ISSUE_MO_032

[kerrymcmahon]

WHAT - There are 6 stormwater sites reviewed at desktop

CONFLICT - conflict with LUCHANGE BMP sites

ACTION NEEDED - Stormwater team must reshape or change to future consideration.

SHAPE LOCATION - The master geodatabase is located on Projectwise - The feature name is PLANNING_CONFLICT_LOCATIONS, The issue number is ISSUE_MO_032

pw:\SHAVMPWX.shacadd.ad.mdot.mdstate:SHAEDMS01\Documents\Areawide Projects\AW-82 TMDL\02 Implementation & Monitoring\SWM\New BMPs\GIS Updates\2014-11-17-Backlog_Conflicts\2014_Stormwater_Tree_Conflicts_Database.zip

[SRF-NMP]

Kerry,

Is this Gr 1 or 2? Thanks!

[kerrymcmahon]

Group 1, sorry, I can start adding that into the issue description from here on out

[SRF-NMP]

Thanks - yes, that way, I know which consultant I need to contact.

[SRF-NMP]

Tree Team,

1. SITE_NAME MO 01-3 is listed as having a status of NR. Can this be reshaped in order to accommodate EFF_BMP_PLANNED_ID 09ce9bac-d115-4c0e-a8fc-9be732a3b89e?
2. SITE_NAME MO 01-2 is listed as having a status of NR. Can this be reshaped in order to accommodate EFF_BMP_PLANNED_IDs e26a592a-931d-40ee-8a5d-a2b40e3ced47 and 2881fb48-a93f-44a2-a58b-78e4ad123bc3?
3. SITE_NAME MO 01-1 is listed as having a status of NR. Can this be reshaped in order to accommodate EFF_BMP_PLANNED_ID 2ff43ce9-b572-4aad-b9b8-4ba732a6eaec?
4. EFF_BMP_PLANNED_ID ffcc98d8-bd85-4286-b183-6b3d327c5f37 barely overlaps with a tree shape in this issue that does not appear to have a SITE_NAME. Can this tree footprint be reshaped? It has a status of NR.
5. SITE_NAME MO 02-1 has a status of CC, but Street View shows only brush. The very southern tip of this tree shape is affected by the EFF_BMP_PLANNED_ID 898aa251-8bd4-441d-9c3e-31d737446be3. Is the tree footprint accurate (souhern tip area of shape)? I'm unsure how accurate the Street View is in reflecting the actual state of the trees.

Thanks! Susie

[nbyers1]

Hi Susie,

All of those sites are currently in maintenance contracts. I'm looking into how much of a hassle it would be to change their geometry while under maintenance contract (I don't think it would be a big problem, though.) I'll get back when I know more.

Thanks, Natalie

[nbyers1]

Hi Susie,

For the no-name site mentioned in (4), it looks like the site geometry captures all landscaping, not just the extent of tree plantings. We will reshape this polygon to extend only as far south as the last planted tree, which should give space for the potential SWM BMP.

For the other four sites, the overlap is very minor, and we can reshape to avoid actual overlap with the proposed SWM BMPs. Since these are existing sites, however, please instruct the SWM site designers to make sure access/construction activities do not impact the adjacent tree site.

I'll post again once I've made the edits.

-Natalie

[SRF-NMP]

Kerry,

Is this actually Gr 2 since all but one of these is in the Anacostia watershed? One is in Potomac River MO County, but from PW it appears that Gr 1 and 2 are in that watershed. Thanks!

Thanks, Natalie - once I confirm the group, I will send this out to the consultant.

[nbyers1]

Hi all,

FYI, the edits to the LUCHANGE sites have been made and should be visible when the RKK version edits are next pushed up into the main version.

-Natalie

[SRF-NMP]

Thanks, Natalie!

[kerrymcmahon]

Yeah, I am not sure why I had it as 1. It is definielty group 2 - JMT.

[kerrymcmahon]

I will look for the reshapes in a week or so. Thanks.

[SRF-NMP]

Informed consultant of nearby tree areas so that they are aware during field investigation/concept design. Email below.

From: Susan Foster Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:27 PM To: (SMiller@jmt.com) Cc: 'GAnand@jmt.com' Subject: MO Co Gr2 - SWM Sites Near Planned Tree Areas

Scott/Gunwant,

The six SWM footprints contained in the provided geodatabase (link below) are near tree sites that are in maintenance contracts. No reshaping/changes on your part is necessary; this is for your information and so you are aware of the nearby tree areas. The Tree Team examined these tree sites and requested that it be noted for the SWM designers to be aware of these tree sites, and make sure access/construction activities do not impact the adjacent tree sites. The tree footprints will be updated and shared when the next GIS Update is available (the last update, with feature classes LUCHANGE_BMP, NON_SHA_ROAD, and TREE_SITE_SELECTION, was sent out Thursday, 2/19/2015). Then you will be able to see the reshaped tree areas.

MO_CO_GR2_JMT_Future_SW_Sites_Adjacent_to_Tree_Sites.gdb.zip (pw:\shavmpwx.shacadd.ad.mdot.mdstate:SHAEDMS01\Documents\Areawide Projects\AW-82 TMDL\02 Implementation & Monitoring\SWM\New BMPs\Montgomery\Gr2-JMT\07-GIS\MO_CO_GR2_JMT_Future_SW_Sites_Adjacent_to_Tree_Sites.gdb.zip)

Please let me know if you have any questions or have any trouble accessing the data!

Thanks,

Susie

[kerrymcmahon]

This issue is now closed.