CONFLICT_00212

[kerrymcmahon]

SITE NAME: BAGr2-JEG-005 BA-MP-1042 BA-MP-1041 BA-MP-1040 BA-MP-1039

CONFLICT FEATURE: TREE SITES that are in concept design in mapbooks

CRM RECOMMENDED STATUS: PM Discussion- reshape as needed

[nbyers1]

Kerry,

I can only find two of these sites in the 20160209_Tree_Team_TMDL_Data's EFF_BMP_PLANNED layer - BAGr2-JEG-005 and BA-MP-1039. Have the site names changed at all for the other three sites?

Thanks, Natalie

[nbyers1]

BA-MP-1039 is proposed as a linear facility. The tree team will place a 30' buffer and will move forward with the remainder of our adjacent site (030367UT).

BA-MP-1040, 1041, and 1042 all fall within 030374UT and appear to be non-linear facilities. It appears that there would be almost 2 acres of tree planting remaining if the middle portion of the tree site were removed from 30' south of 1041 through 30' north of 1042.

BAGr2-JEG-005 conflicts with 030379UT, which has been placed on hold so that SWM can use the area first. Our field team for this tree site noted cattails/phragmites within the site, possibly indicative of a wetland, so I'd suggest that the SWM team have a wetland delineation conducted on the site.

Please confirm that these adjustments are acceptable to the SWM team and will allow sufficient space for their BMPs to be constructed.

[kerrymcmahon]

BA-MP-1040, 1041, and 1042 Matt, PLEASE zoom into 1040, 41, 42 and assess the viability of these sites, as well as how likely you think they are to move forward. Tree site 030374UT MUST be reshaped ASAP if you are confident this area can be used.

BA-MP-1039 - We will not be treating slight overlaps as conflicts at this time.

BAGr2-JEG-005 - Conflict resolved. Tree site was deactivated.

[mparlakian]

BA-MP-1040, 41 and 42 would collect imp. area from NB and SB I-83 in this area (superelevated). They are located at storm drain outfalls in locations where existing ditches or swales appear. The BMP shapes I drew were probably overgenerous, but its tough to know exact LOD at this time. The sites do receive offsite area that appears to be impossible to divert. Combined, the three sites treat approx. 1.16 ac. of pavement. the BMP shapes shown is equal to 0.64 ac. I think the potential treatment being lost by not putting trees in those areas is (0.38 x 0.64 = 0.24 ac. of equivalent pavement). So, I think the BMP option would be better.

[klangway]

Hi Natalie - I am packaging sites BA-MP-1040 - 42 in a final design package and want to confirm that your tree site (currently listed as in concept design) will be on hold or reshaped to avoid the BMP locations.

Thanks, Kristin

[klangway]

Natalie - Tree site 030376UT is currently adjacent to BA-MP-1015; however with the new utility data, an underground line is running through our BMP, so we will need to shift it partially in to the tree area. We are anticipating 0.44 acres of impervious area credit with this facility and will be moving it to final design. Can you place your tree site on hold at this point? Thanks, Kristin

[nbyers1]

Kristin,

Site 030374UT was edited to stay beyond the LODs in EFF_BMP_PLANNED_LOD; this will be visible once the PI/SF update we submitted has been loaded into the database. However, I anticipate that the entire site will be removed from consideration because the verified ROW is much narrower than SHA's planning ROW showed. All of your sites at this location are also outside of SHA-owned ROW - not sure if you knew this and/or are planning to purchase the land? Let me know if you would like me to send the verified ROW file to you.

I've requested that 030376UT be placed on hold; we'll plan on picking up whatever is left of the site in the next D4 contract.

Thanks, Natalie