detailed Study Alternatives and has
chosen Alternative 17 as The Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) and the Preferred Alternative for the replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No.
16 in Topsail Island. Alternative 17 has the fewest overall impacts and is the best value
replacement.
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of August 16, 2012:
USACE NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDCR NCDWQ
FHWA NCWRC
USCG
NCDMF
'a
18
NCDCM
NMFS
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix A
Figures
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

N
� 210 {
1
G Ct _
1
L r
1 50
17
1 inch = 2 mile
Census Block Group
0.04 -005
4 V. 210
Census Block Group
98.01 -002
7
210
a I
Legend
Stud Project �1 I J Y Area ( PSA
)
210
a
5�a\ I ��� 16ti 210 Bridge # 16 Demographic Study Area
o0 I 50 & Census Block Group Boundary
North Topsail Beach Town Limits
210
Cho Surf City Town Limits
0_ �c y9 I - j' PW Topsail Beach Town Limits
`o `o4 y 17 11 C° ` I N
Census Block Group Study Area
98.01 -001
RSW
/,' rnerxavrxc rerrn wanca
1 inch = 2,500 feet ©Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 1
A. ,
(T.LP. No: B - 4929)
-` Bridge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

oyfW�lry c�
— , Topsail Island T.I.P. No: B -4929 Figure 2:
4 Bridge Replacement Project
W BS: 40233.1.1
Replacement of NC 50/210 Bridge (No. 16) Detailed Study
Pander County Over Intracoastal Waterway Division: 3 Alternatives
•�.,�,q

° Legend
`t
I 10�
'., Streams
210 ,.A Ponds
.E Terrestrial Communities
t
j Pine Flatwoods (WA)
r
P.
Headwater Forest (WB)
Estuarine Woody Wetland (WC)
lift l Y, +
Salt Marsh (WD)
- - -- End of Aerial Mapping Limits - - --
Terrestrial Communities
J
R"
IMPROVING YOUR NAOR
LD
R38H FichllecM- Ergi�ere•Plsnnes,Mc
0 Pender County, Div. 3 +
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE Figure 3
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

IL 50 2210
Faith Harbor United
rMethodist Churchl
I Ilk
NMI
R,af,
1%
L
%a
mat
4:
V
A
T:.
Begin Bridge_
Bridge # 16 W-
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
I ( Ponds
Wetlands
_ Non - riparian
Riparian
irf City Police CAMA
Department
r,
1
l� Surf City a
Town Hall
Sri
210
,f
A
r
//z End Bridge
Detour Bridge
I
it
50
Alternative 6
Affected Environment
dw Rd C
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
o, X �,: R98H a.cRituc[s Enyiripen -PI iera. I,G
=Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE Figure 4
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

RM ,
Z
its
a4�.il
00"
{ -
P
n
J� TT
�tr.`_d a �
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts Alternative 6
CAMA Wetland Impacts Begin & End Bridge Locations
Wetland Boundary 04-K�; RSW
IMP ROVING YOUR WORLD
.A, . - - - - Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes) o Pender County, Div.3
100' 0' 100' 200' TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
• • - - • - • • - REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 5
• • • • • • ' • ' • 1 - • • r • 50' SCALE (T.I.P. No: B -4929) August 2012
Bridge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 501210

I Ilk
1%
L
%a
4:
V
A
Begin Bridge rr
a
-- _ _ -_!• ,r �� `wN Alternative tl (Mid-'Level MoAabli
" Roland Ave
is av
mat
► er.
it
J Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
X11
Ponds
Wetlands
Non - riparian
Riparian
irf City Police CAMA
Department
l� Surf City
Town Hall
210
F !' Beach PA
. «r
CIE
50
Alternative 7
Affected Environment
dw Rd C
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
o, X �,: R98H a.cRituc[s Enyiripen -PI iera. I,c
Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE Figure 6
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

RM ,
.- 16 A
i
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - - - Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
i.
• • •,• •
67 1
It E46 -AID'GE r`
f'fl' 521+70.00
X13 Lila
IAL
wr
i
osed Detour Badge — —
Proposed Deiour
RridnP Lnndihil
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
V �
Jls
50 210 ��
Alternative 7
Begin & End Bridge Locations
RSWPn�
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
\'�y f „..r,.f' RSSI NC�fwK lnprNnfl�rv4R. Inc.
- - Q Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 7
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 501210 August 2012

50 2210
aith Harbor,United
Methodist'Churchi
k
r '
!t
Begin Bridge
•
1
I%
O .
50
10
J
0
;No
L
210
f City Police
•
A
End Bridge
j!' "+ '
Bridge # 16 ld'��`r�C!`r �' -- r
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
Ponds
Wetlands
_ Non - riparian
Riparian
CAM A
low
Town Hall
"r Alternative 4
Visit6r',Centeral
Affected Environment
0 d" RS
" d C
- �. IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
o, X �,: R98H a.cRituc[s Enyir,pen -PI ,era. ,c
f . Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE Figure 8
• REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Soundside Park (T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
• • • • August 2012
Bridge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210

Begin Bridge - Mainland
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - -- Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
Ilow text indicates roadway /hydrau is items
rolling bridge begin & end locations
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
End Bridge - Island

50 2210
th Hato,,
Begin Bridge •
1p
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
1 inch 400 feet Ponds
"� Wetlands
• Non - riparian
Riparian
Surf City Police _
Department
L
01
0
50 21
Bridae # 16
AL
r.--1
WZ
OFF trv-
It&), ANAL
surf C
K-Surf City
Visitor,Cen
ig 50
Alternative 5
Affected Environment
dw RS
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
lender County, Div.
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE Figure 10
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

Begin Bridge - Mainland
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - -- Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
Ilow text indicates roadway /hydrau is items
rolling bridge begin & end locations
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
End Bridge - Island

