20150955 Ver 1_Final Meeting Notes 5-23-2013_20130502

FINAL VERSION RStff.
Meeting Notes May 23, 2013
RS &H Architects - Engineers - Planners, Inc.
Memorandum Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
NCDOT /RS &H Project Team
Meeting Date: August 16, 2012
Subject: NEPA /404 Merger Team Concurrence Point 2A/3 Meeting for Topsail Island Bridge
Replacement Project TIP Project No. B -4929
Location: Structure Design Conference Room, NCDOT
Attendees: Merger Team (MT)
Present:
Brad Shaver, USACE
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Gary Jordan USFWS
Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Mason Herndon, NCDWQ
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Via Conference Call:
Jessi O'Neal, NCDMF
Christopher Militscher, USEPA
Invited but did not attend:
Terens Knowles (USCG)
Renee Gledhill - Earley (DCR -SHPO)
Ron Sechler (NMFS)
Project Team (PT)
Present from NCDOT.
Greg Thorpe, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Charles Cox, PDEA
Michele James, PDEA
Kalynn Chambers, PDEA
Drew Joyner, HES
Ed Lewis, HES
Herman Huang, HES
Chris Rivenbark, NES
Elizabeth Lusk, NES
Tyler Stanton, NES
Karen Fussell, Division 3
Amanda Glynn, Division 3
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Kevin Fischer, Structures Management
Dan Idol, Structures Management
Paul Atkinson, Hydraulics
Neal Strickland, Right -of -way
Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO
Tony Houser, Roadway Design
Lee Moore, Roadway Design
Chandrakant Sura, Congestion Management
Shane York, TPB
Hardee Cox, STIP Unit
Daniel Oliver, Utilities
Present from RS &H Consultant Team:
Chad Critcher, RS &H
Ken Herring, RS &H
Radha Krishna Swayampakala, RS &H
Jan Anderson, JKA Engineering
A NEPA /404 Merger Team meeting for the subject project was held on August 16, 2012 in NCDOT's
Structure Design Conference Room. The purpose of this meeting was to reach agreement on
Concurrence Point 2A (Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review) and Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA
Selection).
Page 1 of 5

Introductions: Ms. Michele James opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. Ms.
Michele James then explained the purpose of the meeting, requested all the attendees to sign in and
introduced Mr. Chad Critcher with the consultant firm of RS &H.
Presentation: Mr. Critcher offered additional Concurrence Point 2A/3 packets to the attendees and
presented a PowerPoint presentation, attached herein, that summarized information found in the
packets, including the items outlined below:
• Merger Process History & Schedule
• Public Involvement Summary
• Section 4(f) Resources —Adverse Impacts
• Existing Natural Resources
• DSA Alignment & Bridging Review for Concurrence Point 2A
• CP 2A Concurrence
• LEDPA / Preferred Alternative Selection
• CP 3 Concurrence
During the presentation, it was shown that Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in adverse impacts to the
Soundside Park, a Section 4(f) resource. Therefore these alternatives were recommended for
elimination and the Merger Team (MT) concurred. See attached CP 2A form signed by the MT.
The public outreach efforts to date were presented including citizen comments. In addition, alternative
preliminary designs were presented with corresponding human, physical, and natural impacts and costs,
followed by a recommendation from the PT to select Alternative 17 as LEDPA. Questions and comments
were discussed as follows:
MT Comment: (In reference to the 0.4 acre CAMA wetland impact associated with Alternative 17) DCM
does not consider this as a small impact. For DCM, a small impact might be less than 1,000 square feet.
Project Team (PT) Response: Presented plan views with the assumed 25' buffers at the CAMA wetland
sites and explained that during final design the buffer width could be reduced leading to less CAMA
impact area. Reducing the buffer from 25' to 15' would reduce CAMA wetland impacts from
approximately 0.4 acres to 0.25 acres.
MT Question: Can the Alternative 17 bridge be extended on the mainland side to minimize the impacts?
PT Response: Extending the bridge on the mainland side would further challenge the traffic control
issues during construction. However, if we can build the Roland Avenue realignment first and detour the
traffic, we can possibly extend the bridge further. The CAMA wetland impacts on the mainland side are
less than 0.1 acre. Other construction methods such as a reduced buffer, retaining walls at the bridge
end, and shallow deck would reduce these impacts to approximately 408 square feet.
MT Question: On the island side, is there an opportunity to extend the bridge?
PT Response: The Project Team evaluated various options to minimize CAMA wetland impacts for
Alternative 17 on the island side. The wetland impacts presented in the CP 2A/3 Report are calculated
based on a 25' buffer. Reducing this buffer to 15' would reduce these impacts substantially. Also,
extending the bridge by approximately 110' and including a retaining wall near the landing may
eliminate the impacts. However, this may require raising the elevation of the roundabout, which may
result in additional property impacts in this area. Extending the bridge and constructing retaining walls
may result in additional cost of $2 million.
Page 2 of 5

