20040289 Ver 1_Information Letter_20020920

Re: R-2911A, US 70, Iredel] Co.
Subject: Re: R-2911A, US 70, Iredell Co.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:47:55 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
To: "Hendrix, John W SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: "David Chang (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marshall Clawson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Matt Haney (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marla Chambers (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marella Buncick (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ted Bisterfeld (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>
I agree with John's recommendations. The spur road has some significant impacts and the access issue was
not brought to the team's attention. If this portion of the project is essential, then a formal meeting on it is
order to discuss the options and re-evaluate the other alternatives.
"Hendrix, John W SAW" wrote:
To all: The subject 4B/4C review yesterday afternoon was not completed due to the addition of a new spur road
(Site 5 -Permit drawings; Sheet 30 -Construction plans). The review team had expressed objections to the
inclusion of this part of the project when it was first presented to us during a field meeting on June 26, 2002. In an
email to Matt Haney on June 27, 2002, I advised that if this part of the project was to be included, it would be the
Corps' recommendation that the project be stepped back in the merger process to allow for the appropriate review
of all alternatives again. As I received no response to this communication, and as I did not receive plans for
review until the meeting yesterday, I was not certain that this part of the project would be included in the plans for
review.
It was explained to the review team yesterday that the spur road was not originally anticipated to be required as
part of Alternatives 2 or 3/3A, and was only added at the last minute to provide access for property owners who
would be adversely affected by the proposed alignment/design of the preferred alternative. Following the meeting
yesterday, I offered the following options and courses of action to resolve the issue: 1) delete the spur road from
the project and proceed with the 4B/C results of the meeting; or 2) NCDOT provide the review team with a full
assessment of the access issue, including affected parties/parcels, existing access routes, alternatives for
regaining lost access, and specific alternatives to the proposed spur road location, if that concept is the best
solution available. With this information, the review team will be able to determine if the entire A section should be
stepped back for a comparison with other alternatives presented earlier in the review process. The review team
will make an effort to receive and comment on this information in a timely manner, not necessarily through
regularly scheduled merger team meetings, in order to facilitate progress with this project.
John.
1 of 1 7/23/03 7:15 PM

R-291 lA. US 70, lredell Co.
Subject: R-2911A, US 70, Iredell Co.
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:30:36 90500
From: "Hendrix, John W SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "David Chang (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marshall Clawson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Matt Haney (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Marla Chambers (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marella Buncick (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Cynthia Van Der Wiele (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ted Bisterfeld (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>
To all: The subject 4B/4C review yesterday afternoon was not completed due to the addition of a new spur road
(Site 5 -Permit drawings; Sheet 30 -Construction plans). The review team had expressed objections to the
inclusion of this part of the project when it was first presented to us during a field meeting on June 26, 2002. In an
email to Matt Haney on June 27, 2002, I advised that if this part of the project was to be included, it would be the
Corps' recommendation that the project be stepped back in the merger process to allow for the appropriate review of
all alternatives again. As I received no response to this communication, and as I did not receive plans for review until
the meeting yesterday, I was not certain that this part of the project would be included in the plans for review.
It was explained to the review team yesterday that the spur road was not originally anticipated to be required as part
of Alternatives 2 or 3/3A, and was only added at the last minute to provide access for property owners who would be
adversely affected by the proposed alignment/design of the preferred alternative. Following the meeting yesterday, I
offered the following options and courses of action to resolve the issue: 1) delete the spur road from the project and
proceed with the 46/C results of the meeting; or 2) NCDOT provide the review team with a full assessment of the
access issue, including affected parties/parcels, existing access routes, alternatives for regaining lost access, and
specific alternatives to the proposed spur road location, if that concept is the best solution available. With this
information, the review team will be able to determine if the entire A section should be stepped back for a
comparison with other alternatives presented earlier in the review process. The review team will make an effort to
receive and comment on this information in a timely manner, not necessarily through regularly scheduled merger
team meetings, in order to facilitate progress with this project.
John.
1 of 1 9/23/02 4:08 PM