My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002 Draft Natural Resources Management
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
Parks and Recreation
>
2002 Draft Natural Resources Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:44:46 PM
Creation date
10/5/2012 3:03:36 PM
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.
/
213
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 Communi�y Descriptions and <br />Management Recommendations <br />Introduction <br />Thc followin� section contains descriptions for upland and wetland natural communities <br />identified within the Five studied parks. Immediately following each natural community <br />description is a management recommendation table that summarizes, ranks, and provides <br />estimated costs for the recommended activities. <br />In additzon, a summary management rccommendation table for uplands and wetlands within <br />individual parks is iocated at the end of the section for a particular park. The parpose of this <br />summary table is to provide a general overview of pz�orities acz'oss natural communities, and <br />within each park. <br />Wetland Comments <br />The hi�h, medium and low priority were provided for each recommendation_ The rankin� were <br />generally based on ti�e effort that would be required to restore the hydrology, plant composition, <br />structure, and function for the wetland connnnunity type. Strong considerations were also given <br />to the public �enefit of the improvement. Wetland basins that are close to trails offer viewing <br />opportunities or provide for other public rccreation typically received hi�her 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 improvenaent are estimates that are hased on the combining several <br />projects under one construction contract to limit t�e cost of cnobilization by a contractor. In most <br />cases additional topo�raphic survey and analysis nccds to be completed to provide a more <br />accurate cost esiimate. The cost estimate shouid provide ��ood �uide for comparii-►g <br />improvements and help makin� the decision betwcen projects. <br />Ciry of Roseville 63 <br />Parks Ncrtural Resource Mmiagentent <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.