MT Question: Instead of a roundabout, if a normal intersection is used at the island tie -in, would that
give an opportunity to lengthen the bridge?
PT Response: Yes, it would provide the opportunity to extend the bridge. The Project Team will review
this option after LEDPA selection.
MT Comment: It is a matter of balancing development with environment. So, we understand that there
is going to be some impacts, especially for a project that is going to have some over - riding public benefit;
which DOT projects do. But, we want NCDOT to try and make those as small as possible within reason.
We are not expecting NCDOT to spend millions of dollars to span the CAMA wetlands, but we would like
to reach a compromise.
PT Response: We will make every effort to minimize the impacts. At this point, based on the survey and
topography information available, we do not feel comfortable to commit to absolute zero acres of the
CAMA wetland impacts. Can we concur to having impacts less than 0.1 acres?
MT Comment: We are okay with 0.1 acres, provided additional measures are investigated to further
reduce them.
MT Question: Can we consider an option to excavate out the high ground at the island tie -in to the level
of the marsh and create additional marsh. This will also help to further extend the bridge?
PT Response: Ideas like this will be reviewed during final design.
MT Question: How high is the top of the abutment above the high ground on the island side?
PT Response: Under the proposed Alternative 17 alignment, near the island tie -in, there would be 3 -4
feet of clearance. This would require shorter spans to facilitate shallower girders.
MT Comment: We need NCDOT to investigate on -site mitigation opportunities for CAMA wetlands.
PT Response: We are committed to follow our standard procedure and coordinate with the Merger
Team accordingly.
MT Comment: National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) is a signatory authority, but there is no representative
at this meeting. NCDOT needs to contact them.
NC DMF Comment: We have been in contact with them.
PT Response: We will continue to coordinate with NCDMF and NMFS. Our current contact (Ron Sechler)
could not attend this meeting. We will coordinate with NMFS after this meeting.
MT Question: What were the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) findings? How was the SAV
surveyed?
PT Response: Early screening revealed that SAV evaluation would not be needed since the water is too
deep and moving too fast. Preliminary survey was performed around marsh edges. Anything less than 2
meters is considered as fishery habitat and would have to be mitigated.
Page 3 of 5

MT Comment: NCDMF's primary nursery area ends at the end of the channel. SAV has been showing up
along the edges and in the shallow areas. We would anticipate SAV mostly along the channel. Recently,
we noticed some SAV south of the existing bridge. We are not certain on exact location.
PT Response: There are some shallow areas along the Alternative 17 alignment. Anything less than 2
meters is considered as possible habitat and may require mitigation. It is critical to find out what exists
within 2 meters deep.
MT Question: Our main concern is direct impacts, but there may also be shade impacts. Also, Alternative
17 potentially may cause more impacts to SAV habitat than other alternatives. When was this original
survey completed? It appears that most of the time instead of avoidance, NCDOT chooses to mitigate?
PT Response: The early screening was performed within the last two years. Yes, typically NCDOT works
with the agencies to mitigate. When various alternatives are compared, SAV impacts are a major factor.
Once a LEDPA /Preferred Alternative has been selected, mitigation opportunities are investigated.
MT Comment: SAV information needs to be documented and shared with the Merger Team. We also
need to make sure that NMFS provides their comment on this.
PT Response: We can perform a survey as early as next week. We will coordinate this with NCDMF.
However, if we were to find no SAV in the survey, would agencies feel comfortable to sign the
Concurrence Point 3 for Alternative 17 as the LEDPA /Preferred Alternative?
MT Comment: Yes, we agree for the Alternative 17 to be the LEDPA, provided no SAV impacts. Also, if no
SAV is found for Alternative 17, we can handle signing the Concurrence Point 3 offline without meeting
formally.
MT Question: Why would the temporary impacts under Alternatives 6 and 7 be considered as "adverse
impacts "?
FHWA Response: With Alternatives 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. 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. The Surf City 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.
MT Question: By signing the Concurrence Point 3 for Alternative 17, are we committing to a roundabout
at the island tie -in location?
PT Response: No. Followed by LEDPA selection, we will further refine the design plans and reevaluate
the island tie -in area.
Following this discussion, the Merger Team and NCDOT revised the content of Concurrence Point 2A and
3 forms. The Merger Team members in attendance signed the Concurrence Point 2A form and verbally
agreed to sign Concurrence Point 3 form, provided no impacts to SAV habitat.
Page 4 of 5