:50 210^
a
Methodi it'd hurc
1%
Ift
50 2210
4:
X
111110k.- A
�J
DI lulyC ff- I V
x
Siw
1
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
11 [ Ponds
Wetlands
® Non - riparian
Riparian
CAMA
Surf City Police
Department
Surf City -
- Town Hall
210
Beach
• ' PA
• • - End Bridge Care
oun s1 a P ar
WM%5j0'
Alternative 5R
R,4 • r' Affected Environment
a R
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
�,:n R98H a.cRituc[s En .,,erg. ,-
y,r,.e� R
- • • . � n Pender County, Div. 3
•'�`` y_ TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
c�
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 12
►_ - ¢�r , �' (T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
5 y on NC 50 21
August 2012
i r
Bridge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway / 0

Begin Bridge - Mainland
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - -- Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
Ilow text indicates roadway /hydrau is items
rolling bridge begin & end locations
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
End Bridge - Island

50 210 ^ -�►.+ w.;se. '" r
Badge # 16
Faith Harbor,U nit ed
Methodist Church ?� y
�1
4� Soundside Park
Begin Bridge
- 50 210
R
.�^
- - -- End of Aerial Mapping Limits - - --
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
Soundside Park Property
Streams
- Ponds
Wetlands
Non- riparian
Riparian
CAMA
210
End Bridge
50
Alternative 11
Affected Environment
a
R"
& 4 IMPROVING YOUR "&LIU
M&H l . tfilfecM- Engineers- Plan,aFa.,Mc
Pender County, Div. 3 - -
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 14
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - -- Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
Ilow text indicates roadway /hydrau is items
rolling bridge begin & end locations
Begin Bridge - Mainland
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
End Bridge - Island

50 2210
aitli Har"r,Unit<
Methodist Churc
- L�hhhhh.�
.�i
I
Begin Bridge
_
A !` '4�
r
tt � rt
b L'S1
1fi4
ti
Kj
e
111
10
11L
irf City Polic
Department
I A �.' 7 wql
' r s �.
•.rte � - ,, ~�'� - -
I End Bridge
50
v
10
Legend
Proposed Right -of -Way
t Soundside Park Property
Streams
ilL Ponds
Wetlands
Non - riparian
Riparian
CAMA
50
Hall
�J sU ,City
�Visitor.Center
Alternative 17
Affected Environment
a RS 'ggg
d C
^� IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
R98H a.cRituc[s Enyiripen -PI sera, is
Pender County, Div. 3
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT Figure 16
(T.I.P. No: B - 4929)
idge No. 16 Over Intracoastal Waterway on NC 50 / 210 August 2012

Begin Bridge - Mainland
Legend
Non- Riparian Wetland Impacts
Riparian Wetland Impacts
CAMA Wetland Impacts
Wetland Boundary
- - -- Roadway Footprint (Slope Stakes)
Ilow text indicates roadway /hydrau is items
rolling bridge begin & end locations
1 �
/ 1
1:
AM, aL
i41
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE
End Bridge - Island

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix B
Detailed Study Alternatives Environmental Effects Summary
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

Appendix B: Detailed Study Alternatives Environmental Effects Summary
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 511
Alt 6
Alt 7
Alt 11
Alt 17
Project Description
Project Length (miles) - including permanent bridge length
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.9
Permanent Bridge Length (ft) - fixed length /moveable length
3,750
3,676
3,654
319/201
819/201
4,040
3,725
Detour Bridge Length (ft) - fixed length /moveable length
-
-
-
1,331/156
1,331/156
-
-
Human Environment Effects
Community Facilities Impacted
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Church (Faith Harbor United Methodist Church - property only)
1
1
1
-
-
1
-
Total Residential Relocations (number)
4
2
13
-
-
4
1
Total Business Relocations (number)
5
4
7
1
3
1
3
Low Income / Minority Residential /Business Relocations
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Physical Environment Effects
Section 4(f) Resources - Soundside Park property impacts -- permanent /temporary (acres)
-
-
-
0.03 +/0.4*
0.01 +/0.4*
-
0.2 ++
- Bridge No. 16 (eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places)
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Adverse Effect
Farmlands
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Archaeological Sites
TBD**
TBD**
TBD**
TBD**
TBD**
TBD**
TBD**
Known or Potential Hazardous Material Sites (number)
-
1
2
1
1
-
3
Superfund Sites
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Natural Environment Effects
Ponds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stream Crossings (number)#
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Wetlands: non - riparian /riparian /CAMA (acres)
2.0/0.1/-
2.0/0.2/-
2.0/0.2/-
-/-/0.3
- /- /0.1
1.3/-/-
0.8/-/0.4
Federally Protected Species
MA /NLAA
MA /NLAA
MA /NLAA***
MA /NLAA
MA /NLAA
MA /NLAA***
MA /NLAA
Costs ($M 2011)
Construction Costs (includes relocation costs for water and sewer utilities)
$47,200,000
$45,600,000
$45,400,000
$50,200,000
$55,900,000
$49,000,000
$44,600,000
Utility Pole Relocation Costs
$939,090
$1,361,538
$1,430,662
$12,580,030
$12,580,030
$1,040,170
$1,015,778
Right -of -Way Costs
$12,625,000
$13,975,000
$22,250,000
$4,975,000
$6,875,000
$9,925,000
$8,125,000
Sub Total
$60,764,090
$60,936,538
$69,080,662
$67,755,030
$75,355,030
$59,965,170
$53,740,778
Bridge Operations and Maintenance Costs (75 Years)
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
$25,964,500
$25,964,500
$3,631,500
$3,631,500
Total
$64,395,590
$64,568,038
$72,712,162
$93,719,530
$101,319,530
1 $63,596,670
$57,372,278
Note: Impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake, plus an additional 25 feet outside of each limit.
+ Represents fill slope impacts to the northern side of Soundside Park.
* Represents temporary impacts to Soundside Park as a result of the detour bridge.
++ Represents minimal impacts to the southern end of Soundside Park.
To be determined based on surveys to be completed after LEDPA /Preferred Alternative is chosen
# Both streams in the Project Study Area will be bridged, therefore no permanent stream impacts are anticipated.
MA /NLAA — May Affect /Not Likely to Adversely Affect the following two species: West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus ) and Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta)
Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Project (B -4929)
July -12
Indicates updates to the information
presented in the EA and Corridor Public
Hearing

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix C
Corridor Public Hearing Newsletter and Summary of Citizen's Comments
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

