Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.19.17 Parks Commission Packet NOTICE OF MEETING City of Lake Elmo Park Commission 3800 Laverne Avenue North June 19, 2017 6:30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a) May 15, 2017 4. Lions Park Signs 5. Sunfish Lake Park Forest Management Plan 6. Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and Tapestry Trail Update 7. July 2017 Meeting Agenda 8. Staff Reports & Commission Update 9. Adjourn ***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations. Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character MINUTES City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission May 30, 2017 Members Present: Chair Weis, Commissioners, Frick, Zeno, Nuenfeldt, Pearce, Steele Members Absent: Commissioners Olinger, Ames, and Nelson Staff Present: City Administrator Kristina Handt, Public Works Director Weldon, City Planner Becker The special meeting was called to order by Chair Weis at 6:30 PM. 2018-2022 CIP Handt presented the 2018-2022 CIP draft for Parks. The commission reviewed the projects for each year aiming to spend about $250,000 in park dedication funds per year including the cost of equipment replacement. 2018 projects were Tablyn Park for $55,000, Demontreville Park for $75,000, Cushman for $25,000 and Reid Park including $50,000 in donations for mt bike trails and $25,000 for widening the walking trails. Projects for 2019 were Pebble Park for $72,000, Reid Park for $34,250, Service Truck for $50,000, and Tablyn Park for $45,000. Projects for 2020 were tri deck mower for $70,000, trac hoe for $15,000 and $150,00o for a new park. Projects for 2021 were $90,000 for Sunfish Lake Park and phase 1 of the Lake Elmo Regional Trail. 2022 projects were phase 2 of the Lake Elmo Regional Trail and $130,000 for a one ton pickup. Tentatively $1 million is planned for new ballfields in 2022 depending on development at Royal Golf and the impact to Tartan Park ballfields. Motion by Steele, seconded by Pearce to recommend the 2018-2022 Parks CIP as amended. Motion passed. 2017-2021 CIP Amendments Motion by Weis, seconded by Steele to recommend omitting the 50th St trail and Pebble Park improvements in 2017 because of exceeding planned spending in 2017 and the establishment of new priorities. Motion passed. Respectfully Submitted, Kristina Handt MINUTES City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission May 15, 2017 Members Present: Chair Weis, Commissioners Ames, Frick, Nelson, Nuenfeldt, Olinger, Pearce, Steele Members Absent: Commissioners Olinger, Zeno Staff Present: City Administrator Kristina Handt, Public Works Director Weldon, City Planner Becker The meeting was called to order by Chair Weis at 6:30 PM. Approval of Agenda Ames requested to add a presentation from the Valley Friendship Club to the agenda, at 4a. Motion by Weis to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Ames. Motion passed. Approval of Minutes Motion by Frick, seconded by Nuenfeldt to approve the April minutes as pre. Motion passed. Central Greenway/Lake Elmo Regional Trail Weis presented the findings of the previous Sub-Committee established to review the trails within Lake Elmo. Wayne Sanberg, Washington County, explained the Manning Avenue realignment. The realignment helps eliminate the need for a left turn to continue on Manning Avenue south and prevents the need to increase road widths through downtown Lake Elmo, which helps to preserve existing businesses. Sanberg presented on the Central Greenway. It travels from the southern end of the county up to Big Marine Park. The County has been working on the segment from the Cottage Grove Ravine Park up to Bailey road. The next step would be to work with Lake Elmo, from interstate 94 at Keats Avenue up to 36. The Master Plan will look at alignments and key waypoints. Conner Schaffer is a Planner with Washington County Public Works. He reported that they are currently working with Met Council to get the Master Plan for the southern portion of the trail approved. A project management team or steering committee will be established for the trails through Lake Elmo. That can be staff. Scheduling public engagement through Open Houses and pop-up meetings. Will work with the City to plan these events. Met Council requires these Public Engagements. Ames asked if there could be use of existing trails within the City. Schaffer responded that Regional trails are required to be 10 ft. wide and have buffers. They are to provide connections from one high quality location to another and provide opportunities to multiple users, not just the shortest route between locations, like City trail may provide. If there are already trails that exist that meet the criteria of a Regional Trail, we will look at utilizing them as a connection. Weis asked if the cost of the project would be paid for by the County. Sanberg responded that any trail the County constructs, the County looks for a 50% cost share with the local community. The theory is that the trails serve both the local residents and the regional connections. Ames asked if there is a cost share expectation for the trails proposed with the realignment of County 14. Steele asked what happens if the City cannot come up with its portion of the cost share? Does the project stop? Can the City use grants to cover their portion of the cost share? Sanberg responded that it is typically a 5 year plan with the cost and time line planned out. He further explained that the process for selecting the alignment route will take approximately a year to complete. He stated that many Cities do get grants to cover a portion of their cost share. Another option is if there was Federal money available, it would reduce both the City and County portions. Currently the County does not have the funding scheduled. That would be done after the planning process. Presentation from Friends Susan Cane of the Valley Friendship Club. The group attended the previous Council workshop regarding concerns about the phasing of Lions Park and the removal of the Arts building. She also lives in the Fields of St. Croix. Valley Friendship Club was offered to use the Arts Building in 2011. The Valley Friendship Club offers programs for children and teens with disabilities. The group has over 200 members. Cane asked that the Parks Commission not tear down the building until there is a community center or another facility to house the programs. The group has contacted the library and they do not have room and with the County taking over, that is another issue. 2018-2022 CIP Handt informed the Commission that the report will be going to the Finance Committee for their approval on June 8th. She asked the Commission if they wanted to discuss the items tonight or schedule a separate meeting to discuss the items more in depth. The commission began discussion regarding their questions about vehicle purchases and how much they would be used in the parks. Colemer responded to some of the items on the list and how they would help maintain the parks. After further discussion it was determined there were too many questions for this meet. A special CIP Meeting was set for Tuesday, May 30. Gonyea West Plat Becker shared that the City has received an application for a development called Gonyea West. It is located west of Lake Elmo Avenue, across from Village Preserve. They are proposing 279 units. They will need to dedicate 10% of the land or about 10 acres. However they also have preliminary plat approval for land south of Easton Village and have proposed 15 acres for a Reid Park extension. They are being given a credit for this development of approximately 6 acres for this development. They are proposing a neighborhood park of .9 acre that will not be maintained by the City and a 3.4 acre open space. The park land dedication fund would not be receiving any additional funds for this development. Becker said staff is looking for feedback regarding this concept plan. Staff would like feedback regarding the proposed parks and trail that will connect to the Hamlet at Sunfish Lake neighborhood, where the trails are private. This development falls within a neighborhood park search area and this is also called out as needed trail connection. Your feedback could go to Planning Commission and City Council. Ames asked about the other development they want credit for, did we approve that? Becker answered that the other development received preliminary plat approval with the additional land for future credit. Ames asked about the land near the pool. Would that be land that they are counting toward park land? Becker answered that it would not be dedicated land and would not count. Since they are looking at doing a Planned Unit Development, that area may account for amenity points toward this type of development. Becker said that they are requesting this a Planned Unit Development and they are required to have 20% open space. Ames asked for clarification on the location of the trail connection. Ames recalls that Sunfish Ponds was open to some connections to trails if we maintained them. Is there a way to discuss this with the neighborhood? The mayor said he attended their HOA meeting this year and last year and they have not expressed interest in connecting, but in remaining private. It would be something to discuss with them. Discussion around park land dedication versus park land fees. They discussed having to maintain the open space proposed within this development and the cost. They talked about the amount they could collect in dedication fees in lieu of land. The commission voted on whether they supported the developer’s proposal for parks and land. The commission voted in favor with the exception of Weis. The commission voted to support the trail connection if the adjoining neighborhoods to the west would open up their trails for this type of connection. Otherwise no trail connection would be supported. Motion passed unanimously. Ways to enforce leash law Mary Ellen Mazda lives on 42nd Street near the fire station and park. She said she has walked her dog on the west side of Sunfish Lake Park for a number of years. She said she was concerned from the meeting minutes that there is a misconception of the number of dogs running loose in the park. She said she is largely unconcerned about the dogs that are off-leash. She walks her dog off-leash and has her dog under voice control. She recommended that maybe a portion of that park or another could be an off-leash dog park. Frick spoke to the fact there a number of dogs in the other side of the park that do let their dogs off their leash and have seen them be aggressive. Steele mentioned that having dogs on-leash is a City law. He cautioned against making rules that go against another City regulation. Weis stated that the law is fairly unenforceable, especially in the parks. He asked if it made sense to try and enforce a law that is hard to enforce or to change the law, provided they can make it safe for people and other animals. Frick said she was walking in a state park over the weekend and noticed they had signs on every