DCPREZ-0000-07149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 3) Hydrology Except for the most northern part of Wetland Area 2, a vernal hydrology was clearly evident. The extent of flooding or saturation within the rooting zone was estimated at between 40 to 60 days between the various wetland areas. The elm forest (Wetland Area 1) and the native wet meadow(Wetland Area 3) experience saturation or minor ponding for about 40 days, while the central parts of Wetland Area 2 experience at least 40 continuous days of inundation, with maximum water depths of 2 feet, followed by at least 20 days of saturation within the rooting zone. In the northern part of Wetland Area 2, sustained ponding up to 3 feet deep may occur throughout the growing season in typical years. The source of inundation within Wetland Area 2 varies. In the largest, northern section, stormwater from adjacent development enters through a utility line easement and floods the wetland, overflowing along a two-track road into several thousand square feet of dense reed canary grass. The watershed of this wetland area is estimated at approximately 40 acres. In southern areas of Wetland Area 2, excess water works its way into the site from a large area of swamp forest bordering the southern property line. Although a line of fill demarcates much of the property line here, the fill apparently allows water to infiltrate to lower wetland areas on the Carley property. By early summer, the southern part of Wetland Area 2 begins to dry up because it is topographically isolated from the northern part and does not receive significant storm water inputs. B. Wetland Functions The functions of the six separate wetland areas on the Carley parcel were evaluated by dividing them into functionally similar types based on gross hydrologic and botanical similarities. As a result, four of the wetlands are grouped because they are dominated by reed canary grass and are deeply inundated for a significant period compared to the other wetlands. This approach simplified functional assessment and allowed a more discreet analysis of wetland impacts and the effects and benefits of the proposed storm water management plan and wetland enhancement. Wetland functions were evaluated using a modified Hollands-Magee functional assessment method. This method scores wetland functions in a variety of different models and yields a cumulative, numeric score which is useful for comparing the strength of the various functions. The parametric scoring approach of this method allows for better discrimination of functional strengths and weaknesses within and among the wetlands. Potential scores range from 0 to 100. Outputs from the assessment indicate that the significant functions of the wetlands are water quality maintenance (65 to 69) and storm water storage (68 to 74). The wet forest (Wetland Area 1) also performs hydrologic support functions (56) due to runoff dispersion over its sloped surface. The strength of water quality and storm water functions is mainly due to the favorable hydrologic condition, high vegetative density, and upper watershed position of Wetland Areas 2 and 3. Factors holding the functional score down in these categories are the small size of the Mead&Hunt C236A002\C236-97A\12-97 7