Closed kerrymcmahon closed 9 years ago
Is this for Group 2 - JEI?
Yes, Jacobs
These sites can move forward, they just need to be aware of nearby plantings.
If it is useful to know - the LUCHANGE polygon (STRU_ID 030011UT) that impacts the SWM footprint with site name BAGr2-PEI-065 has a status of 'Not Built', so there is no need to adjust the SWM design to avoid it.
Informed consultant of tree sites near potential BMP sites to be aware of for future reference: Fri 12/5/2014 1:36 PM Baltimore County Gr2-JEI Potential BMPs Location Near Tree Planting Areas: Issue_BA_005 To: ' (Gabe.Makhlouf@jacobs.com)' Cc: Kristin Langway klangway@nmpengineering.com
Gabe,
Good afternoon! I’m working with Kristin on the TMDL program and assisting in coordination efforts to identify and resolve potential BMP conflicts with tree planting areas. I am notifying consultants so that they are aware of nearby tree plantings (that are not currently conflicting with a potential BMP footprint). In some cases where there is overlap of potential BMP site footprints with tree planting area footprints that are in a contract, the consultant would have to reshape the footprint of the potential BMP.
These potentially conflicting sites are grouped and tracked as “Issues,” and I am passing them along to the consultants for resolution. It is important to note that none of these potential BMP sites have gone to the concept design phase. A group of eleven potential BMP sites identified through your desktop evaluation are located within close proximity to tree planting areas. Since these BMP sites are near existing tree planting areas that are within a contract, consultants must be aware of these footprints in order to avoid a conflict with the tree planting area footprint, should the potential BMP proceed to design. There is no need to reshape any of the potential BMP sites referenced in this Issue at this point. Due to a 20’ buffer that has been included in the tree planting area footprint, you will see overlap for a few potential BMPs – despite this overlap, there is no need to reshape the potential BMP sites since the buffer has been included. I am passing these along to you (viewable in GIS) so that you are able to view the proximity of the potential BMP to the tree planting area and can be aware of the tree planting areas for future reference. Below I have listed descriptions for all items which you will be viewing, as well as an example procedure for viewing the footprints of the potential BMPs and tree planting areas. The GIS potential BMP footprints and tree planting area shapes are included in the feature classes for evaluation (link below).
Procedure for viewing:
b. ISSUE_BA_005: A group of potential BMP sites that are nearby – the Issue contains potential BMP sites identified as EFF_BMP_PLANNED_ID: i.
c. TREE_SITE_SELECTION: A feature class showing the spatial extent of possible tree planting locations.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your work in helping us avoid future tree conflicts! Thanks,
Susie
Susan Foster Phone: 410-771-9808, ext. 237 sfoster@nmpengineering.com
Thanks, Natalie! It appears that a BMP could fit in this area given the buffer that is included (the overlap is at the upstream end of the potential BMP footprint anyway), so I didn't ask the consultant to reshape that one in the email above that I just sent them.
Consultant is aware of proximity of nearby tree plantings: Mon 12/8/2014 1:28 PM Nader Mahmoudpour nmahmoudpour@primeeng.com To: Ferrari, Nicholas Nicholas.Ferrari@jacobs.com Cc: Makhlouf, Gabe Gabe.Makhlouf@jacobs.com; Susan Foster SFoster@nmpengineering.com; KLangway@sha.state.md.us
Thank you Nicholas for letting me know and sending the updated files.
Regards, Nader
From: Ferrari, Nicholas [mailto:Nicholas.Ferrari@jacobs.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:48 AM To: Nader Mahmoudpour Cc: Makhlouf, Gabe; SFoster@nmpengineering.com; KLangway@sha.state.md.us Subject: RE: Baltimore County Gr2-JEI Potential BMPs Location Near Tree Planting Areas: Issue_BA_005
Nader,
FYI we received information regarding proposed BMP conflicts with areas identified for tree planting (see Susan Foster’s email below).
The following BMP sites are within close proximity of tree planting areas:
We have updated the comment sections of the combined Jacobs and Prime “Future_Stormwater_Locations_BA_JEG” shapefile to note potential conflicts with proposed planting sites. We will use this information moving forward into Concept Design.
Below are FTP links to the updated Field Investigation GDB as well as the Tree Conflict GDB provided by Susan Foster:
Tree Conflicts: https://jftt.jacobs.com/download.aspx?ID=4c8d1c8d-1597-4f8a-80eb-94df0afad3b5&RID=7ebcab63-2301-4820-91b3-1cede0c43b5f
Updated Jacobs/Prime GDB: https://jftt.jacobs.com/download.aspx?ID=eef9568f-867a-4e22-90d1-b091cf6fda8a&RID=6d801d42-f006-4ab5-a681-f1987a9fe1d1
Sincerely,
Nicholas Ferrari Jacobs Civil Engineering | Highway Design 410.230.6637 410.837.3277 fax Nicholas.Ferrari@jacobs.com
I have updated the database to consider this issue closed, though it will be monitored.
QC'd and reconfirmed on 01/06/2015 - however, conflict will be re-evaluated upon concept design.
WHAT - There are 11 planned stormwater sites in BALTIMORE county that are "recommended for restoration" after a field evaluation - and will be examined to go into concept design.
CONFLICT - LUCHANGE_BMP sites that are "construction complete" for 2011
ACTION NEEDED - Stormwater teams must rework sites that are overlapping, and be aware of sites that are within 15 feet of existing plantings.
SHAPE LOCATION - The master geodatabase is located on Projectwise - The feature name matches the issue name, ISSUE_BA_005
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\2014-11-19-Unresolved_Conflicts.zip
NOTE - The issues feature represents that stormwater footprint. These must be viewed with the TREE SITE SELECTION and LUCHANGE_BMP featureclassses.