Meeting Notes
Memorandum
Meeting Date: December 8, 2011
R*ff
RS &H ArchifsiXirWfWW.
Subject: Corridor Public Hearing
Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Project (TIP Project No. B -4929)
Location: Surf City Community Center, Surf City
Attendance:
Members of the public
235 citizens and 35 local officials attended the Corridor Public Hearing. It is estimated that a total of 300
people attended the meeting (including NCDOT Project Team members).
NCDOT
NCDOT
Charles Cox, PDEA
Ed Lewis, HEU
Michele James, PDEA
Eileen Fuchs, HEU
Robert Hanson, PDEA
Herman Huang, HEU
Tony Houser, Roadway Design Unit
Megan Cogburn, HEU
Lee Moore, Roadway Design Unit
Allen Pope, Division 3
Casey Harris, Roadway Design Unit
Jackson Provost, Division 3
Mike Alford, BOT —Division 3
Patrick Riddle, Division 3
Keith Honeycutt — L &S
Kaye Baggett, Right -of -Way
Derrick Waller - TPM
Consultant Team
Other Officials
Chad Critcher, RS &H
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Ken Herring, RS &H
Kimberly Boik, RS &H
Radha Krishna Swayampakala, RS &H
Vivek Hariharan, RS &H
Edith Peters, RS &H
Rick DeCola, RS &H
Jason Talley, RS &H
Jan Anderson, JKA
Karen Simon, Simon Resources
Tami Reina, Simon Resources
The Pre - Hearing Open House was held at the Surf City Community Center, on Thursday, December 8,
2011 from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. The Formal Public Hearing began at 7:00 PM and ended at
approximately 9:15 PM. The purpose of the meeting was to update the citizens of Surf City on the
project status and present the seven bridge alternatives currently under detailed study.
During the Pre - Hearing Open House, citizens were shown a ten minute video that provided an overview
of the project. Highlights of the video included: the project schedule; corridor alternatives previously
under study; the seven bridge alternatives that were selected for detailed study; and a comparison of
Page 1 of 9

each alternative with the human, natural and physical environmental impacts. After viewing the video,
citizens were directed to one of the three stations with display boards and maps. Each of the three
stations included: Map 1 — Alternatives 4, 5 and 6; Map 2 — Alternatives 5R, 7, 11 and 17; and
visualization boards that depicted 3D artistic renderings of the seven alternatives. Citizens were
encouraged to interact with Project Team members, ask questions and share ideas.
A right -of -way station was set up, where NCDOT right -of -way agents were in attendance and answered
participants' questions. In addition, a station was set up for any citizens that wished to complete the
comment card at the informal part of the public meeting.
The Formal Public Hearing began at 7:00 PM. Ed Lewis, NCDOT representative, presented each corridor,
along with a summary of findings from the Environmental Assessment. After the NCDOT presentation,
citizens were encouraged to voice their project opinions as part of the formal public hearing record.
Participants Feedback:
Each workshop participant received a handout package at the sign -in location that included project
information and a comment form. After reviewing all the information presented at the Corridor Public
Hearing, participants were encouraged to rank each of the seven alternatives in order of preference on
the comment form. The first preference indicated the most favorable alternative and the seventh
preference indicated the least favorable.
Participants were encouraged to complete the comment form either at the workshop or at home.
Comment forms completed at home were to be mailed back no later than January 18, 2012. The
comment form also included several other questions to determine participants' residential /business
status, as well as any additional issues or specific ideas related to the replacement of the Topsail Island
Bridge.
Participants who attended the Formal Public Meeting had the opportunity to voice their project
opinions vocally. The comments were recorded as part of the formal public hearing record.
The following is a summary of the oral comments received by the Project Team members during the Pre -
Hearing Open House:
Oral Comments:
• Several participants proposed a new bridge alternative that utilizes the mainland side of
Alternative 17 and the island side of Alt 11. It was suggested that this alternative would provide
minimal impacts to residents and businesses.
• Several participants commented that the moveable bridge options are essential in maintaining
the unique character and charm of Topsail Island.
• Several participates commented that the costs of the low -level and mid -level moveable bridges
were too expensive and provided their support for high level fixed bridge alternatives.
• One participant commented that the fixed bridge options would do irreparable harm to the
shellfish beds in the Stump Sound area.
• Participates expressed concerns about relieving traffic congestion along the corridor.
• Several participants asked how the project was being funded.
• Participants had conflicting opinions on the roundabout intersection type. Most participants
either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed with this type of intersection.
• Participants expressed concern with alternatives that directly or indirectly affected their
property or business.
Page 2 of 9

Several participants expressed that Soundside Park should be preserved and kept quiet as
possible.
• Participants had differing opinions on whether the bridge alternatives should terminate near the
Central Business District or should steer clear of the Central Business District.
• One participant stated that on Alternative 17, the roundabout is located on several parcels that
are vacant. During the peak tourist season, these vacant parcels are used as overflow parking at
IGA and also parking for public beach access.
Written Comments:
A total of 140 comment cards were received. These written comments are summarized and presented
in the following pages. It should be noted that for the descriptive questions, only critical and unique
comments are included in the summary. Any repeated comments are not included in this summary.
Page 3 of 9

,� December 8, 2011 Corridor Public Hearing �Q .
zxa
Comments Summary
1) Where do you live? (141 responses)
Surf City Island 71 50%
Surf City Mainland 24 17%
Topsail Beach 15 11%
North Topsail Beach 5 4%
Other 26 18%
2) Your relationship with the Island: (133 responses)
Permanent Resident 93 70%
Seasonal Resident 21 16%
Other 19 14%
3 -A) Do you have property that will be directly impacted by one of the alternatives? (143 responses)
a. Yes 31 22%
b. No 112 78%
3 -13) If so, which alternative? (70 responses)
Alt 4 1-1112
17%
Alt 5 E '9
13%
Alt 5R i 9
13%
Alt 6 4
6%
Alt 7 4
6%
Alt 11 me,
26%
Alt 17 111111110A
20%
5 -A) Which alternative is your First Preference? (136 responses)
13%
Alt 4 15
11%
Alt 5 5
4%
Alt 5R 3
2%
Alt 6 16
S7% 12%
Alt 7 34
25%
Alt 11 19
,47% 14%
Alt 17 44
32%
5 -13) Which alternative is your Second Preference? (120 responses)
Alt 4 15
13%
Alt 5 18
15%
Alt 5R 3
3%
Alt 6 25
37% 21%
Alt 7 19
16%
Alt 11 24
20%
Alt 17 16
13%
5 -C) Which alternative is your Third Preference? (85 responses)
Alt 4 !NU-1-
24%
Alt 5 0I.11
19%
Alt 5R I•INVU'i.
22%
Alt 6 Ill 2
2%
Alt 7 II1I18
9%
Alt 11 BID `
11%
Alt 17 11141 `
13%
Page 4 of 9

