Closed jseipp closed 8 years ago
klangway
commented
8 years ago Looks good. If sites have multiple conflicts, all conflict numbers will be listed under the conflicts column - this will make it easy for us to quickly review everything that affects a specific site. I'll assign to MP & RMB to look at to make sure there's nothing else they want to add. Thanks!
mparlakian
commented
8 years ago It looks like BA-GRP3-RKK-048 and BA-GRP3-RKK-050 would be in the work area for the I-695 project from MD 41 to MD 147. The project page describes interchange work at MD 147. I am not sure if BA-GRP3-RKK-046 would also be affected. It is on the north side of the interchange.
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Let's play it safe, I have updated BA-GRP3-RKK-048 and BA-GRP3-RKK-050 to "on hold" and updated the database accordingly.
mparlakian
commented
8 years ago Can you re-run this summary so that the sites that were moved to RC show up here?
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Are you referring to 48 and 50?
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago All set. I got the grouping on 795 and the rest. This is the most recent copy. This includes GROUP2 CD that I ran today as well.
mparlakian
commented
8 years ago Thanks
mparlakian
commented
8 years ago Can you explain why sites RKK 89, 96A and 96B are not considered On Hold because Existing Grass swale? they are in the same area as the others with the same conditions. Thanks.
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Yes, the sites were put on hold after the grass swale team looked at our data and compared it to theirs. Basically what they were looking at was sites that our consultants identified as potentially existing GS and compared it against point locations they had identified using LiDAR. For whatever reason, these few sites were not flagged by them.
klangway
commented
8 years ago So what you are saying is the grass swale team has already reviewed these sites and they have determined these are NOT grass swales, so we can move forward with these? If/when this happens, Kerry, do you add a comment or something so that we are aware they have gotten the ok to move forward from the grass swale team?
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago If sites were verified, I placed them on hold. If they were not, I just left them as is - meaning "recommended for restoration." I can look at the most recent data from BA county and see if these in fact has passed the criteria or not.
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago These may have initially been on hold, but then were visited in the field and might have been the ones that we pulled back because field conditions did not reveal that they were. I think these were CEMs at desktop, and then RKKs in the field (some sites were shared) and RKK did not determine that they were existing.
klangway
commented
8 years ago ok, so I think basically we need to have all potential grass swale sites "on hold" and those that have been verified as definitely grass swales by the grass swale team go to "RC". Those that have been verified by the grass swale team to NOT be grass swales, definitely, go back to "RR". How should we track this so that the PMs can easily get this info - does this go in to the CRM report/tracking? or the Table in github as another column?
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago I was thinking yesterday that as part of the "cleanup" that we actually create conflict points for these, and remove the points as they are verified. Right now, the desktop eval is all we have, we DO NOT have field verification of these as grass swales by Brent's team. My thought was that for these that were visited in the field already by RKK - that they would have identified that they were indeed exiting. I think these might have been the ones that Steve was unsure of. For now, I will re-run Brent's desktop data, and place all of them on hold, then when he gets field results we can update to either RR or RC. Am I understanding that correctly?
klangway
commented
8 years ago Ok. Is there any need to run Brent's Desktop data? My opinion was that our DE and FI info is better than their DE stuff. I do agree that we need a way to easily show it's an existing grass swale potentially and if it is later deemed not to be, a way to release it with an audit trail.
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Ok, here's what I will do. I will add comments to all of the ones that Brent identified, but I will "release" them all as "RR". If I am understanding you, it should now not be until Brent FIELD verifies, that we place anything on hold or RC.
klangway
commented
8 years ago No, sorry I'm not being clear. All potential grass swale sites should be on hold now. we only move them to RR or RC once Brent's teams have FIELD verified these.
jasonalwine
commented
8 years ago Get me off this list!! Just kidding (for now).
Kristin – this is your day off. Quit it.
From: klangway [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:59 PM To: kerrymcmahon/Baltimore-County-Stormwater Subject: Re: [Baltimore-County-Stormwater] __BaltimoreCountySummary (#5)
No, sorry I'm not being clear. All potential grass swale sites should be on hold now. we only move them to RR or RC once Brent's teams have FIELD verified these.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/kerrymcmahon/Baltimore-County-Stormwater/issues/5#issuecomment-120460001 .[image: Image removed by sender.]
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Ok. Thanks. Then lets place the three that Matt mentioned on hold as well. I think he is correct that the conditions were the same. I am not sure why they ended up back on hold. My apologies.
kerrymcmahon
commented
8 years ago Jason, send them to a separate folder of TURN of your notifications!
jasonalwine
commented
8 years ago I had these notifications turned off. How am I getting these again?
Jason M. Alwine, P.E. | Project Manager – Water Resources, Transportation Gannett Fleming, Inc. | Rutherford Plaza, 7133 Rutherford Road, Suite 300, Baltimore, MD 21244 c 443 386-6460 t 443.348.2017 x8409 | jalwine@gfnet.commailto:jalwine@gfnet.com
From: kerrymcmahon [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 7:00 PM To: kerrymcmahon/Baltimore-County-Stormwater Cc: Alwine, Jason M. Subject: Re: [Baltimore-County-Stormwater] __BaltimoreCountySummary (#5)
Closed #5https://github.com/kerrymcmahon/Baltimore-County-Stormwater/issues/5.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/kerrymcmahon/Baltimore-County-Stormwater/issues/5#event-501016324.
The following is a summary of sites: