Re FW Draft Deed RestrictionThanks Loretta. Sorry I didn't get the first one. We'll take a look at this and get back with you.
Keith
Keith Marvin, P.E.
Project Engineer
(972) 304-3681
>>> "Mokry, Loretta" <lmokry@apaienv.com> 9/22/2008 10:09 AM >>>
Keith,
Sent the following message previously on 9/10/08 from the hotel where I
was staying that night. It might not have gone through properly. I had
attached both the original generic deed restriction from the USACE and
then one with my suggested text filled into the blanks. I had also back
calculated the numbers of trees and shrubs and determined the spacing
for each I had used. See note below. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Loretta
Loretta Mokry
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
10060 N Dowling Rd
College Station, TX 77845
979.694.7619 home office
817.806.1700 Fort Worth Office
817.845.3280 cell
www.apaienv.com <blocked::http://www.apaienv.om/>
_____
From: Mokry, Loretta
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:19 PM
To: 'kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us'
Cc: Voight, Jason
Subject: Draft Deed Restriction
Keith,
Attached is the USACE's draft deed restriction with the blanks filled in
with what I think are appropriate titles. Have also attached the
original document from the USACE. The deed restriction document really
needs to be processed ASAP as according to the last modification Ken
Laterza did for us, the draft deed restriction was to be submitted to
the USACE for review and approval and then filed with the County Clerk
prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity within the
jurisdictional reach of the creek (i.e., the reach north of Bethel
Road). At the present time, the City is out of compliance, but I think
if we can get it to them with the Oct. 1 report there won't be any
comment from the USACE. At the very latest, we need to have the draft
deed restriction to the USACE by the time we submit the addendum report
re: the completion of the plantings.
I was also able to reconstruct my calculations re: the mitigation
plantings. First, the numbers in the text on page 21 that indicated 178
canopy trees and 340 understory trees and shrubs are incorrect. These
were the numbers in the original mitigation plan dated 5/25/2004 when
the channel reach upstream of Bethel Road was still considered
jurisdictional. They somehow got missed when we did all the revisions
through the plan based on the revised jurisdictional review. The
correct numbers are what is shown in the revised tables, 118 canopy
trees and 236 understory trees and shrubs. (If you can't find the copy
of the revised mitigation plan dated February 14, 2005 that I sent
Suzan, let me know and we will get you another copy.) Based on the
engineering design data in the mitigation plan, the channel bottom was
to be 35 foot wide and the top of channel was to be 50 foot wide within
the 60 foot wide right-of-way. That leaves 5 feet on each side of the
channel for the plantings. The additional gabion layer you showed me
may have decreased this. Let me know what you determine after you stake
the boundaries of the right-of-way. There was approximately 830 linear
feet (LF) of non-jurisdictional drainage channel and 350 LF of
jurisdictional tributary channel for a total of 1180 LF. The canopy
trees were to be spaced approximately every 20 feet along each side of
the channel ((1180 x 2)/20) = 118 canopy trees. The understory trees
and shrubs were to be spaced approximately every 10 feet along each side
of the channel ((1180 x 2)/10) = 236). Usually we strive to a random
spacing of trees and shrubs, but within the constraints of the drainage
right-of-way, the canopy trees will need to be evenly spaced so that
they have sufficient room to spread. The understory trees and shrubs
can be more randomly spaced between the canopy trees based on the sizes
of the individual species.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Loretta Mokry
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
10060 N Dowling Rd
College Station, TX 77845
979.694.7619 home office
817.806.1700 Fort Worth Office
817.845.3280 cell
www.apaienv.com <blocked::http://www.apaienv.om/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3433 (20080910) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3460 (20080922) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Draft Deed Restriction
Keith,
Attached is the USACE's draft deed restriction with the blanks filled in
with what I think are appropriate titles. Have also attached the
original document from the USACE. The deed restriction document really
needs to be processed ASAP as according to the last modification Ken
Laterza did for us, the draft deed restriction was to be submitted to
the USACE for review and approval and then filed with the County Clerk
prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity within the
jurisdictional reach of the creek (i.e., the reach north of Bethel
Road). At the present time, the City is out of compliance, but I think
if we can get it to them with the Oct. 1 report there won't be any
comment from the USACE. At the very latest, we need to have the draft
deed restriction to the USACE by the time we submit the addendum report
re: the completion of the plantings.
I was also able to reconstruct my calculations re: the mitigation
plantings. First, the numbers in the text on page 21 that indicated 178
canopy trees and 340 understory trees and shrubs are incorrect. These
were the numbers in the original mitigation plan dated 5/25/2004 when
the channel reach upstream of Bethel Road was still considered
jurisdictional. They somehow got missed when we did all the revisions
through the plan based on the revised jurisdictional review. The
correct numbers are what is shown in the revised tables, 118 canopy
trees and 236 understory trees and shrubs. (If you can't find the copy
of the revised mitigation plan dated February 14, 2005 that I sent
Suzan, let me know and we will get you another copy.) Based on the
engineering design data in the mitigation plan, the channel bottom was
to be 35 foot wide and the top of channel was to be 50 foot wide within
the 60 foot wide right-of-way. That leaves 5 feet on each side of the
channel for the plantings. The additional gabion layer you showed me
may have decreased this. Let me know what you determine after you stake
the boundaries of the right-of-way. There was approximately 830 linear
feet (LF) of non-jurisdictional drainage channel and 350 LF of
jurisdictional tributary channel for a total of 1180 LF. The canopy
trees were to be spaced approximately every 20 feet along each side of
the channel ((1180 x 2)/20) = 118 canopy trees. The understory trees
and shrubs were to be spaced approximately every 10 feet along each side
of the channel ((1180 x 2)/10) = 236). Usually we strive to a random
spacing of trees and shrubs, but within the constraints of the drainage
right-of-way, the canopy trees will need to be evenly spaced so that
they have sufficient room to spread. The understory trees and shrubs
can be more randomly spaced between the canopy trees based on the sizes
of the individual species.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Loretta Mokry
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
10060 N Dowling Rd
College Station, TX 77845
979.694.7619 home office
817.806.1700 Fort Worth Office
817.845.3280 cell
www.apaienv.com <blocked::http://www.apaienv.om/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3433 (20080910) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3460 (20080922) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com