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
Photo by: N. J. Scott
Photo by: N. J. Scott
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 2 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 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
Ivan Franko Park Section 2
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 3 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 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
Ivan Franko Park Section 3
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 4 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 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
Ivan Franko Park Section 4
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 5 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 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
Ivan Franko Park Section 5
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 6 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 6-1 6 Aesculus
hippocastanum 18 46 3,0
6-2 6 Aesculus hippocastanum
17 43 3,0
6-3 6 Aesculus hippocastanum
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
Ivan Franko Park Section 6
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 7 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 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
Average 4,69 11,9 2,9 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
60
Ivan Franko Park Section 7
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 8
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 9 Stand Information 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 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
Average 15,2 38,7 3,6 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
69
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 9
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 10 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 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
Average 13,0 32,9 3,3 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
73
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 10
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 11 Stand Information
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E
11-1 6 Aesculus hippocastanum
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 11
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 12 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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 12
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 13 Stand Information
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 13
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 14 Stand Information
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 14
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
Section 15 Stand Information
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 15
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 16 Stand Information
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
Tree Species Species DBH DBH Class Condition(s) Comments Recommendation(s) # # Name (in) (cm) A B C D E A B C D E
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 16
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 17 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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 17
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 18 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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 18
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 19 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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 19
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 20 Stand Information
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
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.
Average 15,7 37,4 3,8 *Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
114
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 20
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 21 Stand Information
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 21
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 22 Stand Information
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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 22
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 23 Stand Information
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 23
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 24 Stand Information
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
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
131
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 24
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 25 Stand Information
*Highlighted entries indicate trees, which were not counted in the total number of trees for the park.
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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 25
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 26 Stand Information
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 26
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 Inventory Sheet Department of Ecology, City of Khmelnitsky
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
Section 27 Stand Information
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
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Section 27
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
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
152
Appendix B
153
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Boundary Lines Map
154
Appendix C
155
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Sections Map
156
Appendix D
157
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
Ivan Franko Park Topographic Soil Hydrology Map
158
Appendix E
159
Ivan Franko Park Adjoining Land-Use Map
Drawn by: N. J. Scott, March 26, 2004
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)