trail head reminding users about the leash rules. She felt maybe doing the same, instead of the just the one sign located in the parking lot of the park might be a good idea. Weis asked how many reports of dog attacks the City has received. He also stated that signage will likely not change behavior. Handt stated none have been reported to the City. She also stated that she spoke with the Sheriff’s office and they said that if there are dogs running off-leash or there is an attack to report it to the non-emergency line. The way to start curbing the behavior is to start reporting it. Ames agreed with Weis that signage will not change behavior. Ames asked if it is not that costly would it be beneficial to make the effort. Nelson suggested that if we are going to put up new signs, maybe we provide the non- emergency phone number so people know what to do if they encounter behaviors in the park that are not allowed. The commission made a recommendation for staff to get pricing on signs in order to know what the project would cost before voting on it. June Meeting Pebble Park improvements Sufish Lake forest management plans Staff Reports and Commission Update Handt gave an update on Lions Park. Handt stated she signed the Purchase Order for the Savona Park equipment. Becker did not have any reports. Weis said he received an email from a resident that lives in the Tri-Lakes area. She is concerned about the height of the swings at Pebble Park. That the swings are too high and there are no additional links to lower the swings. The changes would have to be replace or more mulch will need to be added. The meeting stopped recording after Weis’s report. Meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tanya Nuss STAFF REPORT DATE: 6/19/2017 REGULAR ITEM #: 4 MOTION TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Lions Park Signs REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Rob Weldon, Public Works Director BACKGROUND: Aaron Runk has offered to sell advertisements in the form of signage on fencing within Lions Park. Staff has obtained quotes from Kathy Weeks of Weeksend Signs. ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Parks Commission is being asked to review the signage costs and make recommendation on the purchase of signs that will advertise businesses as a fundraising effort for Lions Park. The Commission should also consider if the funds should be assigned for capital improvements only. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Kathy Weeks has provided pricing for both 4’X8’ and 4’X16’ (two panels of 4’X8’) signs. Pricing is shown for both aluminum composite and vinyl banners in these sizes. This pricing is at cost and does not include markup. Kathy has communicated that there would be no additional markup to this price. Once a business agreed to purchase advertising space, the signs would be made and displayed on fencing in the park. Kathy has also provided visuals of what the signs would look like on fencing within the park. FISCAL IMPACT: Initial cost of purchasing the signs, which would be covered by the cost for the advertisement. The Commission may wish to recommend that the funds be assigned to capital improvements only. ATTACHMENTS: • Lions Park layout proof example • Visual of signs within Lions Park • Cost estimates for signs Date Phone QTY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ~ Please Do Not Pay Off of the Estimate ~ ~ An Invoice will be Generated ~ Thank you! We appreciate your business.TOTAL Client Contact Person(s) All Sales are C.O.D. Payment due on receiptAll Sales are C.O.D. Payment due on receipt - All prices are cost of materials only (non-prot). - ALL prices are honored for Lions Park Baseball Field Improvement Project only. - Signs are not for private property or personal use. - These prices are Estimates. - Costs are estimated on minimal amount of graphics - for vintage look and readability. - Costs may vary due to design and/or graphics requested/required, i.e. need for digitally printed logos or graphics. - See Attached layout examples for reference of minimal amount of graphics. - Does not include installation of signs CONDITIONS: Note: Aluminum Composite signs require no maintenance, and survive approx. 4-7 years. 13oz Vinyl Banner signs survive approx. 1-2 years. Payment accepted by check or cash. Estimate 5/31/17 Kathy Weeks / weeksendsigns@aol.com LIONS PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $150.00 - $200.004’ x 8’ 3mm Aluminum composite sign - w/grommets - Single sided - High performance vinyl graphics 1 $350.00 - $400.004’ x 16’ 3mm Aluminum composite sign - w/grommets - Single sided - High performance vinyl graphics 1 $45.00 - $55.004’ x 8’ 13oz vinyl Banner - hemmed w/grommets - Single sided 1 $75.00 - $85.004’ x 16’ 13oz vinyl Banner - hemmed w/grommets - Single sided 1 Date: Proof: 5/31/17 4’ x 8’ (Rihm Kenworth)233’ fence marker 4’ x 16’ Gorman’s Restaurant in center... 4’ x 8’ signs on each side 1 NOTE: Please review your proof carefully for Spelling Errors, Size, Quantity, Color & ALL content. 266’ fence marker Date: Proof: 5/31/17 4’ x 8’ 4’ x 16’ (2 @ 4’ x 8’ panels installed next to each other) 1 NOTE: Please review your proof carefully for Spelling Errors, Size, Quantity, Color & ALL content. STAFF REPORT DATE: 6/19/2017 REGULAR ITEM #: 5 MOTION TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Sunfish Lake Park Forest Management Plan REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director BACKGROUND: The 2017 Parks Commission Work Plan includes breaking down the Sunfish Lake Park Forest Management Plan (Plan) in to measurable goals for its June meeting. The Plan was created in 2011 and approved by Council on February of 2016 and by the Minnesota Land Trust on December of 2016. ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION: The Parks Commission is being asked to re-review the Sunfish Lake Park Forest Management Plan and break down the Plan in to measurable goals so that it can be properly implemented. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: General Goals. The general goals of the Plan are to protect and enhance the natural resources of the site and to improve the native plant communities. The primary objective of the forest management plan is to provide a framework for long term structured management of the forest cover type. Additional goals are to: • Increase tree species diversity. • Increase tree age class diversity. • Mitigate wind damage caused by 2013 storm. • Reduce resulting fire danger from increased fuel load. Summary of Plan. There are five primary management activities that will focus on maintaining a forest cover type are: • Cutting/processing of the blow-down areas and oak wilt infection centers to allow for planting or natural regeneration. o Three different levels:  High Intensity. Use of a bio harvester or logger to remove pockets of blown- down, oak wilt and selected leaning trees). Pros include short harvest portion for when the park needs restricted access; reduced soil compaction; possible income for materials removed; safe sites for planting crews; buckthorn control less difficult; reduces possibility of wild fire. Con is that the logging or harvest site is less aesthetically pleasing. Parks Commission 6/19/2017 Regular Agenda item # 5 Page 2  Medium Intensity. City crews or firewood contractors work on smaller areas at a time (one or several seasons). Pros include better aesthetics; only small portions of park are closed; less disruption to trails; other management activities can be planned. Cons include large quantities cannot be removed; loss of revenue from removed materials; actual removal process needs to be scheduled so process is completed.  Light Intensity. Leaving the majority of the downed trees in areas of little use by park users while removing some that are leaning in to healthy oak trees for survival of such trees and fire suppression purposes. Pros include that this is the least invasive option; less cost and equipment requirements; minor closures of trails; little disruption to trails or soil in cut areas. Cons include increased difficulty with buckthorn management and planting; inhibition of aspen regeneration; less aesthetic appeal; long term maintenance costs increase due to number of dead trees on trails. o Specific Recommendation from Forest Management Plan. The Plan recommends Medium Intensity, as this will utilize City crews to remove material on a more flexible schedule, utilize chips produced, limit park closures, and reduce overall impact. Work could take place over a 3-5 year time period. A once yearly hazard inspection tree program should then be done. • Buckthorn treatment either on a large scale or on an individual planting site scale. o Area-focused control zones. Areas would coincide with planting areas to reduce competition. Use of brush saw and herbicide typically involved. o Spot clearing for individual planting sites. Clearing a 10 foot diameter circle around a transplant tree planting site. o Wide-scale treatment of seed bearing plants. To limit spread of large volumes of seeds. o Specific Recommendation from Forest Management Plan. The Plan recommends working with Buck Wiley of Great River Greening to have a chance to obtain cost share. The Plan also recommends developing a good comprehensive sign and educational program for the park. • Planting strategically to establish the future forest within the blow down areas and oak wilt sites and also to transition existing maturing aspen stands to lower maintenance mixed hardwood cover type. • Fire threat reduction and improving the aesthetic quality of the trails by removing the scattered storm damage and hanging trees from various areas of the park. o Specific Recommendation from Forest Management Plan. The Plan recommends using firewood contractors to alleviate the fire danger that now exists. • Oak Wilt Inspection completed on an annual basis. o Specific Recommendation from Forest Management Plan. The Plan recommends two yearly inspections to identify and map oak wilt sites. Parks Commission 6/19/2017 Regular Agenda item # 5 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: Any cost associated with recommended actions. OPTIONS: • Break down the Forest Management Plan in to measurable goals and make recommendation on action. • Review the Plan at a later date to break it down in to measurable goals. • Not break down the Plan in to measurable goals. ATTACHMENTS: • Sunfish Lake Forest Management Plan 1 Forest Management Plan- Sunfish Lake Park, City of Lake Elmo. This Forest Management Plan is an addendum to the Natural Resource Plan completed in 2011. The background information completed for the 2011 Natural Resource Plan for Sunfish Lake Park is quite extensive and provides the usual background information which is required in an approved Forest Stewardship Plan. Therefore the information in the Forest Management Plan will focus on the heavily wooded portions of the park, using information from the previous 2011 report and new field work conducted for the Forest Management Plan. Contained within