ivan franko park - michigan technological university...ivan franko park has paved and unpaved paths,...

Ivan Franko Park

Resource Assessment and Management Recommendations

Southeast corner of the intersection of Ivana Franka Street and Proskurivska Street, City of Khmelnitsky, Khmelnitsky Oblast, Ukraine

Prepared by: Kara M. Filius Maps by: Norma J. Scott

Photographs by: N. J. Scott and K. M. Filius March 26, 2004

Kara Filius Forestry Consultant Volunteer 4101 Nob Hill Drive Muskegon, Michigan 49441 +1.231.780.2371 [email protected] March 26, 2004 Ms. Tetyana Dzyublyuk, Director Department of Ecology and Natural Resources Khmelnitsky City Rada Khmelnitsky Oblast Ukraine, 29000 Dear Ms. Dzyublyuk,

The Ivan Franko Park 100% inventory has been completed. As a result of the inventory, the enclosed assessment and management plan has been prepared.

Ivan Franko Park is a unique area within the city. It houses many different activities within its boundaries. These activities help to promote physical well-being and a sense of community.

The activities create a high traffic area with many people, cars, and dogs in the park. This movement stresses the park’s natural resources, including the trees, groundcover, and soil. The traffic issues affect the trees in a variety of ways, such as running over roots or into trees with cars causing damage to the trees, compacting the soil around the trees inhibiting root growth and functions, people defacing the trees causing injuries, and improper pruning methods. The groundcover is not growing well in the sections of Ivan Franko Park, which are under high foot and car traffic. This traffic is leading to soil compaction, reducing the viability of the groundcover. The soil is also experiencing compaction and erosion on the unpaved trails.

The major findings of the inventory assessment portion is the need for more regeneration and groundcover growth along with increased traffic and garbage control. The tree regeneration would be better if the naturally growing seedlings are permitted to grow and more saplings are planted, replacing the dead or dying trees or filling in canopy gaps. The older trees will need to be replaced, if the park’s character is to be maintained. The reason for poor groundcover is the high levels of pedestrian, vehicular, and dog traffic on the turfed areas. To assist the growth of trees and groundcover, fences and hedges can be used to direct traffic flow through the park. The creation of a dog run will allow visitors to exercise their dogs while controlling the waste and foot traffic issues on the grass. Trash bins placed through-out the park would decrease the amount of litter in Ivan Franko Park. Public education regarding why dogs running free or off leashes, littering, and defacing of trees are health and safety issues with promotion of volunteerism and the donation of necessary equipment and money will improve the park.

The main recommendations for Ivan Franko Park are to increase regeneration, improve traffic control measures, and add more garbage cans to the park. Public environmental education and volunteerism is also needed for creating awareness and a sense of ownership in the park visitors.

As the only sports park in the city, its focus should remain unchanged. Ivan Franko Park is in a beautiful location. Hence, it has many features which give it a high value to the community and has much potential for augmenting the parks within Khmelnitsky. Sincerely, Kara Filius Forestry Consultant Volunteer

i

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................I

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................III

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

VEGETATION ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................... 2 SITE LOCATION, SECTION DELINEATION, AND COVER TYPES.................................................... 2 SITE QUALITY ................................................................................................................................. 5 VEGETATION DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................. 6 DIAMETER DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................. 9 REGENERATION ............................................................................................................................ 11

WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... 13 ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................... 13 STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY ............................................................................................................. 14 MICRO FEATURES ......................................................................................................................... 15 SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY ........................................................................................................... 16

FOREST HEALTH ASSESSMENT................................................................................. 17 HEALTH DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................... 17 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 17 FUTURE HEALTH ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 20

LAND-USE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... 22 BORDERING LAND-USES............................................................................................................... 22 PARK LAND-USES.......................................................................................................................... 22 LAND-USE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................................... 24

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 27 SECTION 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 27 SECTION 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 31 SECTION 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 35 SECTION 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 39 SECTION 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 43 SECTION 5A.................................................................................................................................... 49 SECTION 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 53 SECTION 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 57 SECTION 8 ...................................................................................................................................... 61 SECTION 9 ...................................................................................................................................... 65 SECTION 10 .................................................................................................................................... 70 SECTION 11 .................................................................................................................................... 74 SECTION 12 .................................................................................................................................... 78 SECTION 13 .................................................................................................................................... 82 SECTION 14 .................................................................................................................................... 86 SECTION 15 .................................................................................................................................... 90 SECTION 16 .................................................................................................................................... 94 SECTION 17 .................................................................................................................................... 98 SECTION 18 .................................................................................................................................. 102 SECTION 19 .................................................................................................................................. 106

ii

SECTION 20 .................................................................................................................................. 110 SECTION 21 .................................................................................................................................. 115 SECTION 22 .................................................................................................................................. 119 SECTION 23 .................................................................................................................................. 123 SECTION 24 .................................................................................................................................. 127 SECTION 25 .................................................................................................................................. 132 SECTION 26 .................................................................................................................................. 136 SECTION 27 .................................................................................................................................. 141 OVERALL ..................................................................................................................................... 145

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 147

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 149

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................... 150

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... 152

APPENDIX C.................................................................................................................... 154

APPENDIX D.................................................................................................................... 156

APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................... 158

APPENDIX F .................................................................................................................... 160

APPENDIX G.................................................................................................................... 162

iii

List of Figures FIGURE 1: IVAN FRANKO PARK LOCATION .......................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: SAMPLE OF TREES, IVAN FRANKO PARK.............................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 3: A BASKETBALL COURT, IVAN FRANKO PARK .................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 4: KHMELNITSKY DAYS FOOD FESTIVAL, IVAN FRANKO PARK ............................................................ 24 FIGURE 5: SOIL COMPACTION AND UNHEALTHY GROUNDCOVER, IVAN FRANKO PARK...................................... 25 FIGURE 6: LITTER AROUND A BENCH, IVAN FRANKO PARK................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 7: PICNIC TABLES, OUTDOOR CAFÉ, AND ANTIQUE BAZAAR, IVAN FRANKO PARK................................. 26

iv

List of Tables

TABLE 1: CRITERIA FOR SOIL TEXTURE ................................................................................................................ 5 TABLE 2: NUMBER FOR EACH HEALTH CONDITION WITH BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION ............................... 7 TABLE 3: NUMBERS FOR EACH RECOMMENDATION WITH DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 8 TABLE 4: CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR THE VARIOUS SIZES OF TREES AND THEIR HEALTH CONDITIONS ............ 8 TABLE 5: SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES ARE LISTED WITH CORRESPONDING SPECIES NUMBER...................... 9 TABLE 6: THE DBH RANGES FOR ALL SPECIES LOCATED IN IVAN FRANKO PARK WITH THE PERCENTAGE OF TREES

PER CLASS .................................................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE 7: DBH RANKINGS FOR EACH SPECIES. SEE TABLE 5, P. 9, TO CONVERT SPECIES NUMBERS TO NAMES ... 12 TABLE 8: NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ALL TREES, HEALTHY, SICK, SAPLINGS, AND DEAD TREES IN THE PARK .... 18 TABLE 9: OCCURRENCES FOR HEALTH CONDITIONS, PERCENT OF TREES WITH A CONDITION, NUMBER AND

PERCENT OF SECTIONS AFFECTED BY A CONDITION .................................................................................... 19 TABLE 10: NUMBER OF HEALTH CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY SECTION ........................................ 21

1

Introduction

Ivan Franko Park is located in the City of Khmelnitsky, Khmelnitsky Oblast,

Ukraine. It is a small city park with many different recreational activities.

The area which is now Ivan Franko Park was first mentioned in the historical

records of Khmelnitsky (formerly Proskurov) in the middle of the 1800s. The park was

originally a pond backwater used for duck hunting by the local nobility. Then, at the

beginning of the 1900s, the backwater was cleaned and turned into the city beach. In the

1920s, the area was drained and Ivan Franko Park was created on this site.

According to the city records, the park houses five sports fields, a chess school, and

a summer theater. On June 14, 2002, the city began renovation of the theater into a family

cafe. On August 1, 2003, the Khmelnitsky City Council, Department of Family and Youth

Affairs, the park's governance, made a petition to have the park status changed from garden

and park art to a park monument. This status change is designed to increase protection of

the park and the effective use of its resources.

When the City of Khmelnitsky, Department of Ecology and Natural Resources was

created in 2000, the park's environmental accountability was given to this new department.

However, the Department of Ecology and Natural Resources does not manage the park’s

economic aspects. The city is interested in creating a Parks Department within the

Department of Ecology and Natural Resources. When this happens, all of the management

responsibilities will be handed over to this Parks Department. Part of the proposal

requirements to justify a Parks Department budget, calls for an inventory of each of the

city's five parks. For this reason the Department of Ecology and Natural Resources has

requested this 100% inventory and management plan for Ivan Franko Park be carried out.

2

Vegetation Assessment

Site Location, Section Delineation, and Cover Types

Ivan Franko Park is located on the southeast corner of the intersections of Ivana

Franka Street and Proskurivska Street, east of the Oblast Rada building and west of the

Khmelnitsky Train Station (Figure 1). The park is triangular in shape, covering 2.12

hectares.

Figure 1: Ivan Franko Park Location

Ivan Franko Park has paved and unpaved paths, various types of sports fields, and

10 buildings within its boundaries. There are 6 official entrances to the park and many

unofficial ones along the bordering railroad yard (Appendix A).

The park boundaries for the park were decided upon by using several available maps

and what was actually located in the field. Some areas were left off the inventory because

of the lack of map accuracy, a land survey, and park resources within the questionable

3

zones (Appendix B). The southern boundary for the inventory was determined to begin at

the intersection of Building C’s back corner and Ivana Franka Street, moving along the

backs of Buildings D and E until the hill turns south. The boundary follows the top edge of

the embankment east and south, leading into the top edge of the railroad grade moving east.

The line moves north from the railroad grade at the beginning of Building H and runs east

again along the wall of the building and attached fence.

The east boundary starts at the intersection of the fence and the fence to the north

side. The east line runs north along the fence and Building 5’s wall to the building’s corner

(Appendix E). The line follows another fence, northwest from the building’s corner to park

Entrance 3, across the entrance to a knee high concrete wall.

This wall is the northern boundary’s beginning. The wall was determined to be the

separation line between the park and the street, because the trees in the sidewalk north of

the wall are not within park jurisdiction, however, the trees just south of it are. The wall

runs northwest the length of the park’s north boundary to Entrance 1 with a break for

Entrance 2. Entrance 2 is paved with no vegetation outside of the north wall.

The west line runs along a knee-high concrete wall from Entrance 1 to Building C’s

back corner, where it fades out into a level street park interface. The wall is broken by

Entrances 4, 5 and 6. This wall was determined to be the boundary for the same reasons as

the north wall, but no trees are on the street side. Ivana Franka Street ascends on a gradual

slope towards the railroad crossing. However, the park does not ascend until after the

inventory’s southern boundary, hence the western wall also acts as a retaining wall.

Ivan Franko Park was divided into sections by using the areas naturally formed by

the paved and unpaved paths and buildings (Appendices A and D). Only Section 5 had to

be subdivided into two smaller sections (5 and 5a) because the full section map would not

4

fit onto a standard sized piece of paper. This further subdivision was accomplished by

using the line Building G’s entryway and wall made to the southern boundary.

The park has a total of 28 sections (Appendix C). The sections vary in size and

shape. The park's paths were not included in any sections, unless trees were located in the

paths. Some sections bordering the Ivan Franko Park’s edges have partial paths through

them. Buildings located in grassed areas are included in the appropriate section. If a

building is not in a grassed area or only borders turf, then it is not included in a section.

Since the park’s paths and buildings do not pertain to the tree inventory, they will only be

addressed in the land-use assessment and over-all management recommendation chapters.

The majority of the trees are located within sections. A few are in paved paths and

will be discussed with the section they are located closest too. Ivan Franko Park’s over all

cover type is mixed, large, older hardwoods with some new hardwood and softwood

plantings (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Sample of trees, Ivan Franko Park

Photo by: N. J. Scott

5

Site Quality

The Ivan Franko Park's soil is uniform throughout (Appendix E). The park is

located on the southern edge of the Southern Bug River’s south floodplain. The river has

not flooded in many years because of the numerous dams along its reach. The park’s area

was originally a pond backwater. It was converted into a public beach and later on, drained

and turned to a park with the railroad grade being filled in.

