Laserfiche WebLink
Gty of Orono Page 3 <br /> SWMP ReNsions Date <br /> h�.,� ���;M��-��'°'��'-The estimated phosphorus load reduction that can be achieved as a result of <br /> this proiect is 8/b/vr. <br /> Comment 2b: The following discussion has been added to Section 9.4: In Table 9.3 two projects <br /> are identified for which the City proposes to part-ner with the MGWD to meet the phosphorus <br /> reduction goals. These projects a�e the Katrina Marsh and Long Lake Corridor improvements. The <br /> phosphorus removals we are requesting credit for are only a portion of the removals fihat are <br /> anticipated with these two p�ojects. It is the City's intent to contribute the dollar amount <br /> identi�ed in Table 9.2 and receive the reductions in Table 9.3; therefore not double counting <br /> towards the removal goal. <br /> It is the intent of the City to meet the phosphorus reduction requirements;however, this likely <br /> will not be feasible without partnering with the watershed on one or more projects.If the City is <br /> unable to meef the phosphorus�eduction requi�ements with these two projects rhe City will <br /> commit to working with MCWD on other potential projects to ultimately meet the phosphorus <br /> reduction requirements or identify other projects the City could do. <br /> In addition to this discussion revisions were made to the discussion regarding QP-C1, QP-1, and <br /> QP-7. <br /> CIP-11: Under QP-11, Orono proposes to contribute to a MCWD identified project from the <br /> Painters Creek Subwatershed Plan—the South Katrina Marsh Improvements. The City proposes <br /> to contribute$100,000 to this project in exchange for 50/b/yr phosphorus reduction credit for <br /> the contribution. This shall be viewed as a partial daim towards the anticipated 384/b/vr <br /> phosphorus reduction for this Aroiect. "°^^'^ �^'��^^�'���""`, .�" '� '°"'h'„_°"°""`""'.," <br /> . � <br /> , <br /> . . . <br /> Comment 2c: The City acknowledges that they will have to work with the Minnehaha Creek <br /> Watershed District to determine what level of removal they expect to get once their rules are <br /> complete.The 20% reduction from existing conditions is intended to go beyond MCWD's <br /> proposed anti-degradation requirements.The removals reported in Table 9.3 are planning level <br /> estimates and more accurate information will have to be submitted with each yea�'s annual <br /> report once a development occurs. No changes to the SWMP were made to address this <br /> comment. <br /> Comment 3: A discussion regarding key conservation areas is provided in Section 2.8 as well as <br /> Policy 8.6f.The discussion references the Key Conservation Areas provided on Figure 33 of <br /> MCWD's CINRMP.This Figure has been provided as Appendix I. <br /> � Comment 4: This section has been re-titled as°Purpose". <br /> Comment 5: The following revisions have been made to Section 9.5: The Stormwater Utility <br /> annually generates approximately$135,000; therefore, the City will need to utilize other funding <br /> mechanisms to make up the difference for the estimated$232,000 to$331,000 SWMP <br /> implementation costs. These costs will be made up by reviewing the annual Stormwater Utility <br /> fee and making adjustments to the fee,prioritizing projects, and utilizing the funding sources in <br /> the list be%w. If the City needs to prioritize funding towards speci�c projects it will place highest <br />