the plan are a number of management scenarios which the City can examine and weigh to achieve a positive outcome. The basic goal in all of these approaches is to maintain and promote a long term healthy and diverse forest. The City's ability to fund the projects, supply needed labor and equipment, and judge the acceptance of the Park users to the various disruptions and aesthetic changes, will determine the path it takes in achieving its goals. Thank You, Steven J. Kunde SAF Certified Forester 2 Table of Contents Land Information.................................................................................................................3 Goals......................................................................................................................................4 General Property Description..............................................................................................4 Land Trust, Natural Heritage Information........................................................................5 Cultural Heritage Information.............................................................................................8 Soil Information.....................................................................................................................9 Forest Cover Type Information..........................................................................................12 Cover Type Information: Mixed Oak....................................................................13 Cover Type Information: Aspen.............................................................................15 Cover Type Information: Pine................................................................................17 Plan Recommendations Overview......................................................................................18 Cutting / Processing...................................................................................................19 High/Medium/Light Intensity.......................................................................19-22 Buckthorn Control.....................................................................................................23 Planting.......................................................................................................................24 Climate Change Information........................................................................25 Fire Threat Reduction...............................................................................................29 Oak Wilt Inspection...................................................................................................30 Timeline of Activities............................................................................................................32 Blowdown Area photos .......................................................................................................32 Questions for the Park Board to Consider.........................................................................36 Final Recomendations..........................................................................................................37 Resources and Assistance.....................................................................................................38 3 LANDOWNER: City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Land is located in Washington County. PREPARED BY: Steven Kunde Society of American Forester, Certified. 4316 370th St. Minnesota Plan Preparer # 1103 North Branch, MN 55056 PLAN DATE: August 2015 Total Acres. 284 Legal Description: PIN's 1402921220001, 1502921110001, 1502921210002, 1502921210003, 1002921340001 This Forest Management plan is designed to assist your management activities of the natural resources on your property in harmony with the regional environment. Recommendations are based upon your goals and are for your consideration. 4 THE GOALS YOU IDENTIFIED FOR MANAGING YOUR PROPERTY ARE TAKEN FROM THE 2011 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. General Management Goals The 2011 management goals for Sunfish Lake Park are "to protect and enhance the natural resources of the site, to improve the native plant communities, improve wildlife habitat, and improve the nature experience of park users who visit the site to hike, cross-country ski, go horseback riding, watch wildlife, and enjoy the open spaces". Within the General Management Goals are to "protect and enhance the natural resources of the site and to improve the native plant communities." The primary objective of the forest management plan is to provide a framework for long term structured management of the forest cover type. Additional goals are to:  Increase tree species diversity.  Increase tree age class diversity.  Mitigate wind damage caused by 2013 storm.  Reduce resulting fire danger from increased fuel load. The first three of these goals can be accomplished by establishing or planting the future forest in the wind and diseased affected areas. General Property Description: (Portions from 2011 report) Sunfish Lake Park is located in Washington County, in the City of Lake Elmo (Township 29, Range 21W, covering parts of sections 10, 14, 15 and 16) and is primarily accessed by an entrance off Hwy. 5 to the south. It is a park of 284 acres and has been noted as a regionally significant natural area by the Minn. DNR. The park is just north of the Lake Elmo Park Reserve and is part of an ecological corridor from the Tri-Lakes area of Lake Elmo, down through the LE Park Reserve. The park land is gently rolling to steep slopes with ravines and small wetland pockets. The property is bounded by farmland to the south and southwest, a landfill on the west and wooded property on the northwest. The northeastern and eastern portion of the property is developed with homes present. Access to the park is available from the north, west, and south. 5 Minnesota Land Trust A meeting was held on site with Ann Thies of the Minnesota Land Trust to discuss the possible forest management activities for the Park. Ms. Thies discussed the overall situation with the blowdown, buckthorn, and fire hazard and the management options to mitigate the problems and to enhance the forest long term. The work covered within the plan would fall within the covenant in section 3.3 as follows: Forest and Habitat Management. The Protected Property may be used to create, maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for wildlife and native biological communities in accordance with a restoration or habitat management plan approved in writing by the Land Trust. The Owner may remove timber and other wood products and otherwise manage the vegetation on the Protected Property in accordance with this approved plan. Following is the request from Ms. Thies regarding individual site and management activities. "We discussed your interim plan for the trails and we would like to see another proposal with just the specifics of what you want to do, where and when, with a map of locations. Referencing and showing photos will also help. How much work will be on-site and where. This request then needs to come from the City as the owner of the property, and to confi rm that they understand and are in agreement with the trail plan." As the City moves forward with the overall management plan and decides at what level the activities will take place, a more detailed report outlining the specifics of each activity, it's exact location, and when each activity will take place can be given to the Land Trust for approval. A short work form would be beneficial to both the City and the Land Trust to plan the work and track the outcomes of the management activity. This work form could use aerial photography to show the location of the work, pictures attached and a description of the activities and time table. These specific details can be provided once the City decides the questions regarding funding of activities, park use disruption and general cover type management decisions. Natural Heritage Information The Minnesota Natural Heritage Database is a listing of endangered, threatened or special concern (ETS) plant or animal species. Following is information provided by the DNR with regards to ETS species on or near the property. 6 7 8 Cultural Heritage Information The Cultural Heritage Database is a listing of identified historical or cultural sites which may have been identified on your property. No Cultural Heritage sites have been found on your property. 9 Soil Information A soil map and soil information is provided. This information is useful when making management decisions. These could include determination of species to plant, wildlife plantings, drainage issues, road placement, etc. The soil map shows soil formations beyond the limits of the property. A complete soil report will be provided in a separate document. 10 11 12 Forest Cover Type Information The following forest cover type information and management objectives are based upon field investigation and review of the 2011 Natural Resource Report. 13 Cover Type Information: Mixed Oak Description The mixed oak stand comprises the majority of the forested area of the park. This oak cover type contains a mixture of red oak, pin oak, bur oak, white oak, red maple, black cherry, hackberry, elm, ash, birch, aspen and an understory of ironwood. Within the cover type are several small ponding areas which contain small pockets of aspen and birch surrounding them on the lower ground where water levels can fluctuate. The oak forest is very important to wildlife and is ranked one of the highest valued cover types for many varieties of wildlife. Anywhere within the oak forest area there is adequate food, cover and water resources within a short distance The diameters average 12 inches for the overstory trees with individuals in the 20 inch plus range. This represents a mature oak forest. The Basal area within the oak cover type which was not affected by wind damage averages 90, which indicates a fully stocked forest. In the areas of wind damage the basal area ranges from 20 to 60 depending upon the amount of tree loss the site has suffered. There are pockets within the stand which have extensive tree loss due to the storm. The DNR Natural Heritage review indicates the cover type as an Oak/Maple type which is found within the site however the majority of the red maple are found in two predominant areas. There is a larger pocket of red maple in the northwest corner of the park and also on the eastern portion 14 of the park north of the larger pond. Red maple is a beautiful tree in the fall; however, its wildlife value is quite low compared to all oak species. Within the oak type are a number of blow down areas ranging from a few trees, to the largest area in the northeast portion of the park, just south of the houses. The winds came from the west- northwest as can be seen in aerial photography. This largest area is approximately 4.5 acres in size. This area did have a higher number of aspen growing within it and the larger bigtooth aspen were blown down along with