Loading...
09-10-13 Park Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Quinlan (August) Edmondson (October) Kjolhaug (June) Hartmann (May) Mangold (September) Dietz (April & November) Savaell (July) B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2013 — (Att. - 42A) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. CIP DISCUSSION a. Quote for Bike Racks — (Att. - 44a) 5. DETERMINE DATE FOR NOVEMBER PARK COMMISSION MEETING -(Att. - 45) 6. REVIEW QUOTES ON FENCING FOR BABE RUTH BALL FIELD — (Att. - 46) 7. UPDATE ON CATHCART PARK PARKING — CHURCH PARKING — (Att- 47) 8. DISCUSS BADGER PARK PICNIC SHELTER PLANS AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN 9. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT REGARDING GIDEON GLEN 10. GOOSE ISSUES AT SILVERWOOD PARK — (Att. - 410) 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS /UPDATES (S'taff reports and updates are not meant for discussion. Discussion items will be listed as part of new or old business.) A. Citv Council B. Staff a. Trails Update b. Financial Update 13. ADJOURN Liaison for Citv Council Meeting on September 23 - Mangold CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Dietz, and Sawtell; City Couni Nielsen Absent: Kjolhaug B. Review Agenda Hartmann moved to approve the carried 6 -0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Mf Commissioner Edmondson moved to 1St paragraph, 4t" sentence::, amend shelter and not a warming house v include: Edmondson noted the ska motion. 3. MATTERS FRO There were g Minutes of July #2A 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. 13 nn, Mangold, City Planner the motion. Motion the minutes of the July 9, 2013 meeting as amended: to reach: Edmondson stated he wanted a picnic at Badger; seventh line down, amend sentence to ;arden fence has still not been installed. Mangold 4. INTRODUCTION OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR BILL JOYNES Administrator Joynes was present and gave a background on his 42 years of municipal experience. He noted he works three days a week. He discussed future plans for the City. Joynes discussed his concerns about budget issues. He stated it is important to get budget issues straightened out so the various commissions can do what they want to do in the way of park projects. Joynes offered to come back and discuss how the park needs fit into the budget. Joynes briefly touched on the future of the Southshore Center. He invited Commissioners to stop and visit him. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 2 OF 7 Sundberg discussed the progress -to -date of the Southshore Center Advisory Committee and which of the communities are willing to be collaborative. She believed the Park Commission could be a real asset when determining the future of the Center. Quinlan discussed possible examples of collaborating with other cities on park uses and the importance of the cities' working together to support the Center. 5. CIP DISCUSSION Quinlan referenced a staff report relating to the CIP. He recommendations for the CIP. Hartmann stated she didn't see the maintenance of the stated the Commssion had discussed that sometimes t improvements. Nielsen stated in the past, if it is more 1 just patching and overlay, it would be more of a maint( get items in the CIP or in the budget. Mangold believed that something more defin Quinlan agreed noting some items are clearly Nielsen stated there are other items in the Silverwood is on the list for blaviaround rebla( Mangold suggested that the "ratings" be dated. In response to a question fi projects will be provided at were under budget such as ( it appears years. that ission needs to discuss 3phalt, trails in Freeman Park on the list. Quinlan ,re is a fine line between maintenance and capital in, $5,000 it would be included in the CIP. If it is ince item. He stated costs need t6be assigned to be determined out rather than if it is over $5,000 as replacing, playground equipment. timing was raised. He noted years a list of the actual year -to -date costs on CIP ndson cited examples of projects where they Silverwood playground equipment will be moved out five In response to a,gnestion from 'Dietz, Nielsen discussed how the CIP is developed and projects are designated for specific,years. He noted it is a 5 -year plan showing the projects that will be done. He stated priorities are based on need and/or cost following discussion. He noted every year the projects move forward and budgeting is done for the following year. He stated sometimes projects are added because of neighbors' demands. Quinlan stated the CIP is a planning document. He didn't necessarily see it as "locked in stone ". He viewed it as a list of park priorities. The determination can be made that a certain project can be put off to a future year. Edmondson stated items can also be dropped completely. Sometimes items are moved out ten years. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 3 OF 7 Dietz noted there is almost a million dollars in 2017 and the majority is towards equipment replacement. There is an imbalance as very little is going towards green space. Quinlan discussed the need for more vision into what is needed in the parks. Nielsen stated funding affects the CIP. He noted opportunities, such as available resulting in an item being moved up a year or more. Edmore equipment in Manor Park was funded with grant money. Hartmann suggested a water line be added at Freeman Park. having been "bumped ". Nielsen stated he was unsure whether the equipment at years as it is in very good condition. He suggested the Commissioners discussed the condition of the manufacturer makes a difference. Quinlan suggested fencing at the garden at gardens. Quinlan suggested every another advantage is that Sawtell discussed the' nuil projects are 25 years old. 2013. r1l Nielsen could po .s ask for that are big wood would even r made and the years t money, can become noted the playground items be identified as at several replaced in five o each item. and whether led to the CIR Commissioners discussed the should be included on the list. Nielsen stated staff can tell them what year it is on the CIP. is in the 5 -year plan. He noted many of the the Babe Ruth fence at Freeman Park in at Cathcart. Quinlan stated it should be bumped up meeting, more accurate estimates of costs will be added to the list. Hartmann noted Dietz suggested bike racks be added to the parks. Dietz agreed and stated it is just as important to have bike parking as it is for vehicles. Commissioners discussed bike rack locations. Dietz offered to inventory rack locations prior to the September meeting. 