Sei sulla pagina 1di 4
(4/2372008) Gordon Moodie - Re: Hampton Corps Issues ‘Amy Ronnfeldt David Jessup; Gordon Moodie; Joseph Jancuska; Timothy Nesbitt Brian Barth; David Lott; Jay McCurley 41/18/2006 3:16 PM Hampton Corps Issues Subject: ‘No, none of us have seen this. We're checking with ENV to make sure they'e aware of it. Thanks for passing it on. I dont see a 10' levee clearance requirement elther, unless they're referencing 9.., "Bridges will nat be located where their ‘construction will lock maintenance access roads presently located within the floodway,” Is there a maintenance road along the top of the levee? ‘The drainage pipe system is a concern for us. I'd be interested in knowing the reasoning behind this. Tcan see making this constraint over the levee itself, but the entire fodway?? Please let me know how this progresses. If there's anything I can help with, please let me know. We've done deck drain designs but nat necessarily with pipe systems. any >>> David Jessup 1/18/2006 1:22 PM >>> ‘Attached are the Corps requirement. They are somewhat new, only 26 months old. Hampton Road is controlled by Section 4 General and Section 9. I sure dort see a 10” levee dearance requirement and I am (perhaps wrongly) net too concemied about that one. But the drainage pipe system (Section 9d) is going to be 3 problem. ‘This basic Corps regulation within Federal flood contro locations was unknown to me until now. I wonder If there's general awareness of i elsewhere in TxDOT. (Amy =the subject project went to letting already last July!) >>> Timothy Nesbit 1/18/2006 10:07 AM >>> they're siting around a letter from joe to david wison ofthe corps sent over a year ago... seems they're not brave enough to go to the source ofthe letter nor reference the date ofthe letter, embarassing as it may be that they're just now responding, >>> David Jessup 1/18/2006 9:54 AM >>> ‘Tim, the Corps letter to you (Jan 10th 2006) starts of by saying they are "replying to a request from TxDOT for review’ of the Hampton plans. Do you know exactly what request of ours they are referring to??? >>> David Jessup 1/17/2006 4:26 PM >>> \Wel, Tve read the Corps an 10th letter to Tim Nesbit that Gordon just handed me. Looks like there's 4 major areas of concer: 1, Genera, but not major, construction requirements, which the contractor wil kely want some compensation for however 2. Lack of COC permit, which might justiNably be laid on the City of Dallas (but again, 1 doit kaw the detalled history, and havent seen any correspondence). 3. Abrigge piping system to colect water and prevent direct discharges, 4. An apparent maintenance need to have a minimum 10' vertical clearance between bottom of beams and top of levee Lets ciscuss tomorrow morning when possible, prior tothe Friday meeting, 1 assume the contractor may be wanting to get going vith work inthe floodway, but there's no authorization yet todo So. IF we can ind a smoking gun letter which tvansmited plans to the Corps ong ago for review, I'd ike to see it Of course, failing a reply, even IF such a letter was infact set, we shouldnt have proceeded to letting, But I know that I don't know the whole story. [ (4129/2008) Gordon Moodie - Re:: Hampton Corps Issues Fro David Jessup To: ‘Amy Ronnfeldt cc: David Lott; Gordon Moodie; Joseph Jancuska; Timothy Nesbitt Date: 1/18/2006 3:46 PM Subject: Ret: Hampton Corps Issues ‘Amy « thanks for your thoughts. ‘There's no road on top ofthe levees, though I suppose they could have a maintenance vehicle up there, so they want the vertical clearance I guess. Their reasoning behind the pipe system is to “prevent loodway erosion" according to thelr document, due to runoff >> Amy Ronnfeldt 1/18/2006 3:16 PM >>> No, none of us have seen this. We're checking with ENV to make sure theyre aware of It. Thanks for passing ion, | don't see a 10 levee clearance requirement ether, unless they're referencing 9.c, "Bridges wil not be located where their construction wil block maintenance access roads presently located within the Nlooday.” Is there a maintenance road along the top ofthe levee? ‘The drainage pipe system isa concern for us. 16 be interested in knowing the reasoning behind ths. Tcan see making this Constraint over the levee itself, but the entre hoodway?? Please let me know how this progresses. If there's anything Ican help wit, please let me know. We've done deck drain designs but not necessarily with pipe systems. Amy >>> David Jessup 1/18/2006 1:22 PM >>> Attached are the Corps requirements. They ae somewhat new, only 26 months old. Hampton Road is controlled by Section 4 General and Section 9. I sure dont see a 10" levee dearance requirement and I am (perhaps wrongy) not too concerned about that one. But the drainage pipe system (Section 9d) is going to be a problem. ‘Tis basic Corps regulation within Federal flood contro locations was unknown to me until now. I wonder if there's general ‘awareness of it elsewhere in TXDOT. (Amy the subject project went to ting already last July!) >>> Timothy Nesbitt 1/18/2006 10:07 AM >>> they're skirting around a letter from joe to david wilson ofthe corps sent over a year ago...seems theyre nat brave enough to goto the source ofthe letter nor reference the date ofthe letter, embarassing as it may be that they're just now responding, >>> David Jessup 1/18/2006 9:54 AM >>> Tim, the Corps letter to you (Jan 10th 2006) starts off by saying they are “replying to a request from TxDOT for review" of, the Hampton pans. Do you know exactly what request of ours they are referring to??? >>> David Jessup 1/17/2006 4:26 PM >>> Wel, Tve read the Corps Jan 10th letter to Tim Nesbitt that Gordon just handed me, Looks like there's 4 major areas of concern: 1 General, but not major, construction requirements, which the contractor wil ikely want some compensation for however, 2. Lack of CDC permit, which might justifably be laid onthe Cty of Dallas (but again, I dan't know the detailed history, and haven seen any corespondence) 43. Abridge piping system to collect water and prevent direct dscharges. 4. An apparent maintenance need to have a minimum 10! vertical clearance between bottom of beams and top of levee, (4/29/2008) Gordon Moodie - Re:: Hampton Corps I Lets discuss tomorrow morning when posse, prior to the Friday meeting I assume the contractor may be wanting to get going vith workin the loadway, but there's no authorization yet to do so. If we can find a smoking gun letter wich transmitted pans to ‘the Corps ong ago for review, I'd like to see it. Of couse, fang a reply, even If such a letter was in fact sent, we shoulont have proceeded to letting. But {know that I don’t know the whole story