scattered oak on the site. The northeastern blow down site contains the aspen type and adjacent portions of the oak cover type which surrounds it. In the areas with the heaviest damage, there remains about a 40 percent residual crown cover. Some areas have less damage with trees leaning but not blown over. This site sits on a higher portion of the park and was more exposed and vulnerable to damaging winds. There are numerous trees of various species which have broken off and/or tipped into healthy trees. These trees are leaning into healthy trees which can cause wounding as the trees are constantly moving in the wind and rubbing against each other. These leaning trees can also cause increases in oak wilt as they cause wounds and will eventually fall as the wood rots. There are pockets of oak wilt within the oak cover type which have been identified in the past and mapped. The oak wilt in the park is generally contained in the red and pin oaks and will generally move through a portion of the stand and kill only the red and pin oaks through root grafting. The infection center will expand by grafting to oaks of the same species. The disease will move as long as there are other oaks of the same species present. The distribution of other oak species and other tree species in general will reduce the spread potential. This grafting does not (or very seldom) take place between different species such as red oaks to bur oaks or white oaks. Because the stand is made up of a nice mixture of reds and whites, the affect of the disease is lessened. The disease centers should be monitored during the growing season and efforts made to control the disease in areas where there is a larger population of the species affected where it could continue to move through the forest killing larger numbers of trees. It is important to not create any wounds to any oak specie during April, May or June. Generally tree work on oaks is late fall through the winter. See the oak wilt map at the end of this report. . 15 Cover Type Information: Aspen The cover type identified as aspen are located as shown on the map on page 12. The aspen type was probably a result of seeding into open disturbed areas. The history of the site would indicate that the land was probably grazed and contained primarily bur oak with scattered red and pin oaks in a pasture setting. Once the grazing was ended the site began filling in with tree species. The red oak seeding in where there was enough light to thrive and the aspen seeding into the larger open areas where there was little tree cover and a disturbed soil. Aspen is a specie that is a good wildlife tree and is often associated with birch. The aspen on the site are of both "Trembling Aspen" and "Bigtooth Aspen". The sites are primarily located on the eastern portion of the property, with the three main areas as indicated. There are smaller edge pockets of aspen/birch throughout the park, which occupy the edges of the wetlands. Often young aspen can be found growing in these areas as the fluctuating water levels in the ponds allow the trees to grow and populate the pond edge during drought times but are killed or knocked back during times of high water. The trees will constantly be going through a transition 16 of growing conditions which they have adapted to. Because the aspen need full light to establish, the opening of the pond fulfills that need. The aspen cover types are generally medium to mature in age with the majority of the site in the 40+ year age class. At that age, the more mature aspen will begin to fail or decline in health and structure. The trees will develop cankers and begin dying from the top losing major limbs. These trees are also more susceptible to wind throw and damage during storms. In normal natural situations, the loss of these trees would be a natural transition to an intermediate stage of forest, which would occupy the site of the aspen as they fail. They would be replaced by many different species that have some shade tolerance, including oak, cherry, elm, ash, boxelder, white pine (if a seed source is present), hickory, walnut, etc. Buckthorn does occupy a large portion of the understory of the entire forest within the park. There is enough small buckthorn in the aspen stands to out-compete any other species as seedlings. Once the stand begins to open because of the loss of the aspen by wind storms or natural decline, these young buckthorn will grow rapidly and occupy the site. Experience has shown that if aspen and buckthorn are cleared at the same time to create an opening, the aspen will outgrow the buckthorn and reestablish itself on the site. It is not uncommon to see thousands of stems per acre of aspen repopulate a site after cutting takes place. Natural succession of this forest cover type is to go from aspen to an intermediate shade tolerant forest, and then over time convert to a stand with larger numbers of shade tolerant maple and basswood. This process can take hundreds of years and in nature is interrupted by periodic 17 disruptive events like fire and wind storms. The forested areas in this region have always been in transition with pioneer forests, intermediate forests and climax forests being mixed and changed as events occur. This mixture of forest types is very beneficial to many species of wildlife with many different habitat requirements. The aspen sites within the park have significant blow down areas and are advancing toward maturity. The decision will need to be made as to how to handle the aspen blow down areas and also the older aspen stands adjacent to the trail system in the southern portion of the park near the parking area. Two options exist within the aspen blow down areas. 1. Create small patch cuts of approximately 1-1.5 acre in size and allow the regeneration to reestablish the aspen cover type. 2. Inter-plant the blow down sites with other species and move the stand to a mixed hardwood stand with some residual aspen but supplemented with hardwood plantings. The trails with high populations of large mature aspen will continue to produce unsafe trees due to age and the general way aspen will die. The tops will slowly die off with large branches breaking and falling sporadically. Options. 1. Leave the sites alone and monitor for hazard trees. Remove them on a yearly basis. Under-plant with shade tolerant species over time. 2. During a harvesting process remove a portion of the large trees so the areas can be inter- planted with other hardwood species. Over time convert the site from aspen only to a mixed hardwood forest cover type. Cover Type Information: Pine There is a small area of planted red pine near the parking area as shown on the cover type map. These pine were planted approximately 20 years ago and range in diameter from 5 to 8 inches depending upon their placement. Outer trees that receive the most light are larger and exhibit a more open grown appearance with a larger crown and side branching. The grouping of trees is somewhat congested in a few spots but the trees are healthy at this time with no apparent disease or insect problems. No management activities are needed at this time. 18 Plan Recommendations Overview Although the Park is considered a "Natural Area," the land has been highly influenced by past and present human activity. In Pre-Colonial times some lands were burned for hunting and security purposes and later the Settlers controlled fires and cleared land and grazed the forests. In the present, the introduction of invasive species has dramatically changed the natural progression of the forest. All these factors have constantly changed the natural progression of the forest and made some form of management needed to maintain a vibrant and healthy forest cover type within the Park. The greater purpose and ultimate goal of this plan is to maintain a robust forest ecosystem that can survive and flourish over the next 100 years and beyond. Many of the management activities to achieve this goal vary greatly as to their short term impact and aesthetic impact. While the methods may vary dramatically, there are certain requirements and growing conditions that must be met to allow the various species of trees to flourish on the site. Some species need full sunlight to thrive while others can survive in a dense forest overstory. Soil conditions, and soil types, aspect (direction the slope of the ground is facing), competition, germination requirements, and browse susceptibility will all impact survivability. The oak forest is naturally supported by fires moving through the understory and removing the invading shade tolerant species of thin barked trees and shrubs. It also removes the duff layer of compacted leaves and releases nutrients into the soil and opens up the soil to seed germination and allows the oaks to continue on the site. These fires historically would take place periodically, consuming the buildup of fuel that is found on the site presently. With the mineral soil exposed, thousands of acorns would sprout and grow. Of these thousands of seedlings, only the ones that had enough light, moisture, and room to grow and weren't eaten by wildlife will make it to maturity, maybe 100 - 200 trees per acre. Oak seedlings and saplings numbers are very low within the oak areas and also within the small openings created by the oak wilt pockets in the park. Even though the area would support oak or other forest tree regeneration, these small openings are being over-grown with buckthorn. With the very low numbers of regeneration trees, the forest will slowly be lost to the thick dense stands of buckthorn. This will occur slowly as the large over-story trees are lost to old age, disease, wind storms, insect outbreaks, etc. As this happens, the buckthorn that are currently growing in the understory are given the light to "take off". As these buckthorn plants flourish, other trees and shrubs have little space or light to germinate and grow. 19 Therefore the five primary management activities that will focus on maintaining a forest cover type are:  Cutting/processing of the blow-down areas and oak wilt infection centers to allow for planting or natural regeneration.  Buckthorn treatment either on a large scale or on an individual planting site scale.  Planting strategically to establish the future forest within the blow down areas and oak wilt sites and also to transition existing maturing aspen stands to lower maintenance mixed hardwood cover type.  Fire threat reduction and improving the aesthetic quality of the trails by removing the scattered storm damage and hanging trees from various areas of the park.  Oak Wilt Inspection completed on an annual basis. The planting or promotion of natural regeneration is the ultimate management need for the goal of maintaining a forest long term in the park. Over the next 100 years the most important aspect will be planting. Cutting/processing Three different levels of intensity of treatments options which would provide for the ultimate goal of maintaining a forest cover are outlined below. 