Corridor Public Hearing* TOPSAIL ISLAND
December 8, 2011 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Comments Summary 1
5 -D) Which alternative is your Fourth Preference? (71 responses)
7
Alt 4 13
18%
Alt 5 19
27%
Alt 5R 17
24%
Alt 6 6
8%
Alt 7 3
4%
Alt 11 7
10%
Alt 17 6
8%
5 -E) Which alternative is your Fifth Preference? (64 responses)
7
Alt 4 11
17%
Alt 5 7
11%
Alt 5R 18
28%
Alt 6 8
13%
Alt 7 6
9%
Alt 11 10
16%
Alt 17 4
6%
5 -F) Which alternative is your Sixth Preference? (67 responses)
Alt 4
7
10%
Alt 5
4
6%
Alt 5R
6
9%
Alt 6
17
49%1 250/0
Alt 7
16
Lzial
Alt 11
7
10%
Alt 17
10
15%
5 -G) Which alternative is your Seventh Preference? (69 responses)
32
Alt 4 6
9%
Alt 5 8
12%
Alt 5R 3
4%
Alt 6 17
41% 25%
Alt 7 11
16%
Alt 11 18
26%
Alt 17 6
9%
6) Circle your preference for the following bridge types: (232 responses)
ligh -Level Fixed Bridge (126 responses)
Strongly Agree 66 65% 52%
Agree 16 130/o
Neutral 8 6 °0
Disagree 13 29% 10 0
Strongly Disagree 23 18%
!_ow -Level /Mid -Level Moveable Bridge (106 respoi
Strongly Agree
32
44% 30%
Agree
14
13 %1
Neutral
13
12%
Disagree
15
43% 14 %1
Strongly Disagree
32
30%
Page 5 of 9

Corridor Public Nearing sa TOPSAIL
+ .+ December 8, 2011 MUDGE REPLACEMENT 44110
Comments Summary
7) What is your opinion on a roundabout in Topsail Island? (114 responses)
Strongly Agree 32 40% 28%
Agree 13 11%
Neutral 23 20%
Disagree 16 40% 14%
Strongly Disagree 30 26%
8) Based on the information provided today, were all your substantial questions answered ?? (108 responses)
Yes 96 89%
No 12 11%
9) Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? (113 responses)
Yes llt l 113 100%
No IIIIIO 0%
10) Were NCDOT representatives understandable, helpful and clear in their explanations? (105 responses)
Yes IVi1105 100%
No llldV 0 0%
11) Do you have any additional issues or specific ideas that you would like to share concerning the replacement of the
Topsail Island bridge?
Workshop
You have worked really hard and we do appreciate it! Thank you.
What an excellent job by this team to keep the people at Topsail Island informed. Excellent maps and
information on all scenarios. Thanks again for a job well done.
Wished you had included in the hand -out materials the chart showing cost, businesses impacted, etc.
Your representatives were very helpful.
NCDOT representatives did a great job with the presentation. A lot of hard work that they have done to
make an excellent presentation of the northern, central and southern alternatives group. I think that the
high level fixed bridge alternatives is the correct way and I strongly agree.
Ideas
Consider combining Alt 17 mainland side with Alt 11 Topsail Island. If this could be accomplished
it would have the least impact.
Consider a tunnel as an option. You can build in same location and minimal disruptions to businesses.
Has a single "pillar" bridge using the center lane of existing road been considered?
On Alt 17, consider shifting the roundabout approximately 30 ft north of its current location so that it would
be centered more on the 4 vacant lots and avoid my commercial condominium development.
Propose a new alignment that extends Atkinson Point Road toward the north and ties -in at
Wilmington Avenue.
We have a bridge at the north end and middle end of the island. Why not one at the south end
of the island?
Community Characterics /Aesthetics /Ambiance
No high rise bridge. Keep the quaint feel of the island. Do not mess with the business district.
Alt 17 creates an industrial ambiance (or lack thereof!)
Page 6 of 9

