New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Amazon Park Rare Plants
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Amazon Park Rare Plants
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2014 2:21:09 PM
Creation date
8/21/2014 2:02:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the Bradshaw's desert parsley never received a response. Why? <br /> 4) One of our members called to alert city staff in your department of the <br /> problem on December 31, 1994, and offer services of two NPSO <br /> members to flag the population in the field. The message was passed <br /> on to project staff, yet apparently nothing was done to halt the <br /> destruction. Why? <br /> 5) It is obvious that surrounding residential and community center <br /> development, creation of mounds in the Park, the Amazon Parkway, <br /> the community gardens, the running trails, storm drain installation, the <br /> LTD bus stop, the dog run area, and the planned park- and -ride area <br /> have whittled away at the populations' available habitat. Now a new, <br /> redundant section of trail has been constructed in existing /potential <br /> Bradshaw's desert parsley habitat in a wetland that had been (but <br /> apparently is no longer being) considered as a restoration site as a <br /> part of the park- and -ride project. Why was this redundant spur <br /> needed when the turnaround could have been measured out and <br /> added onto one of the existing trails surrounding it? <br /> 7) The project clearly conflicts with Metropolitan Area General Plan policy <br /> 28, page III -C -10. Paraphrased: Local governments shall protect <br /> endangered plant species. <br /> 8) The project clearly conflicts with the Natural Resources Special Study, <br /> which states (paraphrased from p. 89): the area of the Bradshaw's <br /> desert parsley should be added to the ash forest wetland site, the <br /> wetland should be protected to the maximum extent possible, and <br /> strong measures should be taken to protect the population of the <br /> plant -- recommendation: Protect the resource (3A), and zone #1 <br /> Natural Resource Zone. <br /> 9) The project appears to be occurring within obvious jurisdictional wetlands. <br /> Is there an approved delineation of these wetlands available for our <br /> review? Was a permit application filed with DSL and the US Army <br /> Corps of Engineers for the lighting project, the new trail, and the <br /> ongoing fill of wood chips and other materials on the trails and in the <br /> dog run area? <br /> 10) It is common knowledge that the wet winter season is the worst <br /> possible time to work in such a wet area. Soil compaction, deep <br /> wheel ruts, and in this case, possible damage to germinating <br /> Bradshaw's desert parsley seeds, all are negative effects. Why was <br /> the project not conducted in the late summer when Tess damage <br /> would have occurred? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.