Followed by the CP 2A/3 meeting, the NCDMF and NCDOT Natural Environment Section (NES)
performed SAV survey on August 23, 2012 and September 25, 2012. The attached memo summarizes
the findings of these SAV surveys. The Merger Team members have reviewed this form and agreed in
December 2012 /January, 2013 to identify Alternative 17 as the LEDPA /Preferred Alternative. CP 3 form
has been signed by all agencies with the exception of NMFS. NMFS has chosen to abstain from this
process and will discuss SAV mitigation measures with NCDOT during subsequent concurrence meetings.
If any recipient of the meeting notes would like to add comments or feels a comment is erroneous or
needs to be expanded, please feel free to contact Michele James at (919) 707 -6027 or by email at
miames @ncdot.gov.
Copies to:
Meeting Attendees
Terens Knowles, USCG
Renee Gledhill - Earley, DCR -SHPO
Brandon Howard, NMFS
Attachments:
Concurrence Forms 2A and 3
SAV Memo (dated December 10, 2012)
PowerPoint Presentation
Page 5 of 5

ORIGINAL
AUGUST 16, 2012
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
Section 404 1NEPA Merger Team Meeting Aqreement
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 Decisions and Alignment Review
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and alignments of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA) 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, as well as their limited off -site detour options, constructability
concerns and higher overall costs compared with other five DSAs. 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 minimum roadway /hydraulic bridge lengths for each DSA.
Detailed Study
Alternative No.
Begin Station
End Station
Minimum
Roadway /Hydraulic Control
Bridge Length (feet)
Alt 4
516 +40
553 +90
3,750
Alt 5
615 +40
652 +16
3,676
Alt 513
615 +40
651+94
3,654
Alt -6
13-16+50
432N -70
620
At - Detow
21,+-13
36 +00
4497
Aft-7
1514 +60
462-1-1-7-0
X020
Alt - 7 —Detow
24+43
36+00
4;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
USACE(
USEPA
NCDCR
FHWA `--
USCG
NCDMF
•
date of August 16, 20 2:
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDWQ - -
NCWRC
N C DC M
NMFS
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B -4929
AUGUST2012

ORIGINAL
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A
AUGUST 16, 2012 BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Aareement
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 Rro ;--,t No.: BRSTP -50 (10)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and alignments of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA) 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, as well as their limited off -site detour options, constructability
concerns and higher overall costs compared with other five DSAs. 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 minimum roadway /hydraulic bridge lengths for each DSA.
Detailed Study
Alternathe Ntr.
BeginSta ©it_.1
_
Sttint>
Minimum
Rtidway lHyt(r2tulia,octtrot,__
Brid e.Len th 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
Att 6
1316 +58
1321+7
629
Alt 6 Bette
21+13
36+89
44P
Alt-7
1611+6
4524 - +78
4;=
Alt 7 - Det
21+13
36+00
4 ;4 7
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, 20 2:
USACE
/ g ,t�, 2vi z - NCDOT
USE P
�� /'t ' _ 2i -- 12- USFWS
NCDCR
NCDWQ —
FHWA
NCWRC
USCG
z
NCDCM���,i/� -��,.
NCDMF
NMFS
--•
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B-4929
AUGUST 2012

ORIGINAL
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A
AUGUST 16, 2012 BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
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 (1
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and alignments of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA) 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, as well as their limited off -site detour options, constructability
concerns and higher overall costs compared with other five DSAs. 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 minimum roadway /hydraulic bridge lengths for each DSA.
Detailed Study
Alternative No.
Begin Station
End Station
Minimum
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
A4 6
4316 +60
1321 +70
520
A4 — Detauf
21+13
36+00
1;487
Alf 7-
1611 +60
152 -1 +70
1,020
- - --
Alt- 7- -Aetow
2 -14.13
36+0
1;487
4,040
Alt 11
919 +00
959 +40
Alt 17
406 +75
444 +00
3,725
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of August '16, 20 2:
USACE EJ/ NCDOT
USEP IR -2f _ 12- USFWS
NCDCR NCDWQ '? g
FHWA NCWRC
USCG _ NCDCM GcDo
NCDMF NMFS
RPO t _
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. B4929
AUGUST 2012

ORIGINAL
AUGUST 16, 2012
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A
BRIDGING DECISIONS AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
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.: 8-4929
Federal Aid-Project No,: BRSTP - 50_001
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
The Project Team has reviewed the bridging and alignments of the seven Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA) 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
Paris, a Section 4(0 resource, as well as their limited off -site detour options, constructability
concerns and higher overall costs compared with other five DSA9. 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 minimum roadway /hydraulic bridge lengths for each DSA.
Detail
Detalled Study ative No,
g gilt 3tatlont.
End 5tltioa
Minimum
Roadway /Hydraulic Control..
Brid e.Length (feet]
All 4
516 +40
553 +90
3,750
Alt 5
616 +40
652 +16
3,676
Alt 5R
615 +40
651 +94
3,654
Alt 8
4318+-iA
1324*70
620
A44-9etaw
21413
26+00
4
A1-7
16-14 +60
1424**
1,020
Alt
24443
26+QQ
1-,4P
Alt 11
919 +00
959 +40
4,040
Alt 17
406 +75
44400
3,725
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of August 16, 20 2:
USACE
yk
g I6.2a 1 Z-
NCDOT
USEP
��•.�(
g _ 21 1 2-
USFWS
NCDCR �� a
. 1 1 t �a.�t, ,
y Q , $;171 r 1.,
NCDWQ -_
FHWA
NCWRC
USCG
NCDCM
NCDMF
�`�� �Q
try
NMFS r
RPO
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT oKTRANSPORTATION T.I.P. No. 13-4929
AUGUST 2012

