Laserfiche WebLink
5.3.3 Functional Assessment <br />Orono's 1980 Community Management Plan articulated the general basis <br />for wetland protection, but lacked a functional assessment of the values <br />attributable to each of its protected wetlands. Such an assessment was <br />needed to be able to develop protection or enhancement strategies for <br />individual wetlands. <br />The New Hampshire Method, slightly modified for conditions in Orono, was <br />used for the functional assessment of wetlands. The Minnesota Routine <br />Assessment Method (MnRAM) was also modified, and used in conjunction <br />with the New Hampshire Method. The intent of combining these methods <br />was to allow for city staff to assist in future assessments of wetlarKls. <br />The New Hampshire Method is designed to be “user friendly' and is <br />specifically set up so that non-sdentlsts can fill out the method. MnRAM is <br />a technical method that needs to be filled out by a wetland scientist. It <br />was necessary to include MnRAM because the New Hampshire Method <br />does not adequately address floral diversity, (an important factor with <br />regard to runoff protection and buffer strips). <br />The New Hampshire Method allows for a comparison between wetlands <br />within a project boundary. It is one of the few methods that gives an <br />actual number ranking. This allows for comparison of functional values. <br />The method addresses up to 14 functional values of wetlands, which are <br />listed in Table 5.1. <br />Table 5.1 Functional Values Under the New Hampshire Method <br />Of these 14 functional values, the City chose the following three for <br />assessment of the wetlands identified for the SWMP: <br />❖ Ecological Integrity determines the degree of human influence. <br />❖ Wildlife Habitat assesses the overall suitability of a wetlarxj for <br />wildlife typically associated with wetlands. <br />❖ Visual/Aesthetic Quality ranks the wetland's scenic beauty. <br />Functlorxal value iridlces for each wetland are presented in ApperxHx I, <br />including the MnRAM rating of a wetland's floral diversity/integrity. <br />OfyoTOnna <br />Surt^ Water Manaaeme/^ Pt» <br />5-# <br />WWtanth Matiarmitmitt <br />1 <br />J, <br />I <br />Ecological integrity Water-based recreabon Shoreline anchoring <br />1 Wildlife habitat Flood control potential Urban quality of life j <br />Fish habitat Groundwater use potenbal Urban quality of life | <br />Educational potential Sediment trapping Noteworthiness ! <br />Visual/aesthetic quality Nutrient attenuabon | <br />. <br />I <br />dttiilyluii