Page images


April 17, 1957: Consultant agreement executed and authority to proceed is issued on Phase I.

May 2, 1957: Mississippi's Johnson to B.P.R.'s Smith-recommending a typical section for the bridge.

May 1957: Draft of the preliminary report submitted by E. Lionel Pavlo to both Department of Highways. Concluded by requesting authority to proceed with Phase II preparation of preliminary plans. The report recommended that the new bridge be located immediately to the south in the close vicinity of the existing bridge.

May 22, 1957 : Monette of Mississippi to Consultant. Comments of Mississippi, Louisiana and Bureau on the draft of the preliminary report.

July 5, 1957: George Lemon of Mississippi to Consultant-setting a meeting for July 30 at 1:30 P.M. in Mississippi-purpose of meeting was to discuss Phase II “Preparation of Foundation Studies."

July 31, 1957 : Lemon of Mississippi to Johnson of Mississippi with distribution to Louisiana and B.P.R. regions. Summary of July 30, 1957, meeting. Location (selected pending unforeseen development)

July 31, 1957: T. C. Robins of Mississippi and E. J. James of Louisiana to Consultant. Authority to proceed with work covered under Phase II.

September 24, 1957: Bids received for soil exploration and foundation investigation.

December 11, 1957 : Monette of Mississippi to Consultant. Due to misunderstanding of addenda, the Mississippi Commission rejected all bids on October 8 and authorized readvertisement for borings.

December 12, 1957 : Minutes of meeting of Dec. 6, 1957–by E. M. Johnson of Mississippi. Distribution to all concerned, including all B.P.R. in attendance. The meeting resulted in adoption of the line which lies 200 ft. south of Pier No. 1 400 ft. south of pier No. 8 on the west bank, with approximately 30 degree curve in the west approach span.

February 8. 1958: Consultant to Dean of the Corps of Engineers-copy to B.P.R. inquiring as to the length of fill east of the levee that meet the Corps' approval.

March 4, 1958: Barschdorf to Consultant. An embankment fill approximately 1,200 ft. was originally proposed in 1928. but was not permitted. The Corps cannot recommend the inclusion of a fill in the design of the new bridge.

April 7, 1958: Logan of B.P.R. to James of Louisiana. "We realize that the Corps of Engineers will be reticent to allow any narrowing of the channel over which exists at present; however, before any further steps are taken toward securing the permit, it will be necessary for us to tabulate and submit to the Corps of Engineers documented information on the relative costs of a structure sufficient for the flood flow and that of a structure to span the channel, levee to levee."

May 1, 1958: Consultant to Menette of Mississippi-transmitting preliminary permit drawings for approval and further processing. The drawings showed a structure from levee to levee with a pier in the levee on the Louisiana side.

May 19, 1958: Lemon of Mississippi to Consultant. Leave location of west abutment undetermined until after borings are obtained and after investigation by the Corps.

May 22, 1958: Consultant to Lemon of Mississippi-revised permit drawings submitted leaving the west abutment out.

August 5, 1958: Public Hearing held by Corps of Engineers.

August 6, 1958 : Carter of Louisiana to the files. As result of hearing (1) main river span parallel to existing at a distance of 265' from centerline of R.R. on existing bridge to centerline of new bridge. (2) move pier E-1 toward east bank. (3) move pier W-3 toward west bank.

August 26, 1968: Bids received for boring—notice to proceed issued September 16, 1958.

September 29, 1959: Lemon of Mississippi to Smith of B.P.R. transmitting four copies of the foundation report.

December 17, 1959: Lemon of Mississippi to Johnson of Mississippi. Minutes of a meeting held December 15, 1959. Decision of the group to show the new bridge 265 south and parallel to the existing bridge with the pier spacing the same as the original. This is primarily because Mr. Deuterhan (B.P.R., Washington) had brought the word from Mr. Ericson that pier E-1 should not be moved closer to the sliding east bank. Also it was decided to show 5300 ft. of embankment east of the levee since the consultant confirmed Mr. Schneible's (B.P.R.) study that 5300 feet embankment would possibly not raise the water level more than 12 inch. If the Corps of Engineers is not agreeable to the embankment, the Bureau desires that a model study be made and also an economic analysis.

January 14, 1960: Consultant to Lemon of Mississippi. Permit drawings submitted in accordance with conclusion adopted at Dec. 15 conference.

January 18, 1960 : Lemon of Mississippi to Consultant. Votifying Consultant that Mr. Harned (B.P.R., Washington) will be in Mississippi Jan. 28 and 29 to review the foundation condition.

March 16, 1960 : Carter of Louisiana to Lemon of Mississippi--returning to Mississippi for their handling signed letters of application to U.S. Corps of Engineers.

