Thanks Clay, will review and get back with you. As before, please do not reply to Mr. Spencer until you have received direction from me.
John
From: Clay Barnett [mailto:cbarnett@addisontx.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Hill, John
Cc: Nancy Cline; Lea Dunn
Subject: RE: Phone Conversation with the EPA
John,
Please see my responses below.
Thanks,
Clay Barnett, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Addison
16801 Westgrove Drive
Addison, TX 75001-2818
Office: (972) 450-2857
From: Ext_mail John Hill
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 1:01 PM
To: Clay Barnett
Cc: Nancy Cline; Lea Dunn
Subject: RE: Phone Conversation with the EPA
*****************************************************************************
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message contains information
from the law firm of Cowles & Thompson, P.C. which may be
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the
employee, or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately at our telephone number
(214) 672-2000
******************************************************************************
Clay, if I understand correctly, the information that Mr. Spencer requested was information about silt fencing that was in addition to silt fencing required by the SWPPP? It that right?
This is correct. Our discussion about correspondence centered around the additional silt fence I had requested.
I have a few questions about the information that is proposed to be sent to Mr. Spencer:
In the e-mail chain between you and Eric Little dated May 18, 2010, is the reference to additional silt fencing (beyond that required by the SWPPP)? The first mention of silt fencing
in this e-mail chain is the e-mail from you to Eric at 2:40 p.m. on May 18; therefore, it looks like prior portions of the chain (about trees) can be deleted.
This was the repair of some silt fence found on the SWPPP. It was something that Nancy and I noticed on a site visit. As you can see from Eric’s response that they were already aware
of the issue and scheduled to repair it. I agree with you that the issue about the trees is not pertinent and could be deleted. However, I am not aware of a method of modifying an
email after it has been sent. Since the email is not pertinent to the discussion I had with Mr. Spencer, we could remove the email, but I did think that it shows that we are taking
a proactive approach to erosion control at the site.
There are two August 13 e-mails, one of which you sent to Eric Little and his response to you. Since his response includes a copy of your e-mail to him, it appears that the copy of
your e-mail alone to him can be removed. Do the e-mails address the additional silt fencing?
This was the initial email sent about the silt fencing that requested the additional silt fence.
There are likewise two September 1 e-mails, an e-mail that you sent to Erick and his reply e-mail to you. Your e-mail includes two attachments, neither of which appears to relate to
silt fencing. Assuming that’s accurate and since Eric’s reply includes a copy of your e-mail to him, it appears that the copy of your e-mail alone to him can be removed. Do the e-mails
address the additional silt fencing?
Item 3 is in regards to the additional silt fence that was requested.
There are three September 3 e-mails, each of which includes an e-mail chain. In the chain in which the last e-mail is from Eric to you at 10:56 a.m., that chain includes all of the
chain in the e-mail chain in which the last e-mail is from you to Eric at 10:48 a.m.; since there is an overlap, it appears that the latter can be removed. Do the e-mails address the
additional silt fencing?
These emails address the additional silt fence that was requested.
Finally, how were you to get the information to Mr. Spencer?
Mr. Spencer requested that I email a copy of all of our correspondence to him. He gave me his email address. It is spencer.everett@epa.gov
Please do not forward the information to Mr. Spencer until you have received direction from me.
Will do.
Thanks.
John
From: Clay Barnett [mailto:cbarnett@addisontx.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:46 AM
To: Hill, John
Cc: Nancy Cline; Lea Dunn
Subject: Phone Conversation with the EPA
John,
On Friday, October 8, 2010 at 2:21pm, I received a voice message from Mr. Everett Spencer at the EPA requesting to speak with one of our storm water inspectors. Since the volunteer
had answered the phone, I was unsure if he was informed whether or not I was in the office. Thinking that that she had told him that I was in the office and just stepped away from my
desk and not wanting to let him go into the weekend thinking I had evaded his phone call, I returned the phone call at 3:42pm.
When he picked up the phone he stated that he wanted to speak with one of our storm water inspectors. I informed him that the Town of Addison was only 4 sq miles in size and could not
employ a storm water inspector full time, but that I should be able to assist him. He asked for a copy of our storm water reports for Vitruvian Park. I said that the town had not conducted
any formal storm water inspections at Vitruvian Park. He asked if we were a Phase II city. I told him that we were a Phase 2 city. He asked if we were required by our permit to conduct
storm water inspections. I told him that we were required, but that we were also the operator for the Vitruvian Park Project and that UDR, who we had contracted with to perform the
construction management, had a contractor conducting the storm water inspections on our behalf. He asked if Enviroserve was conducting the inspections for the city as both the operator
and under our Phase 2 permit. I told him yes. He replied with “I don’t see anything wrong with this.”
He then asked about the creek and if it was very linear. I told him it was and that I did not see an opportunity to add a sedimentation basin without making matters worse. I informed
him that the excavations for the lake were functioning as a sedimentation basin although we were unaware that the Corps of Engineers would take exception to this. He said “I am aware
of this issue.” I added that there were continuous efforts to keep a rock check dam in place at the termination point of the project, but that it had not been without problems. He
stated “I am aware of this issue as well.”
He then asked me if I had visited the site and noticed any problems in regards to erosion protection measures. I informed him that I had requested that some silt fence be put up. He
stated that he was unaware that any silt fence had not been put up. I told him that I had been told that all of the silt fence shown on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP)
had been erected and that the silt fence I had requested was not shown in the SWPPP. He asked for any documentation that we may have on this issue. That was the end of the phone conversation.
In regards to the documentation that he requested, I was going to send the attached emails. This is all of the documentation that I am aware of. Additionally, I was going to include
the following information.
“Mr. Spencer,
As requested, I have attached the emails I sent in regards to my request to erect some additional silt fence on the Vitruvian Park construction site. As we discussed on Friday, the
silt fence I had requested was not shown on the SWPPP and was requested in a limited area. I stated that it was shown on the SWPPP in the correspondence, however, I stated this in error.
It was shown in the bid documents for the project. Therefore, I was requesting a measure beyond that shown in the SWPPP, which generated some discussion also included in the emails.
The problem was that at that time the creek area lake was being excavated. UDR and the contractor felt that the silt fence would have inhibited construction traffic and the erection
of the lake edge walls. The precipitating question was why would we add something that would inhibit construction if it was not indicated on the SWPPP. My response to this question
was that it would offer some sediment control while allowing construction of the creek area park and that it could be added along the top of bank in order to avoid becoming dislodged
and sent downstream during a rain event. Additionally, I recommended adding some openings in the fence with some rock at ground level in the openings in order to give the contractor
an area to enter and exit the construction site. The silt fence was erected shortly after I had explained this to all parties.
If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me.”
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments pertaining to this information.
Thanks,
Clay Barnett, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Addison
16801 Westgrove Drive
Addison, TX 75001-2818
Office: (972) 450-2857
******************************************************************************************************************
This e-mail and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains Information that is confidential and privileged. This document may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) or
other information that is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity(ies) to whom it is addressed. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited
without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, printing, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and possibly a violation of
federal or state law and regulations. If you have received this information in error, please delete it and notify Hamid Khaleghipour at 972-450-2868 immediately. Thank you.
*******************************************************************************************************************