Summerville
Faunal Review (PDF)Date: July 26, 2004
Place: Ames City Hall, Room 235
Project/Purpose:
Worle Creek Sanitary Sewer Extension Study Citizens Advisory
Committee Meeting: Committee Introductions and Investigation Studies
Overview
Attendees:
Citizens – Kim and Becky Christiansen, Don Drake, Bob Finch, Lisa Harmison, Phil and Pam Iasevoli, Doug McKay, Alan and Emily Munson, Susan Owen, Steve Veysey,
City of Ames – John Joiner, Paul Wiegand, Tracy Warner
Committee Members – Christiansen, Becky; Christiansen, Kim; Drake, Don; Edwards, David C.; Finch, Bob; Fukushima, Alan; Harmison, Lisa; Iasevoli, Pam; Iasevoli, Phil; McCay, Doug; Munson, Alan; Munson, Emily; Owen, Susan; Palensky, James W.; Veysey, Steve
Notes By: Mikael Brown
| The following meeting notes set forth our understanding of the discussions and decisions made at this meeting. If you have any questions, additions, or comments, please contact the writer immediately. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that our understandings are the same. We are proceeding based on the contents of these meeting notes. |
|
ITEM |
SUBJECT |
DISCUSSION |
ACTION |
|
A |
Purpose
and Objectives. |
It
was generally agreed that the purpose of the committee shall be to
meet up to five (5) times over the next two (2) to three (3) months
to fulfill the following objectives: o
Provide educated and reasoned advice to Stanley Consultants
and eventually to the City of Ames, assessing reasonable and
affordable engineering solutions, considering the associated
environmental consequences, for sanitary sewer service to the Worle
Creek area. o
Each committee member shall act as an information provider to
the committee and an information dispenser to constituents. Note:
The committee serves only an advisory role – the City
Council will make the final decision. |
None |
|
ITEM |
SUBJECT |
DISCUSSION |
ACTION |
|
B-1 |
Zoological
Investigations Presented
by Drake
University |
I.
Conducted literature review a.
Interviews: landowner
and ISU professors b.
IDNR NatureMapping c.
Story County state listed species II.
Conducted supplemental faunal inventories. a.
Observed 59 bird species, some considered “high quality
woodland species” and some of “regional conservation
importance.” b.
Observed typical frog species, butterfly species, and
mammalian species. c.
Did not observe presence of salamanders or fish; inconclusive
invertebrate rating. III.
Evaluated presence of state listed species. a.
Reasonable probability of state listed butterflies (sleepy
dusky-wing skipper & striped hair-strand) along meadow/forest
boundaries. b.
Reasonable probability of state listed reptiles (bull snake
& smooth green snake) along meadow/forest boundaries. IV.
Developed mitigation strategies. a.
Recommended additional butterfly and reptile surveys. b.
Recommended selecting sewer route alternatives that minimize
forest fragmentation. c.
Recommended modifying Norris’ rating of the Worle Creek
woods to reflect the “high quality greenway” that is
zoologically “common, but rich” in diversity. |
o
Publish Draft Report on City of Ames Website. |
|
B-2 |
Botanical
Investigations Presented
by Iowa
State University |
I.
Investigation only recently finished, draft conclusions will
be made available to the advisory committee when completed. II.
Established metric(s) for analyzing botanical quality based
on overstory and understory characteristics, species “quality,”
and native diversity. a.
Metrics: Norris’
rating, Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), Native Richness (NR),
Floristic Quality Index (FQI), and Exotic Richness (ER). b.
Each metric measures something different, so no single metric
delivers a complete picture. III.
The Norris rapid assessment method of woody vegetation is not
sufficient for advising small-scale projects like providing sanitary
sewer service to the Worle Creek area. a.
Developing modified rating system using aforementioned
metrics that results in an overall corridor scale rating as well as
property-specific rating to assist in mitigation measures. b.
In general, modified rating system indicates parcels of
degraded, but restorable woodlands in a corridor that is regionally
noteworthy for conservation. |
o
Complete draft biological investigation report. o
Produce new map showing modified rating system. |
|
ITEM |
SUBJECT |
DISCUSSION |
ACTION |
|
B-3 |
Sewer
Routing Alternatives |
The
goal of the next two meetings is to establish feasible engineering
alternatives for sanitary service to the Worle Creek area. Each
alternative should include an analysis of: o
Area served by the alternative o
Conformance with the Land Use Policy Plan o
The general sewer alignment (if applicable) o
Construction methods and costs (if applicable) o
Potential for phased approach o
The environmental impact (if applicable) o
Mitigation requirements (methods and cost) Open
discussion revealed committee desire to include assessing
feasibility of alternative sewage routing to the College Creek sewer
system. |
o
Define sewer design guidelines based on current land use
planning. o
Brainstorm feasible alternatives for next two meetings. |
|
C |
Adjournment |
Next
meeting times: o
30 Aug 2004 @ 6:00PM in Rm 235 City Hall o
08 Sep 2004 @ 6:00PM in Rm 235 City Hall |
|