ORIGI A CONCURRENCE POINT 3
DECEMBER 17, 2012 LI^OMPREFERREr) ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Sectlon 404NdEPA Merger Mooting A Loe t
Concurrence Paint 3: l EDPA/Preforresd Alternative Selection
Project NameXes ption: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Ponder County, NC
TIP Pro jeot No,: !_ 49
Federal Aid P ect No.: U-?_-S_QJ1
L OPA/Preforred Altatnative Selectloo
The Project Team has reviewed the retailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)Mroferred Alternative
for the replacement of the referenced project Bridge loo. 16 in Topsail Island. During final
design development, NCOOT will reduce the permanent LAMA wedand Impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Subbed
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown In the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
any other bottom4sturbing activities In the SAV habitat area.
Subsequent to the August 16, 2012 Concurrence Point 3 meeting. the Project Team performed
additional survey for SAV habitat, results of this survey are summarized in the attached
memo. After review and coordination of the SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
USAGE t sq. s,L NCDOT
U E3'
112.1 t USFWS
NCVCR NCi: WQ
F FNVA NCW r
OM CARMINA TOPSAIL 111LAND BRIDGE RF- PLACp-MENT
DEPARTMENTOF TRmSPORTAMM TJv P' NO. 134420
E('EM R 20112

ORIGINAL
DECEMBER 17, 2012
CONCURRENCE POINT 3
LEDPAIPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SEUECTION
Section, 4041NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preforred Alternative Selection
Project NamelDescription: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Ponder County, NC
TIP Project No.: 8 -4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP-50 (10)
WBS No.: 49233.1 . I
LEDPAJPreferred Alternative Selection
The Project Team has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)tPreforred Alternative
for the replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No, 16 in Topsail Island. During final
design development, NCDOT will reduce the permanent CAMA wetland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0,1 acres, In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown in the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
any other bottom- disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
Subsequent to the August 16, 2012 Concurrence Point 3 meeting, the Project Team performed
additional survey for SAV habitat, Results of this survey are summarized in the attached
memo, After review and coordination of the SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative,
USACE
NCDOT
USEPA
USFWS
012-
NCDCR
NCDWQ
FHWA
NCWRC
USCG NCDCM
NCDMF NMFS
RPO
NoRTi4 CAROLINA 'TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TIRMSPORTATION T.I.P. No® B-4020
DECEMBER 2012

ORIGINAL
DECEMBER 17, 2012
CONCURRENCE POINT 3
LEUPAWRI fE mi.m ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Section +404 /NCPA�Me ._;lwoatil M IncLAr reen)ent
Concurrenco Point 3: LNDPA/Preforred Alternative Sotaction
Project Namo /Doscriptlon: Topsall Island Bridge Raplacemonl, Patidur County, NC
TIP Project No.: 8.4929
Federal Aid Projoct No.: j3jj -50 i.,0)
WBS No.: 4023 3.1.1
LEDPA/Preforred Altornntive Soloction
Tho Project Team has roviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Altornative 17
as Ilia Least Fnvlronmentally Damaging Practicable Altornative (LEDPA) /Proforred Alternative
for Ilia roplacement of tho referenced project, Bridge No. 16 In 'ropsail Island. During final
design devolopment, NCDOT will reduce Ilia permanent LAMA wetland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Submargod
Aquatic Vegetation (,SAV) habitat shown In the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
tiny other bottorn- disturbing aclivltios in Ilse SAV habitat area.
Subsuquont to the August 16, 2012 Concurrenco Point 3 moetinc3, the Project 'roan) porfomnod
additional survey for SAV habitat. Results of this survey aro summarizod In the attached
memo. After roview and coord€nation of tho SAV suf voy rosults, Ilia Project Team has
concurrod on the selection of Alternative 17 as the t.E DPA/Preferred Altornative.
USACE NC.DOT
f2' f4.lnl�
USCPA I181: W S
t1. .tom
NCDC€T NC;I)Wc,)
E
FHWA NCWRC;
USCG NCDCM
�j
NCC3Mt• !..,. i�r�j�t� �'7. �'t 4.., NMFS
RPO
NORM CAROLINA T0111SAIL ISLAND L3111D011 REPLACEPA;NT
OIIPAR'I&lf f#)' or- "r rtANl3POlt'(Kl tort 1A.P. No. 1-1-4920
DEC&rr ami 2012

