Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 08/06/2007

Home

the high areas of fragmentation. One advantage of the corridor is to define restoration opportunities. Board Member Max asked if there was a way to measure the polygons for projection and proximity analysis. Ms. Carolan stated that it could be done by looking at buffered areas or choosing a specific area. Ms. Gould stated the DNR is already doing some large scale analysis to factor in specific areas. Board Member Sibil ski asked if there was any way to tell which areas were private versus public. Ms. Gould stated that they can add that information to the map. She noted that parks are indicated in green on the map. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that a map can be constructed with the digital data. Acting Chairperson Olds asked whether areas that are defined as wetlands were ranked on the map. Ms. Gould stated that the map indicates only native communities. Board Member Max asked if they have action plans on how to address non-native communities. Ms. Gould responded that they did include some general recommendations on management of non-native species in the draft report. She stated there were not specific recommendations on how to manage the species in the report, but that information is available on the DNR website. Board Member Max asked if there are biological controls. Ms. Carolan stated that she did not believe there were. Ms. Gould responded that there is a woman at the University of Minnesota who specializes in reed canary grass control. She came up with a policy of flooding, burning, and pesticides on a two year cycle. Ms. Carolan stated that reed canary grass is difficult to manage, but there are things that can be done. Ms. Gould stated the corollary to that is where there are natural areas. The first line of defense is introducing management programs to control invasive species. Once they are Environmental Policy Board/August 6, 2007 Page 6 of 10