My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002 Natural Resources Management
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
Parks and Recreation
>
2002 Natural Resources Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:46:09 AM
Creation date
7/13/2012 10:41:05 AM
Metadata
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.
/
214
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
Natural Community Descriptions and Management Recommendations <br />INTRODUCTION <br />THE FOLL O WING SECTION CONTAINS DESCRIPTIONS FOR UPLAND AND WETLAND <br />NATURAL COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE FIVE STUDIED PARKS. <br />IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLL O WING EA CH NA T URA COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION IS A <br />MA NA GEMENT RECOMMENDA TION TABLE THA T S UMMARIZES, RANKS, AND <br />PR O VIDES ESTIMA TED COSTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED A CTI VITIES. <br />IN ADDITION, A S UMMAR Y MANA GEMENT RECOMMENDA TION TABLE FOR UPLANDS <br />AND WETLANDS WITHIN INDIVID UAL PARKS IS LOCA TED A T THE END OF THE <br />SECTION FOR A PARTICULAR PARK. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUMMARY TABLE IS TO <br />PR O VIDE A GENERAL O VER VIE W OF PRIORITIES A CR OSS NA T URAL COMMUNITIES, <br />AND WITHIN EACH PARK. <br />Wetland Comments <br />The high, medium and low priority were provided for each recommendation. The ranking were <br />generally based on the effort that would be required to restore the hydrology, plant composition, <br />structure, and function for the wetland community type. Strong considerations were also given <br />to the public benefit of the improvement. Wetland basins that are close to trails offer viewing <br />opportunities or provide for other public recreation typically received higher rankings. Other <br />considerations included existing public use in each park and whether the improvements would be <br />considered beneficial to the users of the park. <br />Costs provided for each improvement are estimates that are based on the combining several <br />projects under one construction contract to limit the cost of mobilization by a contractor. In most <br />cases additional topographic survey and analysis needs to be completed to provide a more <br />accurate cost estimate. The cost estimate should provide a good guide for comparing <br />improvements and help making the decision between projects. <br />City of Roseville 63 <br />Parks Natural Resource Management <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.