The park is characteristically flat with the exception of the railroad grade along the

southern border. No standing or running water is in the park. No soil pits were dug due to

monetary and time restraints for the inventory, so the soil mapping was completed by

observations of the ground and touch tests. The method of touch testing and color matching

was adapted from Project Learning Tree (1998 and 2001) and Project WET (2000). The

criteria are listed in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1: Criteria for soil texture Soil Test Chart

Soil Texture Soil Squeezed Dry/Dry Color Soil Squeezed Moist/Moist Color Sand Falls apart Molds, but falls apart when touched Sandy Loam Molds, but falls apart Molds, can with stand careful

handling Loam Molds, can be carefully handled Molds, can be handled Silt Loam Molds, can be handled Molds, will not ooze, look broken Clay Loam Forms hard lumps Will ooze and break easily Sandy Clay Light gray Bluish/greenish gray Sandy Loamy Clay Gray Black

The soil in Ivan Franko Park is sandy, loamy, clay that ranges from mesic to xeric

depending on the location within the park. The larger open spaces by the sports fields in the

central southern area and along the railroad grade tend to be xeric due to the lack of canopy

cover and the intense heat radiating off of the fields and train tracks. The soil under canopy

cover is mesic. The railroad grade’s soil is xeric fill covered with crushed rock. The sports

fields are also a type of xeric fill.

6

The park has areas, which are experiencing soil compaction and erosion. These

areas are in the high traffic zones around sports fields, intersections of paths, and shortcuts

to the train tracks. Overall, the soil is productive as indicated by the vigor and type of

groundcover and the plants’ health.

The park’s habitat type is parkland (Miller, 1997), further defined as high recreation.

It has large trees with few bushes, shrubs, and grass and wildflower groundcover. Several

flowerbeds are also located within the park.

Vegetation Data Collection

A 100% inventory was conducted during fall 2003 to collect locations for all trees

1.5 meters and taller, specific tree information on all trees ≥ 9.906 cm diameter at breast

height (dbh), which is 1.3 meters above ground level, and general park information. The

trees were divided into two groups: saplings (≥1.5 meters tall to 9.906 cm dbh) and mature

trees (≥10.16 cm dbh). These two groupings were rounded off to 9.9 cm and 10 cm,

respectively. In the records, anything under 9.9 cm dbh was not given a dbh measurement

because of the health classification system and the requesting party's directions. Each tree

was identified using Press (1996), Coombes (2000), and Кремер (2002). The diameter at

breast height (dbh) was measured with a logger's tape in inches (later converted to

centimeters). Health conditions were recorded, adapted from Project Learning Tree (1998

and 2001) (Table 2), management recommendations given (Table 3), and any comments

recorded. The tree was assigned a health rating class adapted from Miller (1997) (Table 4).

Park information for each section such as soil, groundcover, land-use, wildlife,

general comments were included in this information as well. This information was

collected by observation, soil sampling as described above, and talking with park users and

administrators. The forms used to collect this information were the "Inventory Cover

7

Table 2: Number for each health condition with brief description of condition Tree Health Conditions List

# Description Criteria 1 Healthy No signs of damage, infestation, or infection. 2 Minor Infestation Tree is growing healthy with some sign of insects. 3 Minor Infection Tree is growing healthy with some sign of fungi. 4 Infestation Tree has signs that insects are harming it. 5 Infected Tree has signs that fungi are harming it. 6 Dying Tree shows signs of death. 7 Snag Tree is dead and standing. 8 Leaf Wilt The leaves are wilting. 9 Discolored Leaves The leaves have abnormal color. 10 Deformed Leaves The leaves are not shaped, as they should be. 11 Leaf Insects/Holed Leaves Leaves have holes from insects or insects eating them. 12 Bark Beetles/ Holes in Bark Bark has holes from insects. 13 Spotted/Bumpy Leaves Leaves have spots or bumps on them. 14 Canker Tree has canker(s). 15 Trunk Split The crotch of the trunk is split. 16 Wind Damage Tree has been damaged by wind. 17 Windthrow Tree has been blown down by wind. 18 Snow Damage Tree has been bent by snow load. 19 Snow Breakage Tree has been broken off due to snow load. 20 Fire Damage Tree has fire scars. 21 Frost Fissure Tree has fissure from frost on trunk. 22 Lightning Damage Tree has lightning scar. 23 Defaced Humans have damaged the tree. 24 Wildlife Home Tree has an animal home in it. 25 Pruned Improperly Cuts are not at proper angle or in wrong place, bark torn

from cuts, branches are not cut all the way through and are ripped off.

26 Trunk Rot The trunk has evidence of heartwood infection. 27 Secondary Borers Holes in exposed heartwood. 28 Mistletoe Mistletoe is growing on tree. 29 Burl Tree has lumpy trunk. 30 Exposed Dead Wood Gray colored wood not covered by bark or dead branches. 31 Conk Mushroom growing on side of tree. 32 Ants/Termites Frass piles on and around tree with insects on/in tree. 33 Tent Caterpillars Tents on leaves and branches from caterpillars. 34 Wild Grapes Wild grapes choking tree. 35 Gall Bumps on branches. 36 Obstruction Specify what is obstructing the growth of the tree. 37 Wildlife Activity Signs Tree has signs of wildlife activity. 38 Root Rot Roots have evidence of infection. 39 Girdled The bark has been or attempted to be removed from

around the trunk of the tree. 40 Branch Rot Branch shows evidence of infection. 41 Witch's Broom Branches misshapen like a witch's broom. 42 Dead Leader The leader of the tree is dead. 43 Open Wound Tree has an unhealed wound. 44 Exposed Roots The roots are not covered with soil. 45 Buried by Fill The base of the tree is buried by fill. 46 Branch Split The branch has a split in the crotch. 47 Topped Tree The crown of the tree has been cut off. 48 Gall at Base There is a gall at the base of the trunk.

8

Table 3: Numbers for each recommendation with description Tree Management Recommendations List

# Recommendation 1 No management necessary. 2 Prune damaged area. 3 Spray insecticide. 4 Spray fungicide. 5 Plant replacement tree. 6 Harvest. 7 Leave for wildlife value. 8 Discontinue pruning. 9 Discontinue digging of the ground around the tree. 10 Relocate the path/tree. 11 Stake tree. 12 Remove item(s) from tree. 13 Do not peel the bark. 14 15 Do not grow climbing plants on trees. 16 Plant shade tolerant replacement tree. 17 Do not cement up the wounds. 18 Prune exposed dead wood. 19 Take care when mowing around tree. 20 Plant bushes. 21 Erect guardrail around tree. 22 Let seedlings grow. 23 Plant hedge-appropriate plants. 24 Take more care with pruning. 25 Harvest if necessary.

Table 4: Classification scheme for the various sizes of trees and their health conditions

Tree Health Rating Class List Class Tree Type Description

1.0 Sapling Not established, but will live. 1.5 Sapling Not established, has problems, needs treatment. 2.0 Sapling Established, will live. 2.5 Sapling Established, has problems, needs treatment. 3.0 Mature Tree Will live. 3.5 Mature Tree Has problems, needs treatment. 4.0 Mature Tree Has problems, will die within 20 years, may treat. 4.5 Mature Tree Near death, no treatment necessary. 5.0 Mature Tree Dead or nearly dead, remove for safety. 5.5 Mature Tree Dead, wildlife habitat, leave. 6.0 Sapling Dead or nearly dead, remove.

9

Sheet" (Appendix F) and the "Tree Tally Sheet" (Appendix G). A table of scientific

and English common names was kept for all city parks. At the end of this inventory, a

species number was assigned to each species (Table 5). Only trees located in Ivan Franko

Park were included in this table. The numbers were assigned at the contracting party’s

request for future mapping purposes. The above information was analyzed by using

spreadsheets and tables with the results presented throughout this report.

Table 5: Scientific and common names are listed with corresponding species number for Ivan Franko Park Tree Species Numbers and Scientific/Common Names

Species #

Scientific Name

English Common Name

0 Dead 1 Unknown 2 Acer campestre L. Field maple 3 Acer negundo L. Box elder 4 Acer platanoides L. Norway maple 5 Acer pseuoplatanus L. Sycamore 6 Aesculus hippocastanum L. Horse chestnut 7 Betula pendula ROTH Silver birch 8 Betula spp. Birch 9 Carpinus betulus L. Hornbeam 13 Fraxinus excelsior L. Common ash 15 Juglans regia L. Walnut 16 Malus spp. Apple 17 Picea spp. Spruce 18 Pinus nigra ARNOLD Austrian pine 19 Populus nigra L. Black poplar 21 Populus tremula L. Aspen 22 Prunus spp. Plum, apricot, cherry 23 Quercus robur L. English oak 25 Robinia pseudoacacia L. Black locust 27 Thuja occidentalis L. White cedar 28 Tilia cordata MILLER Small-leaf linden 29 Tilia tomentosa MOENCH. Silver linden 30 Ulmus carpinifolia GLEDITSCH Smooth-leaf elm 31 Ulmus laevis PALLAS European white elm

Diameter Distribution

A different number of total trees for the dbh (541 trees) is given than for the total

number of trees in the park (525 trees). Nineteen trees split below dbh. Hence, they are

10

measured as two separate trees, but they received only one set of numbers for overall tree

count, health conditions, and recommendations. They were each given a separate health

rating class, however. This approach was decided on after the fieldwork was completed,

because many of the sets of trees had the same conditions and recommendations for each

trunk. These trees really appear as one tree with more than one trunk, but for management

purposes, they needed to be shown as different trees. Therefore, they are counted as one

tree in the park’s total number of trees. In addition, three trees were not accessible at the

time of the inventory because they were inside of a construction compound in the park.

They are counted in the overall park total, but are not counted in the dbh rankings, health

classification or conditions, and recommendations. Also, dbh classes were made based on

standard practice and all numbers were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Each tree species diameter distribution and for all species combined range from

under 10 cm dbh to over 107 cm dbh (Table 6). The dbh class with the highest number of

trees is <10 cm. Seventy-eight trees are in this group and is the peak of the classification

curve. The numbers of trees drops from here to twenty-five (10-14 cm dbh class), and

steadily increases to another high of fifty-eight trees at 36-40 cm dbh class. It decreases to

one each in the last two dbh classes. This shows when the larger, older trees are harvested,

there will not be enough regeneration to sustain the current stand conditions of the park.

Table 7 shows Acer platanoides L. has the largest number of trees with the widest

dbh distribution. Populus nigra L. has the second largest distribution. This table also

shows the park is insufficiently stocked in the larger diameter trees, which need to be

regenerated with specific species as seen in the table, so the future stand will resemble what

is now present.

11

Regeneration

The regeneration of Ivan Franko Park’s trees has been obtained in the past through

plantings of nursery stock. Some natural regeneration is occurring along the south line and

within several sections. However, this regeneration is too sparse to be depended upon for

sustaining the park’s forest type (Tables 6 and7). In addition to the few seedlings naturally

seeded from overstory trees, some seedlings are growing from stumps and roots of Tilia

spp. and Aesculus hippocastanum L. Section 3 has some regeneration of Acer spp. Section

5 has Acer spp. and Populus spp. regeneration. Section 13 has various species regenerating,

as does Section 16. Other sections have minimal suckering or no natural regeneration.

Table 6: The dbh ranges for all species located in Ivan Franko Park with the percentage of trees per class

DBH Classifications DBH Class (cm) All Species Percent (%)

<10 78 14.4 10-14 25 4.6 15-19 27 5.0 20-24 36 6.7 25-29 39 7.2 30-35 41 7.6 36-40 58 10.7 41-45 55 10.2 46-50 36 6.7 51-55 32 5.9 56-60 16 2.9 61-65 34 6.3 66-70 20 3.7 71-75 12 2.2 76-80 10 1.8 81-85 9 1.7 86-90 5 0.9 91-96 1 0.2

97-101 5 0.9 102-106 1 0.2 ≥ 107 1 0.2

Total 541 100.0

12

Table 7: Dbh rankings for each species. See Table 5, p. 9, to convert species numbers to names Species Number DBH Class

(cm) 2 3 4* 5 6 7 8 9 0 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 1 <10 0 15 8 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 20 2 1 0 0 8 10-14 0 3 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 15-19 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 5 2 0 0 6 20-24 2 3 1 0 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 6 3 0 0 2 25-29 0 1 3 0 1 5 2 10 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 3 3 1 0 0 30-35 0 0 3 1 3 4 0 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 2 0 0 1 36-40 0 1 6 0 5 3 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 10 4 1 0 0 41-45 0 0 7 0 8 2 0 22 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 5 3 0 0 0 46-50 0 0 6 0 6 1 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 51-55 2 0 6 0 2 0 0 9 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 56-60 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 61-65 5 0 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 66-70 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 71-75 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 76-80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81-85 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91-96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97-101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102-106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ≥ 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spp. Totals 11 24 60 1 40 21 5 97 3 40 1 4 7 4 42 7 15 7 27 31 50 21 3 2 18 Grand Total 522+19+3=544**

* Three trees are not included in this table because they were not measured because of inaccessibility. ** There are 525 trees in the park, but 19 are split below 10.16 cm dbh, so they have more than one entry for dbh. The 3 are the ones not measured.