Corridor Public Hearing -- TOPSAIL ISLAND I
December 8, 2011 BR DGE REPLACEMENT
Comments Summary 1
These high rise bridges would take away the reason that we invested everything we had to live
here.
I like waiting for the bridge. It is a major part of our culture. Protect the waterfront.
Soundside Park needs to be easily accessible. Need more bike paths, walking path on bridge.
High level bridge will change personality of Topsail Island.
All high rise bridges take away from the aesthetics and view and would affect rentals in the summer.
Please preserve Soundside Park - -we do not have many public parks in this area.
Keep Soundside Park quiet as possible.
Alt 17 is a beautiful bridge /entry to Topsail Island!
I believe that retaining a moveable bridge is essential to maintaining the unique character and charm
of Topsail Island. One of many things that make Topsail attractive is that is fairly quiet with a small
town feel, and is not overly developed as many of our beaches are along the coast.
The swing bridge is one of the few left and adds charm to the island.
A high rise bridge is out of synchronization with a small vacation spot. A high rise is a
monstrosity of steel and cement that overwhelms every structure around it.
Strongly against hi -level bridges due to economic impact, aethetic impact and potential use of
roundabouts. Would very much like to see 30' mid -level draw as replacement or 35' or even 40'.
Came to Topsail to retire in quaint fishing village. The history and ambiance of Topsail sets it
apart from other vacation destinations. The addition of a high rise bridge will destroy the main
reason people come here.
The existing draw bridge closings are a tourist attraction drawing visitors out of their cars to
watch and take pictures of passing boats. It is a signature quality feature of Topsail Island.
Eliminated Alternatives
Why was Alt 5A and 10A not considered for further study? It seems with eliminating the temporary
moveable bridge, the construction cost would be significantly lower.
Roundabout Comments
No roundabouts.
Roundabouts are always a bad idea for many citizens and will struggle with entrance and exit.
I do not believe a roundabout will be compatible with the pedestrian and bicyclists on the island.
Too many out of town tourists that have never seen such a thing.
Combine Alt 17 with Alt 11's island tie -in and take out the roundabout.
I am particularly in favor of the roundabout on the island end as it will aid traffic flow tremendously
by keeping it flowing but yet it will slow the traffic enough to maintain the "island feel" we all want
to preserve. I feel strongly that a roundabout needs to be added at the intersection of Little
Kinston, Atkinson Point and NC50 rather than simply adding additional turn lanes.
The roundabout would be a disaster. Need to present some specific accident statistics for the
ocean -isle example to work.
There is no need for a roundabout. It would be like gerbils in a cage! Summers here have become
traffic nightmares. It will not work for this fragile island home!
I think roundabouts will be fine but keep in mind that they need to be large enough for cars towing
boats on trailers.
Environmental Concern:
Anything other than replacing the current swing bridge with another moveable bridge will do
irreparable harm to the shellfish beds in the entire Stump Sound Area which grows the best and
in NC.
Page 7 of 9

Corridor Public Hearing TOPSAIL ISLAND
December 8, 2011 BR DGE REPLACEMENT
... Comments Summary 1
Traffic and Safety
Alt 17 creates lighting (headlight) problems and traffic congestion problems.
We need easy vehicle and waterway transit.
Many business on Roland Ave are negatively impacted by traffic on the causeway - -too much traffic
means you can't get to the business. Please pick a high rise, not a movable bridge.
The movable bridges do not address the traffic issues in the summer -cars would still be backed up.
Noise impacts not taken into account.
The bulk of traffic coming in on NC50 & NC210 are going to the south end.
Top Island needs high rise on the south end -- summer traffic is too congested.
Alt 17 best accommodates traffic from both north of surf city and south of surf city and overall cost
a plus.
Huge safety and emergency concerns for Alt 6 & 7; ambulances get caught waiting for bridge.
Alt 17 makes the most sense. It distributes traffic and is the least costly.
Alt 17 eliminates traffic backup due to draw bridge closings, reduces maintenance cost by not being
moveable. I do not like Alt 4, it moves the center of town up north and will cause traffic problems.
Concern with a high rise and how it will affect emergency evacuations. What is safe wind for traffic?
Alt 7 is better than Alt 6 because of the 30' VNC and would allow more boats to pass without moving
the bridge.
Alternatives 6 and 7 offer no improvement to the existing traffic nightmare that exists during tourist
season and bridge openings. Prefer Alt 17 or 11. The one factor that overrides all the local
political push is the need for an effective evacuation route to clear the island.
I support options 4 or 11 because these options avoid downtown Surf City, and should not be
crowded with the entrance /exit of bridge traffic.
Alt 7 will relieve a great deal of congestion by decreasing the number of boat openings. In this day of
fear of terrorism, a moveable bridge helps secure our waterways - no one ever addresses this concern.
Bridge needs to be 4 lanes. During traffic season, traffic backs up all the way to the 17/210 intersection.
There was some discussion about eliminating the bicycle and pedestrian facilities to allow for more
lanes on the bridge. I strongly disagree with this.
No to any movable bridge. Traffic congestion in summer is really bad. I have seen traffic backup
almost to highway 17. A high -level fixed bridge should be select. My first choice is Alt 17.
Alternative 17 is better for northbound NC210 traffic, but a roundabout takes up more room on
the island. We are good with either 11 or 17.
Cost Concerns
It needs to be a high level bridge. Alt 6 & Alt 7 would be a waste of taxpayers money.
The salary added in to the cost of Alt 6 & Alt 7 would benefit the island and is not a negative.
Cost for power poles and bridge tender are fiction (moveable bridges).
I think that DOT should not let requiring a "bridge tender" to influence their decision on a movable
bridge.
Since saving swing bridge is not an option why are other alternatives considered since moveable bridges
are much greater cost involved.
I hate to see the unique swing bridge go, but because of costs and 24 hr staff, the high rise makes
sense. The look of the island will change and I hate that.
During the presentation at the hearing, you stated that the purpose of the hearing was to gather
input from those affected by the project and that all alternatives were still being considered.
However, comments were made by a member of DOT staff prior to the formal presentation
seemed to indicate otherwise. Please clarify.
Page 8 of 9

