My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/24/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2007
>
Agenda - Council - 04/24/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 1:19:26 PM
Creation date
4/20/2007 9:41:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/24/2007
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.
/
361
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
questioned how the classification was determined of the remaining wetlands that were not <br />inspected. <br />Ms. Kampbell replied that GIS data was used to come up with the preliminary classification of <br />the wetlands that were not field verified. The 339 wetlands were taken from the National <br />Wetland Inventory Mapping and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. Data was also used <br />from Anoka County Soils and the DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. <br />Chairperson Nixt noted there was an empirical base to <br />inspecting them, and site inspections were done from a <br />inspections of those wetlands changed the classifica pp <br />from the other data, and if so, how. f 3 j <br />Ms. Kampbell indicated the classifications did <br />ability to assess the vegetation. Vegetation wit] <br />of wetlands. There were three wetlands that v <br />downgraded from Manage 1 to Manage 2, and 1 <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if there were any <br />ze e iould ve been concluded <br />Manage 1 and Manage 2 to <br />.;Manage 1 and Preserve were <br />Commissioner Brauer inq <br />with this type of wetland s <br />Mr. Peterson replied he <br />they did not 11 c <br />at all theme. e <br />ratio of about 1/3 of the wetlands <br />-d in a functions and values study in the past where <br />City was provided with the cost estimate for looking <br />Ety selected to proceed with field assessments of the <br />iat would be considered to be a statistically reliable sample <br />classifications. <br />to walk all of the wetlands. <br />Commissioner p out that the 6 that had been classified wetlands that were <br />determined no ds equal 4% of the total sample, which is on the boundary of <br />unreliability for a st� `. study. In addition, 10% of the wetlands that were surveyed resulted <br />in a change in classif1 ion. He questioned what answer should be given to the residents that <br />will be saying their wetland did not get classified right, as only 1/3 of the wetlands were <br />inspected and there is a 10% error rate in the classifications. <br />Planning Commission /April 5, 2007 <br />Page 9 of 25 <br />Ms. Kampbell replied there were 25 d! <br />Preserve. She indicated only wetland y Mir. <br />field assessed. F <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.