March 31, 1930: Logan of B.P.R. to James of Louisiana. Transmitting Harned's report on conference held on February 5, 1960. This report contains remedial measures that should be taken for the slide conditions existing in the easterly portion of the existing structure and as similar condition existing at the proposed location for the new structure. Embankment to be used (subject to approval of the Corps of Engineers). Consultant to determine the foundation treatment for this embankment. This study will give engineering and economic consideration to factors such as: stage construction, sand drain treatment, muck excavation, toe support fills and/or surcharge.

March 28, 1960: Smith of B.P.R. to Johnson of Mississippi. The Washington office still has misgivings concerning the proposed location. Reasonably complete studies and estimates will have to be made between common points for a downstream location as well as for that adjacent to the existing bridge.

February 5, 1960: Anderson of B.P.R. to Williams of B.P.R.-transmitting memorandum of 2–2-60 Smith (B.P.R.) to Anderson (B.P.R.) in which he reviews the project history and states that “the suggestion for a study of alternate locations with ground surveys and layouts comes as a complete surprise, especially at this time. The proposed location was agreed upon by both Louisiana and Mississippi in 1956 and was subsequently approved by the Bureau of Public Roads on 3–27–57.” (Evidence of this approval not identifiable in the regional office files) ... "while no detailed field survey was made of an alternate location to the south, the entire area was studied, including aerial reconnaissance by engineers of both states and representatives of this office. On the basis of the facts developed by these studies, it was evident that the overall advantages of a location closely paralleling the existing bridge, provided it was structurally feasible to build the bridge at this point, were superior to an alternate location to the south. Accordingly, it was not considered necessary to spend money or subsequently engineering manpower to develop an alternate location unless it subsequently developed that a bridge at the selected location was not structurally feasible or was unacceptable to the Corps of Engineers from a navigational standpoint. Based on borings taken at this location, the Consultant has reported favorably on the feasibility of constructing the bridge at this location, and it was agreed by representatives of both states, and the Bureau of Public Roads, and the Consultant at the meeting in Jackson on 12–15–59 that the required public hearings relative to the overall location of the route in this area and the application to the Corps of Engineers for a navigational permit would be based on the present proposed location."

March 28, 1960 : Smith of BPR to Johnson of Mississippi-Further study of the downstream location will have to be made. It is deemed advisable to wait the report of the Corps on the request for a permit to construct the bridge at the proposed location adjacent to the existing bridge.

April 8, 1960: Logan of BPR to James of La. “Your suggested application conforms with agreements reached at the conference in Jackson, Miss., Jan. 29, 1960, and is well presented." "Your attention is invited to previous comments concerning the investigation of a crossing downstream from this site. It is presumed that the Dept. of Hywys. of Miss. is handling this matter in conjunction with our Division office in Jackson."

June 3, 1960: Walsh of the Corps to Carter of La. Agreeable to withdrawing the request to shift the west bank pier W-3 provided the Highway Departments accede to move the east bank pier E-1 100 feet towards the left bank of the river. In the event the Hwy. Depts. refuse to agree, the Corps of Engineers will call another public hearing and ask that the Hwy. Depts, consider moving the new bridge sufficient distance away from the existing bridge so as to eliminate the hazards created by building it at the proposed location.

June 15, 1960: Walsh of the Corps to Lemon of Miss. Maximum length of embankment which might be placed on the La. approach to the bridge will be 1500 ft.

June 29, 1960: Lemon of Miss. to Carter of La. A hydraulic model study would not be of much aid in determining actual conditions as effected by the embankment according to Arnold Dean of the Corps; however, a bridge opening beginning at the levee was not objectionable. Consultant was asked to restudy the hydraulics.

November 22, 1960: Miss. to Smith of BPR. In view of the magnitude of the project it is requested that Mr. Ericson (BPR) be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for Jan. 17, 1961.

January 17, 1961 : Carter of La. to the File. Re meeting Jan. 17, 1961. “It was finally agreed that the U.S. Engineers would be approached on a revised permit application on two basis, namely, (1) a continuous embankment section of 3.000 ft. from the La. levee riverward, or (2) an embankment section of 750' to 1,000' long from the levee, then a relief opening of 1,000' to 1,200' then 2,000' section of embankment to the east abutment of the main bridge."

Mr. Ericson (BPR) brought up the matter of another location about 1 to 1.5 miles downstream. Miss. opposed; however, the states will make the study if the Bureau required it.

February 17, 1961 : Carter of La. to Youngs of BPR. Three alternate schemes of bridge application permit drawings distributed to all concerned for comments.

March 9, 1961: Smith of BPR to Lemon of Miss. Requesting modification in Scheme C with embankment extended.