6. REVIEW AGENDA FOR UPCOMING PARK SUMMIT MEETING — TUESDAY, AUGUST 20TH PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 4 OF 7 Quinlan reviewed the proposed agenda for the park summit meeting on August 20t1' He noted it was suggested an item be added relating to Excelsior and Shorewood meet to discuss joining forces for events. Commissioners discussed the rink at Manitou Park in Tonka Bay. Nielsen stated it may be possible that only one is needed in the area. Commissioners discussed using the lake for a skating rink. Hartmann suggested the website discussion be added to the agenda. Nielsen suggested discussion of a rec director that would have an office in the Southshore Center. Sundberg suggested discussion of other cities using the activities. She believed the parks should get involved decision making. Quinlan believed there should be representation on the Soutl 7. REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR EDDY STATI Quinlan stated it became very clear at the park tt has received a couple quotes for the work and a can be done after the fall ball leagues end for the Mangold moved, Dietz seconded, to recom for repainting the Eddy Station. Motion cf Station n� would be Center more for their park y with the building and the Advisory be painted. He noted staff Nielsen stated it is hoped it ,roval of the quote from Boone Painting 1. Edmondson abstained from voting. 8. UPDATE ON FENCING FOR BABE RUTH BALLFIELD Quinlan reviewed the request for fencing at the Babe Ruth ball field. He noted staff talked to the Babe Ruth organization and they "agree with the recommendation to replace the fence with what is already there: Commissioners discussed the fence height. Nielsen stated up -to -date quotes will be provided at the September meeting. He stated the plan is to replace the fence right after the fall season is completed. 9. CATHCART PARK SCHEDULING AND PARK ISSUES Quinlan discussed issues associated with parking at Cathcart where it is either empty or overflowing with vehicles. He suggested leagues be contacted to stagger their game times so there is more time between games. Nielsen stated notices were sent to the leagues who have indicated they will be doing so. Parents will also be notified to not park on the grass. Signs will also be posted on site. Quinlan asked if parking is an option at the church. Nielsen stated there used to be an arrangement where the City would plow their parking lot for use of the parking lot. Mangold suggested the parking lot be striped. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 5 OF 7 Nielsen believed the fields are being used more than was originally estimated. He stated staff will check with the church and the parking lot striping. 10. REVIEW COPY OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR GIDEON GLEN Quinlan stated a copy of the original maintenance agreement with the I Watershed is in tonight's packet. Nielsen stated the Commission asked for a copy of the agreement recently. He discussed the need to get the erosion corrected as soon as possible. Quinlan asked if the City is holding up their end of the holding up their end of the agreement. He noted the tr He explained what the City is responsible for under the Quinlan discussed the need to maintain the trail. Niels plan for all the public facilities and how they should be It is a great tool to let everyone know what is expected. 11. RECAP FROM CITY COUN, PLAN FOR BADGER PARK Quinlan stated the City Council meeting. Nielsen stated he pr recommended. He stated the plan Center. He discussed driveway c whether the shelter would be a w� than a drainage pond, possible x+ stated parking will cost about $c perimeter tran once tneir woriaoa( but it will ,still be a savings over the Sawtell as] amount is i Edmondson noted map that does not ;ed the I a m a very 1•1W.1I He believed ns,up some. L plan. Nielsen: stated the Watershed is be treated ,so it looks like a trail. Mayor had suggested creating a This would include all the parks. G OF AUGUST 12` ON CONCEPT Park °Master Plan at the previous evening's fined version of what the Commission had tic view of what happens with the Southshore y relocation, landscaping along the walkway, nic shelter, making the pond an amenity rather er /bathroom facility, and possible costs. He Public Works might be able to constrict the He stated staff is still working on the costs, the lilts is included. Nielsen stated he needs to determine whether that ng along the pump garage is not shown. Nielsen stated this is an older t six -car parking area. Nielsen stated the City Council supported a more cohesive plan and not one that was "piecemeal ". He believed they even suggested using the fiends from the sale of the house next door for the park. Sundberg stated it is hoped there is a vibrant new vision for the Southshore Center that will help park usage. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 6 OF 7 Mangold stated all the leagues are looking at this as a very prestigious field which can only bring more traffic. Nielsen stated this plan will more than double the number of parking spaces at the Center. Sundberg stated overall, the plan was very well received. Nielsen stated the main question was the shelter building location. Dietz asked what the shelter size is and how many people it would hold, Nielsen stated it hasn't been decided at this point. He indicated there is space available to accommodate the transformation to include a warming house. Dietz asked about the plans for the green areas. Nielsen discussed plans for sculptures, etc. Hartmann asked if the football league is interested in helping the lacrosse league with irrigating the field. Nielsen stated they are happy the lacrosse league will do that. There are options for other items they could help fiend. Hartmann stated the shelter should be big enough for team 12. NEW BUSINESS None 13. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A. City Council B. Staff ,mmission will be doing a trail walls in September. He updated updates. He stated there will be a ribbon cutting for the trail on 1 meeting. Update 9 Nielsen stated the Community Garden fencing has been installed. 14. ADJOURN Dietz moved, Sawtell seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of August 13, 2013 at 9:35 p.m. Motion carried. