Laserfiche WebLink
>• ^ '’> ' ;•'. ' ‘V <br />rh'.' <br />V, <br />^:;V ■ <br />mr <br />'h^''i'''m:'- <br />m <br />V':...'- A, ':' <br />t. ^ <br />■■ <br />E"i <br />r--v <br />i-'- <br />m uBonestroo <br />Rosene <br />Anderlik & <br />Associates <br />Ono G Bonewroo P£ <br />Jos^p^t C ' *^ i*k PE <br />Mjf vin .. f <br />RKfyAfrJ ^ PE <br />Gi^nn P CoiJ* <br />ThCKnas E Ntjyei PE <br />ffcXWT G Scnunirht f*E <br />M ECfr''^ CP'* <br />Engineers & Architects <br />M L M tl <br />rj?.fh A GorQon P£ <br />i?ichan3 W Fowe< PE <br />Jerry A Bourdon PE <br />Man: A Manson Pt <br />OavAl O Loskota PE <br />Pco^n C ffusse^ > i A <br />Hcr^ara A 5-irrfcnj PE <br />Drnaid C Burg^udi PE <br />Ted K P-eid PE <br />Mcr.aei T Rautmarv-) PE <br />PoDen & PV''*''e PE <br />Thomas vV Pftervjn Pf <br />y^Clfie C Lynch PE <br />jamrs P •/aurvj Pf <br />Kf*nrer^ P Arx^rscr P£ <br />Man ff ffcwfs PE <br />Thomas £ Ar>^s. PE <br />Oanr-« J EcJ .perron PE <br />Marfc ^ >p PE <br />Phwtp J Caiw?« P£ <br />ismaf Marrr'ie/ PE <br />Man U Wa-'n PE <br />’^hymas R Arxiersc ■ <br />Gary P PyiarvJe' Pp <br />Miles B jenst' PE <br />L Phill.'O G'Jv^ ■• » <br />A I A <br />Pene C P'umad A i A <br />A*, -•. M «'hy A IC P <br />jf* D PerT2y:r PE <br />Ct i!»0 0‘iv»er P£ <br />Gary A' MorAfn PE <br />•Larrn L 'A«ffnrri PE <br />M*'th ff Yaoci PE <br />M** p Rau P£ <br />Charvs A Erckson <br />.ec M Paweisky <br />HarMf' M O son <br />To: Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator <br />From: Steve McComas, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc <br />Re:Environmental Considerations of 2 Drainage Plan Proposals <br />for City of Orono (New City Offices Complex) <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 eilge over the <br />proposal with a single pond and would be recommended as the first choice. <br />BACKGROUND <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 envirunmental setting: Is one 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 tor in this area. <br />For example, each of the three ponds could have a different 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 neeo part of the <br />pond to seive as a siltation basin along with access to the pond for silt and sand removal. .Also, <br />because this is a biologically driven system, raakir.g it somew hat unpredictable with a little bit of bad <br />luck, the pond could turn into a weedy-mess. .'i jmething 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 proposal <br />could be made attractive for wildlife with appropriate landscaping but I don’t think it would have <br />the diversity compared to the 3 small ponds. <br />Jeanne, if you have any questions or if I can give any additional information, please call. <br />Sincerely J <br />lONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIA'l'ES, INC. <br />iteve R. McComas <br />SRM;li <br />2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612 636 4600 <br />1 <br />1m