13

Wildlife Assessment

Analysis

The inventory’s wildlife assessment portion of the inventory was conducted by

observations while the inventory crew was in the field. Notes were written down on the

cover sheet for each section. Birds were identified using Зауэр, 2002.

Ivan Franko Park offers food and shelter for minimal wildlife. Observed in the park

were pigeons, rooks, and chickadees. Some evidence of woodpecker holes in trees and one

nesting cavity were present. Also, birds' nests are located in some of the trees along with

what appeared to be one squirrel's nest. Eleven groups of shrubs and hedges with scattered

conifers are growing in the park, which gives little winter coverage for songbirds is

available. Mounds from moles were occasionally seen in the park.

The tree species are mainly Acer spp., Fraxinus spp., and Populus spp. with some

other hardwoods and a couple of Pinus spp., scattered Thuja spp., and dying Picea spp.

Five hundred twenty-five trees above 1.5 meters tall and or 10.16 cm dbh are growing. The

herbaceous plants are turf grass and wildflowers, which are kept mowed. The trees are

spread apart, but do create a canopy cover over the majority of the park.

The structure of Ivan Franko Park is mainly co-dominate trees with some dominate

and understory trees sprinkled throughout, along with a few groupings of bushes. The park

is uniform regarding spatial heterogeneity with the exception of the slight rise in elevation

along the southern border. The trees are evenly spread throughout the park, creating an

open park with extremely little understory.

The lack of coverage and forage for large mammals makes Ivan Franko Park an

unsuitable habitat. The bird population appears to be thriving because of the large number

of older trees passing their prime and the newer trees, which are dying because of poor

14

species selection for the site factors. These trees have a high incidence of varying levels of

infection and infestation. This attracts the birds, as seen by the woodpecker activity and

nesting cavity. The squirrel population is low all across Ukraine, so it is likely that there is

only one family residing in the park. The park also does not house enough mature nut

bearing trees to support a family of squirrels. The park may be home to some other small

mammals and non-mammals, however only signs of moles and earthworms were observed.

No greenbelts or corridors border or are near the park, so the movement of animals is

limited.

Structural Diversity

Structural diversity varies within the park, but is limited. Good canopy closure is

present over the majority of the park’s sections. However, Sections 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,

20, and 26 have only partial to little canopy cover. The railroad grade and playing fields are

located in these sections. Also, in Sections 14, 15, and 16 are young trees versus the rest of

the sections, which have more mature trees. Bushes or young clumped regeneration are in

Sections 1, 5, 10, 16, 18, and 20. These bushes and young trees tend to be located where

there is minimal to no canopy cover. The majority of the canopy cover is hardwoods with

only a small portion of conifers. The majority of the coniferous canopy cover is young

Thuja spp.

The groundcover ranges from bare soil to grass and wildflowers. The largest

groundcover type is sparse grass and wildflowers (15 sections). High traffic, both vehicular

and pedestrian, which the park receives causes the soil compaction, making it hard for the

groundcover to grow.

Four broad layers of vegetation are present in Ivan Franko Park. The first layer is

the groundcover. The second is bushes up to approximately 3 meters in heigth. The third

15

layer is young trees approximately 3-10 meters tall and the last layer being mature trees

over 10 meters. The largest portion of the park falls into the first and last height

classifications with the second and third classes scattered throughout the park. This height

classification also corresponds to the dbh proportions (Table 6, p.11). Twenty-four percent

of the trees fall into the rankings of 19 cm or less dbh. This means that 76% of the trees are

mature trees with a dbh of 20 cm and greater. No one class dominates the others. The class

ranges are from 0.2% to 14.4%. Trees under 10 cm dbh have the highest percentage.

However, at 14.4%, this is not a majority or large portion when compared to the other

classes.

Micro Features

Ivan Franko Park’s micro features are not numerous. Some of this is because of

traditional environmental practices and some, because of the park's objectives.

There are three snags in the park. Two snags are located in Section 7 and the third is

in Section 26. The two snags in Section 7 are Picea spp. saplings and Section 26's snag is a

15 cm dbh Aesculus hippocastanum L. The trees are normally harvested before they die, so

few snags are present in the park.

Mast tree species located in the park are Quercus robur L., Juglans regia L., and

Aesculus hippocastanum L. Forty-five mast trees out of five hundred twenty-five trees are

growing in the park. Thirty-seven are Aesculus hippocastanum L., one is a Juglans regia

L., and the remaining seven are Quercus robur L. These trees are growing in seventeen

different sections. Section 20 has the most with six trees. Usually, only one to three trees

are in a section within these seventeen sections. The mast trees are further divided into

saplings (<10 cm dbh), small, mature trees (10-24 cm dbh), and large, mature trees (≥ 25

cm dbh). Thirty-six of the forty-five trees are large, mature trees with the majority being

16

Aesculus hippocastanum L. (thirty-two trees). Nine trees are small, mature trees and only

one is a sapling.

Minimal coarse woody debris are on the park’s grounds, because it is routinely

removed. The leaves are also swept up and taken with the coarse woody debris to another

place for disposal. Chips and mulch are not used in the park’s landscaping or in high use

areas.

The park’s flat nature and its location at the edge of a floodplain, tends to increase

water collection in large, shallow pools during snowmelts and rain falls. However, the

pools quickly dry up.

Spatial Heterogeneity

The spatial heterogeneity is uniform parkland. The canopy is closed over the

majority of the park, but does open up by the railroad yard and in the southern, middle part

of the park. The majority of playing fields are located here. Ivan Franko Park does not

have any monocultures. Trees of like species do tend to be grouped closer together, but

they do not form a monoculture. No wetlands are in the park grounds; however, the soil

does tend to be drier around the playing fields and railroad grade, then the rest of the park.

17

Forest Health Assessment

Health Data Collection

The health of the forest in Ivan Franko Park was measured by observing each

individual tree dbh 10.16 cm or larger, recording each health problem or condition, and

assigning a health classification. All trees under 10.16 cm dbh were given a health

classification without conditions as per the requesting party’s instructions. Each condition

was entered into a sectional table. These tables show the totals for each individual health

condition. The total number of each condition’s occurrences were added up from the

separate sectional tables. The number of sections, which had each individual condition

were added together to give the total number of sections with that particular condition.

A total of forty-eight different health conditions were given. Some of the conditions

do not apply to this park, but were left on the list (Table 2, p.7) because they can be used in

the future. Health condition number 1, healthy, and others such as number 18, snow

damage, do not apply for this inventory, but may in future inventories. The conditions,

which apply to the leaves were not useful because this inventory was started at the end of

leaf off and was finished before leaf out. Also included in the health conditions is wildlife

activity or housing for each tree. In the case of woodpeckers, wildlife activity or housing

shows the overall level of the tree's health. With a squirrel’s nest, on the other hand, it does

not show anything about a tree’s health status.

Results

In general, the forest health of the park is declining because of the trees’ ages,

maintenance issues, site placement factors, and land-usage. A high rate of disease and

insects is present (Table 8). Out of four hundred forty-eight mature trees (10.16 cm dbh and

18

Table 8: Number and percent of all trees, healthy, sick, saplings, and dead trees in the park

Categories of Trees Category of Trees Number of Trees Percent of Total (%)

Total 525 100.0 Sick trees 386 73.5 Healthy trees 62 11.8 Saplings 74 14.1 Dead trees 3 0.6

larger), three hundred eighty-six have at least one occurrence of a health condition. Only

four trees have number 24 (wildlife home) listed as a condition. Out of these four, one is

home to woodpeckers and the others have birds' or squirrels' nests in them. This number

may be misleading because only the tree with the woodpecker cavity in it would be

considered as a tree with a health problem.

Table 9 shows the number of each condition’s occurrences, the percent of trees with

a specific condition, the number of sections affected by the condition, and the percent of

sections with the condition. Exposed dead wood has the highest number of incidences, two

hundred forty-five trees, 46.7% of the park’s trees. Usually dead branches and exposed

heartwood are the most common types of exposed dead wood. The number of trees with

problems decreases from here. The next largest problem is trunk rot, which infects one

hundred fifty-five trees. Burls appear on one hundred forty-eight trees with fifty-seven out

of seventy Tilia spp. trees having this condition. The other ninety-one trees are various

species. One hundred thirty-five trees show at least one sign of defacement by humans.

However, many of these trees have multiple defacements in a variety of forms. They have

been carved, bark peeled, garbage or concrete put in or on them, wires embedded, light

fixtures attached, etc. Some of these defacements can cause serious health problems to the

person harvesting the tree. The object(s) in the tree can break the chain on the saw and

seriously wound or even kill the logger. After defacement, the number of occurrences for

19

Table 9: Occurrences for health conditions, percent of trees with a condition, number and percent of sections affected by a condition

Occurrences of Health Conditions Condition Occurrences Percent of Trees

(%) Number of Sections Percent of Sections

(%) 1 0 0,0 0 0,02 0 0,0 0 0,03 1 0,2 1 3,64 8 1,5 1 3,65 8 1,5 6 21,46 2 0,4 2 7,17 1 0,2 1 3,68 0 0,0 0 0,09 0 0,0 0 0,010 0 0,0 0 0,011 6 1,1 1 3,612 46 8,8 18 64,313 0 0,0 0 0,014 87 16,6 17 60,715 8 1,5 7 25,016 0 0,0 0 0,017 0 0,0 0 0,018 0 0,0 0 0,019 0 0,0 0 0,020 1 0,2 1 3,621 11 2,1 9 32,122 0 0,0 0 0,023 135 25,7 21 75,024 15 2,9 9 32,125 1 0,2 1 3,626 155 29,5 26 92,927 39 7,4 16 57,028 37 7,0 11 39,329 148 28,2 22 78,630 245 46,7 23 82,131 8 1,5 7 25,032 5 1,0 4 14,333 1 0,2 1 3,634 2 0,4 1 3,635 37 7,0 14 50,036 13 2,5 7 25,037 9 1,7 5 17,938 46 8,8 1 3,639 1 0,2 1 3,640 4 0,8 3 10,741 2 0,4 1 3,642 1 0,2 1 3,643 5 1,0 1 3,644 46 8,8 8 28,645 4 0,8 1 3,646 6 1,1 3 10,747 1 0,2 1 3,648 1 0,2 1 3,6Total Number of Occurrences

1146

20

any one condition dramatically drops to eighty-seven, the number of trees with canker(s).

The number of incidences for the remaining conditions steadily decreases to zero from here.

Trunk rot appears in twenty-six of the twenty-eight sections of Ivan Franko Park.

This is 92.9% of the sections (Table 9, p. 19). Exposed dead wood is in twenty-three

sections, burls are in twenty-two, and defacement happens in twenty-one sections (82.1%,

78.6%, and 75.0%, respectively). Eighteen sections with bark beetles is the next widest

spread problem. The number of sections a condition occurs in declines from here.

Some sections have more occurrences of health conditions then others. Section 20

has one hundred thirty-nine recorded instances of health conditions, the most out of the

twenty-eight sections (Table 10). The next lowest number is in Section 24 with one

hundred twenty-six occurrences. The other two sections with over one hundred occurrences

are Section 26 (one hundred eight instances) and Section 9 (one hundred seven instances).

The number of conditions per section drops sporadically after this to zero.

Many of the unhealthy trees are found in the park’s high-traffic zones. These trees

are competing against soil compaction and erosion, large amounts of foot traffic,

construction, being run over or hit by cars, etc.

Future Health Issues

As the trees decline with age or from site factors, more occurrences of health

problems will occur. The number of infected trees will go up increasing park visitor safety

issues. The infestation level will also rise, attracting more birds, but declining as new trees

or other items replace the old trees. If tree maintenance in not improved, the trees will

further show health problems. Like wise, land-usage problems need to be resolved to help

slow the mortality rate. These issues will exacerbate the problems of maintaining the park

in its present desirable state, if they are left unchanged.

