My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
05/08/17
>
Comprehensive Plan
>
2040 Steering Committee
>
Agendas
>
05/08/17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2018 9:42:41 AM
Creation date
3/13/2018 9:42:18 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
237
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />City of Ramsey February 12, 2007 <br />Functional Assessment of Wetlands <br />6 <br />preliminary classifications. The full-record rare feature locations were used for the <br />purpose of the GIS assessment, but cannot be reproduced and published due to the <br />possibility that the release of the information could “result in the damage or destruction <br />of a rare element” (correspondence MnDNR, 9-8-2005). One confirmed sighting of an <br />endangered or threatened species in an area is enough to be listed as an element <br />occurrence. The GIS layer that contains the locations of each known occurrence places <br />each occurrence within a circular “buffer” with a radius of ¼ mile. <br />One characteristic for classifying a wetland as “Preserve” is one recorded sighting of an <br />endangered or threatened animal species in the wetland. Since only one characteristic <br />needs to be met to make a “Preserve” classification, inclusion of this data (including the <br />buffer around each occurrence) resulted in 105 of the area’s 349 wetlands being classified <br />as “Preserve”. Of these 105 wetlands, 91 would become Preserve wetlands based solely <br />on the presence of a state-listed species. In short, many wetlands where no listed species <br />has yet been documented would be shifted to “Preserve” status because the wetland falls <br />within the buffer. We believe this represents a substantial over-estimation of the number <br />of wetlands that actually should be upgraded to Preserve status based on listed wildlife <br />species. <br />In order to present the Heritage Program GIS data without the over-estimation of <br />Preserve wetlands, Westwood removed the buffering and cited only those wetlands at the <br />centroid of each known occurrence of listed species. A total of nine wetlands contained a <br />known occurrence of a state-listed species. <br />WETLAND FIELD ASSESSMENT METHOLOGY <br />A total of 349 wetlands were identified from NWI and MMCD information and of those, <br />124 wetlands were initially placed into Preserve and Manage 1 classifications using GIS <br />methods. These wetlands, along with 12 additional wetlands, as requested by the City, <br />were field verified and underwent a complete MnRAM 3.0 analysis using the existing <br />GIS information augmented with field observations of applicable functional <br />characteristics. A total of 136 wetlands were assessed in the field between June 13 and <br />November 15, 2006 by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. <br />Field Assessment Mapping <br />A preliminary set of maps were created for use in the field to locate the wetlands, to assist <br />with the assessment of wetland functions, and to record necessary data. Each field map <br />covered one full section of land or one square mile for the entire City boundary at a scale <br />of 1 inch equals 600 feet. The maps showed all 136 wetlands that would be field verified <br />along with their unique Wetland ID and Circular 39 classifications. In addition, section <br />numbers, parcel lines, and road names were added to the field maps. Color aerial <br />photographs from 2003 were used as a base layer on the field maps. <br />6 <br /> Records obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame <br />Research Program. <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.