December 8, 2011 Corridor Public Hearing TOPSAIL
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
� y zto
Comments Summary I!
Residential and Business Relocation Concerns
• The high level bridge will do away with the existing business corridor and will eventually end up
resulting in most businesses closing. The lack of business on the island results in the need to
travel off the island for all services which is inconvenient for growth.
Surf City's commercial businesses seem to be least impacted by bridge options that end at the
light. Option #11 completely bypasses the CBD putting further economic hardship on our businesses.
If the businesses close on Topsail due to being "relocated" with construction requirements, where
are they going to go? There is very little commercial /retail space available currently - if we lose what's
currently here businesses and people may migrate to other beaches.
The detour bridge for Alt 7 will go through the park and feds would not allow that because of federal $
for park and having to move picnic tables and band stand. I was told that detour bridge to north would
take houses near Sears Landing, so which is better? Picnic tables or houses? Northern alternatives
will have less effect on residential and rental than the southern alternatives.
Alt 11 has the least impact on business, residential and vacant properties.
Roundabout on option 17 would impact parking for IGA, public beach access and Soundside Park
functions.
I like Alt 17 because it keeps the center of town at present location and affects the fewest homes
and businesses.
Alt 4, 5 and 11 will have significant negative impact on Faith Harbor Church.
A moveable bridge has the advantage of being able to use the existing corridor and minimize
disruption of established businesses and residences.
Alt 6 and 7 maintain historic business zones and minimize disruptions to current residential and
business zones.
Alt 5 is better than 5R because less property is impacted on the island side.
Alt 4, 11 and 17 basically create a new CBD, making residential property now "business" property or
at least in a business zone, while hurting historical CBD but bridges are high and permanent.
Alt 4 and 11 are outside the CBD and would present minimal impact on existing buildings.
We highly favor Alt 4. Alternatives that dump traffic south of the stop light would seriously impact
residential areas and homeowners.
Strongly favor Alt 7, allows some craft to pass without opening the bridge. Less disruption of existing
structures, property and environment.
The island and ICW frontage build out and current lack of mortgage financing would inhibit effected
residents and businesses from relocating to other similar properties if they were displaced or their
quality of life suffers from the project, even if buyout packages were favorable.
Very concerned about the construction time table. Three years would kill local business and
rentals.
I do not want Alternative 11 because it basically dumps traffic into a primarily residential area. There
are always people walking and biking along NC 50 in this area.
Ideas and sentiments for existing bridge
We like the swing bridge top structure as it is a historic design and quite artistic for the time.
It would be nice to dismantle top parts of bridge and relocate to a park as a historic structure.
Consider donating existing roadway from Blackbeard's Campground to the existing swing bridge and
the concrete pier portion of the existing bridge to the town of Surf City as an extension to the town park.
Page 9 of 9

TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT TEAM
8008 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 410
Charlotte, NC 28226
WHERE: Surf City Community Center
201 Community Center Drive, Surf City, NC 28445
WHEN: Thursday, December 8, 2011
TIME: Pre - Hearing Open House: 3:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Formal Public Hearing: 7:00 PM
All the information presented at the public hearing will be posted on the project
website after the meeting. If you cannot attend the meeting in person, please
check the project website to review the material and provide your feedback.
' So
Meeting
? 1 OD Location
Those wishing to speak at the Formal Public Hearing can register during the Pre - Hearing Open House; by calling the
Project's Toll -Free Hotline (1- 877 - 392 - 5996); or by calling Mr. Ed Lewis at: (919) 707 -6078.
Written comments and questions are welcomed and
may be mailed or e- mailed to:
Ed Lewis
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1598
e -mail: elewis @ncdot.gov
Website:
http://www.ncdot.org/projects/TopsaiIIslandBridge
SOINDMS T
PARK
Project Schedule
• June 25, 2009
CIW #1 - Project
Information
• October 21, 2010
CIW #2 - Corridor
Alternatives Evaluation
• October 2011
Environmental
Assessment Document
Complete
• December 2011 do
Corridor Public Hearing
Meeting - Preliminary
Design Alternatives
Evaluation
• Spring 2012
Selection of Preferred
Alternative
• Fall 2012
Anticipated Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI)
Document Complete
We are Revisiting Your Community
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
( NCDOT) will hold a Corridor Public Hearing on
Thursday, December 8, 2011 to present the
seven remaining alternatives for the Topsail Island
Bridge Replacement Project. The Corridor Public
Hearing will be divided into two sessions; an
informal Pre - Hearing Open House where citizens
can drop -in anytime, between 3:30 - 6:30 p.m.,
review the corridor map alternatives and their
possible impacts and a Formal Public Hearing will
begin at 7:00 p.m., where NCDOT representatives
will present each corridor, along with a summary
of findings from the Environmental Assessment
(EA). After the NCDOT presentation, citizens are
encouraged to voice their project opinions as part of the formal public hearing record.
qw
Project Update - Environmental Assessment Complete
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing swing bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway on
NC 50/210 in Surf City, as this bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete.
The bridge replacement's project development, environmental studies, and engineering
have been conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA is a federal law enacted in 1970 that requires the Federal Government to consider
the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, major proposed actions in its
decision - making processes. The act is the basic national charter for the protection of
the environment. Under NEPA, an environmental document is required for any projects
that receive federal funds.
Design Public Hearing For this project, an EA has been prepared and was approved by NCDOT and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in October, 2011. The EA includes identification
• 2014
Right -of -Way Acquisition of the project's purpose and need, documentation of the potential bridge
Begins replacement alternatives, comparison of each alternative, human, natural, and
physical environmental impacts, and coordination with the public and regulatory
• 2016 agencies. Copies of the EA and corresponding Corridor Hearing Maps are available
Construction Begins for public review at: the local NCDOT Division Office; the local municipal offices
of Topsail Beach, Surf City, and North Topsail Beach; and the project's website —
www.ncdot.org /projects /TopsailIslandBridge.
9,800 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $5,700 at .58 cents each. Connecting people and places in North Carolina - safely and efficiently, with accountability and environmental sensitivity

Topsail Island Bridge Replacement Project
November 2011
Detailed Study Alternatives
The EA process, including the input of public comment and review by regulatory
agencies, has led to seven selected alternatives for detailed study. During the
Corridor Public Hearing on December 8, 2011, these alternatives will be presented
on two maps as outlined below:
Map 1 of 2
Three of the seven alternatives will be shown on Map 1 as follows:
Alternative 4 - A new high -level fixed bridge with 65 -foot Vertical
Navigational Clearance (VNC), located approximately 800 feet north of
the existing bridge.
Alternative 5 - A new high -level fixed bridge with 65 -foot VNC, located
approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge.
Alternative 6 - a new low -level moveable bridge with 15 -foot VNC,
located in the same location as the existing bridge. This alternative
requires an adjacent temporary detour bridge during construction,
which will also have 15 -foot VNC.
Map 2 of 2
The remaining four alternatives will be shown on Map 2 as follows:
Alternative 5R - A new high -level fixed bridge with 65 -foot VNC, located
approximately 400 feet north of the existing bridge.
Alternative 7 - a new mid -level moveable bridge with 30 -foot VNC,
located in the same location as the existing bridge. This alternative
requires an adjacent temporary detour bridge during construction,
which will have 15 -foot VNC.
Alternative 11- A new high -level fixed bridge with 65 -foot VNC, located
approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing bridge.
Alternative 17 - A new high -level fixed bridge with 65 -foot VNC, located
approximately 1,100 feet south of the existing bridge.
All comments received at the hearing and subsequent comment period ending
January 18, 2012 will be recorded as part of the public record for the project.
After review of the input provided by the public, local governments, and regulatory
agencies, NCDOT intends to select a Preferred Alternative (in Spring 2012) and
prepare a second environmental document (likely a FONSI) in Fall 2012.
Page 2 http: / /www.ncdot.org /projects /TopsaillslandBridge / http://www.ncdot.org /projects /TopsaillslandBridge / Page 3