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 7 OF 7 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Clare T. Link Recorder CITY OF #4a SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout — Park Coordinator /Admin. Asst. Date: September 5, 2013 Re: Quote for Bike Racks The Park Commission at their August meeting asked staff to obtain a quote for additional bike racks for the parks. Attached is the quote for the same type of bikes racks that are currently at the parks. Staff has also attached maps as to where the bikes racks are located at the parks. MINK €SOTA #WISCONSIN PY Consultant: Harlan Lehman City of Shorewood Attn: Twila Grout 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952- 960 -7902 tgrout @ci.shorewood.mn.us Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800 - 622 -5425 763 - 546 -7787 Fax 763 -546 -5050 info @mnwiplay.com Loop Bike Racks 7 f7703 GameTime - 5 Pos Loop Rack Flush Mount - Color: Black QUOTE #8431 08/28/2013 Ship To Zip: 55331 $193,00 $1,351.00 SubTotal: $1,351.00 Tax: $106.72 Freight: $201,32 Total Amount: $1,659.04 This quotation is subject to polices in the current Gametime Park and Playground catalog and the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Gametime, c/o Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground. Pricing: f.o.b. factory, firm for 30 days from date of quotation. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is provided at time of order entry. Payment terms: payment in full, net 30 days subject to approval by GameTime Credit Manager. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts. Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage not accepted. Order Information: Bill To: Company: Attn: Address: City, State, Zip: Contact: Tel: Fax: Ship To: Project Name: Attn: Address: City, State, Zip: Contact: Tel: Fax: Page 1 of 2 Ss Hi z 7 o O 1-7-7z H 'Group Inc. FREEMAN PARK UL3 city o! shorewoot, himnesoia � / � , ^ � ' 8 � �`. / ' ` ' ( / || o� / |. CATHCART PARK 1-311 City of Shorewood. Minnesota fi -q! Wi pp k COUNTRY I Ian 0, Huisingion Kovglur Group Inc 0 1 1i BADGER PARK 013 Clty of Shorewood, Minnesota 13 11 0-6 , Ixt \-7 'ct 41. LAI HE y to v-, 0 Hoisinglon Koegler Group Inc. I MANOR PARK City of Shorewood, Minnes , la JI 11V % -7 1 o Hoisington K(le�(ur Group Inc rr SILVERWOOD PARK E313 City of Shorewood, Mmnesola CITY OF #5 SHOREWOOD 1; 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 UM2 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • NN -NN -Na- .ci.shoreNN- ood.mn.us • cit-,halla?ci.shoreNN- ood.mn.us To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout — Administrative Assistant Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen — Planning Director Date: September 3, 2013 Re: Need to Determine Date for November Park Commission Meeting The City Council meeting for November 11 falls on a holiday. Because of this, the council meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 12 (which is the second Tuesday of the month and the scheduled Park Commission meeting). The Park Commission will need to determine another date for their meeting. Two dates that are available are Wednesday, November 13t1' or Tuesday, November 26. Please advise staff if the Park Commission would like to hold their meeting on Wednesday, November, 13 or Tuesday, November 26. CITY OF #6 SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout — Administrative Assistant Date: September 5, 2013 Re: Quotes on Fencing for Babe Ruth Ball Field Staff will have the quotes available on Monday and will email the quotes to the Park Commission. #10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927. (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood . mn.us • cityhall, @ci.shorewood.mn.us I MEMORANDUM i i TO: Park Commission I FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 4 September 2013 RE: Silverwood Park— Canada Goose Issue FILE NO. Parks(Silverwood) At the last City Council meeting an issue was raised regarding goose droppings in Silverwood Park. Apparently, the local Canada geese have left droppings to an extent as to make the open area of the park quite unusable. The Council asked that the staff and Park Commission explore measures to prevent, or at least minimize, this problem in the future. You may be surprised to learn that we are not the first to have experienced this problem. Any number of golf courses, city parks and lakeshore properties have had to contend with Canada geese. Consequently, there is an enormous amount of material available on the subject. An excerpt from "Managing Canada Geese in Urban Environments" (attached) contains fairly typical advice on how to discourage geese from becoming a problem. A number of years ago, the City participated in a goose relocation program, which ultimately proved to be fairly ineffective. A few years after the effort, the geese were back in full force. While lethal methods (e.g. hunts, or round -ups and destruction) are always a possibility, they most frequently provide only temporary solutions: The measures most commonly recommended involve habitat modification. Staff suggests that this could be done relatively inexpensively at Silverwood Park. It could also resolve another matter that has been brought up by the Park Commission - some sort of barrier to prevent basketballs from rolling into the pond. It is recommended that a plan be developed incorporating the various techniques set forth in the attached material. Any work identified in the plan should be implemented as early next spring as possible. Cc: Mayor and City Council Bill. Joynes Larry Brown ®� � ®�0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Managing Canada Geese in Urban Erwironments A Technical Guide Arthur E. Smith, Scott R. Craven, and Paul D. Curtis A publication of Cornell Cooperative Extension, the University of Wisconsin, The Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, and The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Damage Management Working Group Techniques The following pages describe the current state of knowledge about urban goose management practices and equipment suppliers. The primary intent is to provide a list of tech- niques used to alleviate conflicts with urban geese. Appendix A includes a summary table of management options and sources of equipment. Some techniques may require pesticide applicator licenses, special training, or local, state, provincial, or federal permits. It is up to the operator to know these requirements. Products, laws, and registrations may change, so check with local authorities before selecting a