ORIGINAL
CONCURRENCE POINT 3
DECEMBER 17, 2012 LEDPAWREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
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
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
The Project Team has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) /Preferred Alternative
for the replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No. 16 in Topsail Island. During final
design development, NCDOT will reduce the permanent CAMA wetland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown in the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
any other bottom - disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
Subsequent to the August 16, 2012 Concurrence Point 3 meeting, the Project Team performed
additional survey for SAV habitat Results of this survey are summarized in the attached
memo. After review and coordination of the SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
USACE j 12 iq.2o�L NCDO1
USEPA USFWS
NCDCR
FHWA
USCG
ti� f
NCDMF
RPO
NORTII CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NCDW ,0�00e IZ•Z1 -1Z
NCWRrr
NCDCM
NMFS
TQPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
T.I.P. No, 8.4929
DECEMBER 2012

ORIGINAL CONCURRENCE POINT 3
DECEMBER 17, 2012 LIEUPA)WREfERREo ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Section 4Q41NEPA Mernor Team Meeting Asireement
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
Project Name /Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Ponder County, NC
TIP Project No.: 13-4929
Federal Aid Project No.: j3iSTP -5i? {jQ�
WETS No,: 4_Q233.1 1
LEDPA/P'reforred Alternative Selection
The Project Team has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable AitetnaUve (LFDPAYPrnfermd Altemative
for the replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No. 16 in Topsail Island, During final
design development, NCDUT will reduce the permanent LAMA wetland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shvwri hi the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
any other uottom- disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
Subsequent to the August 16, 2012 Coricurrance Point 3 meeting, the Project Tearn performed
additional survey for SAV habitat. Resulis of this survey are summarized In the attached
memo. After review and coordination of tho SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LF11PAIPreferred Alternative.
USAGE ��, l /
lZ' �g.Zo�L NCDUT
q1f —4-1
NCDMf J0 t)I)r : e 4 (t'! ; NMFS
RPO
NORTH CAROLINA TaP$AJL ISLAND GmDaE RePLAcam&J
OEPARTMEta or TRAMPORTATION T.I.P. No. 04029
DeceMOEF► 2012
l
USEPA
IJSFW S
NCUCR
NCDWQ
LISCG
NCDCM
NCDMf J0 t)I)r : e 4 (t'! ; NMFS
RPO
NORTH CAROLINA TaP$AJL ISLAND GmDaE RePLAcam&J
OEPARTMEta or TRAMPORTATION T.I.P. No. 04029
DeceMOEF► 2012

ORIGINAL CONCURRENCE POINT 5
DECEMBER 17, 2012 LEDPAll=WREFEMReo ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Section 404/NgPA Mar erLieam Me An%ftment
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
Project Ntame /Desedptlon: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pander County, NC
TIP Project Nu.: B -1929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP -50 (10)
WBS No.: 4Q2 ;9.1.1
LEDPA/Preforred Alternatives Selection
The Project Team has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Altemative (LEDPA)lPieferred Alternative
for than replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No. 16 in Topsail Island. During final
design )avelopment, NCDOT will reduce the permanent LAMA wetland Impucts associated with
Altervl:;ive 17 not to exceed 0.1 ;acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Swimerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown in the attached figure, Measures will be taken to avoid
any other bottom- disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
Subsequont to the August 16, 2012 Concurrence Point 3 meeting, the Project Team performed
additional survey for SAV habitat. Results of this survey are summarized in the attached
memo. After review and coordination of the SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
USACE 'J� NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCUCR NCDWG
FHWA NCW RC
USCG NCDCM
�rl - --
NCOMF rani 5
tot, � _' -
RPO
Nom CAROLIMA _ I u>>..art ISLAND 8MOGE REPLACLPaENT
DEPARIMC-NT oF T.I.P. No. 5 4929
DECF.l:7EGR 2012

ORIGINAL
DECEMBER 17, 2012
CONCURRENCE POINT 3
LEDPAIPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection
Project Name /Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pander County, NC
TIP Project No.: B -4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP -50 (10)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
LEDPAIPreferred Alternative Selection
The Project Team has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) /Preferred Alternative
for the replacement of the referenced project, Bridge No. 16 in Topsail Island. During final
design development, NCDOT will reduce the permanent CAMA wetland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 acres. In addition, NCDOT will span the 120' of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown In the attached figure. Measures will be taken to avoid
any other bottom - disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
Subsequent to the August 16, 2012 Concurrence Point 3 meeting, the Project Team performed
additional survey for SAV habitat. Results of this survey are summarized in the attached
memo. After review and coordination of the SAV survey results, the Project Team has
concurred on the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
I� n � r
USACE�" I cl NCDOT
NCDMF NMFS
,1
RPO
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT'
DEPARTMENT OF THANBPORTATION T.I.P. NO. B -4929
OECFMOER 2012
USEPA
USFWS
NCDCR
NCDWQ
FHWA
NCWRC
USCG
NCDCM
NCDMF NMFS
,1
RPO
NORTH CAROLINA TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT'
DEPARTMENT OF THANBPORTATION T.I.P. NO. B -4929
OECFMOER 2012

