Agenda Packets - 1983/10/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of liounds View -:'- October 31, 1983. from Ourfuce water runoff other than that which fal.to within it's own boundaries. During our field investigation there was no evi- dence that this wetland was used by wildlife which require a !' wetland habitat. Purthermore, encroachment in the area by pioneer species and vegetation typical of (trier areas suggests that wha- tever limited capabilities this area has to function as a wetland is decreasing. Because of the limited size and the land locked condition of this parcel, it does not perform the functions of a wetland in the typical setting in which wetlands operate. In fact, one must stretch a point to even say that it functions as a wetland for the small area within its boundaries. One can look at the situation in another way.and determine the size of wetland area necessary to provide wetland functions to the area (basin) located in the northwest corner of the property. By any standard this area would be .2 to .4 acres which is significantly less than the .9 acre cutoff used as a lower limit when identifying wetlands. It is interesting to note that the DNR (which classifies wetlands type III, IV and V) does not consider wetlands of less than 2.5 acres to be large enough to warrant classification as a wetland. Personal communication with the DNR ( Bruce Gerbig ) revealed that they would not consider 1-22 large enough to warrant a wetland classification. Another approach to evaluating this situation would be to calcu- late the amount of water storage capacity required to handle runoff from this basin. On this basis X number of acre feet of storage would be required and could be provided by a pond incor- porated into the design of the development. This pond would then perform the functions currently being provided on this parcel which is temporary storage or retainage of water which falls directly on this area, nutrient removal from water which falls directly on this area. Since no habitat for wildlife is currently being provided a pond could only be a plus In that regard. When the area identified as 1-22 was originally identified as a wetland I'm sure that the only criteria used were vegetative spe- cies typical of a wetland area. Because of the large area which needed to be mapped at that time, detailed attention wasnot likely given to each individual area and more specifically. to very small areas. Usually when maps such as this (wetland, soils, vegetation, etc.) are prepared they are prepared for a large area -wide scale evaluation which then is made more specific on a site by site basis, I feel confident that when this area was originally mapped little attention was given to whether or not 1-22 functioned as a.wetland, the value of thie area as a wetland and the transitional nature of this wetland becauca of the encroachment of succession species. 91muff ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES 11...1