technique. Some techniques are highly specialized, site - specific, or best used in combination with other methods. In addition, response by individual geese to management techniques may vary greatly (Swift 1998). Thus no attempt was made to rank the techniques from best to worst, and the methods are not listed in priority of use. The techniques are catego- rized based on physical impact on geese (least to greatest): discontinuance of feeding, habitat modification, hazing /scaring, repellents, inhibiting reproduction, and finally removal. Within categories, groupings are based on similarity of techniques. Always be alert to new techniques or new and creative adaptations of established methods. Several journals (Crop Protection, journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Society Bulletin, ,journal of Applied Ecology, and others) are a source of scientifically tested management techniques. Additional Information can be found in Proceedings of the Bird Control Seminar, the biennial Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, and Vertebrate Pest Conference. There is also an e -mail listserv, " WDAMAGE," in which human - animal conflicts, including the use of new and old techniques, are often discussed. To subscribe, write to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: SUBSCRIBE WDAMAGE firstname lastname. Discontinuance of Feeding Feeding waterfowl and other birds is a popular pastime for many people (Figure 2), but it is also a major cause of high urban bird populations, especially during harsh winters when natural food sources are in short supply. Canada geese are grazers and therefore do not need handouts to exist. Feeding waterfowl encourages them to congregate in an area and may make geese more aggressive toward people. Thus reducing handouts by well- intentioned people may help make an area less attractive to geese, ducks, and other birds. Feeding waterfowl can lead to crowding and increased susceptibility to diseases such as avian cholera, avian botu- lism, and duck plague. All of these diseases have the poten- tial to kill large numbers of geese and other waterfowl. Generally, fewer waterfowl gather at urban feeding areas as compared to the large congregations at refuges. Therefore, fewer birds in urban areas would die compared to the many thousands that often die at refuges during outbreaks of dis- ease. Education and regulations may help decrease human feeding of waterfowl. Many people enjoy feeding ducks and geese at public parks, however, and law enforcement agen- cies sometimes consider that antifeeding regulations are unenforceable and usually ignored by the public. Educational signs explaining the rationale for the feeding bans may assist enforcement and have been used with vary- ing levels of success by numerous organizations and munic- ipalities. Homeowner associations and corporate parks often more readily accept prohibition of waterfowl feeding than do individuals. One way to decrease public feeding of flightless geese during their summer molt is to fence off the routes used by the geese to reach the feeding areas. Habitat Modification Preferred habitat for geese is a large, unobstructed lawn area close to open water. Many urban features, including parks, Industrial sites, residential complexes, golf courses, and planned residential communities, provide such an environ- ment. Urban planners should consider problems with waterfowl and other wildlife while new projects are being developed. It is much easier and less expensive to design a facility without features that attract waterfowl than to retro- fit an existing site. The basic principles of habitat modification include eliminating, modifying, or reducing access to areas that cur- Figure 2. People feeding geese. Managing Canada Geese in lkban Environments 11 rently attract geese. For example, in a problem area with an open lawn adjacent to a pond, goose use may be reduced by changing the lawn, the open water, or the shoreline using habitat modification techniques. Unfortunately, both humans and geese appear to find lawn areas near water attractive (Addison and Amernic 1983). People are often reluctant to make appropriate landscape modifications to discourage goose activity. Eighty -four per- cent of urban respondents to a survey conducted in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia were opposed to chang- ing landscaping practices to control geese (Breault and McKelvey 1991). Habitat modification techniques alone usually cannot prevent geese from using an area, especially after a flock is established. A combination of landscape modification (which makes geese more wary at a site) and hazing, how- ever, may have additive effects (Conover and Kania 1991). Implementing habitat modification techniques is often very expensive (Keefe 1996), but in the long term they may be the most cost - effective solution. Before attempting large -scale habitat modifications, the following points should be considered. Habitat modifica- tion is designed to change goose behavior patterns but may also influence the suitability of the area for other desirable wildlife (other waterfowl and birds, some amphibians, tur- tles, fish, and other aquatic animals). Moreover, geese dis- couraged from using one location may become someone else's problem. If several nearby areas have nuisance goose flocks, a coordinated effort may be necessary to resolve the conflicts. In some communities, this may not pose a signifi- cant problem. For example, 100 percent of the respondents to a Vancouver, British Columbia, public survey indicated their willingness to collaborate to solve goose problems (Breault and McKelvey 1991). Elimination of straight shorelines, islands, and peninsulas Islands are prime nesting sites for geese, which prefer long, straight, uninterrupted shorelines well removed from heavy human traffic. These areas provide security and a good view of potential predators. Eliminating islands and peninsulas, and modifying uninterrupted shorelines with shrubs or boulders every 10 to 20 yards, may reduce an area's attrac- tiveness to geese, as well as to other waterfowl and shore- birds. This technique, however, is not always successful because geese may use shrubs or hedges as nesting sites. Elimination of islands is probably the most productive way of reducing secure nesting habitat, but it is expensive and difficult once the island is built and the pond filled with water. Shoreline modification of some protected waterways may require state