21

Table 10: Number of health conditions and recommendations by section

Health Conditions and Recommendations Sectional Totals

Section Number

Number of Conditions

Number of Recommendations

1 18 122 12 123 12 64 5 25 67 535a 5 46 2 57 21 128 16 69 107 4610 52 2611 21 1212 18 1313 38 2814 0 015 1 116 15 1217 14 218 35 1719 59 2920 139 4921 75 3122 36 1223 45 1524 126 4325 74 2926 108 4427 25 8

Total 1146 529

22

Land-Use Assessment

Bordering Land-Uses

Streets surround Ivan Franko Park on two sides, a building and fence on a third side,

and the end of the railroad yard on the fourth (Appendix C). Across the street from the park

on Ivana Franka Street are apartment buildings, a factory, a mini-market, a bar, the City

Bathhouse Number 1, and the Square of the Eternal Flame. Diagonally at the intersection

of Ivana Franka Street and Proskurivska Street is a post office branch. Across Proskurivska

Street are a Children's Music School, the city's Central Stadium with a cafe and store

located in at the front of the complex, and the Scientific and Technical School for Youth.

The building bordering the park on the east boundary is the Physical Culture and Sports

School Number 2. On the west boundary line of the park is a cafe. Local and out-of-town

people using the Khmelnitsky Main Train Station and Main City Post Office use both of the

bordering streets. Hence, they are main thoroughfares. The west end of the city's railroad

yard makes up the park's southern boundary.

Park Land-Uses

The land-use of Ivan Franko Park is mainly sports activities such as: football,

exercising, running, walking, and basketball (Figure 3). To accommodate some of the basic

user needs, the park has one permanent cafe (Appendix A), Building B, with two being

built, Buildings G and J, and two non-permanent structures used as cafes, Buildings Q and

Q, and Building F, housing public toilets. The Sports School Number 1 has a structure,

Building H, located in the park, which has a sauna and various equipment rooms. Also,

three utility structures, Buildings C, D, and E, are located in the park. Electrical and lamp

23

Figure 3: A basketball court, Ivan Franko Park

poles are found throughout the park. Section 9 has a buried gas line and Sections 6 and16

have buried cables. Section 12 houses an electric box and poles.

Among the park’s attractions are two football fields, Letters K and M in Appendix

A, a tennis court, Letter L, a basketball court, Letter N, and several exercise areas with

outdoor equipment, Letter P and in front of Building H. An outdoor stage with seating and

concessions is under construction, Building J. A picnic area is located in Section 21.

Numerous benches line the pathways, but the park has few garbage receptacles.

On the weekends, Ivan Franko Park holds an antiques bazaar. The park was also the

site for 2003's City of Khmelnitsky Day's traditional Ukrainian food bazaar with many

different booths selling take-home food and shashleek items (Figure 4). Picnic benches

along with tables and chairs were brought in for the occasion. This food bazaar is

traditionally held twice a year at the park.

Photo by N. J. Scott

24

Figure 4: Khmelnitsky Days Food Festival, Ivan Franko Park

Land-Use Effects

The park sees increased usage of its recreational opportunities on the weekends, as

many football matches are held here. During the summer months, organized youth football

teams hold practices and matches here, also increasing traffic. One of the main problems is

the lack of parking around the park. Limited parking available street-side, which leads to

people parking on the grass in the park (Figure 5). The people who work in the buildings

located within park boundaries compound this problem. These people also park on the lawn

areas. The results of parking problems are prevalent in Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 23,

24, 25, 26, and 27. All of these sections are located close to or include sports fields. In

these areas, loss of ground cover with soil compaction and erosion is occurring. Therefore,

these sections are classified as high-traffic areas.

Photo by: K. M. Filius

25

Figure 5: Soil compaction and unhealthy

groundcover, Ivan Franko Park

Much trash located on the grounds of the park because of the lack of garbage cans

(Figure 6). The benches are also in need of repair or replacement. They are missing

boards, falling apart, have been destroyed, or are missing all together. The picnic area has

benches, tables, and a couple of shelters, also a high use area with severe soil and tree

degradation (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Litter around a bench, Ivan Franko Park



26

Figure 7: Picnic tables, outdoor café, and antique bazaar,

Ivan Franko Park

Three flowerbeds are located down the center walkway from Entrance 1 (Appendix

A) to the park's center circle. They are annually planted and well maintained.

The paths, which are paved, are in good condition with a few minor exceptions in

the heavy traffic areas and where the pavement was torn up to lay some type of lines to the

stage. The unpaved paths connecting the train tracks with the park are causing soil

compaction and erosion of the hillside.

People also have firepits in the park, along with piles of leaves and garbage. Many

signs and open and covered manholes are located throughout the park. Additionally, dogs

are allowed to run free over the entire park, causing problems for other park users who use

the grassed regions. These problems are excrement and attacks on park users.

In section 18, a drainage ditch off of the circle was dug into the grass. This ditch is

on an open intersection of paths. A drain field also appears to have been put in with a pipe

going underground. A man from the nearby cafe was observed pouring dirty water down

this pipe from cleaning the cafe.

Photo by N. J. Scott

27

Management Recommendations

The future silvicultural objectives and management recommendations for Ivan

Franko Park vary depending on the section. This variation is because of the land-uses

within each section, what is currently present, and what are the future possibilities. Located

after each section’s assessment and recommendation is the general section information,

stand information, and the section map with locations of the trees from the inventory

fieldwork. Please refer to the corresponding pages for further information.

Section 1

The objectives for Section 1 are to maintain the level of canopy cover, which exists,

increase the amount of groundcover, and channel traffic. Currently, the section has a high

level of canopy cover, which is aesthetically pleasing. This level needs to be kept for the

character of the park to remain the same. The amount of groundcover can be increased,

adding to the aesthetics of the park and providing more places for children to play. By

channeling traffic off of the grassy areas, more groundcover will grow naturally. The

recommendations are to plant new trees when and where appropriate. Monitoring the

health of trees numbered 1-8 will ensure any problems they may have are solved

immediately. To assist with generating groundcover, a fence can be placed along the top of

the wall and traffic control hedging can be planted along the paths, keeping people in

designated areas. Appropriate groundcover can be planted or seeded where natural

regeneration is not happening.

28

Park Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky

PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/09/03 SECTION: 1 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Cafe, sign, electric pole, paths Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers, some areas have no groundcover Understory: Bushes Overstory: Mixed hardwoods Insect Infestation: Insects on clump of trees Fungi Infection: minor trunk rot Wildlife: General Comments: Man wanted to know what we were doing, but did not provide feedback.

29

Section 1 Stand Information Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s)

# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 1-1 1 Unknown 12 30 3,0 4 1-2 1 Unknown 8 20 3,0 4 1-3 1 Unknown 6 15 3,0 4 1-4 1 Unknown 6 15 3,0 4 1-5 1 Unknown 6 15 3,5 4 26 1 1-6 1 Unknown 7 18 3,5 4 26 1 1-7 1 Unknown 6 15 3,0 4 1-8 1 Unknown 9 23 3,0 4 1-9 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 5 13 3,0

1-10 13 Fraxinus excelsior 25 64 3,5 26 36 Next to wall 5 1-11 19 Populus nigra 39 99 3,5 28 5 1-12 28 Tilia cordata 0 0 2,0 1-13 23 Quercus robur 5 13 3,0 36 In path 10 1-14 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,0 1-15 23 Quercus robur 8 20 3,0 36 In path 10 1-16 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 3,5 29 5 1-17 23 Quercus robur 10 25 3,0 36 In path 10 1-18 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,5 26 5 9 1-19 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,0 9 1-20 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,0 9

Average 12,1 30,7 3,1

30

Ivan Franko Park Section 1

Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004

31

Section 2

Section 2 objectives are to maintain the level of canopy cover that exists and

increase the amount of groundcover. High traffic is causing the degradation of

groundcover, preventing regeneration. Recommendations for Section 2 are to plant

appropriate saplings to maintain the level of canopy cover after the older trees die off. The

fencing and hedging from Section 1 should be continued. Groundcover can be planted or

seeded after the fencing and hedging are in place. Trashcans can be placed along the path

to reduced the amount of litter, provided a maintenance mechanism is in place for trash

collection.

32


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/09/03 SECTION: 2 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Electric pole, building foundation, garbage Groundcover: Nothing to sparse grass, wildflowers Understory: Nothing Overstory: Hornbeam/beech Insect Infestation: Minor bark beetles Fungi Infection: Minor heart rot Wildlife: Pigeons General Comments:

33


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 2-1 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 30 20 2-2 9 Carpinus betulus 12 30 3,0 2-3 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,0 2-4 9 Carpinus betulus 9 23 3,0 2-5 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,5 30 5 2-6 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 3,0 2-7 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 26 5 17 2-8 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,0 2-9 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,5 26

2-10 9 Carpinus betulus 12 30 3,0 2-11 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,0 2-12 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,0 2-13 9 Carpinus betulus 11 28 3,5 12 5 2-14 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 12 5 2-15 9 Carpinus betulus 21 53 3,5 26 5 2-16 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,0 2-17 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 3,0 2-18 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,0 2-19 9 Carpinus betulus 23 58 3,5 26 5 2-20 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 4,0 26 5 2-21 9 Carpinus betulus 11 28 3,0 2-22 9 Carpinus betulus 23 58 3,0 2-23 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,5 30 5 2-24 9 Carpinus betulus 18 46 3,0 2-25 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 4,0 27 30 5 6 2-26 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 3,0 2-27 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 3,0 2-28 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,0

Average 15,4 39 3,2

34



35

Section 3

Objectives for Section 3 are to maintain the current level of canopy cover and

channel traffic. By keeping and adding to the current amount of regeneration, the level of

canopy cover can be maintained. By banning all vehicles from the park, except for

maintenance trucks, and planting hedging, traffic can be channeled. The groundcover,

which needs to be planted or seeded, will regenerate with traffic control measures in place.

Trashcans can be placed along the paths to help with garbage control.

36


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/09/03 SECTION: 3 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Paths, garbage Groundcover: Grass, hornbeam regeneration, wildflowers, maple regeneration Understory: Nothing Overstory: Maple Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Minor rot Wildlife: General Comments:

37


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 3-1 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 3,0 3-2 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,0 23 12 3-3 21 Populus tremula 25 64 3,0 3-4 2 Acer campestre 20 51 3,5 26 5 3-5 4 Acer platanoides 25 64 3,5 26 5 3-6 4 Acer platanoides 13 33 3,0 29 31 3-7 4 Acer platanoides 12 30 3,0 29 3-8 4 Acer platanoides 21 53 3,5 26 29 30 5 3-9 4 Acer platanoides 15 38 3,0 29

3-10 31 Ulmus laevis 25 64 3,0 30 18 3-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 0 0 2,5 23 Peeled bark 19

Average 16,8 42,7 3,1

38



39

Section 4

The Section 4 objects are to channel traffic and increase groundcover. Vehicular

traffic needs to be banned, so the existing groundcover and the newly planted or seeded

groundcover will flourish. Trashcans are also needed for litter reduction.

40


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/10/03 SECTION: 4 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Garbage, road/parking Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Nothing Overstory: Ash Insect Infestation: Mild secondary wood borers Fungi Infection: Mild Wildlife: General Comments:

41


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 4-1 4 Acer platanoides 14 36 3,0 29 Measured below burl 4-2 13 Fraxinus excelsior 28 71 3,5 12 23 26 30 Wire in tree 5 18 4-3 13 Fraxinus excelsior 21 53 3,0

Average 21 53,3 3,2

42



43

Section 5

The objectives of Section 5 are to maintain and improve the canopy cover and

aesthetics, channel traffic, and fix safety hazards such as dog and park user interaction

problems. A fence with gates and hedging along the south boundary line with paved paths

and garbage cans will improve the aesthetic appeal, control traffic, and reduce soil erosion

and compaction. The open manhole needs a cover on it, so people are not injured by falling

in. This section is perfectly located and set up for a dog run. The creation of a dog run will

give dog owners a place to play with their dogs, while giving other park users turfed areas

to use free of dog excrement or dog attacks. Trees can be planted along and in the dog run,

adding another dimension to the aesthetics of the area.

44


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/10/03 SECTION: 5 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic on lower section, xeric by train tracks, fill, crushed rock Land Use(s): Buildings, borders railroad tracks, garbage, toilet, paths, open sewer hole Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers, maple regeneration, Populus spp. regeneration Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Tent caterpillars Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Signs of woodpecker activity General Comments: Tree numbers on map are not accurate starting with number 11 and will have to remeasure and tally the rest of the section when we have a clean map of the section.

