Laserfiche WebLink
Bonestroo <br />Rosene <br />Anderlik & <br />Associates <br />Otto G 001 ««roa P£ <br />Joseph C / noffJUt. PE <br />Marvin L. Sc ^ala. PE. <br />Richara B. 1i mer. PE <br />Cienn R Coiit. PE <br />T>'crv2i E ^ T^TZ. PE <br />Roorrt G Scf jncm. PE. <br />Susan M Ebe ^in, C PA <br />Engineers & Architects <br />Ktfei A Gordon PE <br />Ricnaia W PoMrr. P£ <br />Jerry A Bourdon. PE <br />Marie A Hanson PE <br />Davxj O Losketa PE <br />Rofccn C Tussek. AiA <br />Mo^ad A San^ofd. PE <br />Oonak) C Burgardt PE <br />1W 1C F»e«. PE <br />Mcnaei T Rautmarvi. P£ <br />Rboert R PfWf^e. PE <br />Thomas W Petersen. PE <br />MEivny C Lyncn. PE <br />.0 <br />James R Va <nd PE <br />Kenrset*'^ P Andersoa P£. <br />Mark R ROtft PE. <br />Thomas E Ar^gus. PE <br />Daniel J Eogerton PE. <br />Mark A Sea PE <br />PhiKp J Caswe?i PE <br />»smae< Mamnea. PE <br />Mark O PE <br />Thexnas R ArxJerson. A I.A. <br />Gary F R/ander. PE <br />Maes a Jensen PE <br />L Phifcp Grave fk. PE <br />Re^ C Piumaa aia <br />Agnes M. Ring. A1C.P <br />Jerry O Rfftrsch. PE <br />Cec».'o Oilvief. PE <br />Gary W Monen. PE <br />Karen l Wiemen. P£ <br />Keicfs R vapa PE <br />Mchaei P Rau, PE. <br />Charles A Erckson <br />Leo M Pavweisky <br />Hanan M Olson <br />To: Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator <br />From: Steve McComas, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. <br />Re: Enviionmental Considerations of 2 Drainage Plan Proposals <br />for City of Orono (New City Offices Complex) <br />k- <br />CONCLUSIONS; Both proposals have environmentally attractive features. Based on wildlife and <br />water quality considerations, the original site proposal (the one with 3 ponds) has an edge over the <br />proposal with a single pond and would be recommended as the first choice. <br />4iiBACKGROUND <br />Two site layouts have been drafted in regard to the new city office site. Both proposals are <br />designed within the low lying area, and the 1020 elevation contour is not altered. A question has <br />been posed regarding the environmental setting: Is oiie plan better than another? <br />My impression is the site with 3 ponds has an ecological edge because it will offer more potential <br />for wildlife diversity. It will also give the City more options on what to manage for in this area. <br />For example, each of the three ponds could have a dilferent wildlife emphasis. By manipulating <br />vegetation, both upland and aquatic, songbirds and small fur-bearers could be selected. Also, the <br />three ponds offer more potential for water quality improvement of storm water runoff and the main <br />receiving pond can be designated to be easily maintained for silt and sand removal <br />In contrast, the single pond proposal has several benefits associated with it (which vary depending <br />on how deep it would be) but also has some potential problems. We would still need part of the <br />pond to serve as a siluJion basin along with access to the pond for silt and sand removal. Also, <br />because this is a biologically driven system, making it somewhat unpredictable with a little bit ot bad <br />luck, the pond could turn into a weedy-mess, something that would not be as desirable as an open <br />sheet of water (the smaller ponds would be much easier to manage). The single pond pioposal <br />could be made attracth’:: for wildlife with appropriate landscaping but I don’t think it would have <br />the diversity compared to the 3 sm.all ponds. <br />Jeanne, if you have any questions or if I can give any additional information, please call <br />l: <br />Sincerely, <br />ONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC <br />Iteve R. McComas ? <br />SRM:U <br />2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 <br />vi'11 <br />iU <br />I <br />V 1 <br />7