fill I
ComComMsmoswultj'r3
117, 20,12 AtJsnwATIvE. SeL.ecnow
Section 4041 EP Mei -f - M
Concurrence Point 3iLE}PNPmfened Alternative Selection
Project Nama0JoumhpUon:Tppna| Island Bridge Replacement, Pmnder County, NC
TIP Project Nu.:B-4D29
Federal Aid Project No.:BRS�[P-5N-C1�)
/dtevnatkmSoleoMon
The ProjectTearn has reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives and has chosen Alternative 17
as the Least Environt'nentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative
for the replacement of the rmferenowd project, Bridge No. 16 in TupnaU Island. During final
design development, NCDOT will reduce the permanent CAMA welland impacts associated with
Alternative 17 not to exceed 0.1 auroa. In addition, NCDoT will opmn the 120' o[SuhmeqJed
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat shown |n(hea#aohndfigure. Measures will be taken toavoid
any other bnttom'd|aturbinA activities io the 8AVhabibatarea.
8ubaoquord|o#hoAugust 16. 20,12 Concurrence Point 3 meeting, the Project Team performed
additional survey for 8AV habitat. Results of this survey are summarized in the e#unhmd
memo. After reviow and coordination of the 8AV survey rauu|te. Uhw Project Team has
concurred oil the selection ofAlternative 17 ao the LEDPA/PmfprnodAlternative.
' ~
�
VSA0E � N�D�T �
./�.��w� �
_ './
UGEPA USFVVS
NCDCR NCDWQ
FFIWA NGVVRC
U�Q0 NODC�
- _-
[4 i NWF8
q.
' —'---'
~'"
WomnH Cx*ouwA
MrARrMum/wpY'AmvWOxrM wm
-1-1.1 X..I.-..'. . ... ....... .��
T*powL ISLxmm r
nsne�acx �0��

RS41,
Memorandum IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
RS &H Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc.
Date: December 10, 2012
Subject:
Topsail Island (B -4929) Bridge Replacement in Surf City
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation /Habitat
This memo is intended to summarize the findings of the of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) survey performed by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries ( NCDMF) and NCDOT
Natural Environment Section (NES) on August 23, 2012 and September 25, 2012 for the Topsail
Island Bridge replacement project (B -4929) in Surf City, North Carolina.
➢ During the Concurrence Point 2A/3 (CP 2A/3) Merger meeting on August 16, 2012,
there was a question of when the last SAV survey was performed for this project,
and if Alternative 17 would have any direct or shade impacts to the potential SAV
habitat.
➢ The NCDMF and NES performed onsite surveys of the potential habitat areas within
the Seven Detailed Study Alternatives on August 23, 2012 and conducted a more
intense survey in the one area SAV was located on September 25, 2012. This area
of SAV habitat is in the vicinity of the proposed bridge of Alternative 17 (north of
the proposed alignment - towards the existing bridge), shown in Figure 1.
➢ There were four to five very small patches (diameter less than 1 foot) of sparse
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) located within the proposed bridge drip line. The
SAV becomes slightly more prevalent to the north of the proposed bridge location.
➢ Direct impacts to the mapped SAV habitat will be avoided. As shown in Figure 1,
the extent of the proposed bridge span over the SAV habitat is about
120'. NCDOT's typical span length for similar bridges is 130'. These approximate
130' bridge spans will be shifted or extended as possible to minimize indirect
impacts to SAV and direct impacts to wetlands.
➢ Based on the proposed profile grade and deck depth, the bridge would have a
minimum of 38' of clearance over the SAV location, therefore minimizing the shade
impacts. Since permanent shading impacts cannot be avoided, DMF may request
mitigation if it is determined that there is a substantial SAV resource and once the
shading impacts have been determined.
➢ To avoid direct impacts to the more prevalent SAV area on the north side of the
proposed bridge, the temporary work bridge could be constructed only on the
south side with fingers extending across the width of the bridge during
construction. In addition, no other bottom - disturbing activities will occur in the
SAV habitat area indicated in Figure 1.
At the CP 2A/3 meeting, the Merger Team agreed to identify Alternative 17 as the
LEDPA /Preferred Alternative, subject to the SAV survey and impact identification. Although the
proposed bridge does cross over a small area of this SAV, there are measures available to avoid or
mitigate any direct or shade impacts to the vegetation. Therefore, NCDOT requests the Merger
Team to sign the concurrence form, which indicates the Alternative 17 as the LEDPA /Preferred
Alternative.