45


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/11/03 SECTION: 5 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Land Use(s): People walk through the section Groundcover: Understory: Box elder Overstory: Cottonwood Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Mistletoe in cottonwoods Wildlife: Rooks, signs of squirrel activity, bird nest General Comments:

46


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 5-1 13 Fraxinus excelsior 34 86 3,0 5-2 4 Acer platanoides 18 46 3,5 26 29 5 5-3 2 Acer campestre 25 64 4,0 23 32 Garbage and concrete in tree 5 6 5-4 21 Populus tremula 25 64 3,0 5-5 2 Acer campestre 24 61 3,0 23 36 Next to path 10 5-6 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 5,0 23 26 Concrete in tree 5 6 5-7 13 Fraxinus excelsior** 32 81 3,0 **Estimated dbh due to inaccessibility 5-8 3 Acer negundo 15 38 3,0 36 Against concrete pole 5 5-9 3 Acer negundo 7 18 3,0 8

5-10 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 3,0 8 5-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 10 25 3,0 37 Woodpecker activity 5-12 22 Prunus spp. 5 13 3,5 33 5 6 5-13 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,5 6 6 5-14 3 Acer negundo 11 28 3,5 30 5-15 3 Acer negundo 8 20 3,5 30 37 Woodpecker activity 6 5-16 3 Acer negundo 8 20 3,0 29 5-17 21 Populus tremula 11 28 3,0 37 Woodpecker activity 5-18 3 Acer negundo 9 23 3,5 29 30 5-19 4 Acer platanoides 7 18 3,5 27 30 5-20 21 Populus tremula** 32 81 3,5 28 30 **Estimated dbh due to inaccessibility 5 18 5-21 19 Populus nigra 30 76 3,5 28 30 5 18 5-22 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,5 28 30 5 5-23 19 Populus nigra 36 91 3,5 23 28 30 5 12 18 5-24 3 Acer negundo 5 13 4,0 29 30 37 Woodpecker activity 1 5-25 3 Acer negundo 5 13 3,0 1 5-26 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-27 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-28 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-29 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-30 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-31 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-32 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-33 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-34 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-35 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1

47

5-36 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-37 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-38 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 1 5-39 19 Populus nigra 32 81 3,5 30 34 12 18 5-40 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 12 30 34 1

5-40a* 3 Acer negundo 0 0 2,5 5-41 19 Populus nigra 31 79 3,5 28 29 30 5 18 5-42 19 Populus nigra 28 71 3,5 28 30 18 5-43 19 Populus nigra 28 71 3,5 30 18 5-44 19 Populus nigra 23 58 3,5 28 29 5 5-45 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,5 12 29 30 5 5-46 19 Populus nigra 24 61 3,5 29 30 18 5-47 19 Populus nigra 24 61 3,0 29 5-48 19 Populus nigra 25 64 3,0 29 5-49 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,5 29 30 5 5-50 19 Populus nigra 20 51 3,5 23 29 30 12 5-51 19 Populus nigra 27 69 4,0 26 27 30 32 5 5-52 19 Populus nigra 26 66 3,0 23 5-53 19 Populus nigra 16 41 4,5 30 29 26 5 18 5-53a 19 Populus nigra 30 76 3,5 5-54 19 Populus nigra 24 61 4,0 23 26 27 30 5 5-55 7 Betula pendula 8 20 4,0 30 16

Average 14,6 37,2 3,2 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.

48



49

Section 5a

Garbage and traffic control are the objects for Section 5a, along with improving the

viewfrom the park over the railroad yard. The fence with hedging from Section 5 and the

paving of paths with trashcans is should be continued, along with the extension of the dog

run.

50


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/10/03 SECTION: 5a WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic to xeric (in gym equipment area) Land Use(s): Firepit, garbage, foundation, electric poles, gym equipment, paths Groundcover: grass, wildflowers Understory: Nothing Overstory: Cottonwood Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Minor disease Wildlife: Moles General Comments:

51

Section 5a Stand Information Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s)

# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 5a-1 19 Populus nigra 30 76 3,0 5a-2 7 Betula pendula 6 15 3,5 5 16 5a-3 19 Populus nigra 24 61 3,0 5a-4 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,0 5a-5 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,0 5a-6 15 Juglans regia 0 0 2,5 25 8 5a-7 19 Populus nigra 30 76 3,0 5a-8 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,0 5a-9 19 Populus nigra 29 74 3,0 5a-10 7 Betula pendula 9 23 3,0 5a-11 7 Betula pendula 8 20 3,0 5a-12 19 Populus nigra 27 69 3,0 5a-13 19 Populus nigra 33 84 3,0 5a-14 19 Populus nigra 35 89 3,0 5a-15 7 Betula pendula 14 36 3,0 5a-16 7 Betula pendula 14 36 3,0 5a-17 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 3,5 26 5 5a-18 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 10 25 3,0 5a-19 2 Acer campestre 25 64 3,0 5a-20 2 Acer campestre 28 71 4,0 26 27 5

Average 20,9 53,1 3,1

52

Ivan Franko Park Section 5a


53

Section 6

Maintain the present conditions for Section 6. To do this, continue monitoring the

section for possible problems and address them as needed.

54


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/10/03 SECTION: 6 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic to xeric (in gym equipment area) Land Use(s): Electric pole, buried cable sign, buildings, paths Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Cherry Overstory: Horse chestnut Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Minor disease Wildlife: Earthworms General Comments:

55


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 6-1 6 Aesculus

hippocastanum 18 46 3,0

6-2 6 Aesculus hippocastanum

17 43 3,0


25 64 3,0 26

6-4 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 6-5 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 6-6 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 6-7 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 6-8 22 Prunus spp. 11 28 3,0 6-9 22 Prunus spp. 9 23 3,5 26 8

Average 8,9 22,6 2,6

56



57

Section 7

Section 7 objectives are to maintain and improve the canopy cover and control

garbage. Appropriate trees need to be planted for maintenance of and improved canopy

cover and garbage cans oriented along the paths for litter control.

58


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/10/03 SECTION: 7 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Garbage/leaf pile, gym equipment, signs Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Hardwoods Overstory: Hardwoods Insect Infestation: Leaf insects on spruce(?), galls on spruce(?) Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

59


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 7-1 4 Acer platanoides 24 61 3,0 30 7-2 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9

7-2a* 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 7-3 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 7-4 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 9 7-5 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 7-6 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 7-7 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 7-8 22 Prunus spp. 0 0 2,0 7-9 13 Fraxinus excelsior 33 84 3,0 30 36 Next to road 21 7-10 19 Populus nigra 34 86 3,5 28 30 7-11 4 Acer platanoides 5 13 3,0 8 7-11a 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,0 7-11b 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,0 7-12 4 Acer platanoides 5 13 3,5 26 7-13 6 Aesculus

hippocastanum 16 41 3,0

7-14 17 Picea spp. 4 10 3,5 11 12 7-15 17 Picea spp. 0 0 2,5 11 7-16 17 Picea spp. 0 0 6,0 6 11 35 7-17 17 Picea spp. 0 0 2,5 11 29 7-18 4 Acer platanoides 6 15 3,0 23 12 7-19 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,5 12 30 1 7-20 17 Picea spp. 0 0 2,5 11 7-21 9 Carpinus betulus 4 10 3,5 30 7-22 3 Acer negundo 5 13 3,0 7-23 17 Picea spp. 0 0 2,5 11 35 6 7-24 16 Malus spp. 0 0 2,0 7-25 0 Dead 0 0 6,0 Picea spp. 6 7-26 0 Dead 0 0 6,0 Picea spp 6


60



61

Section 8

The objectives for Section 8 are to maintain the canopy cover, improve

groundcover, and control traffic within the section. Regeneration needs to be started with

site appropriate species to maintain the canopy cover. Groundcover needs to be planted or

seeded after hedging or a fence is erected to control the traffic on the grassed area.

62


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/11/03 SECTION: 8 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Leaf piles, signs, manhole Groundcover: Little to no grass Understory: None Overstory: Ash Insect Infestation: Bark beetles in ash Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Evidence of earthworms General Comments:

63

Section 8 Stand Information

Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E

8-1 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 8 20 3,5 30 8-2 13 Fraxinus excelsior 19 48 3,5 12 26 27 29 30 5 8-3 4 Acer platanoides 33 84 3,0 8-4 13 Fraxinus excelsior 20 51 3,5 12 26 30 32 36 In path 5 8-5 13 Fraxinus excelsior 18 46 4,0 12 29 30 5 18 8-6 13 Fraxinus excelsior 13 33 3,5 29 30 5 18

Average 18,5 47,0 3,5

64



65

Section 9

Section 9 objectives are to keep and improve the canopy cover, increase the amount

of groundcover, and direct traffic. The recommendations are to plant trees that tolerate high

levels of air pollution to improve the canopy cover, monitor and take measures to improve

tree health, and plant or seed groundcover after a hedge is planted to keep dogs off of the

lawn.

66


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 9 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Gas line, dog run, leaf pile Groundcover: Sparse grass and wildflowers Understory: Tilia spp. Overstory: Hornbeam Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Rot Wildlife: Chickadees General Comments: Hornbeam show signs of air pollution on bark-lichens, gray film, heavy moss all around trunks. There is a high rate of burls.

67


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F A B C D E 9-1 9 Carpinus betulus 18 46 4,0 14 23 26 30 Concrete in tree 5 18 9-2 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,0 14 29 9-3 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,0 9-4 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,5 14 21 26 27 5 9-5 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 4,0 14 26 27 30 5 18 9-6 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,5 26 30 5 18 9-7 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 5 23 29 5 9-8 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 23 24 28 30 Bird's nest 5 9-9 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,5 14 29 9-10 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 30 9-11 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 26 29 30 5 18 9-12 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,5 14 29 30 5 18 9-13 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 4,0 12 15 26 27 29 5 6 9-14 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 3,5 26 29 30 5 9-15 9 Carpinus betulus 21 53 4,0 12 27 28 29 30 5 18 9-16 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 4,0 12 14 23 26 29 30 Concrete in tree 5 9-17 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 26 29 30 5 18

9-17a* 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 9-18 9 Carpinus betulus 18 46 3,5 14 23 28 29 Concrete in tree 5 9-19 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 14 23 30 Concrete in tree 5 9-20 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 3,5 28 29 38 5 9-21 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 23 30 5 18 9-22 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,5 23 29 30 39 Potential windfall 5 9-23 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 4,0 14 23 26 29 Concrete in tree 5 6 9-24 29 Tilia tomentosa 8 20 4,0 29 30 38 5 6 9-25 9 Carpinus betulus 12 30 3,5 23 24 29 30 Bird's nest 5 9-26 28 Tilia cordata 21 53 4,0 23 29 5 9-27 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 5 13 3,5 23 29 30 5 18 9-28 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 5 13 4,0 23 30 5 9-29 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 26 29 30 5 18 9-30 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 5,0 12 26 27 5

68

9-31 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 26 30 5 18 9-32 28 Tilia cordata 24 61 3,5 23 29 30 35 5 18 9-33 28 Tilia cordata 24 61 3,0 29 9-34 28 Tilia cordata 22 56 3,5 23 24 29 30 35 Bird's nest 5 18 9-35 30 Ulmus carpinifolia 11 28 3,0 23 Wire embedded in tree

from knee height to breast height

12


69



70

Section 10

Maintaining and improving the canopy cover, monitoring tree health, and increasing

the groundcover by directing traffic flow are the objectives for Section 10. The

recommendations are to plant trees that tolerate high levels of air pollution to improve the

canopy cover, monitor and take measures to improve tree health, and plant or seed

groundcover after a hedge is planted to keep dogs off of the lawn.

71


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 10 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay Land Use(s): Dog run, sign Groundcover: Grass to no grass, sparse wildflowers Understory: Bushes Overstory: Hornbeam/Tilia spp. Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments: Hornbeam show signs of air pollution on bark-lichens, gray film, heavy moss all around trunks. There is a high rate of burls.

72


# # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E 10-1 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,0 23 38 10-2 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 26 28 29 30 5 18 10-3 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 3,5 14 29 5 10-4 28 Tilia cordata 14 36 3,5 29 5 10-5 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 30 5 18 10-6 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 26 5 10-7 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 4,0 15 23 26 31 40 Concrete in tree 5 6 10-8 28 Tilia cordata 17 43 4,0 23 26 29 35 Concrete in tree. Probable windfall 5 6 10-9 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 4,0 5 21 31 5

10-10 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,0 10-11 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,5 21 29 10-12 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,0 21 29 10-13 9 Carpinus betulus 11 28 3,0 23 10-14 28 Tilia cordata 17 43 3,0 29 10-15 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 3,0 29 10-16 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 3,0 28 29 10-17 29 Tilia tomentosa 22 56 3,5 29 35 5 10-18 9 Carpinus betulus 13 33 3,5 29 30 18 10-19 9 Carpinus betulus 10 25 4,0 14 26 27 30 5 18 10-20 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 4,0 29 30 5 10-21 9 Carpinus betulus 14 36 3,5 14 26 30 5 10-22 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 3,5 23 26 29 30 18 22 10-23 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 3,0 29 35 10-24 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 8 20 3,0

10-24a* 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 8 20 3,0 10-25 9 Carpinus betulus 0 0 2,5 23 Used as a hedge 6 23 10-26 9 Carpinus betulus 0 0 2,5 23 Used as a hedge 6 23 10-27 9 Carpinus betulus 0 0 2,5 23 Used as a hedge 6 23 10-28 13 Fraxinus excelsior 13 33 3,0 29


73



74

Section 11

Increasing regeneration, directing traffic, and controlling the garbage in Section 11

are the objects. The recommendations are to plant new trees to increase the regeneration,

plant hedging for traffic control, and add garbage cans to the paths for garbage.