1. High Intensity The use of a bio harvester or logger to remove the pockets of blow down, oak wilt and selected leaning trees would provide some income to the community for future forest management. The machines that are used are large track machines that can move a quantity of wood material in a short amount of time. While, these machines can scarify the top soil, they do not produce a significant amount of compaction due to the width of the tracks. They are capable of grabbing a large tree up to approximately 20 inches in diameter, cutting it and laying it down. The tree is then either moved as a full tree to a processing site on the edge of the park or it is de-limbed and the trunk is moved. The material removed is then separated into a log pile and chip pile. These materials are then chipped on site and hauled away or hauled in log form from the site. Often trees which have been broken or toppled by wind storms are not suited for logs because the tremendous forces which damaged them also caused the structure of the wood within the trees to be degraded. This is called "ring shake," it causes the growth rings within the wood to separate making it unsuitable for lumber. The cutting process would involve laying out a plan that would address the exact areas and boundaries for the cutting area by marking the removal trees or marking the edges of the cutting zones. Once marked, the logger and city can review these sites and set up work areas for processing and identify access points and haul paths. Minnesota State Guidelines or current 20 BMP's (Best Management Practices) would be followed for standing dead leave trees and downed logs per acre for wildlife habitat. The process would be expected to take 2-3 weeks to accomplish with hauling taking place as needed and agreed upon. Pros 1. The bio-harvest/logging time is relatively short, taking 2-3 weeks for the harvest portion when the park would need to have restricted access. 2. Although disruptive, the compaction to the soil will be reduced because of the large tracks and wide tires used. 3. It would be expected that the City would receive some income for the material removed, but this would depend upon restrictions and conditions that are placed upon the contractor. It should be noted that most cost-share programs will help pay for buckthorn control and planting but not for removal. 4. All sites would be safe for planting crews to proceed the following spring to replant the sites. Current conditions with heavily damaged and leaning trees are unsafe in off trail areas. 5. Buckthorn control in these areas would be less difficult. 6. This process would remove a significant amount of fuel wood which would aid in reduction of the possibility of a wild fire. Cons 1. Aesthetically the logging or harvest sites will look as though they have been logged with scattered debris and some disruption of soil. This view can be disturbing to park users who are not accustomed to seeing this type of disruption. Brush will be bent down and crushed and there will be some damage to the trails, which will have to be restored. This can either be accomplished by city crews at a later date or could be incorporated within the cutting agreement. I have included a link to a YouTube video that shows a blow down clearing area using large equipment similar to what would be used within the park if this option is selected. https://youtu.be/d02HbvvcAQs 2. Medium Intensity The use of city crews or firewood contractors to work on smaller areas at a time, over a longer period of time. This option could take place over one season or several depending on the time the city crews would have to complete the operation. Crews would work on a smaller scale with smaller equipment to clear blow down in the selected areas and also work on the oak wilt pockets. The crews would cut and drag or haul material to a 21 landing where an outside chipping company or rental chipper could be used to process the material into chips, which would be used within the park trails and around the city. It could be expected to take several seasons to work through all the blow down areas and oak wilt pockets within the park. These work areas would then need to be prepped for planting by removing all or a portion of the buckthorn within the cut area to allow for plant survival. Pros 1. Probably more aesthetically pleasing due to the smaller scale and the flexibility of time with which to accomplish the activities. The individual sites will probably look about the same depending upon the equipment used to remove the downed and leaning and dead trees. What usually remain on the site are the broken brush and tops and branches that break off and are left. From an ecological perspective, the small woody material is important for wildlife habitat. 2. You may only need to close small portions of the park to users at a time. (With the high intensity program, the entire park would possibly need to be closed.) 3. There will be less disruption to the trails and soil if rubber tired equipment is used on the site. (However compaction of soils will be increased in some work areas that are not frozen) 4. The other management activities (buckthorn removal/treatment and planting program) can be planned over a three year period or so, instead of needing to be accomplished within the first year. Cons 1. Often the actual ability to move large quantities of material on the site is beyond the capability of smaller crews and equipment available. 2. There will be a loss of revenue that would be obtained with a larger bio harvest format. 3. The actual removal process should be scheduled so it doesn't get bumped by other projects that come up. Later activities such as buckthorn treatment, planting prep, and tree ordering will depend upon the removal process being completed. 3. Light Intensity From a pure habitat perspective, the amount of downed wood and standing dead wood is really a benefit to various species of wildlife. Therefore it would be possible to do a light intensity removal for fire suppression purposes in various areas while leaving the majority of the site with downed trees. The use of firewood contractors along various trails to remove enough downed 22 material to create fire breaks and creating a buffer zone on the edges of the forest line to reduce fuel load would reduce the opportunity for fire to become out of control. Many of the trees are in areas of little use by park users and could be left where they are and crews could be used to get leaning trees or multiple groupings of trees on the ground by using chain saws and small equipment. Once on the ground, the wood absorbs moisture and will begin to rot. Trees that are broken and leaning onto healthy oak trees would be felled or pulled off the healthy tree. These leaning trees can continually rub on a healthy tree and cause a wound, which can spread oak wilt in the park. Pros 1. This option would be the least invasive to the site, as it leaves all the material except that which is removed for fire control on the site. 2. The cost would be less as the equipment requirements would be far less. 3. There would be an increase in habitat due to the increase in downed material in the forest. 4. There would be minor closures of the trails during work periods because little material would be removed. 5. Little disruption to the trails or soil in the cut zones would occur. Cons 1. This option would increase the difficulty with both buckthorn management and planting of the site. It would mean having to maneuver through large areas of downed trees to reach planting sites and would inhibit larger scale buckthorn removal. 2. If aspen regeneration is a goal, it will inhibit that regeneration because of the shading of the ground, which inhibits root sprouting. I would expect some regeneration to come through these downed trees however. 3. It will hurt the aesthetic appeal of the park to many park visitors. A good education program could help visitors understand the benefits of downed trees to wildlife. 4. Long term maintenance costs will increase due to the numbers of dead trees near trail and use areas. Public Acceptance With any management activity there will be some form of disruption to the normal use of the park. Trails may have to be closed, some soil disruption will take place, and the sight of trees and brush being removed will disturb some users of the park. Therefore it is important to provide educational materials and signage within the park to help the public understand the goals and 23 reasoning for the management activities they will see within the park. This material and signage will also aid in recruiting possible volunteers for planting and buckthorn removal projects to help the City reach its cost share matching goals. Buckthorn Control Buckthorn control is critical to the establishment of regeneration of the future forest. Buckthorn inhibits natural regeneration of forest trees and native plant communities. At high levels of density on slopes, sheet erosion can occur as only a few small plants can survive under the buckthorn to hold the soil in place. There are three basic control measures that could be implemented on the site. The options will be dependent upon the individual site and funding sources. This is a long-term battle that can be very difficult to win. I would expect buckthorn to be present within the Park for many years to come. Reducing it and managing it will help restore natural regeneration and also increase native plant communities. During the development of this plan, I met with Mr. Wiley Buck of Great River Greening, which is a non-profit working with various groups and communities on buckthorn control programs. Mr. Buck has been successful in obtaining significant cost share money for these projects. I would recommend the City work with him or identify a coordinator within the City to oversee and seek out funding sources for buckthorn and planting projects. The three primary Buckthorn management control measures within this plan are:  Area-based Buckthorn control zones.  Spot clearing for individual planting sites.  