On April 27,
2009, a district level representative of the Corps said, "I question
why they chose to bisect the most boat-able parts of the lake.”
On that date, the Corps had NOT been informed of the decision to
drop the five
other proposed bridge routes down to one.
On
October 1, 2009, HNTB presented their feasibility route study to the
USACE team. After HNTB made the presentation to the Corps, USACE
expressed the Corps of Engineers current opinion on this bridge
project. This is a direct quote from Mr. McLane:
"When the project Purpose and Need is defined in the NEPA document,
the description would need to be "tight" for the COE to approve the
project. Currently, the Purpose and Need doesn't appear to warrant
COE approval for constructing a road across COE property because the
road, as it is shown, is not a regional artery and feasible
alternatives exist."
Not a regional artery...
The bridge route connect to
Parker Road that runs through a number of neighborhoods as it makes
its way to Hwy 75. A bridge
or roadway that just
connect city to city (local benefit only) does not meet Corps criteria.
Feasible Alternatives Exist...
Mr. McLane further explained that the roadway and bridge must be the
ONLY feasible alternative to connect one area to the other. There
are specific guidelines on this issue regarding travel time and
distance. The US Army Corps of
Engineers does not think any of the routes pass the Corps "only
feasible alternative test."