75


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 11 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Firepit, leaf pile, dog run, garbage Groundcover: Grass, some wildflowers Understory: Overstory: Tilia spp. Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Minor Wildlife: General Comments:

76


*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.



19 48 3,5 14 23 24 26 30 Bird's nest 5 12

11-1a* 6 Aesculus hippocastanum

25 64 3,5

11-2 28 Tilia cordata 9 23 3,0 29 11-3 23 Quercus robur 13 33 3,0 30 18 11-4 7 Betula pendula 19 48 3,0 11-5 28 Tilia cordata 9 23 3,5 14 29 35 1 11-6 29 Tilia tomentosa 16 41 3,5 15 29 30 5 18 11-7 28 Tilia cordata 18 46 3,5 29 30 5 18 11-8 28 Tilia cordata 14 36 3,0 29 30 35 5 18 11-9 28 Tilia cordata 21 53 4,0 26 30 35 5 18

Average 16,3 41,4 3,4

77



78

Section 12

The objectives for Section 12 are to keep and improve the canopy cover and

groundcover. To do this, trees need to be planted for canopy cover and traffic control

devices such as hedges or fences put into place, which will allow the groundcover to

regenerate and grow naturally.

79


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 12 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Electric poles and box Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Tilia spp. Overstory: Betula spp. Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

80



12-1 7 Betula pendula 13 33 3,5 23 29 1 12-2 7 Betula pendula 15 38 3,0 12-3 28 Tilia cordata 6 15 4,0 26 29 5 12-4 23 Quercus robur 11 28 3,5 30 5 18 12-5 7 Betula pendula 16 41 4,0 26 30 5 12-6 7 Betula pendula 16 41 3,0 23 30 Electrical lines in tree 12 18 22 12-7 29 Tilia tomentosa 9 23 4,0 14 26 35 22 12-8 7 Betula pendula 12 30 3,0 12-9 29 Tilia tomentosa 11 28 4,0 14 29 30 35 5 18

12-10 29 Tilia tomentosa 13 33 3,0 30 18 12-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 25 64 3,0 30 18

Average 13,4 33,9 3,5

81



82

Section 13

Section 13 objectives are to maintain the current canopy cover, improve

regeneration, direct traffic, and control the garbage. The recommendations are to prune

using appropriate methods, plant new trees and let the seedlings grow for regeneration,

place trashcans along the paths to collect litter, and plant hedging to channel people.

83


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 13 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Garbage, dog run, leaf piles, electric poles Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers, seedlings Understory: Unknown Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

84


Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F A B C D E

13-1 28 Tilia cordata 16 41 4,0 14 26 29 30 35 5 18 13-2 28 Tilia cordata 16 41 3,5 29 30 35 5 18 13-3 29 Tilia tomentosa 10 25 4,0 26 29 30 5 18 13-4 9 Carpinus betulus 27 69 3,5 30 41 18 13-5 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 3,0 30 18 13-6 18 Pinus nigra 8 20 3,0 13-7 18 Pinus nigra 11 28 3,0 13-8 18 Pinus nigra 9 23 3,0 13-9 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24

13-10 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-11 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-12 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-13 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-14 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-15 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-16 1 Unknown 0 0 2,5 24 13-17 12 Fagus sylvatica 4 10 3,0 13-18 9 Carpinus betulus 11 28 3,0 30 18 13-19 1 Unknown 6 15 5,5 12 14 23 27 30 38 5 18 13-20 29 Tilia tomentosa 17 43 3,5 14 23 29 35 38 5 13-21 28 Tilia cordata 12 30 3,5 35 41 5 13-22 29 Tilia tomentosa 15 38 3,5 29 30 35 5 18 13-23 28 Tilia cordata 13 33 3,5 23 29 35 Electrical wires in tree 12 22 13-24 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 22 56 3,0 30 18 13-25 9 Carpinus betulus 20 51 3,5 23 26 30 5 18

Average 9,3 23,6 3,2

85



86

Section 14

The tree canopy cover and path can easily be maintained and the garbage taken care

of in Section 14. The trees need to be monitored for continued excellent health. The path

should be paved or covered with crushed rock or mulch and hedged to channel traffic and

reduce soil erosion and compaction. Trashcans should be placed along all paths for garbage

control.

87


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 14 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, xeric Land Use(s): Path, garbage Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Overstory: Cedar Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

88




14-1 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 14-1a* 27 Thuja occidentalis 5 13 3,0

Average 2,5 6,4 2,5

89



90

Section 15

The tree canopy cover and path can be maintained and the garbage taken care of in

Section 15. The trees need to be monitored for continued excellent health, the path paved

or covered with crushed rock or mulch and hedged to channel traffic and reduce soil erosion

and compaction, and trashcans placed along all paths for garbage control.

91

Park Inventory Sheet

Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky

PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 15 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, xeric Land Use(s): Path, garbage, dog run Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers Understory: Overstory: Cedar Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

92




15-1 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-2 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-3 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-4 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-5 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0

15-5a* 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-6 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-7 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-8 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 15-9 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 14 36 3,0 30 18 15-9a 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 21 53 3,0

Average 3,2 8,1 2,2

93



94

Section 16

The objectives for Section 16 are to maintain and increase the canopy cover, control

garbage, and maintain the paths. The seedlings and saplings should be left to grow and

more planted for future canopy cover. The paths need to be paved, mulched, or covered

with crushed rock and hedging and garbage cans placed along them to control traffic,

reduce soil erosion and compaction, and trash.

95


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 16 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic to xeric Land Use(s): Paths, dog run, garbage, leaf pile, brush pile, buried cable, signs, electric poles Groundcover: Grass, wildflowers, seedlings Understory: Bushes, saplings Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

96




16-1 27 Thuja occidentalis 4 10 3,0 16-2 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 16-3 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 16-4 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 26

16-4a* 27 Thuja occidentalis 5 13 3,0 16-5 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 16-6 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 16-7 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,0 16-8 27 Thuja occidentalis 0 0 2,5 8 16-9 27 Thuja occidentalis 7 18 3,0

16-10 27 Thuja occidentalis 5 13 3,0 16-11 27 Thuja occidentalis 5 13 3,0 16-12 16 Malus spp. 0 0 2,0 16-13 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,5 1 16-14 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,5 1 16-15 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,5 1 16-16 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,0 16-17 4 Acer platanoides 0 0 2,5 1 22 16-18 13 Fraxinus excelsior 30 76 3,0 16-19 13 Fraxinus excelsior 30 76 3,5 12 15 23 31 38 5 16-20 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 3,5 21 26 29 30 5 16-21 19 Populus nigra 31 79 3,5 28 5 16-22 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 29 74 3,5 14 26 30 5 18 16-23 4 Acer platanoides 26 66 3,5 26 5

Average 7,8 19,9 2,7

97



98

Section 17

The canopy cover can be maintained, the groundcover increased, and vehicular,

other traffic, and garbage controlled. New trees can be planted, if a fence or rail is erected

to discourage parking on the lawn in addition to keeping dogs off, then the seeding or

planting of groundcover will improve the turf. Garbage cans along the paths will help

control litter.

99


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/12/03 SECTION: 17 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Parking, dog run, garbage Groundcover: Grass to no grass, wildflowers Understory: Acer spp. Overstory: Acer spp. Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

100



17-1 4 Acer platanoides 29 74 3,5 12 30 38 17-2 4 Acer platanoides 14 36 3,0 17-3 4 Acer platanoides 17 43 3,5 23 26 30 5 17-4 4 Acer platanoides 10 25 3,0 23 17-5 4 Acer platanoides 23 58 3,5 14 15 27 30 31 17-6 4 Acer platanoides 21 53 3,5 23 26 5

Average 19,0 48,3 3,3

101



102

Section 18

Section 18 objectives are to allow natural regeneration to take place, improve the

groundcover, improve park resources usage, and control garbage. The recommendations

are to let the seedlings grow and plant trees where and when appropriate, put traffic control

measurements into place around the sports field and add bleachers. Then seed or plant

groundcover in areas were needed. Also, put in proper sewage dispose area or ban the cafes

from disposing of sewage in the park and place garbage cans along the paths and around the

sports field for trash collection.

103


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/13/03 SECTION: 18 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic to xeric Land Use(s): Garbage dumpsters, sports field, waste water from bar, garbage, drainage ditch, drain Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing Understory: Bushes Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Bird nest General Comments: Someone dug a drainage ditch off the circle into the grass-very dangerous-on a corner where people walk. Someone also put in a drain field with a pipe going underground and we observed man cleaning the bar and then dumping the dirty water into the pipe.

104



18-1 29 Tilia tomentosa 17 43 4,0 24 26 30 35 Bird's nest 18 22 18-2 29 Tilia tomentosa 15 38 4,0 21 29 30 35 18 22 18-3 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 17 43 3,0 23 30 18 18-4 22 Prunus spp. 6 15 4,0 12 14 23 26 30 18 22 18-5 22 Prunus spp. 7 18 4,0 23 30 38 18 22 18-6 4 Acer platanoides 25 64 3,5 12 14 30 38 5 18 18-7 4 Acer platanoides 23 58 3,5 15 26 30 38 18 18-8 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 25 64 4,0 23 26 30 Peeled bark 18 22 18-9 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 25 64 3,5 15 23 26 30 Peeled bark 5 18

18-10 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 23 58 3,0 23 30 Peeled bark 18 Average 18,3 46,5 3,7

105



106

Section 19

The objectives for Section 19 are to improve the canopy cover, control traffic and

garbage, and increase the groundcover. Trees need to be planted and the few seedlings

growing, allowed to grow. Fencing needs to be erected to keep cars off of the grass

allowing the present groundcover to grow. Garbage cans can be placed along the paths and

around the tennis field for litter. Hedging can also be planted and then groundcover seeded

or planted.

107


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/13/03 SECTION: 19 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic to xeric Land Use(s): Tennis court, firepit, garbage, parking Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing Understory: Bushes Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Rot in cottonwoods Wildlife: Woodpecker activity General Comments:

108



19-1 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 3,5 21 26 30 35 5 18 19-2 19 Populus nigra 40 102 4,0 28 30 37 Woodpecker activity 5 18 19-3 28 Tilia cordata 5 13 3,0 29 19-4 28 Tilia cordata 12 30 4,0 12 29 30 18 22 19-5 7 Betula pendula 10 25 3,0 23 30 18 19-6 7 Betula pendula 11 28 3,0 23 30 18 19-7 7 Betula pendula 5 13 4,0 23 26 5 19-8 7 Betula pendula 10 25 3,0 23 19-9 7 Betula pendula 12 30 3,0 23

19-10 7 Betula pendula 12 30 3,0 23 19-11 7 Betula pendula 11 28 4,0 14 23 26 27 5 19-12 7 Betula pendula 11 28 4,0 14 26 19-13 23 Quercus robur 10 25 3,0 30 18 19-14 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 20 51 4,0 14 26 27 30 18 19-15 19 Populus nigra 39 99 4,0 26 28 30 5 18 19-16 19 Populus nigra 43 109 4,0 5 26 28 30 5 18 19-17 19 Populus nigra 33 84 4,0 28 30 5 18 19-18 19 Populus nigra 35 89 4,0 28 30 5 18 19-19 16 Malus spp. 8 20 4,0 14 23 26 30 5 18 19-20 13 Fraxinus excelsior 16 41 3,5 14 26 30 5 18 19-21 19 Populus nigra 35 89 4,0 28 30 5 18 19-22 16 Malus spp. 8 20 4,0 12 23 26 30 37 Woodpecker activity 5 18 19-23 28 Tilia cordata 12 30 3,5 29 30 35 18

Average 18,0 45,6 3,6

109



110

Section 20

Improve the canopy cover, direct traffic, increase public facilities, and controlling

garbage are the objectives for Section 20. The recommendations are to plant saplings for

future canopy cover, plant hedging to keep people and dogs off of sensitive areas, and add

public bathroom facilities to the building being remodeled. Garbage cans can be placed

along the paths for litter.