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix D
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY -AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project No. BRSTP- 50(10)
W.B.S. No. 40233.1.1
TIP No. B -4929
Description:
Bridge No. 16 was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as
part of the NCDOT's 1995 Historic Bridge Inventory Report as an early and intact example of a
riveted Warren through truss, swing span bridge. Although moved from Sunset Beach to its
current location in 1954, Pender County Bridge No. 16 remains in operable condition and retains
c. 1930 gearing and mechanical systems. The historic boundary for the bridge includes the 254 -
foot long Warren through truss, operator's house, and concrete tee beam approach spans.
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or
Yes No
rehabilitated with Federal funds?
X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is
on or eligible for listing on the
X
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark?
F-1 X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council
F-1*
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:_
Yes No
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered F-1 X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X
2. Build a new structure at a different
* Further coordination to address Section 106 will be initiated after the LEDPA /Preferred Alternative is selected.

location without affecting the historic
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/o (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and /or (iv) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
0 T bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or Odef1cientgeometrically The bridge is seriously
and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning X
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the historic integrity of the
bridge is preserved to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
unavoidable transportation needs, safety, and load requirements.

b. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that are to be removed or
demolished, the FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or
other suitable means developed through consultation, fully
adequate records are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced, the existing bridge is made
available for an alternative use, provided a responsible party
agrees to maintain and preserve the bridge.
(DHPO, For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement among the
ACHP, and FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures to minimize harm and
those measures are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
Currently, NCDOT is investigating options reuse of the existing swing span at a different
location. Resulting information on these options will be included in subsequent
documentation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
NCDOT met with SHPO's representative on April 5, 2011, and concluded that all seven
Detailed Study Alternatives would result in an "adverse effect" because the existing
Bridge No. 16 would be removed. This concurrence form is attached.
Upon selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
\Preferred Alternative, FHWA will initiate Adverse Effects Process and identify further
minimization efforts, which will be included in the Section 106 Memorandum of
Agreement. This coordination will involve the following agencies:
a. State Historic Preservation Officer
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies
d. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on July 5,
1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this
project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the measures to
minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.

Approved:
Date Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Division Administrator, FHWA

Federal Aid #: BRSTP- 50(10) TIP#: B -4929 County: Pender
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 16 on NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway in
Surf City
On 4/5/2011, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed within the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Signed:
Representatit,)CINOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer

a�
a
d
a
IN
N
.l
0
O
a
H
Y
r�
^V
0
a
a
v
o.
0
a
0
v
v
0
03
U
W
cam,
W
v
Q d
o
w z
0
U
y
O Q
3�
EU
N
O}
4
U-
c—
O
N
CO
3
3
c
c
v�
W
N
o
�
Cl)
z
p
7:1
cD
W U
�
Q.
.0
O v
U
CL
�w
a Q
0
a
a
v
o.
0
a
0
v
v
0
03
U
W
cam,
W
v
Q d
o
w z
0
U
y
O Q
3�
EU
N

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 28, 2010
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
Division. -J Highways
A . - 7 2011
Preconstrucaon
project Development and
Environmental Analysis Buk!
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Mary Pope Furr, Architectural Historian
NCDOT /PDEA /HEU
FROM: Peter Sandbeck``'
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replace Bridge #16 over AIWW in Surf City,
B -4929, Pender County, ER07 -1820
We received the above referenced report, prepared by Courtney Foley, on October 21, 2010 and offer the
following comments.
We concur that Pender County Bridge #16, which was determined eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places as part of the 1995 statewide bridge survey, is still eligible for listing.
We also concur that the Ward Realty Corporation (Bldg #63) at 116 S Topsail Drive is not yet eligible for
listing in the National Register as it is not fifty years old and does not meet Criterion Consideration G. Please
note that on page 6 of the report, this property is incorrectly referred to as Property 62. We have changed it to
#63 in our copy.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and patience in awaiting our reply. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Ron Lucas, FHWA
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone/ Fax: [phone] -6599

f
•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Adminishator
Michael F. Easley, Governor office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J_ Crow, Deputy secretary David Brook, Director
September 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ft� PtAu G "�_ck_
RE: Start of Study for Replacement of Bridge #16 on NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway,
B -4929, Pender County, CH 07 -1820
We are in receipt of your August 16, 2007, memorandum to Chrys Baggett of the State Clearinghouse,
concerning the above referenced undertaking.
We have checked our maps and files and determined that Bridge #16 was determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Demolition and replacement of the bridge will have an adverse effect
upon a historic property. Thus, additional coordination under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act will be necessary.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733 -4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: SCH
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
�4
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
I-I)MINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Wiail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733- 4763/733 -8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]!715-0801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount S reet, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 (919)733 -6545!715 4801

Federal Aid # BRSTP- 50(10) TIP # B -4929 County: Pender
CONCURRENCE FOR114 FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Prnjcct Description: Replace Bridge No. 16 on NC 50/210 over Intracoastal Waterway in Surf City
On 19 March 2010, representatives of the
❑ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
❑ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
1Zeviewed the subject project at historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation and
All parties present agreed
There are no properties ove- fifty year. old within the project's 4\rea of Potential Effects (APE).
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's APE.
® There are properties over fifty yearz old within the project's APE, but based on the historical information available
and the photographs of each propert;-. the properties identified as 1 -22, 24 -62, 64 -82 are considered not eligible
for the National Register and no further evaluation ),'them is necessary. Photographs of these properties are
attached.
❑ There are no National Register- listed or Study Listed properties within the project's APE.
❑ All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121 -12(a) has been completed for this project.
❑ More information is requested on property numbers: 23: Bridge No. 16 (DOE) and 63: 116 S. Topsail Drive.
Signed:
MAC 4+ Za 10
ItepreseVative, NOOT Date
Fl IWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
1Lepresentative, HPO
Slate Historic Preservation Officer
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix E
Summary of August 17, 2011 Meeting with the Town of Surf City (Soundside Park
Impacts Coordination)
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