Legend
Note: Temporary work bridge will need to be located on the
south side to avoid any direct impacts to SAV.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation /Habitat
Deliniated Area
Wetland Boundary
I■ES■■■■■■■■■■1
I■■■■■■■■■■■■0.9
low-
SEEN■NEWWOPE
/_!■
INNOVERN1■■
EWER,
I■EVI
NEE11■
■■■■
■1
1■EW■RMMINE
INUMI
Profile
Bottom of
Superstructure
100' 0' 100' 200'
50' SCALE

•. -A -
r.r

ORIGINAL
��Sbeu ®y
wqw �..mwu.nwo....z nu.wn. x�
�� .
w 19[LL�.tnP
xeaw:�
w.r wai rxgr.. u.w rd..e
�� � ��..
��-
(a„fM. —

Alt 3
L`
it 14 Att 1Z Aft 13
ti •. _ J •.
�� �Vo Alt 15

Not to Scale
4m 1-0 Wilmington
10' and Jacksonville
-10
�;
MERGER (STORY - DSAs
r
Intracoastal To North Topsail Beach
Waterway Alt i
zi
o Alt 2
6e..
Aft 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
49
Alt 5R'
AIq Alt f
Ali 10A
Mt 10 T
Alt 17 f
1111111111111,1111111ilililljlliiiillllllllillillilllllllllllllllllillilliilliilllllllllllllllllllllilililllllllllI
Alt 11
A"
Alt 12 I
Alt 13
To Topsail Beach
RSK.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
TOPSAIL ISLAND
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SURF CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
Not to Scale
4m 1-0 Wilmington
10' and Jacksonville
-10
�;
MERGER (STORY - DSAs
r
Intracoastal To North Topsail Beach
Waterway Alt i
zi
o Alt 2
6e..
Aft 3
Alt 4
Alt 5
49
Alt 5R'
AIq Alt f
Ali 10A
Mt 10 T
Alt 17 f
1111111111111,1111111ilililljlliiiillllllllillillilllllllllllllllllillilliilliilllllllllllllllllllllilililllllllllI
Alt 11
A"
Alt 12 I
Alt 13
To Topsail Beach
RSK.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD

4PA

Neutral
13%
Strongly
Agree
30%
Agree
13%
Strongly"
Disagree
Strongly
18%
Disagree
30%
Disagree
Strongly
10%
Agree
53% _
Neutral
6%
Disagree
Agree
14%
.,
13%
Neutral
13%
Strongly
Agree
30%
Agree
13%

Alt 5
_ __
Alt 4 4%
Alt 17
Alt 4
Alt 5R
11% /Alt 5R
9%
9%
4%
20/
Alt 5
Alt 17
11%
32
Alt 11
Alt 6
26%
12%
Alt 6
Alt 11
Alt 7
Alt 7
25%
14%
25%
16%

m

4\-
Tn.{rr lye
Existing Topsail
Island Bridge
P
It
Ad
�J
V .f
IN } u
1 6
- R
Existing North
Topsail Island Bridge
V

. "9"q
BEGIN TIP B-4929
ALTERNATIVE 6
m
a
END TIP 8-4929
ALTERNATIVE 6

a
BEGIN TIP B -4929
ALTERNATIVE 7
END TIP B -4929
ALTERNATIVE 7

0
dL
00
Le"n
210 por4m
Tormtrul communk"
M P�.RamooftjVOAI
W60.dw F01.9 (M)
Ywoodf NManO
IOL
Sat u"Mol
dL
00

0
Compensatory
Length River Basin
Map ID* (feet) Classification Mitigation Required Buffer
(if impacted)
Topsail Sound 5,350 Perennial Yes Not Applicable
SA 1,385 Perennial Yes Not Applicable
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

0
Federal Habitat Biological
Scientific Name Common Name
Status* Present Conclusion **
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S /A) Yes I 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

