My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 12/04/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
2006
>
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 12/04/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 12:30:28 PM
Creation date
12/6/2006 11:28:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Environmental Policy Board
Document Date
12/04/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />Exhibit 1 <br /> <br />More on this information in the Discussion section. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Three of the ten most common species found during this project are not native to <br />Minnesota (Siberian elm, common buckthorn and Colorado blue spruce) and two are not <br />native to North America (Siberian elm and common buckthorn). This is important <br />because Siberian elm and common buckthorn are considered undesirable and invasive. <br />Both tend to exclude more desirable species. Amur maple was not as common, but also <br />fits this category. <br /> <br />The plot data shows buckthorn at only one-third of the plots despite being one ofthe most <br />common trees in the survey. This is due, in part, to many of the plots being located <br />wholly or partly in lawns, where buckthorn is much less frequently found than in wooded <br />settings. This means, however, that where it is found, it is plentiful and provides a <br />substantial seed source for further spread. <br /> <br />Two of the most common trees in Minnesota, aspen and paper birch, are not so common <br />in the City of Ramsey. Only nine paper birch were counted despite its popularity as an <br />ornamental tree. Historically, aspen is known to be a minor component in the fire- <br />dependent ecosystems such as that which once existed in this area. Yet with the removal <br />of fire over the past several decades, aspen remains a minor component accounting for <br />less than 4% of the trees in our survey. Red maple was also one ofthose minor <br />components. It accounted for about 1 % ofthe trees found in our survey, once again, <br />despite its present popularity as an ornamental. The native basswood and the linden <br />ornamentals were rarely found, even less common than Lombardy poplar. <br /> <br />One of the "success stories" may be the abundance of red pine, our State Tree. Red pine <br />of all ages appeared in good condition. Green ash is often over-planted in Minnesota <br />communities but despite its #6 ranking overall in our survey, it accounts for less than 4% <br />of the trees found and is much less common than Siberian elm. More than half of the <br />green ash found were present as regeneration. <br /> <br />Only in areas 1 and 4 were oaks found in significant numbers as regeneration. Siberian <br />elm and buckthorn are common as regeneration. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />With the caution noted earlier in mind, we are hesitant to draw any conclusions. That <br />being said, there are several items worthy of note. <br /> <br />Kunde Co., Inc. <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />12/4/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.