April 18, 1961 : Supplemental agreement with Consultant is signed. This supplemental agreement is for study of a crossing at a location approximately 12 miles downstream from existing structure.

July 31, 1961 : Youngs of BPR to Stevenson of La. Excerpts of comments from Washington office the Corps of Engineers was apparently somewhat arbitrary in requesting 7,000 ft. length of bridge. A model test is very desirable as an aid to developing an economical design. For some reason the Corps' district office is reluctant to recommend a model test ... in any event the Corps should agree to recognize the results of a model test if such an investigation is initiated.

October 23, 1961 : Lemon of Miss. to Smith_of BPR. Transmitting proposed agreement between the Dept. and U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station for a model study.

August 16, 1962: Johnson of Miss. to Smith of BPR. Transmitting alternate studies and recommending alternate #1. The original line proposed for this crossing.

September 5, 1962: Youngs of BPR to Burgess of La. Choice of Alternate #1 is satisfactory to La. BPR.

January 7, 1963 : Carter of La. to Stevenson of La. Memo relative to a meeting on December 13. 1962. A model study unless very elaborate would not furnish any arditional information, or different data * * * The Corps will reconsider the embankment matter and advise.

February 5, 1963: Lemon of Miss. to Smith of BPR. The Corps has reconsid. ered and settled on 2,500 ft. length for relief bridge embankment 500 ft. min. to 750 ft. max. from levee. Permit application needs revisions.

March 22, 1963: G. W. Williams (BPR) to Engineering File. Meeting in Washington with Whitton (BPR). "After considerable discussion, it was decided that the state and its Consultant could conduct studies of

(a) a location not less than 300 ft. and preferably 325–350 feet downstream from the railroad bridge, either parallel with the existing or at a deviation angle of 5-10 degrees, and

[ocr errors]

(b) the probable effect of construction operations on the river bed deposits and on the foundation for the railroad bridge.” If construction can be accomplished without hazard to the railroad bridge and with minimum financial liability to the State, BPR will accept the State's proposal. As to the extent of embankment on the west, it was decided that additional study would be made for several alternates.

March 29, 1963 : Johnson of Miss. to Burgess of La. Concurrence or comments are requested on parallel location 330' downstream from existing bridge and a relocation of Pier E-1 to provide 876' horizontal clearance at low water.

May 28, 1963: Smith of BPR to Johnson of Miss. The proposed location 330' downstream from and parallel to the existing bridge is approved by BPR.

May 28, 1963: Burgess of La. to Johnson of Miss. A small saving in initial construction cost is not a justifiable reason to include an uncertain embankment section out on the west flood plain. Louisiana position is that a bridge structure be provided entirely to the west levee.

June 12, 1963 : Lemon of Miss. to Smith of BPR. Revised bridge application drawings submitted. No embankment on the west flood plain.

September 20, 1963: Consultant to Johnson of Miss. Submitted comparative studies of embankment fill and viaduct for the Louisiana approach east of levee.

December 16, 1963: Consultant to Lemon of Miss. Submitted cost estimates of embi, versus viaduct for La. approach as requested by BPR in Lemon's letter of Nov. 13, 1963.

January 15, 1964: Johnson of Miss. to Smith of BPR. Cost estimates submitted.

March 18, 1964: Smith of BPR to Johnson of Miss. Requesting additional information and questioning several items of the Consultant's estimate.

June 8, 1964: Consultant to Lemon of Miss. An up-to-date estimate is submitted.

January 20, 1965 : Carter of La. to Johnson of Miss. It has now developed from soil investigations, studies and reports made by our consultant, Baker-Wibberley and Associates, for their job west of the levee and ending at the west abutment of the bridge, that the bad soil situation does not end at the west levee and that all data points to the necessity of extending the Vicksburg Bridge to have its abutment located approx. 1,000 ft. west of the west levee.

January 26, 1965: Miss. to Smith of BPR. La. proposes to start bridge construction approx. 800 ft. west of west levee.

February 16, 1965: Meeting with Corps of Engineers to discuss application from east toe of the west levee easterly across the river.

February 17, 1965: Miss. to Consultant. At the meeting held Feb. 16, 1965, BPR requested estimates of five alternate plans for the crossing of the west levee.

February 19, 1965: Revised application sent to the Corps for approval.

March 3, 1965 : Johnson of Miss. to Corps of Engineers. "The Bureau of Public Roads has made a written request that we obtain from you an evaluation of the effect of penetrating the levee by placing the bridge substructure unit at approx. the top of the slope on the river side of the newly constructed levee.”

March 18, 1965 : Applications returned by the Corps with inquiries.

April 7, 1965: Lemon of Miss. to the Corps. Resubmitted application with answer to inquiries.