111


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/13/03 SECTION: 20 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Dog run, garbage/leaf piles, toilet, construction, paved paths, building compound Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing, asphalt Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Mistletoe Wildlife: Woodpecker cavity General Comments: 3 Norway Maples in construction compound and did not have access to them, so they are not inventoried, but counted in totals.

112



20-1 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 3,5 21 29 30 31 18 20-2 28 Tilia cordata 6 15 3,5 23 29 35

20-2a* 28 Tilia cordata 11 28 3,5 20-3 28 Tilia cordata 10 25 3,5 23 29 30 18 20-4 28 Tilia cordata 13 33 3,0 20-5 29 Tilia tomentosa 8 20 3,5 29 35 22 20-6 31 Ulmus laevis 24 61 4,0 14 29 30 5 18 20-7 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 16 41 4,0 29 30 5 18 20-8 18 Pinus nigra 4 10 4,0 12 14 26 30 42 43 5 18 20-9 13 Fraxinus excelsior 10 25 3,0 14 26 30

20-10 27 Thuja occidentalis 6 15 3,5 14 23 24 26 30 43 Bird's nest, peeled bark 5 18 20-10a 27 Thuja occidentalis 6 15 3,5 20-11 19 Populus nigra 38 97 4,0 28 30 5 18 20-12 19 Populus nigra 38 97 4,0 28 30 5 18 20-13 30 Ulmus carpinifolia 21 53 3,0 30 18 20-14 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 16 41 4,0 26 29 30 38 43 5 20-15 13 Fraxinus excelsior 21 53 3,0 29 20-16 17 Picea spp. 6 15 4,0 29 35 43 5 20-17 27 Thuja occidentalis 7 18 3,5 14 23 30 43 Peeled bark 5 18 20-18 27 Thuja occidentalis 6 15 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 5 18 20-18a 27 Thuja occidentalis 6 15 4,0 20-19 13 Fraxinus excelsior 21 53 3,5 14 38 44 Next to path 21 20-20 13 Fraxinus excelsior 25 64 3,5 44 Next to path 21 20-21 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 17 43 4,5 23 26 29 37 Woodpecker cavity 7 20-22 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 18 46 4,0 14 23 24 26 29 Garbage in tree 5 20-23 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 4,0 12 14 26 29 30 Surrounded by pavement 20-24 21 Populus tremula 26 66 4,0 14 23 29 30 38 44 Surrounded by pavement 20-25 4 Acer platanoides 20 51 3,5 23 28 44 Surrounded by pavement 20-26 4 Acer platanoides 18 46 3,0 23 28 30 Surrounded by

pavement 18

113

20-27 4 Acer platanoides 22 56 3,0 30 Surrounded by pavement

18

20-28 2 Acer campestre 25 64 4,5 12 26 29 32 6 20-29 19 Populus nigra 32 81 4,0 5 28 30 38 44 Next to path 5 18 20-30 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 8 20 4,0 14 26 30 38 44 5 20-31 19 Populus nigra 33 84 4,0 23 28 30 Next to path 5 18 20-32 8 Betula spp. 11 28 4,0 14 27 29 30 5 12 18 20-33 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 18 46 4,0 12 14 23 26 27 18 20-34 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 9 23 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 45 5 18 20-35 4 Acer platanoides 22 56 4,0 26 28 30 45 5 18 20-36 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 12 30 4,0 14 23 26 30 45 5 18 20-37 23 Quercus robur 9 23 4,0 23 26 30 45 5 18 20-38 13 Fraxinus excelsior 19 48 4,0 15 23 30 38 40 5 18 20-39 8 Betula spp. 8 20 3,5 14 26 30 18 20-39a 8 Betula spp. 4 10 6,0 20-40 8 Betula spp. 11 28 3,0 20-41 4 Acer platanoides** 0 **In construction compound, no access. 20-42 4 Acer platanoides** 0 **In construction compound, no access. 20-43 4 Acer platanoides** 0 **In construction compound, no access.


114



115

Section 21

Regeneration and traffic control are the primary objectives for Section 21.

Channeling fences or hedges are needed to control the high volume of foot traffic and trees

need to be planted. This will lead to groundcover growth, which is impossible under

current conditions.

116


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/13/03 SECTION: 21 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic, compaction Land Use(s): Picnic shelters and tables, lamp posts, leaf pile Groundcover: none Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Bird nests General Comments: Heavy foot traffic in this section-killing the trees. High use area-needs channeling fences.

117


Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F G H A B C D E

21-1 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 28 71 4,0 14 26 30 36 44 Paved around base of tree

5 18

21-2 28 Tilia cordata 7 18 3,5 29 30 18 21-3 9 Carpinus betulus 23 58 4,0 23 26 27 30 44 5 18 21-4 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 19 48 4,0 23 26 30 Peeled bark 5 18 21-5 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 27 69 4,0 14 23 26 30 38 44 5 18 21-6 28 Tilia cordata 8 20 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 5 21-7 29 Tilia tomentosa 18 46 4,0 26 27 29 30 35 5 18 21-8 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 4,0 14 29 30 35 38 44 5 18 21-9 29 Tilia tomentosa 13 33 3,5 29 30 5

21-10 29 Tilia tomentosa 11 28 3,5 29 30 5 18 21-11 28 Tilia cordata 9 23 4,5 14 26 27 29 30 5 6 21-12 29 Tilia tomentosa 7 18 3,5 29 30 5 18 21-13 7 Betula pendula 24 61 4,0 14 23 24 26 27 30 35 Bird's nest 5 18 21-14 9 Carpinus betulus 17 43 4,0 14 26 30 38 44 5 18 21-15 9 Carpinus betulus 21 53 4,5 12 23 24 26 27 30 38 2 Bird's nests 5 7 18 25 21-16 9 Carpinus betulus 18 46 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 32 38 44 Next to path 18 22

Average 16,6 42,1 3,9

118



119

Section 22

Section 22's objectives are to increase regeneration. Trees need to be planted and

the seedlings currently present allowed to grow.

120


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/13/03 SECTION: 22 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Leaf piles, dog run Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers Understory: Tilia spp. Overstory: Ash Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Bird nests, chickadees, rooks General Comments:

121



22-1 28 Tilia cordata 4 10 4,0 14 23 26 29 30 22 22-2 29 Tilia tomentosa 0 0 2,5 14 26 22 22-3 28 Tilia cordata 0 0 2,0 22-4 13 Fraxinus excelsior 27 69 4,0 14 26 29 30 38 44 5 18 22-5 13 Fraxinus excelsior 13 33 3,5 14 30 44 18 22-6 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 17 43 4,0 23 26 29 31 38 44 5 22-7 28 Tilia cordata 8 20 3,0 29 22-8 13 Fraxinus excelsior 26 66 4,0 14 23 26 30 44 5 18 22-9 13 Fraxinus excelsior 26 66 3,5 14 21 26 44 1 21

22-10 13 Fraxinus excelsior 24 61 3,0 24 30 Bird's nest 18 22-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 17 43 3,5 3 30 18

Average 14,7 37,4 3,4

122



123

Section 23

The objectives for Section 23 are to improve the canopy cover, channel traffic, and

control litter. Trees need to be planted (but not in the pathways) for improved canopy

cover, current trees need to be protected for the high traffic by erecting fences and hedges,

which will help with channeling traffic, and trashcans can be placed along pathways for

garbage.

124


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/17/03 SECTION: 23 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic, compaction Land Use(s): Benches, sidewalk, garbage Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Bark beetles Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Pigeons General Comments: The trees have been paved over or the soil has compacted to expose the roots. This is a high traffic area.

125


Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F G H I A B C D E

23-1 13 Fraxinus excelsior 17 43 3,0 23 30 36 In the path 12 10 18 23-2 4 Acer platanoides 20 51 4,0 12 14 23 26 29 30 36 In the path 10 18 23-3 4 Acer platanoides 11 28 4,0 12 23 29 30 Peeled bark 18 23-4 4 Acer platanoides 15 38 4,0 12 14 26 30 36 In the path 5 10 23-5 4 Acer platanoides 18 46 4,0 12 14 23 26 29 30 38 44 46 Concrete in tree.

Peeled bark. 5 18

23-6 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 4,0 14 23 26 29 30 38 44 46 Concrete in tree. 5 18 23-7 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 4,0 14 23 26 27 29 30 Concrete in tree. 5 23-8 13 Fraxinus excelsior 26 66 3,5 21 30 46 5 18

Average 17,3 43,8 3,8

126



127

Section 24

Regeneration needs improvement and the traffic controlled in Section 24. The

recommendations are to plant trees for regeneration, erect fences and hedges to keep cars

and dogs off the lawn.

128


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/17/03 SECTION: 24 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Driven on, benches, dog run, children Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing Understory: Tilia spp. Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: Pigeons, chickadees General Comments:

129


Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F G H A B C D E

24-1 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 14 36 3,0 24-2 28 Tilia cordata 17 43 3,0 23 29 35 24-3 28 Tilia cordata 24 61 5,0 23 26 47 5 24-4 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 19 48 4,5 23 26 29 30 Concrete in tree.

Peeled bark 5

24-5 13 Fraxinus excelsior 27 69 5,0 5 14 26 30 38 44 5 24-6 13 Fraxinus excelsior 20 51 4,0 14 26 30 38 44 5 18 24-7 13 Fraxinus excelsior 28 71 4,0 5 26 27 30 5 18 24-8 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 17 43 4,0 14 23 26 29 30 38 44 5 18 24-9 28 Tilia cordata 28 71 3,0 23 29 44

24-10 13 Fraxinus excelsior 19 48 4,0 5 23 29 5 24-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 14 36 4,5 14 29 30 37 38 44 Woodpecker

activity 5

24-12 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 22 56 4,5 23 26 27 29 30 Concrete in tree. 5 24-13 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 18 46 4,5 12 26 27 29 30 5 24-14 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 18 46 3,5 23 29 5 24-15 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 4,0 14 23 24 26 30 44 Concrete in tree.

Bird's nest 5 18

24-16 9 Carpinus betulus 19 48 4,0 14 23 26 30 46 5 18 24-17 4 Acer platanoides 15 38 4,0 14 23 29 30 40 48 Concrete in tree.

Peeled bark 5 18

24-18 9 Carpinus betulus 23 58 3,5 14 30 38 44 5 18 24-19 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 8 20 3,5 14 30 5 24-20 29 Tilia tomentosa 26 66 3,5 12 23 30 46 Peeled bark 5 24-21 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 12 30 3,0 30 40 18 24-22 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 5 13 4,0 14 26 30 38 44 5 18

24-22a* 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 13 33 4,0 24-23 30 Ulmus carpinifolia 14 36 4,5 24 26 30 Bird's nest 5 18 24-24 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 15 38 4,0 26 30 44 5 18 24-25 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 10 25 3,5 23 29 30 5

130

24-26 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 4,0 29 30 38 44 5 18 24-27 28 Tilia cordata 8 20 3,0 29 30 18 24-28 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 14 36 4,0 14 29 30 38 44 5 18 24-29 28 Tilia cordata 7 18 4,0 29 30 5 18 24-30 28 Tilia cordata 12 30 3,0 29 30 18 24-31 4 Acer platanoides 23 58 4,0 12 14 23 24 26 30 38 44 Peeled bark.

Bird's nest 5 18

24-32 9 Carpinus betulus 16 41 4,0 23 26 38 44 Concrete in tree. 5 Average 16,9 43,0 3,9


131



132

Section 25

Objectives for Section 25 are to control traffic and garbage and improve

regeneration. Erecting fences or hedges to control people and dogs along with garbage cans

for littler and planting trees is recommended.

133


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/17/03 SECTION: 25 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): Dog run, garbage, benches Groundcover: Grass/wildflowers to nothing Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: rooks, pidgeons General Comments: heavey use area-put up fences to channel traffic

134




25-1 28 Tilia cordata 18 46 3,5 23 29 30 35 38 44 5 18 25-2 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 13 33 3,0 29 30 12 18

25-2a* 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 13 33 3,0 25-3 29 Tilia tomentosa 14 36 3,5 26 29 30 5 18 25-4 28 Tilia cordata 14 36 3,5 23 29 30 5 18 25-5 28 Tilia cordata 20 51 3,0 29 30 18 25-6 29 Tilia tomentosa 15 38 4,0 23 29 30 35 5 25-7 28 Tilia cordata 20 51 4,0 24 26 30 35 Bird's nest 5 18 25-8 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 15 38 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 5 18 25-9 5 Acer pseudoplatanus 12 30 3,0

25-10 13 Fraxinus excelsior 31 79 3,5 14 30 38 44 5 18 25-11 13 Fraxinus excelsior 21 53 4,0 26 29 30 5 18 25-12 28 Tilia cordata 7 18 3,0 29 25-13 2 Acer campestre 21 53 4,0 12 23 26 30 Concrete in tree.

