Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Previou s ly KES prepared a Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) memo that included a review of the City of Orono Natural Resource s Inventory, a review (and revi s ion) of DNR MLCCS data, a tree survey, a wetland inventory and assessment of wetland buffers, A MN RAM analysis, and an Ecological Management Category review. Two items stood out with this review. First, the woodland located in the southeast portion of the site was reclassified from an oak forest mesic sub-type to a maple basswood forest (DNR MLCCS class ification versus our on-site assessment). This same area was also identified within the Orono NRI Conceptual Greenway Corridor Alignment as containing: I) the potential for a high quality natural community, 2) a conceptual greenway corridor, 3) steep s loping so il s, and 4) other natural and semi-natural communities (high and medium quality natural community remnants also have the potential to support rare species). Based on our on-site assessment of this area we determined that: I) only a portion of this area (the very southeast corner of this woodland) would be con s idered to be high quality, 2) this area will still function as a part of a greenway corridor even after development, 3) it does contain moderately sloping soils/topography, and 4) due to field observed encroachment/invasion of invasive species within the southeast forested area , the presence of rare species is unlikely. The wetland present on the site is not of type or quality to qualify for proactive management or protection. However, Wetland I will benefit from the implementation of a wetland buffer and stormwater protection. Lastly, the site was assessed for C it y of Orono Ecological Management Category (EMC) ratings (City Code Sec. 78-1635(9)(4)), a nd F igure 6 illu strates observed category areas. Level I EMC areas are associated with wetlands and their buffers. Level 3 EMC areas are suitable for stormwater management. No Level 2 EMC areas (ecological opportunity areas) were observed on the s ite. Recommendations Trace amount of invasive/noxious species should be hand pulled at any tim e of the year and thrown away, or spot sprayed with g lyphosate w he n native species are dormant (mid-April or mid-September). Common buckthorn removal should occur wherever common buckthorn is present on the site and s hould follow the methods outlined in Appendix E. The very so utheas t corner of the s ite contains a significant tree stand , of which a portion would be beneficial to pre serve. Only that portion of the tree sta nd t hat does not include invas ive common buckthorn and diseased elms should be preserved (area out s ide of the identified Diseased Tree area shown on Figure 7 of the previous submitted KES memo). This area of the tree stand contains mature, native trees and provide habitat for animals. This tree area cou ld be protected under a tree preservation easement. If possible, the white pine s ignificant tree stand along the western prope rty I ine could be protected under a tree preservati o n easement.