Wide-scale treatment of seed bearing plants. Area-focused control zones These areas would coincide with planting areas to reduce competition, and also high value habitat or natural areas that would allow for using natural plant regeneration techniques. While 24 the removal methods could vary, the use of brush saws and herbicide is typically involved. The buckthorn removed can be chipped, removed, or burned on site. Spot clearing for individual planting sites To reduce the cost of large-scale removal and treatment of the buckthorn, a small area for each planted tree can be brushed and treated. By cutting the buckthorn and other taller material from an approximate 10 foot diameter circle around a transplant tree planting site, when planted, the transplanted tree will have the required light and space to grow. Depending upon the site and the residual trees present, the number of planting sites will be anywhere from 50 to 100 per acre. The individual planting spots will need to be marked with a stake and then a crew would work to treat the buckthorn in those small spots during the fall or winter so spring planting could take place. Wide-scale treatment of seed bearing plants Once the buckthorn projects have begun, it is important to remove or treat seed bearing plants. This will limit the spread of large volumes of seeds within the park and surrounding property. This portion of the control will help in long term efforts to reduce the impact of buckthorn on the property. Planting With the existing buckthorn problem in the Park, the only way to ensure the future forest is through the planting of trees in the oak cover type or through the use of natural regeneration within the aspen stands. If aspen is clearcut it will out-compete the buckthorn. The size of the planting stock and the actual planting method will vary depending on the site preparation and removal of downed material. Within the blow down areas, the perimeter would be marked and individual planting sites would be identified with a stake. Once that is completed, the buckthorn removal project would take place, providing a 10 foot circle of planting space. If the buckthorn is treated on an area basis, the staking would be accomplished after the buckthorn removal is completed. In either situation the staking takes into account the adjacent overstory trees, scattered existing young trees, site conditions, soils, aspect, etc. to determine the species that will be selected to be planted. Some sites will have more sun than others and some will be heavily shaded. Because the planting sites have a residual amount of existing trees that 25 remain, the planting numbers would be in the 50 to 100 trees per acre range. Planting smaller trees reduces the cost and more could be planted. With larger trees such as saplings, less would be planted but it generally provides a higher survival rate. Because of the high deer population, it would be wise to use some form of tree shelter for the plantings until the trees reach an acceptable height to resist deer browsing. This shelter can be the tube type which uses the stake for support or it could be a wire roll to protect them. Either option will require some initial cost and some maintenance going forward. Plant selection and climate change. Within the development of this plan, the US Forest Service Center for Climate Change was contacted for information regarding expected outcomes for this area and to help with plant species selection. Mr. Handler and I met at the Park and completed a walk through examination. Following is the report that was developed for the Park by Mr. Handler. Some aspects may be utilized more than others, but the basis is a good one for going forward whether or not the expected climate change scenarios occur. The tree species list developed for the Park is a good one to follow but other species of trees could be added if desired. Climate change information for the Sunfish Lake Park management plan Climate Change Summary Climate is the long-term weather pattern for a region for a period of decades. Climate is one of the main factors that can determine the composition and extent of natural ecosystems, and the boreal-temperate forest transition zone is an example of the interplay between climate drivers and disturbances like wildfire. The earth’s climate has changed over the past century, and these changes are expected to continue. The following section is a quick summary of observed and projected climate change and impacts to forests in Minnesota (Handler et al. 2014 and Minnesota DNR 2011). Some of the changes that have already been observed include: - Annual temperature has increased by 1.9 °F since 1895, with accelerating warming since 1980 - Winter minimum temperatures have increased by more than 3.5 °F over the past century, with accelerating warming since 1980 - Annual precipitation has increased by more than 3 inches statewide, particularly in the spring and fall. - Heavy rainfall events (3+ inches) have become much more frequent 26 - Lake ice break-up, leaf-out, and bird migration dates are shifting earlier into the spring Climate change is projected to continue, although there will always be uncertainty in long-term projections. The best available science supports the idea that temperatures will increase across all seasons in Minnesota over the next century. Projected change is on the order of 5 to 9 °F by the end of the century, with winters likely to continue warming faster than other seasons. Precipitation is projected to increase up to 1 inch during winter and about 1 to 3 inches in spring by the year 2100. The greatest uncertainty exists for summer precipitation, with slight increases or large decreases possible. There may be greater moisture stress in summer and fall, because higher temperatures and longer growing seasons will lead to greater water loss from evaporation and transpiration. By the end of the 21st century the climate of Minnesota is generally projected to be hotter and more variable, with more moisture stress towards the end of the growing season and less characteristic winter weather. Climate change will not affect all forest species, communities, and parts of the landscape in the same way. Additional stress will amplify some threats that forests already face, such as insect pests and diseases. Generally, boreal tree species are expected to decline and temperate or southern species are expected to be favored (see tables 1 and 2). Species and forest types that are more tolerant of disturbances may have less risk from climate change, and forests with greater diversity (species, genetic, and structural diversity) may also have less risk. Site-level characteristics like soils, hydrology, forest health issues, invasive species, and surrounding land-use can also influence whether a particular forest may experience more or less risk than elsewhere on the landscape. Table 1: Tree species expected to increase in suitable habitat in the Minnesota and NE Iowa Section (222M) by the year 2100. Source: Climate Change Tree Atlas, www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree/ecoregion_ew.html. Boxelder silver maple Sycamore osage-orange Hackberry bur oak green ash black willow black locust shagbark hickory mockernut hickory pin oak eastern redcedar slippery elm eastern white pine river birch red mulberry chinkapin oak swamp white oak honeylocust eastern cottonwood black oak northern catalpa bitternut hickory American elm wild plum Ohio buckeye pignut hickory black walnut white ash black hickory Table 2: Tree species expected to decrease in suitable habitat in the Minnesota and NE Iowa Section (222M) by the year 2100. Source: Climate Change Tree Atlas, www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree/ecoregion_ew.html. quaking aspen black ash northern pin oak* Chokecherry northern red oak bigtooth aspen northern white-cedar Red pine 27 sugar maple white oak* eastern hophornbeam* pin cherry paper birch tamarack black spruce white spruce American basswood jack pine red maple black maple black cherry* balsam fir Butternut yellow birch *These species are projected to decline under higher climate change scenarios, but they may persist or increase under mild climate change scenarios. Adaptation Preparing for climate change presents opportunities for forest managers and landowners to plan ahead, assess risk, and ensure that the benefits forests provide are sustained into the future. Landowner goals and management opportunities (or constraints) can help determine the most appropriate actions to prepare for climate change. Different adaptation actions can be used to resist change, boost resilience, or encourage change. Choosing a range of actions may be appropriate for many landowners, depending on their values and site-specific risks or opportunities. This plan made use of an “Adaptation Workbook” that has been produced to help foresters and landowners incorporate climate change considerations into forest management (www.forestadaptation.org/far). In a site visit at Sunfish Lake Park with Stephen Handler of the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, we discussed the following management actions and their potential benefits for climate change adaptation: Table 3: Management activity and potential climate change adaptation benefits for Sunfish Lake Park. Management Activity Benefits for Climate Change Adaptation Across the entire site Treat buckthorn along trails (herbicide and mechanical removal). Reducing buckthorn allows more opportunities for regeneration of native trees and understory species. Remove downed trees and debris from recent blowdown events. Focus on hazard trees and combustible fuel, not decomposing wood. Reducing fuel load will reduce the potential for a catastrophic or high-intensity wildfire. Retain snags and coarse woody debris away from trails. Retaining biological legacies and woody debris provides valuable habitat for animal and plant species. Consider opportunities for planting tree species projected to increase under climate change. Consult table 1 above and think about site-level suitability for those species. Gradually increasing the proportion of species that may be better able to tolerate future conditions will help the site transition over time and maintain forest cover on the property. When planting trees, consider opportunities for Planting stock from warmer, drier locations may be 28 planting stock from further south or west. more tolerant of future stress. This might also introduce favorable genes into the local populations. Identify vernal pools and wetlands; avoid management activities on these sites. Protecting these sites may maintain habitat for wetland-dependent species. Oak cover type Identify and treat oak wilt pockets throughout the park – cut infected trees and neighboring red oaks, sever root grafts. Avoid damage to oaks from April-July. Containing oak wilt will help maintain a diversity of oak species. Consider opportunities for prescribed fire. Restoring fire to this landscape will control understory competition, allow more light to reach the forest floor, and promote native species regeneration. Aspen cover type Create gaps (1/4-acre to 1 acre) within existing aspen stands to encourage aspen regeneration Encouraging diverse age classes reduces overall vulnerability for this species. Sustaining this cover type reduces overall vulnerability for the property. Identify bigtooth aspen stands that are suitable ages for regeneration and create gaps in these stands. Bigtooth aspen is projected to be more drought- tolerant and less vulnerable to climate change than quaking aspen. Encouraging natural regeneration of this species can maintain overall species diversity and maintain the aspen cover type. More Information Much more information on observed climate trends and ecological indicators for Minnesota can be found here: • Minnesota State Climatology Office: climate.umn.edu/ • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources “Climate” Web page: www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/index.html 29 • University of Minnesota Extension “Extreme Weather” Web page: www.extension.umn.edu/extreme-weather/ drought-fire/climatology/ • Minnesota Phenology Network: https://www.usanpn.org/mnpn/home References Handler, Stephen; Duveneck, Matthew J.; Iverson, Louis; Peters, Emily; Scheller, Robert M.; Wythers, Kirk R.; Brandt, Leslie; Butler, Patricia; Janowiak, Maria; Shannon, P. Danielle; Swanston, Chris; Barrett, Kelly; Kolka, Randy; McQuiston, Casey; Palik, Brian; Reich, Peter B.; Turner, Clarence; White, Mark; Adams, Cheryl; D’Amato, Anthony; Hagell, Suzanne; Johnson, Patricia; Johnson, Rosemary; Larson, Mike; Matthews, Stephen; Montgomery, Rebecca; Olson, Steve; Peters, Matthew; Prasad, Anantha; Rajala, Jack; Daley, Jad; Davenport, Mae; Emery, Marla R.; Fehringer, David; Hoving, Christopher L.; Johnson, Gary; Johnson, Lucinda; Neitzel, David; Rissman, Adena; Rittenhouse, Chadwick; Ziel, Robert. 