and Army Corps of Engineers permits. Islands or peninsulas suitable for nesting geese should be eliminat- ed between late summer and early spring because disturb- 12 Managing Canada Geese in Urban Enrirdnments ing Canada goose nests requires federal permits. Used alone, this technique may not provide significant relief from problem geese, but when combined with feeding bans and the addition of walking paths that will be heavily used, shoreline modification may be successful in some situa- tions. Placement of walking paths by water Geese prefer to rest or feed on grassy areas next to water. If jogging or walking paths are placed along a shoreline, geese may be less likely to use the immediate area for feeding, nesting, or loafing. People should have easy access to all parts of the shore- line, and the walking path should be in place before the geese become well established in the area. If citizens feed waterfowl or other wildlife on or near the paths, the effec- tiveness of this technique may be diminished. In addition, urban geese are incredibly adaptable and may tolerate high levels of human activity. Placement of grassy areas away from water Placing new soccer, baseball, and football fields or moving existing playing fields at least 450 feet from water may reduce goose use of the fields during the molting period when the geese are reluctant to move far from the safety of water. Geese with flight capabilities will readily use athletic fields a mile or more from water sources. Removal of nesting structures Wildlife officials —and well- intentioned private citizens — sometimes build and maintain artificial nesting structures for geese. Usually these structures are erected to augment available nesting sites or compensate for a lack of nesting materials. Canada geese are very adaptable and readily nest In man -made structures. There are several successful artifi- cial nest designs such as tubs, elevated platforms, and round hay bales turned on end. Artificial nest structures are designed to reduce the threat of predators and are often safer than natural nest sites. Eliminating these structures may reduce goose production and make the area less attractive for nesting geese. Modification of pond and field water levels Increasing the water level in a pond may flood preferred nesting areas such as islands and peninsulas, thereby reduc- ing or eliminating goose nesting at a specific water body (Allan et al. 1995). Conversely, reducing water levels (draw - downs) in ponds and lakes may eliminate islands by joining them to the shore. Predators or humans may then gain access to the nesting areas, reducing the attractiveness of the site and thus successful nesting. These techniques are illegal if they are used during the nesting season with the intention to drown clutches of eggs. Changes in the water level may also adversely affect other wildlife. Encouragement of early water freeze -up Favorable winter habitat for geese includes open water. Turning off fountains or water aerators leads to earlier freeze -up, thereby eliminating winter habitat for the geese. Overhead placement of lines or grid wires A grid or network of multiple parallel lines of wire, kevlar, stainless -steel line, twine, cotton rope, fishing line, or mylar tape stretched 1 to 2 feet above the water surface restricts goose landing and takeoff (Figure 3). Pochop et al. (1990) present a good overview on the use of grids and lines for repelling birds. The lines do not have to be spaced equidis- tantly or be parallel. Generally, larger birds are repelled by grids with wider spacing than those effective for smaller birds. UV- resistant lines, ranging in thickness from 10- to 28 -gauge and constructed as a grid with 6 -foot spacing, can effectively keep geese off small ponds. If access to the pond is needed, raise the grid to 10 to 12 feet above the water surface and increase the grid spacing to 15 feet. Tie strands to poles for easy repair in case lines break, and take up excessive slack. To increase effectiveness, the grid system should be in place before the geese arrive. In addition, a perimeter fence should be constructed to prevent the geese from walking Into the area under the grid. The grids or lines can be visu- ally enhanced with the addition of mylar streamers tied at Intervals along the lines. Periodic maintenance is necessary to prevent sagging lines. Stringing highly visible polypropylene ropes between trees to block the flight paths to water also prevents geese from landing (Summers and Hillman 1990). The ropes should be loose enough to move in the wind, increasing their visibility. They must be obvious enough to allow fly- ing birds easily to avoid the area. Otherwise geese, and pos- sibly other birds, could strike the ropes and be injured. Summers and Hillman (1990) used a mylar tape grid sys- tem suspended 5 feet above the ground over a wheat field. Rows of tape were spaced 75 feet apart and supported at 65 -foot intervals. Cross rows were spaced about 130 to 150 feet apart. This grid used approximately 265 feet of tape per acre and took about 0.36 man hours per acre to con- struct. This technique has also been modified to repel Canada geese in other situations, including sewage lagoons in Virginia (approximately 28 -gauge wire in parallel lines 20 feet apart) and over a lake in Nevada (10- and 15 -gauge black plastic wire in a 30 -foot square grid). A grid system made from heavy cotton line has successfully deterred geese from swimming pools. Grid systems can also be used over land because they pre- vent flying geese from landing. An alternate feeding area Figure 3. Grid -wire system to prevent geese from landing in ponds. nearby may enhance the effectiveness of this technique (Summers and Hillman 1990). Drawbacks to lines and grids include an inability to treat large water bodies without using a floating support system; visual degradation of the area; impairment of access by peo- ple, equipment, and other animals; and the risk of death, injury, or entanglement of birds. A variation of the grid method can be constructed by stringing kevlar lines on a 5 x 5 foot spacing at water level. This method effectively breaks up the water's surface and hinders swimming geese. The lines are not easily seen, so this technique is useful in areas such as golf courses and parks where visual distractions need to be minimized. Geese may habituate to the grid, however, and learn to submerge below the lines while swimming. In addition, this method may be hard to implement in