U2509 CP2 discussions (UNCLASSIFIED)

Hood, Donna
From:Amschler, Crystal C SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:59 AM
To:Van Der Wiele, Cynthia ([e-mail]); Buncick, Marella; Chambers,
Marla J; Gledhill-earley, Renee
Cc:Matthews, Monte K SAW; Lewis, Keith; Brown, Donald ([e-mail]); Stroud,
Wilson; Hood, Donna; Dagnino, Carla S; [e-mail]
Subject:U2509 CP2 discussions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

All,

Wanted to let you know that Donna and I (along with Monte Matthews, our new team leader) met with DOT and FHWA
and the contractor in preparation for the upcoming CP2 meeting for this project. If you recall, one of the issues we
brought up previously was the lack of information on other alternatives. We thought a separate meeting would help us
coordinate this issue with DOT (and the consultants) without taking time away from everyone's schedule. After our
discussion, I think that we are now on the same page for what we need in order to complete our analysis of alternatives.
The consultant will restate and/or supply additional data that supports the number of additional lanes proposed
(showing that the new width is justified and 'right sized'). In addition, the three alternative concepts - the expressway
(preferred), the freeway, and the elevated expressway - will be presented for comparison and a matrix similar to the
attached, but including information such as estimated wetland and stream impacts (based on GIS and field review),
costs, etc. will be provided. If you remember, a significant portion of the impacts are associated with the collector roads
and are the same for each alternative, therefore DOT has indicated that they don't think the wetland and stream
impacts will vary greatly between alternatives. If that's the case, then this additional information (such as cost showing
an alternative as non-viable) may be enough to eliminate some of the alternatives in the CP2 meeting. DOT's cost
analysis wouldn't include mitigation costs, however assuming the impacts would likely be the same for each alternative,
the mitigation costs would likely be the same for each alternative as well.

As to the side roads, DOT recognizes that there may be opportunities to minimize impacts as we move through the
process, but we expect that the minimization efforts for the side roads would be the same regardless of which
alternative is chosen and that we can address this issue in the merger 2A and 4A meetings.

If any of you have any questions or concerns feel free to give me a call so that we can work thru any issues prior to the
next Concurrence meeting, tentatively scheduled for late winter or early spring. I'll be making a site visit prior to the
Concurrence meeting to verify the jurisdictional calls, anyone that is interested is welcome to attend.

Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28403
(828)-271-7980 Ext 231

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:

http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
1

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

2