2014. Minnesota forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS- 133. Newtown Square, PA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 228 p. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2011a. Climate change and renewable energy: management foundations. St. Paul, MN. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Climate and Renewable Energy Steering Team. Available at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/conservationagenda/crest-ccref.pdf. Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K. 2012. Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-87. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Available at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/40543. Fire Threat Reduction The threat of fire within the Park is due to the large amounts of downed material from the storm event and also, to a small degree, the oak wilt sites. The wind storms did the majority of the damage in the two aspen/mixed oak areas. However there were numerous trees scattered throughout the park that were broken or knocked down. All this material creates a threat for a ground fire to take hold within the park boundaries. During the development of this plan the MN DNR Metro Fire Officer (Art Widerstrom) was contacted and completed a walk through on the property to discuss the downed material and the 30 potential for a fire within the Park. Before a fire report was written, Mr. Widerstrom had retired from the DNR. Following are his thoughts as described during several on site visits: Generally fires within hardwood forests are uncommon due to the rapid green-up in the spring. They can, however, develop and move into a hardwood forest if a property with a grass/wetland fuel load is adjacent. Mr Widerstrom felt that with the significant blowdown and structure of the fuels (not fully on the ground), there was the potential for a significant fire in the right conditions of low humidity and high winds. The fires generally would enter the property from the south and west but other wind directions could fuel a fire in the right conditions. The extensive trail system that really covers the entire Park area is ideal for fire control and can be the solution to reducing the fire danger. These trails provide access for removal or utilization of this downed material along the trails and also provide good access to the site should a fire start. Removal or chipping of the recently deposited materials within 50 feet of the trails will greatly reduce the chances of a fire spreading through the entire forested area. He suggested using a firewood contractor (one or more) to reduce the fuel load and obtain some income for use within the Park. Based upon this information, it is recommended that firewood contractors be contacted to help reduce the threat by removing the newly downed woody debris from within 50 feet of the trails. Older downed and rotting material would be retained on the site and additional logs will be allowed to remain where fuel loading is at acceptable levels. Areas of firewood removal would be marked as the contractors move to new areas. Focus would first be on the extreme southern and western portions of the park along with the northern edge adjacent to home sites. The material to be removed would be marked for removal until the contractors and City felt comfortable in their working relationship. Timing, work area boundaries, and site selection for material storage would need to be worked out with the contractors. Oak Wilt Inspection There are pockets of oak wilt within the oak cover type that have been identified and mapped. The oak wilt in the park is generally contained in the red and pin oaks and will generally move through a portion of the stand and kill only the red and pin oaks through root grafting. The infection center will expand by grafting to oaks of the same species. The disease will progress as long as there are other oaks of the same species present. The distribution of other oak species and other tree species will reduce the spread potential. This grafting does not (or very seldom) take place between different species such as red oaks to bur oaks or white oaks. Because the stand is 31 made up of a nice mixture of reds and whites, the affect of the disease is lessened. The disease centers should be monitored during the growing season and efforts made to control the disease in areas where there is a larger population of the species affected where it could continue to move through the forest killing larger numbers of trees. It is important to not create any wounds to any oak specie during April, May or June. Generally tree work on oaks is late fall through the winter. Following is a map based upon ground and aerial inspection completed in 2015. The sites identified either exhibited active wilting trees or contained multiple dead standing oaks. The circles drawn do not represent the actual shape of the infection but indicate where an infection may be active. This is an overview and it is expected that not all infection centers may be identified. There are several sites that look as though they were past centers but have no current indicators that can be seen. Also, when the infection moves into bur and white oaks, the symptoms are more difficult to see both on the ground and through aerial observation. An ongoing yearly inspection program is needed to identify all the active infection centers and identify areas where control work would be appropriate. Oak wilt map 32 1. Blowdown area photos. Following are two double sets of photos showing pre-storm photos and post-storm photos taken from Google earth. In both sets one can see the reduction in crown density that took place due to the storm. The loss of crown density varies throughout the various cover types with scattered larger trees lost throughout the park to areas where the crown density was reduced to approximately 40 percent. The small areas of aspen pockets that were contained within the northern oak cover type were hit the hardest, as was the larger grouping of aspen north of the parking area. Following these photos are two more photos showing the size of the two major blowdown areas. These photos were taken from the County GIS property mapping site. By looking through the report file, one can access good quality photos of these areas. One can zoom in on the blowdown areas and see the actual downed trees. 33 Crown density comparison 2010 vs. 2013 post -storm (North) 34 Crown density comparison 2010 vs. 2013 post -storm (South) 35 Blowdown area on north side Blowdown area near parking lot North, approximately 4.5 acres South parking lot area, 1.5 Acres 36 Questions for the Park Board to consider 1. Would the City like to promote the regeneration of Aspen on the site near the parking area, or promote moving toward a more diverse cover type? 2. What level of intensity of removal and logging or salvage is acceptable to the Board and to the users of the park? 3. Is the funding available to support that level of activity?  High intensity would generate some income through the harvesting company and also the firewood contractor.  Medium intensity would require funding for City staff and equipment use along with rental fees for chipper. Firewood contractors would generate some income.  Light intensity would require funding for dropping leaning trees and limbing trees to get trees trunk on the ground. Firewood contractors would generate some income. 4. State and Federal Cost Share Funding usually requires matching funds either in cash or in volunteer activities. This funding is usually available for control of invasive species and or planting activities. Does the City have the ability to supply these funds or work to contribute the needed combination of money and volunteer efforts? 5. Would the City work with outside Environmental groups like Great River Greening to facilitate the buckthorn control and planting programs? 6. Is the City willing and capable to complete two yearly oak wilt inspections within the park either by City staff or contractor? 7. Is the City willing and capable to establish yearly hazard tree identification and marking program, and associated removal along the pathways and highly used areas within the park? This identification and marking can be completed by either an outside contractor or by using City staff. A training course should be completed to properly identify the actual hazard trees. 37 Final Recommendations The following recommendations are based upon completion of numerous on site visits, meetings with experts in various natural resource fields, and discussion with City staff. 1. Utilize firewood contractors to alleviate the fire danger that now exists. This will generate some income for the program and allow for the removal of quantities of suspended woody material which is of particular concern. 2. Choose the Medium Intensity option of removal. This option will utilize City crews to remove material on a more flexible schedule, utilize the chips produced within the park, limit park closures, and reduce the overall impact of the removal on Park trails and work sites. The work could take place over a 3 to 5 year period with removal work focusing within the blowdown sites first, then working on the oak wilt sites as needed. As these areas are cleared, treated for buckthorn and planted, the City will be developing a long-term management procedure to use in future weather events. With the firewood contractors working along the trails first and then working within the blowdown areas to utilize the harder wood species, the City crew can focus on the downed aspen trees, which will be the easiest to cut and process into chips because of the softness of the wood. During this process, the DNR recommended BMP's (Best Management Practices) would be utilized to leave scattered dead standing trees and downed logs for habitat purposes. 