areas with widely fluctuating water levels. It is not known if this technique affects other species. Similar to the water -level grid, HDPE plastic balls (Bird Balls) can be placed to cover the water surface completely. The floating balls create a physical barrier that prevents geese from using the pond. This technique is effective for keeping many species of birds off industrial ponds and requires little maintenance once deployed. Drawbacks are that the balls are visually distracting, will affect any wildlife that attempt to reach the pond's surface, and prevent light from entering the water (which may deter growth or sur- vival of plants, fish, and other aquatic species) . Fence barriers Fences can prevent geese from walking from water to graz- ing areas (Figure 4). Effective materials include woven wire, chicken wire, plastic snow fencing, construction -site silt fencing, corn cribbing, chain link fencing, netting, mylar tape, monofilament lines, stainless -steel wire, and picket fencing. Regardless of material, openings should be no larg- Managing Canada Geese in Urban Eruiranments 13 Figure 4, Barrier fencing used during summer molting periods. er than 3 inches, the fence should be at least 30 inches tall, and it should be long enough to discourage the geese from walking around the ends. Fences are most effective during the prenesting period and during flightless periods in early summer when geese have young or are molting. Fencing the perimeter of an area may prevent adult geese and goslings from accessing food sources. The effectiveness of a barrier fence may be enhanced if landscaping modifications are also used. If the fence is constructed from mylar tape, the strands should be supported at least every 20 feet, and they should have at least one twist over that length (Figure 5). Secure the mylar to the posts with duct or electricians tape (do not knot because the mylar will break). A mylar tape fence must be long enough so that the geese cannot walk around it to get into the problem area. Smooth -wire, rope, or string fences have also been used effectively in some situations, although simple barriers rarely work for long periods. Thick string mounted 12 inches above the ground was used to eliminate goose activi- ty near ponds on a golf course (Breault and McKelvey 1991). A barrier fence made from five monofilament lines (at least 20 -pound test) set at 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 inches above ground has also been effective (Figure 6). The closer - set wires or lines exclude both goslings and adult geese. Another successful fence was made from 20 -pound test monofilament line spaced 7 and 12 inches above the ground on poles placed 6 feet apart (Pochop et al. 1990). This technique will not work if the geese fly into the area. Deer may also walk through single or multiple- strand Twists in'Et1V 1 Figure 5. Diagram of a mylar tape fence. 14 Managing Canada Geese in Urban En drenments fences, breaking strands and increasing maintenance. Flagging or signs should be placed on the wires to prevent people from tripping on the fence. Electric fences: Electric fences can prevent geese from walk- ing into grassy areas, particularly during the summer molt period. Like other fences, they will not deter flying geese from entering an area. Birds or other animals that come In contact with the fence receive an uncomfortable but harm- less shock. Warning signs, which are sold by many electric fence manufacturers, should be placed directly on the fence at least every 20 feet no matter where the fences are used. As with any barrier, the fence should be long enough so that geese cannot walk around the ends. Electric fences are typically powered by battery, solar power, or 120 -volt chargers. Some fences are constructed with highly visible, brightly colored polytape, interwoven with at least five strands of conductive, stainless- steel, or aluminum wires. Ten -gauge wire has also been used effec- tively, although most people find polytape or polywire (electroplastic twine) easier to use than steel or aluminum wire. Usually two strands of the polytape or 10- gauge, high - tensile wire are attached to fiberglass or plastic fence posts. The strands should be placed 8 and 16 inches above the ground with no visible sag between the posts (Figure 7). Follow the manufacturers instructions for installation or hire a fencing contractor. The fence should be examined regularly to make sure that the strands are not broken and are taut. Use a volt- meter weekly to ensure that the system is working, and fix problems if they occur. The immediate area on either side of the electric fence should be cleared because if vegetation or other items come in contact with the strands, they will short out. Check local regulations for any restrictions on the use of electric fences in your area. Electric fences will be ineffective if the geese fly into and land on a grassy spot. Vegetative barriers Shrubs or hedges may block favored pathways of geese or obstruct their line of sight, making the area less attractive because of the potential for attack from predators (Conover and Kania 1991). Vegetative cover also enhances the attrac- tiveness and long -term effectiveness of barrier fences. To be successful, a plant barrier must make geese feel that if they are threatened, their ability to escape is reduced. Vegetative barriers work best when goose numbers are low and available habitat nearby is unoccupied. In areas where goose numbers are high, vegetative barriers quickly lose their effectiveness. Canada geese have been observed using woods or shrubby areas as escape avenues. Dense veg- etation around ponds may reduce the effectiveness of harassment techniques, especially if dogs are used (Swift 1998; see Dogs, page 21). Vegetation will not discourage use of the area by flying geese or those accustomed to walk- ing through hedges. Any barrier planting will require protection from geese and other animals during establishment. Local garden cen- ters or Cooperative Extension offices may be able to suggest sources for native plants that should thrive in the area. Plants should be dense and high enough (at least 30 Inches) to prevent adult geese from seeing through or over them, and dense enough to prevent the geese from walking though gaps between the plants or stems (Quarles 1995). Nonetheless, geese often manage to force their way through shrubs. Thick hedges are most effective during early summer when geese have young or are molting. Prairie