Meeting Notes
Memorandum
Meeting Date: August 17, 2011
Subject:
Location:
Attendees:
B -4929 — Soundside Park Impacts
Town Hall, Surf City
Town of Surf City:
Zander Guy, Mayor
Michael Moore, Town Manager
Todd Rademacher, Planner
RS &H:
Chad Critcher
Ken Herring
Radha Krishna Swayampakala
RS &H Architects - Engineers - Planners, Inc.
NCDOT:
Charles Cox, PDEA
Michele James, PDEA
Tony Houser, Roadway Design Unit
Lee Moore, Roadway Design Unit
Allen Pope, Division 3
FHWA:
Ron Lucas
Meeting Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to discuss impacts to Soundside Park and determine
whether these impacts are considered as adverse or de minimis.
Introductions: Michele James opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. Michele
then explained the purpose of the meeting and introduced Chad Critcher with the consultant firm of
RS &H.
Presentation: Chad Critcher presented the PowerPoint presentation with the following outline:
• History of Study Alternatives
• Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward for Additional Study
• Temporary and Permanent impacts to Soundside Park
• Definition of Section 4(f) and de minimis
Note: A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached with these meeting notes.
The following is a summary of the items discussed in the meeting:
➢ With Alternatives 6 and 7, the temporary detour bridge will allow for access to the Soundside
Park near the same location as the existing access.
➢ Alternatives 6 and 7 would have significant utility impacts as the large transmission poles
located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway would need to be moved twice during the
construction period (move once into the park area to accommodate temporary construction
efforts and move back to the original location after construction is complete).
➢ With Alternative 6 and 7, the picnic area and amphitheater in the Soundside Park along with
Bumble Bee Market would be impacted by the temporary detour bridge. The detour bridge
would also result in travel pattern changes to a few businesses and residences in the area.
Page 1 of 3

➢ Even though the detour alignment is temporary, impacts to facilities such as the amphitheater
would be severe enough to render the Soundside Park unusable during construction. It should
be noted that any facilities impacted by the temporary detour bridge would be restored once
the permanent bridge is open to traffic.
➢ Based on the information provided by the NCDOT Project Team so far, the Town officials felt
that the temporary detour bridge impacts to Soundside Park would be more adverse and
thereby could not be considered as de minimis impacts.
➢ FHWA came to this meeting to seek input from the Surf City Town officials and determine
whether the impacts should be considered as adverse or not. Based on the input from the Surf
City Town officials and NCDOT Project Team, FHWA considers that Alternatives 6 and 7 would
result in temporary adverse impact to Soundside Park. Therefore, these alternatives would have
a 4(f) use.
➢ Alternative 17 would have a minor /non- adverse impact to a small unusable portion of the Park,
which would be considered as a de- minimis impact.
➢ Alternative 17 would provide a good view of the business district and proper signage could be
provided to help attract people to these businesses.
➢ FHWA also stated that if Alternative 17 wasn't considered de minimis, and Alternatives 6 and 7
result in adverse temporary impacts to 4(f) usage, the Project Team, by law, will be required to
choose another feasible and prudent alternative (such as Alternatives 4, 5, 5R or 11, which avoid
impacts to the Soundside Park).
➢ Construction of the new bridge, whether moveable or high -level fixed bridge, would take 2 -3
years.
➢ The Town officials felt that of the seven Detailed Study Alternatives, Alternatives 6, 7 and 17 are
considered as the only feasible alternatives. Alternative 6 does not appear to be desirable due
to low -level clearance and number of required openings per day. Alternative 17 appears to
result in lower impacts to businesses; where as Alternatives 6 and 7 appear to result in higher
impacts along Roland Avenue (both during and after the construction period).
➢ Subject to input to be received from public, Town believes that Alternatives 6 and 7 would cause
an adverse impact to the Soundside Park and Alternative 17 would cause a minor impact.
➢ In the preliminary design plans, it appears that Alternative 17 could potentially impact the
wastewater pump station on the island side. Town requests the Project Team to avoid impacts
to the wastewater pump station.
➢ NCDOT and Town officials discussed that several area business owners contacted the Project
Team members outside the Citizens Informational Workshops with questions regarding the
study alternatives and associated impacts. NCDOT plans to hold a Business Forum with business
owners to further discuss project impacts and /or possible mitigation measures.
➢ The Town will identify affected property owners in the area and provide their contact
information to NCDOT. Todd Rademacher, town planner will be the contact person for this
effort.
Page 2 of 3

➢ FHWA indicates that some monies to fund other improvements in the study area as mitigation
for the park impacts might be available.
➢ The new bridge will have a standard railing along the bridge.
➢ The Town believes that the NCDOT Project Team has done a great job with informing the
community since the project initiation.
➢ Based on the current TIP, right -of -way acquisition is expected to start in 2014.
Page 3 of 3

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Appendix F
Project Photographs
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Swing Span Looking North
Mainland Approach Looking East
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Swing Span Looking South
Mainland Approach Looking East
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Swing Span at Bridge Tender Looking West
6W
Open Swing Span Looking West
Southside Park Area looking West
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Island Approach Looking West
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

CONCURRENCE POINT 2A AND 3
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW - LEDPA SELECTION
Citizens discussing the study alternatives with the
NCDOT Project Manager (Michele James) at Citizens
Informational Workshop (CIW) #2
Citizens looking at the maps at CIW #2
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I,
Project Team Member (Edith Peters) explaining the
study alternatives to citizens at CIW #2
Local Elected Officials and Town
Representatives listening to the voiceover
PowerPoint presentation at CIW #2
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST 2012

17
oo ► V, N
50
10 ($ 14�
El oS2
Co E.
5
L �i W
I
,06