IJ

IJ
Begin & End Bridge Locations

IJ

IJ
Begin & End Bridge Locations

IJ

IJ
Begin & End Bridge Locations

IJ
• 1
Begin & End Bridge Locations

IJ

DSA - ALTERNATIVIt 5
hL
I I I \ N
0
50 10
1 f 1 r I� BEGM BRIDGE '� ~
STA. W5 +40.00'
25148 SF
d 6069 1 �� r-
^ Pppo�
I
I 6675 SF'
4012 SF Bridge Spans
456 SF/ / '- _ 1 I �Qrld��AVol a Atkinson Point Rd
16706 SF _ _ 1_ 18titfdln9Impacts -
— • (` 3042 SF
16058 SF
1
22127 SF l — ' 1 • , r 1 -1
/ I t
NCDOT
RSK.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD
TOPSAIL ISLAND
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
®
SURF CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
DSA - ALTERNATIVIt 5
hL
I I I \ N
0
50 10
1 f 1 r I� BEGM BRIDGE '� ~
STA. W5 +40.00'
25148 SF
d 6069 1 �� r-
^ Pppo�
I
I 6675 SF'
4012 SF Bridge Spans
456 SF/ / '- _ 1 I �Qrld��AVol a Atkinson Point Rd
16706 SF _ _ 1_ 18titfdln9Impacts -
— • (` 3042 SF
16058 SF
1
22127 SF l — ' 1 • , r 1 -1
/ I t
NCDOT
RSK.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD

IJ
1
end
16
is_
Begin & End Bridge Locations

TOPSAIL ISLAND
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DSA
ALTERNATIVE
5 R
® SURF CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
_
A 0
_ I \
i__ 10
s
BEGIIj BRIDGE � 1-:r
1 ` .. r / ` / STA. 615 + 40.00 3 I 6
T —eu
25148 NSF
/ N — /0
6675 SF1 '
4012 SF Bridge Spans I
456 SF f _ ' I �i ►�� AvoWjf Atkinson Point Rd t
- 16706 SF I_ — �_ �$riftng Impmwts
-Sir —� = - - - -- ;-
Ir.4r _
1 3042 SF
1
\ _ 4
16058
I
22127 SF
vt
NCDOT
RSK.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD

I
Begin & End Bridge Locations
w

I
Begin & End Bridge Locations

I
Begin & End Bridge Locations

I
Begin & End Bridge Locations
i Tr�l"�
J� s

I
Begin & End Bridge Locations

Detailed Study I CAMA Wetland
Alternative
No.
Impacts
(acres)
Alt 4
-
Alt 5
-
Alt 5R
-
Alt 6
0.3
Alt 7
0.1
Alt 11
-
Alt 17 0.4
Non - Riparian
Wetland Impacts
(acres)
Riparian
Wetland Impacts
(acres)
2.0
0.1
2.0
0.2
2.0
0.2
1.3
-
0.8
-
Detailed Study Roadway /Hydraulic
Alternative Begin Station End Station Control Bridge
No. 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
0

Alt 5
_ __
Alt 4 4%
Alt 17
Alt 4
Alt 5R
11% /Alt 5R
9%
9%
4%
20/
Alt 5
Alt 17
11%
32
Alt 11
Alt 6
26%
12%
Alt 6
Alt 11
Alt 7
Alt 7
25%
14%
25%
16%

M �11I1►T7
' BRIQGEREPIJ►CE NA7- +. I LEDPA / PA - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
mmm
• Alternative 17 was selected by citizen as the most preferred.
• 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 effect 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 open ingslclosings.
NCDOT RSl.
IMPROVING YOUR WORLD

Category High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives Moveable Bridge Alternatives
Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 5R Alt 11 Alt 17 Alt 6 Alt 7
(Low- Level) (Mid - Level)
Soundside Park property impacts --
permanent /temporary (acres) - - 0.2 0.03/0.4 0.01/0.4
Known or Potential Hazardous
Material Sites (number)

ALJA / LJA _ IUA711DAI CAI\ /IDrNKIRACAIT IAADII
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
Moveable Bridge Alternatives
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 511
Alt 11
Alt 17
Alt 6
Alt 7
(Low - Level)
(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)
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.3
0.1
Wetlands: Total (acres)
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.3
1.2
0.3
0.1

Category
Right -of -Way Costs
Utility Pole Relocation Costs
Construction Costs
Bridge Operations and
Maintenance Costs (75 Years)
Total
Fn
High -level Fixed Bridge Alternatives
Alt 4 Alt 5 1 Alt 511 Alt 11 Alt 17
$12,625,000 1 $13,975,000 1 $22,250,000 1 $9,925,000 1 $8,125,000
Moveable Bridge Alternatives
Alt 6 Alt 7
(Low - Level) (Mid - Level)
$4,975,000 1 $6,875,000
$939,090 1 $1,361,538 1 $1,430,662 1 $1,040,170 1 $1,015,778 1 1 $12,580,030 1 $12,580,030
$47,200,000 1 $45,600,000 1 $45,400,000 1 $49,000,000 1 $44,600,000 1 1 $50,200,000 1 $55,900,000
$3,631,500 1 $3,631,500 1 $3,631,500 1 $3,631,500 1 $3,631,500 1 1 $25,964,500 1 $25,964,500
$64,395,590 $64,568,038 I $72,712,162 $63,596,670 I $57,372,278 I $93,719,530 $101,319,530

IJ

IJ
ARTISTIC RENDERING
nuLwrwrtr • suatcr ro cwi..a

'17
�� -