Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 08/06/2007

Home

Ms. Carolan stated that it has not been shared yet. She stated they held the position that they are working for the City. The City of Ramsey owns the data. She suggested that the City provide the information back to the DNR for their state database, as well as the Anoka Conservation District as a nice gesture. Ms. Gould explained that the field work was completed in June and July 2007. She stated they had good property access. Sites where access was granted were checked on the ground. She has never seen a project where there was so much public interest and involvement. Approximately 70 people attended the open house, more than expected. The Council Chambers was packed with standing room only. She stated the citizens of Ramsey were good to work with. Board Member Sibilski questioned the number of people who refused access. Ms. Gould stated that there were a fair number of folks who refused access to their land, which they honored, but through other adjoining parcels they still had for the most part very good access to properties. Many people wanted to be called first. Where they didn't have access, they checked from the edge or from the nearest accessible location. In some cases where the view from the edge clearly indicated the site was a very low quality, the vision from the edge provides adequate data. Better quality sites require a walk through. Board Member Sibilski asked what the minimum size acreage for mapping was. Ms. Gould explained that for natural areas on sites with plants dominant or native to the area, the minimum size was 1.25 acres. For semi natural areas on sites with abandoned agricultural fields or highly disturbed second groWth forest, the minimum mapping was 2.5 acres. That follows the state standards for the MLCCS methodology. Ms. Carolan reported on what she saw on the ground. She stated they viewed over 450 sites, both natural and semi-natural areas. Over 3,078 acres (5 square miles) were checked. The largest communities mapped were the lake and wetland communities. The largest upland natural area mapped was 52 acres. The smallest community mapped was .15 acres of oak woods. The threshold was about 1.25 acres unless they saw something they really needed to look at. She stated sometimes there can be a lot of plant diversity. Ms. Carolan described the difference between high, good, moderate, and low quality condition areas. She explained that they mapped all the viewed natural areas based on their quality ranking of "A", "B", "C", or "D". Very high quality areas are remnant plant communities that look like they would have at the time of European settlement. A good quality area still has a lot of plant diversity but it might be slightly disturbed. Moderate quality areas are slightly disturbed and might have some invasive species coming in, but are still recognizable as a native plant community. The low quality areas are becoming more disturbed and invaded with invasive specie. Ms. Carolan reported that there are 32 high quality areas, 85 good quality areas, 145 moderate quality areas, and 81 low quality areas. She pointed out a few notable findings that they saw such as numerous nice quality Oak woodlands/savannas in Section 7. Environmental Policy Board! August 6, 2007 Page 3 of 10