grasses may provide an effective barrier as long as they grow tall enough early in summer. Planting or preserving cattails, bulrush, or other tall aquatic vegetation along shorelines can create a visual barrier and may prevent geese from coming ashore. Unfortunately, these plants may also create conditions favorable to muskrats whose island -like houses are used as nest sites by geese. Wide plantings (20 to 30 feet long and at least 30 inches tall) are more likely to be successful than narrower ones. In extensive plantings, mowed or cleared serpentine footpaths prevent the geese from having a direct line of sight through the planted area, yet still provide shoreline access for humans. A low- maintenance prairie planting or a wild- flower area along the shoreline may reduce goose use of the property. Natural meadows have been used as an alternative plant barrier, although seasonally flooded meadows along Figure 6. Fence made from monofilament lines. water areas in Wisconsin have been found to attract both migrant and giant Canada geese. As resident geese become more accustomed to people and urban landscapes, the suc- cess of managing goose problems with vegetative barriers continues to decrease. Rock barriers When geese leave a water body, they generally use routes that allow them easy access onto land as well as a clear view of potential danger. Large boulders placed along a shoreline may create a barrier that discourages goose use and access to grazing sites. The boulders should be at least 2 feet in diameter to hinder geese when they are getting out of the water. A combination of a rock barrier and dense vegetation placed above the boulders may enhance the effectiveness of both methods. Energizer Figure 7. Diagram of an electric fence. Managing Canada Geese in Urban Environments 15 When geese become accustomed to people, the effective- ness of rock barriers will decline. Geese are adept at climb- ing over small rocks and have been seen to negotiate rock shorelines with little trouble. Shoreline modification of some protected waterways may also require state and Army Corps of Engineers permits. Tall'trees On small ponds ( <1/2 acre in size), trees located in the flight paths between water and grassy areas may prevent geese from landing. The trees must be both dense enough to prevent geese from flying through the canopy, and tall enough to increase the angle of climb or ascent above 13 degrees (Conover and Kania 1991, Allan et al. 1995). Ponds larger than a half acre in size will provide ample open water for landing; consequently this method will have limited applications. Because most trees grow very slowly, this technique should be considered only part of a long- term management plan This technique is effective only in discouraging geese from flying into an area and will not prevent them from walking to a grazing site. Geese like areas with shade for grazing and loafing, and if they are able to walk into a grassy spot, tall trees may actually attract them. Decreased attractiveness of grazing areas Canada geese prefer to eat grass, especially young shoots, which are found in abundance on mowed lawns. Several techniques can reduce the lawn area and the amount of young grass shoots, making an area less attractive for feed- ing. Reduce or eliminate mowing: Geese can find young grass shoots easily on mowed lawns because their growing leaves are the highest. As grass continues to grow, the young, ten- der shoots become harder to find (Conover 1992). A grass height of 6 inches will reduce the abundance of young, ten- der shoots and make it more difficult for the geese to find them. Allowing the grass immediately surrounding a pond to grow tall may reduce a sites attractiveness for feeding geese, although tall grass may provide suitable nesting sites. Increasing grass length at airports may be unacceptable (Blokpoel 1976). Dried, long grass can be a fire hazard (Blokpoel 1976, Cooper 1991), and long grass at airports can obscure runway lights. Mowing near signs, lights, and runway intersections where visibility is important can over- come this obstacle ( Brough and Bridgman 1980). In addi- tion, tall grass in the spring may also attract nesting water- fowl as well as pheasants and other birds (Kirsch 1969), which could create bird strike hazards. Reduce fertilizer use: Because geese prefer fertilized plants over unfertilized ones (Owen 1975, Owen et al. 1977, Ruger 1985), reducing fertilizer use may decrease an area's attractiveness for feeding. 16 Managing Canada Geese in Urban Environments Stop watering lawn: If watering is reduced or stopped, grass may stop growing during dry periods, and new shoots will not be produced as frequently. If this technique is applied in the fall, fewer migratory geese may be attracted to the site. Reduce lawn area: Reducing the size of mowed grassy areas minimizes foraging sites for geese. Leaving the lawn unmowed effectively eliminates the tender shoots, leaving only the coarser and older grass blades, which may encour- age geese to feed elsewhere. Plant less palatable plant and grass species: Geese prefer Kentucky bluegrass, the dominant grass in many lawns, and tend to feed less on tall fescue if given a choice (Conover 1985b, Conover 1991). They will readily eat fescue, howev- er, if it is the only grass available. Planting less preferred plants or grass species to discourage geese from a specific area will work more effectively if good alternative feeding sites are nearby (Conover 1985b). In addition, during fall and winter months, dormant species of grass are less attrac- tive to Canada geese (Conover 1991). Canada geese will readily feed on almost any short grass or legume, including the following: • Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) • brome grasses (Broinus spp.) • new growth on canary grass (Pbalarls arundinacea) • colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuls) • perennial ryegrass (Lollum perenne) • quackgrass (Agropyron repens) • red fescue (Festuca rubra, a grass) • new growth on mowed or burned switch grass (Panicum virgatuin) Canada geese tend to avoid the following plants: • mature tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae, a grass) • periwinkle (Vinca spp., a groundcover) • myrtle (Myitusspp., a groundcover) • pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalls, a groundcover) • English ivy (Hedera helix, a groundcover) • hosta or plantain lily (Hosta spp., a groundcover) • Euonymous fortuni (an evergreen prostrate vine or