3. The level of the buckthorn control will be dependant on the ability of the City to obtain cost share funding or fund the projects internally. Whether an area based approach or a select planting site approach is used will depend on the funding and logistics of removing large amounts of buckthorn. I recommend working with Buck Wiley of Great River Greening to have the best chance of obtaining additional cost share funds. The organization also has extensive experience in producing and directing extensive volunteer involved events. The ability to coordinate these events will greatly reduce City staff obligations and workload. And because the organization has a working history with the Minnesota Land Trust, it should make compliance with the "Land Covenants" easily acceptable to the Trust management. 4. Utilize the recommendations of the Center for Climate Change to maximize the survival of future plantings. The planting lists provided are a good base of species to utilize in future plantings along with other species that may become available through various organizations. The Park may be used by the US Forest Service as a demonstration site in the future, which could make funding or assistance in the future possible. 38 5. Develop a good comprehensive sign and educational program for the Park. Through education, the Park users will come to understand the purpose of the work and come back to volunteer when the Park needs helpers to remove buckthorn or plant. 6. Establish an oak wilt program with two yearly inspections to identify and map the oak wilt sites. As the sites are located, a decision can be made as to the need for control work. Many sites will not need control work, as the disease will be limited by other species. The inspections can be done in two full days of work, one around July 4th, and the other at the middle to end of August. Oak wilt in red and pin oaks can easisly be seen from the air due to the bright orange color change of the leaves. I was able to take aerial photography for less than $100 dollars because of the close proximity of the airport. The photos can then be used for field checking and mapping with a handheld GPS. This will allow future inspections of the same spots using the GPS. Only a small portion of the infected red and pin oak trees will produce the spore mats that can spread the disease to other oaks. These trees can easily be identified and rendered harmless by girdling or removing the tree. This will greatly reduce the chance of spread of the disease to new areas. For safety reasons, when to remove or girdle trees will be based upon how close to a use area the tree is located. 7. Establish a once yearly hazard tree inspection program. With the removal that has already taken place, the City has greatly reduced the threat of falling trees and limbs. I would recommend that one City staff member complete a hazard tree identification course and then complete the inspections yearly prior to any scheduled tree removal activity. This inspection is best completed in the dormant months of the year. Resources and Assistance Thanks to the following for the information and assistance provided. Stephen Handler - USFS Climate Change Expert Art Widerstrom - DNR (Retired) Jeff Warhol - Three Rivers Park District Forestry Operations Manager Wiley Buck - Great River Greening Ann Thies - Minnesota Land Trust Sam Klocksien - Wildwood Forestry Sunfish Lake Park - 2017 Land Management guidelines prepared by: Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc. Date Submitted: May 1, 2017 Submitted to: Rob Weldon Public Works Director QUOTE FOR 2017 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUNFISH LAKE PARK LAKE ELMO, MN Overview: Sunfish Lake Park was seeded in 2010 to convert a 20 acre agricultural field into diverse native tall grass prairie. A seed mix was devised that would expand populations of native plants known to locally occur in the region. Then, for five years the prairie area was managed for the establishment and growth of the native plants while controlling any noxious weeds found on-site. Through selective herbicide applications, site mowings, and prescribed burning we were able to successfully establish a native prairie. Recommended Services: For the 2017 season, MNL recommends continued weed treatments to deal with encroaching perennial noxious weeds and a prescribed burn to promote the prairie plants. Evaluation & Correspondence Continual site evaluations will be conducted to correctly time and perform any necessary management needs. These visits will occur throughout the season to accurately assess site requirements. Weed Treatments: Weed treatments will consist of selective herbicide applications and spot cuttings. These visits will focus primarily on noxious biennial/perennial weedy species, i.e. thistles, knapweed, poison ivy, wild parsnip, common tansy, etc. These treatments will be conducted with backpack sprayers or ATV mounted pump sprayers for larger infestations. The 20 acre restoration area will be targeted along with the .25 remnant prairie on the east side of the site. Prescribed Burn: A prescribed burn is recommended for the fall of 2017. If a burn is unable to be conducted, or decided against for 2017, a spring 2018 is then recommended. MNL will prepare any required MN DNR burn plan and secure any needed local burning permits. MNL will then conduct a prescribed burn of the prairie area. Provide all needed crewmembers, equipment and water resources to conduct the burn safely. The burn will be conducted in October – December as determined by the weather conditions. As conditions continually change, we cannot determine the burn date with much advanced warning. However, we will make every attempt to give 48 hours notice of the burn. Sunfish Lake Park - 2017 Costs for Services: Prairie Maintenance Monitoring and Correspondence (As Needed) .............................. No Charge Weed Treatments (2) ..................................................................... $1,100.00 each Prescribed Burn* (Fall)................................................................... $2,400.00 Total Maintenance Cost .......................................................................$4,600.00 Notes: 1. Quote assumes burn breaks will be established by owner before burn. These are currently in place by means of a mowed trail around the perimeter of the burn. 2. Quote assumes no additional obstacles or objects are within the interior of the burn unit that need protecting. i.e. trees, structures, etc. 3. Please return a signed copy of this quote for acceptance to Minnesota Native Landscapes, 8740 77th St NE, Otsego, MN 55362; or fax to 763 295-0025. 4. This quote is good for a period of 30 days. 5. All services will be billed following completion, with payment due within 30 days of receipt of invoice. Customer Signature ___________________________________ Date________________ STAFF REPORT DATE: 6/19/2017 REGULAR ITEM #: 6 MOTION TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, Sunfish Ponds, and Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove Trails REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Stephen Wensman, Planning Director BACKGROUND: Gonyea West, a proposed development that has obtained Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan approval from the City, was discussed at the May 15, 2017 Parks Commission meeting. At this meeting, Staff informed the Commission that the proposed trails proposed to connect to Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and seemingly Sunfish Ponds trail system. These trail systems, along with Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove (which is the development to the west of Hamlet on Sunfish Lake) are or at least are perceived to be privately owned and are privately maintained. The Parks Commission expressed that they would like to work with the Homeowners’ Associations of the aforementioned developments to see if there is any interest in dedicating the trails to the City. Commissioner Ames has been in contact with the Homeowners’ Association of Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, and was communicated a number of concerns and questions. ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION: Staff is communicating information. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Staff did further research in to the ownership of trails within the subject developments and has found that some of the trails within the development were meant to be public, as indicated in the developers agreements of these developments. Hamlet on Sunfish Lake. A letter from then-City Attorney Jerome Filla indicated the Development Agreement and Resolution approving the Final Plat for Hamlet on Sunfish Lake outlined that the park dedication requirement was going to be satisfied by the developer constructing an 8-foot wide paved trail pursuant to City-approved plans, along with a payment of $9,000. The Declarations for Hamlet on Sunfish Lake indicate that the lots within the development would be subject to easements as may be recorded or shown on the plat. The City did not receive these easements, however. The letter recommends that the City work with the Homeowners’ Association to legally define the trail, which would require a survey, and have the easements as defined by the survey conveyed to the City. Parks Commission 6/19/2017 Regular Agenda item # 6 Page 2 Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove. The developer received credit to construct public trails in the amount of $61,797. This is for the construction of approximately one mile of the 2.5 miles of paved trails within this development. Sunfish Ponds. They were required to pay a parkland dedication fee and did not receive any credit for trails, as indicated in the developer agreement. The city does have a trail easement over all of outlot A (the outlot to the east of the “circle” of lots that allows the city for the construction, maintenance, operation, inspection and repair of a bike/trailway. Additionally, a report prepared by a former intern indicates that the City maintains the trails on the north of the east-west corridor and on the east side of the northwest corridor. Communication with Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Homeowners’ Association. The concerns and questions that Commissioner Ames was communicated include the following. Staff has provided response based on aforementioned research: • Gonyea West has a large number of homes with no open space, and so there is concern that residents will go to Hamlet. • Tapestry restricts access to Sunfish on the trail spur and there is question that this be opened for all to use. o Staff response: The developer received parkland dedication credit, and so this trail spur should be public. • Sunfish Ponds isn’t proposed to be connected to Gonyea West. Could it be? o Staff response: The developer did not received parkland dedication credit for these trails, and so these trails are not public. Only if these trails are dedicated to the City should Gonyea West connect to this development. • Tapestry residents may want access to ride in to town through new connections. • Hamlet and Tapestry residents should recognize the safety benefits of a trail connection to the Old Village versus riding on road with little or no shoulder. FISCAL IMPACT: Any cost associated with recommended actions. ATTACHMENTS: • Trail Exhibit Parks Commission 6/19/2017 Regular Agenda item # 6 Page 3