Peeled bark 5 18

25-14 9 Carpinus betulus 15 38 4,0 14 23 26 27 30 5 18 25-15 13 Fraxinus excelsior 26 66 4,0 23 28 30 5 25-16 13 Fraxinus excelsior 21 53 4,0 14 26 29 30 5 25-17 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 9 23 4,0 14 30 5 25-18 29 Tilia tomentosa 7 18 4,0 26 29 30 35 5 25-19 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 4,0 26 29 30 18 25-20 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 18 46 4,0 23 26 30 38 44 5 25-21 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 14 36 3,0 29 25-22 25 Robinia pseudoacacia 15 38 4,0 26 29 30 38 44 18 25-23 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 16 41 3,0 23

Average 16,3 41,3 3,6

135



136

Section 26

Section 26 objectives are to control traffic and improve regeneration. Fences need

to be erected to keep cars and dogs off the lawn. Also, hedges can be planted to control foot

traffic around the sports field and bleachers added. This will improve groundcover growth

and with trees planted, regeneration will increase.

137


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/17/03 SECTION: 26 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): leaf pile, dog run, soccer field, parking lot, lamp posts Groundcover: grass to nothing Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments: heavey traffic-need to limit parking to only on the pavement, two men asked what we were doing-gave no feedback to us

138


Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E F G H I A B C D E

26-1 28 Tilia cordata 14 36 4,0 23 29 30 35 20 26-2 28 Tilia cordata 10 25 4,0 29 30 35 26-3 2 Acer campestre 24 61 4,0 12 23 26 27 30 Peeled bark 18 20 26-4 4 Acer platanoides 24 61 3,0 12 23 30 36 Next to path 10 18 26-5 1 Unknown (oak?) 30 76 4,0 29 44 5 18 26-6 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 10 25 4,0 23 26 27 29 Peeled bark 5 26-7 21 Populus tremula 24 61 4,0 20 23 26 27 28 30 5 18 26-8 21 Populus tremula 38 97 4,0 28 30 5 18 26-9 0 Dead 6 15 5,0 7 (Aesculus

hippocastanum) 22

26-10 2 Acer campestre 9 23 3,5 23 30 46 18 26-10a* 2 Acer campestre 8 20 3,5 26-11 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 16 41 3,5 26 30 5 18 26-12 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 16 41 4,0 30 38 44 5 18 26-13 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 16 41 4,0 14 26 30 44 5 18 26-14 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 18 46 4,0 14 23 26 30 5 18 26-15 6 Aesculus hippocastanum 15 38 4,0 23 26 30 5 18 26-16 4 Acer platanoides 18 46 4,0 21 29 30 38 44 5 26-17 4 Acer platanoides 12 30 4,0 26 29 30 5 26-18 4 Acer platanoides 24 61 4,0 12 26 28 30 5 18 26-19 4 Acer platanoides 20 51 3,5 23 30 12 18 26-20 4 Acer platanoides 21 53 4,0 12 14 23 26 27 30 37 44 Peeled bark.

Woodpecker activity.

5 18

26-21 4 Acer platanoides 19 48 3,5 30 38 44 18 26-22 28 Tilia cordata 15 38 4,0 23 29 35 Peeled bark 5 26-23 4 Acer platanoides 10 25 4,0 26 29 30 31 5 26-24 4 Acer platanoides 24 61 4,5 12 14 23 26 27 29 30 38 44 Concrete in tree.

Peeled bark. 5 18

26-25 4 Acer platanoides 28 71 4,0 12 23 28 30 Concrete in tree. 5 18

139

Peeled bark. 26-26 4 Acer platanoides 9 23 3,5 23 29 1 26-27 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 4,0 12 14 26 30 5 18 26-28 2 Acer campestre 28 71 4,0 12 23 26 28 30 38 44 Concrete in tree. 5 18

Average 18 45,7 3,9 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.

140



141

Section 27

Traffic control and improved groundcover are the objectives for Section 27. The

recommendations are to plant hedges and erect fences to channel foot and car traffic,

leading to planted or seeded groundcover vigor.

142


PARK NAME: Ivan Franko DATE: 11/17/03 SECTION: 27 WORKER NAME(S): Norma Scott and Kara Filius Soil Type(s): Sandy loamy clay, mesic Land Use(s): benches, basketball court, signs, pedestal, leaf piles, fence Groundcover: grass to nothing Understory: birch Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments: heavey use area

143



27-1 4 Acer platanoides 31 79 4,0 12 14 23 28 38 44 5 27-2 13 Fraxinus excelsior 23 58 4,0 12 23 24 26 38 44 Bird's nest 5 27-3 8 Betula spp. 5 13 4,5 26 35 5 27-4 4 Acer platanoides 16 41 4,0 12 26 28 29 30 5 18 27-5 4 Acer platanoides 19 48 4,0 26 27 29 30 5 18 27-6 4 Acer platanoides 14 36 3,5 12 23 5

Average 18,0 45,7 4,0

144



145

Overall

Ivan Franko Park needs to have regeneration increased for both the groundcover and

the trees to keep the current level of canopy cover and provide for the future canopy cover.

Improved traffic and garbage control are necessary for the groundcover and tree

regeneration. Training of city workers who will be maintaining the trees is critical. The

pruning habits exhibited on the park’s trees are incorrect and cause injury to the trees,

resulting in a higher mortality rate. When the trees are pruned, care should be taken to not

rip the bark or break the limb off of the tree. The angle of the cut should not be flat and it

should allow water to run off of it. Cement and paint should not be used to seal up wounds,

as these increase the rate of infection and rot. A fungicide can be used, if needed on open

wounds (Smith, Larson, Kelty, and Ashton, 1997). Pruning equipment should also be

sterilized with disinfectant between each tree, so infection and insects are not inadvertently

spread. The planting of appropriate trees, which fit the site conditions will also improve the

health of the trees and assist in decreasing sapling mortality. Trees need to be planted and

where natural regeneration is occurring, allowed to grow unhindered. These methods will

improve the canopy cover and regeneration levels.

The land-usage also needs enhancement. When the foot, car, and dog traffic is

controlled via fences and hedging, then the groundcover can be improved by plantings and

seeding. The groundcover can grow better without the constant high traffic it now

encounters. Trashcans, with proper maintenance, placed along all the paths and around

sports fields and buildings will decrease the amount of litter in the park. Less litter in the

park increases park visitor safety and enhances the park’s aesthetical satisfaction to the

community. The park equipment needs to be repaired and maintained better. Equipment

up-keep will also add to the visual appeal of Ivan Franko Park. Regarding land-usage, two

items need to be addressed: 1) sewage disposal provisions for temporary facilities and 2)

146

unpaved paths created by traffic flow. Are these paths to be made permanent and if so,

they should be paved. Paving the paths will decrease soil erosion and also channel traffic

flow better then non-paved paths. Non-paved paths are muddy in wet weather, making

people walk around the mud and water pools. Skirting the bad places makes the paths

wider and decreases the amount and health of the groundcover. Gates at the park’s entrance

points will help to direct vehicular traffic and also human and dog traffic leading to

improved park usage. The benches need to be repaired and the missing ones replaced. The

addition of bleachers around the sports fields will help to channel traffic to desired areas,

allowing the groundcover to restore itself and improve its health to be able to withstand

children playing on it.

Public education on the proper place to throw trash, along with the problems of

letting dogs run free or off a leash will increase public awareness and involvement,

increasing more responsible park usage. Another public outreach campaign can discuss the

problems of defacement on trees and how defacing a tree affects the health of the tree.

Promoting volunteerism and soliciting donations will also foster a sense of park ownership

in the community members. Creating environments, which anticipate and respond to park

needs will discourage such land-uses.

Conclusion

Ivan Franko Park is a recreation oriented facility with many different options to

offer people. It is located in a prime location for the neighborhood and for the city. It is in

relatively good repair. Minimal things can be done to keep it that way and increase its

value. This park is the only one of its type in the city. Therefore, the focus of Ivan Franko

Park should remain as a recreational park with the weekly antique bazaar and the annual

food festivals.

As the assessment of Ivan Franko Park has shown, the main problems are traffic

control, regeneration, and groundcover. These can be mitigated by erecting inexpensive

fences or gates and planting saplings, hedges, and groundcover. Most of this work can be

done by volunteers, area groups, and the materials can be supplied through donations. To

bring the park up to current standards can be done in stages. The first is to take out the dead

saplings and plant new ones appropriate to the site factors. The trees, which need

immediate attention should also be attended to first. As money permits, fences, gates, and

hedges can be added with the on-going process of tree maintenance. When all of the traffic

control devises are in place, then the groundcover can be taken care of. Trashcans can be

added through-out the different stages. Regular tree inspections should happen at least once

a year and routine maintenance needs to take place on the trees and park facilities. A card

catalog should be started at the park headquarters with each tree having its own card with its

information on it and up-dated every time something is done to the tree or when it is

inspected. This information could also be stored in a database on the computer, which

would cut down on up-keep costs of the catalog and time spent using it. Public education

needs to address the littering issue, dogs off of leashes or running wild, and the fact that

public tax money is being used to keep the park as a public facility. This means that the

148

park belongs to everyone and therefore it is everyone’s responsibility to help make and keep

it an enjoyable place in the city.

Revenue for the costs of running Ivan Franko Park can be made in several ways.

Donors can be sought for the cost or materials of the benches and other equipment

necessary for park additions and needed repairs. The donors’ names could be presented on

the bench or item they financed on a nice plaque. This idea can also be used for trees, with

the plaque being placed on the tree with appropriate methods. The up-keep of the sports

equipment can be paid for from collecting small fees from the sports groups using the items.

Also, if the cafes remain in private hands, then the owners can pay a form of rent to help

defray trash collection and park maintenance bills. The owners of the buildings should be

held accountable for the maintenance of their buildings and a contract can be written up that

describes in detail what the private owners can and cannot do, along with the prices for rent

and fines for various things such as not picking up the litter on their property, doing

something to the park, like the drain, or doing something to their building, which did not

have prior written permission. The sellers at the festivals can pay a registration fee to set up

their booths. This fee would help to cover the costs of the festival. An admittance fee could

also be charge to park visitors on festival days, also to cover additional fees incurred by the

festival. Plus, the city could charge a nominal price to the on-lookers of the sports games

being held in the park on the weekends.

Over-all, Ivan Franko Park has many offerings and potential. It is and will continue

to be a wonderful asset to the city with improved management, including appropriate

measures in place and suitable activities to maintain and increase the natural resource base

available in the park. Ivan Franko Park is a jewel waiting to be polished.

149

Literature Cited

Coombes, Allen J. 2000. Trees. Dorling Kindersley, London, pp. 320. Кремер, Бруно П., 2002. Деревья: Местные и завезенные виды европы. Издательство «Астрель», Москва, Россия, pp. 287. Miller, Robert W., 1997. Urban forestry: Planning and managing urban greenspaces, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, pp. 502. Press, Bob, 1996. Trees of Britain and Ireland. HarperCollins Publishers, London, pp. 191. Project Learning Tree, 1998. The changing forest: Forest ecology. American Forest Foundation, Washington, DC, pp. 136. Project Learning Tree, 2001. Environmental education Pre K-8 activity guide. American Forest Foundation, Washington, DC, pp. 402. Project WET, 2000. K-12 curriculum & activity guide. Project WET, Bozeman, Montana, pp. 516. Smith, David M., Bruce C. Larson, Matthew J. Kelty, and P. Mark S. Ashton, 1997. The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology, 9th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 537. Зауэр, Фридер, 2002. Птицы: Обитатели лугов, полей и лесов. Издательство Астрель, Москва.

150

Appendix A

151

Ivan Franko Park Base Map


152

Appendix B

153


Ivan Franko Park Boundary Lines Map

154

Appendix C

155


Ivan Franko Park Sections Map

156

Appendix D

157


Ivan Franko Park Topographic Soil Hydrology Map

158

Appendix E

159

Ivan Franko Park Adjoining Land-Use Map


160

Appendix F

161

Appendix F Inventory Cover Sheet

Department of Ecology and Natural Resources, City of Khmelnitsky

PARK NAME: DATE: SECTION: WORKER NAME(S): Soil Type(s): Land Use(s): Groundcover: Understory: Overstory: Insect Infestation: Fungi Infection: Wildlife: General Comments:

162

Appendix G

163

Appendix G Tree Tally Sheet

Department of Ecology and Natural Resources, City of Khmelnitsky

Park: Section: Date: Tree

# Species DBH

(cm) Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s)

ivan franko park - michigan technological university...ivan franko park has paved and unpaved paths,...

Documents