shrub) • ground junipers Vuniperusspp., an evergreen shrub) Alternative Feeding Areas The theory behind alternative or diversionary feeding is to provide an area that has better forage quality than the site where damage is occurring (Owen 1990). Lure crops and bait stations are the two basic diversionary feeding tech- niques (Lostetter 1956). Providing alternative feeding areas enhances the effectiveness of most hazing and habitat manipulation techniques. Diversionary feeding is best suited for rural or suburban fringe sites where geese may be tolerated at certain proper- ties (van Eerden 1990). For best results, the geese must be hazed from the problem area and should easily find the alternative feeding sites with ample food. Lure crops are generally fields of swathed or flooded grain left for the geese to consume. A lure crop does not have to provide only grain; a well - fertilized and mown site planted with Kentucky bluegrass may be very attractive to geese. For best results, the lure crops should not be visited by the depredating geese until they are driven from the nui- sance site. The geese should not be disturbed once they find the lure crop. Extreme concentrations of feeding waterfowl at a site can make the lure crop less attractive because of trampling and food depletion. Clover will with- stand trampling better than row crops. At bait stations, loose grain is provided instead of a crop being planted for waterfowl consumption. Again timing is Important because this technique is most effective if the bait is available a few days after the geese are observed feed- ing at the problem area. An advantage of this technique over lure cropping is that trampling of the bait is reduced (Vaudrey 1974), and more birds can be accommodated. Combining hazing techniques with alternative feeding areas has successfully kept migrant waterfowl out of crops (Stephen 1961) and resident geese away from parks. This combination can keep geese away from specific areas during parts of the year yet retain them in the vicinity during the waterfowl hunting season. The use of lure crops or bait stations may cause legal problems for hunting during the fall. In the United States, It is illegal to bait or lure waterfowl with grain for hunting put-poses. In Canada, it is illegal to hunt within 400 yards of a lure crop or bait station. Alternative feeding areas may also increase nuisance problems over time. Waterfowl drawn to the diversionary feeding sites may disperse to nearby areas, thus creating additional problems. For this technique to be effective, availability of the crop must coincide with the need to dis- perse the geese. Faun; and Scaring Techniams These techniques are usually designed to frighten geese away from problem sites. It is permissible to harass Canada geese without a federal or state permit as long as the geese are not touched or handled by a person or an agent of a person (e.g., a trained dog). Hazing techniques are non- lethal and therefore are generally well accepted by the pub- lic. Hazing presents some problems, however, including habituation of the birds to the devices Vucchi and Bergman 1975, Blokpoel 1976, Ruger 1985, Summers 1985, Aubin 1990), possible influence on other animal species, failure of the hazed birds to leave the general vicini- ty ( Brough 1969, Conover 1984, Summers 1985, Swift 1998), and complaints from neighbors about the noise made by the devices. Hazing is most effective if implemented before or at the initial stages of a conflict situation ( Hockbaum et al. 1954, Fitzwater 1988, Marsh et al. 1992). Once geese have become accustomed to using an area, they are more diffi- cult to haze or scare (Swift 1998). Heinrich and Craven (1990) did not detect habituation by migrant geese to a sonic scarer over a seven -week period. Urban geese, however, are accustomed to a wide variety of sounds associated with humans (Swift 1998), quickly become habituated to noisemaking devices, and are more difficult to haze than migrant geese (Blokpoel 1976, Fairaizl 1992). To reduce the potential for habituation, the sounds should be as varied as possible (both in location and varia- tions of signal content), should be presented as infrequently as possible, and should be reinforced occasionally (such as by using real gunfire to back up explosions or chasing a flock to back up human effigies). Initiating hazing when birds first arrive will reduce the number of presentations that are necessary, delaying habitu- ation (Slater 1980, Aubin 1990). This can be accomplished manually or automatically with a call - activated switch con- trolling the hazing device. A call- activated switch compares sounds it "hears' to various characteristics of a goose call. If a match is made, the hazing device is triggered. Call -acti- vated switches should be able to reduce not only habitua- tion but also noise pollution, propane consumption (if attached to a propane exploder), and maintenance of the hazing device (Heinrich and Craven 1989). A single, call - activated trigger, placed in a grid pattern with other triggers or linked with several exploders, could increase the coverage area. This device, however, may be activated by sounds other than Canada geese (e.g., vehicle noise, wind, and other animals) (Heinrich and Craven 1989). Price and Adams (1989) suggest improving call- activated switches by measuring the shape of the energy spectrum of the target species instead of measuring a key frequency and duration. Thus the hazing device would be activated only if the goose call were louder than background environmental sounds (Price and Adams 1989). The use of a combination of techniques almost always works better than any single technique alone (Wright 1963, Brough 1969, Ruger 1985). Martin (1979) suggests com- bining visual and acoustical scarers to increase their effec- tiveness. Conover and Perito (1981) found that starling dis- tress calls used with an owl decoy reduced nearby bird land- ings compared with either technique used alone. Hochbaum et al. (1954) and Inglis (1980) found that com- bining gunfire with scarers increases the efficiency of the scarers. Scare -eye balloons combined with distress calls increased the aversive effect over scare -eyes alone (Inglis et al. 1983). Efficiency of hazing can be enhanced if undisturbed areas can be set aside within the normal activity range of the geese, where the birds can retreat when frightened away from sensitive areas (Stephen 1961, Owen 1980, Conover Managing Canada Geese in Urban Eruiranrents 17