April 22, 1965: King of the Corps to Lemon of Miss. Corps consider more desirable for navigation to have the piers of the proposed bridge and the existing bridge on a common centerline except for E-1 pier.

April 23, 1965: King of the Corps to Johnson of Miss. Interstate 20 levee crossing referred to in your letter of March 3, 1965, is satisfactory from a strictly engineering viewpoint. The authority for granting permits for structures crossing levees rests with the individual state agencies.

June 8, 1965: Corps of Engineers issued their public notice.

June 10, 1965: From Stewart. Board of Commissioners, Fifth La. Levee District, to ('arter of La. Transmitting a resolution informing all Federal. State and other interested parties that a permit for the installation of any piling or piers in the net section on the levee on the west approach will be opposed and a permit for such construction will be declined.

July 26, 1965 : Carter of La. to La. Levee Board. Submitting five schemes and requesting views as to which scheme will be acceptable.

July 27, 1965: Meeting with Washington and Atlanta to resolve and decide on levee crossing.

August 3, 1967: La. Levee Board to Carter of La. Scheme Nos. 1 and 4 preferred; however, in view of the excessive cost of Scheme No. 1 and, Scheme No. 4

being an engineering incongruity due to the unstable soil conditions, Scheme No. 2 with modification is acceptable.

October 7, 1965 : Youngs of BPR to Stewart of La. Hwy. Dept. BPR recommends adoption of Scheme IV which contemplates crossing the levee with a highway embankment and limits Federal participation in the cost to this scheme.

November 2, 1965 : Betts of the Corps to Robbins of Miss. Approving the construction of the bridge.

November 5, 1965 : Carter of La. to Consultant. Asking Consultant to prepare cost studies in order to determine better basis for the limitation of Federal participation.

February 16, 1966: Bids received for additional borings.

May 24, 1966: La. Soils Engineer to Carter of La. Requesting additional boring to study the effect of additional embankment to be placed on the west levee as approved by BPR (Scheme No. 4).

December 27, 1966: McCaa of Miss. to Consultant. Partial notice to proceed with Phase III is issued. The location of the Louisiana termini is yet to be resolved.

January 12, 1967 : Johnson of Miss. to Consultant. "I regret to advise you that we will no be able to let Miss. Riv Bridge project in Feb. as we had planned, due to reduction of Federal Aid funds by the Bureau of Public Roads on Nov. 23, 1966."

July 24, 1967 : Johnson of Miss. to Consultant. Partial notice to proceed with Phase IV supervision and inspection of construction.

August 21, 1967: Carter of La. to Hawley of BPR. Requesting BPR for reconsideration of their approved Scheme No. 4 (Bridge on both sides of levee with embankment on top of levee). This request for reconsideration was based on bad soil condition and the existance of a railroad line just west of the levee. Scheme IV would necessitate relocation of the railroad and the railroad would not relocate without deferred maintenance due to their long records of building and maintenance in this area. Scheme No. 2 modified (spanning the levee) is recommended.

October 24, 1967: Hawley of BPR to Ratcliff of La. New scheme is recommended for consideration (Scheme No. 6).

November 7, 1967 : Carter of La. to Stewart, Levee Board. The new scheme proposed by BPR is submitted to the Levee Board for their views concerning its acceptability.

November 8, 1967: Soils Engr. (Ia.) to Material & Testing Engr. (La.). Request undisturbed samples of the levee material for laboratory testing to analyze the proposed scheme for the levee crossing.

November 9, 1967 : Carter of La. to La. Dept. of Public Works. Request permission for deep boring in the levee to analyze the new scheme.

November 21, 1967: Stewart of La. Levee Board to Carter of La. Scheme #6 (BPR scheme) is not acceptable.

January 26, 1968 : Poleynard of la. to Hawley (BPR). “We have made a sincere attempt to evaluate your scheme and we believe the above outline analysis indicates that it is not practical.” “Further, we would be, in any event, extremely reluctant to build into initial construction, a permanent maintenance feature."

March 25, 1968: Hawley (BPR) to Stewart (La.). "We are pleased to advise that the Bureau will accept a scheme overspanning the levee having considered your soil analysis and other factors." "We suggest modification to Scheme #2 be studied."

SUMMARY In summary, the original location of the bridge was to be 265' downstream from the existing structure. This location was approved, borings were taken and supervised, foundation studies were performed, field survey performed, right of way determined, estimate of cost prepared and permit applications to the Corps of Engineers prepared, all as recorded in the Consultant's progress statement of June 1960. However, the idea of the possibility of embankment fill construction in lieu of the viaduct type construction contemplated by the two Departments, gave rise to a new idea that the bridge could be located 12 miles downstream from the existing structure. The subject was resolved three years later when it was decided to locate the bridge close to where it was originally intended for functional reasons.

« PreviousContinue »