Group_4 Vegetation Management
A Sustainable
Vegetation
Management Plan
for Golden Valley’s Parks
ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for Environmental Change
Report 4/7 Prepared for:
The City of Golden Valley
Prepared by:
Lyric Rafn-Stoffer—Project leader
Calen Papke
Thomas Bolas
Margaretta Farnham
Nicholas Severson
December 10, 2012
Table of Contents
List of Tables............................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................iii
Executive Summary.................................................................................iv
Introduction................................................................................................1
Site Description Summary...................................................................2
Issue.....................................................................................................2
Class Vision Statement........................................................................2
Project Vision Statement.....................................................................2
Methods.....................................................................................................4
Primary Data: New Information Collected..........................................4
Secondary Data....................................................................................8
Findings...................................................................................................10
Overview of Findings........................................................................10
Public Perception of Native Landscaping..........................................10
Fencing...............................................................................................10
Prairie Landscapes and Minnesota....................................................11
Financing Native Landscapes............................................................11
Stormwater Mitigation.......................................................................12
Low-Mow Grasses.............................................................................13
Recommendations....................................................................................14
Overview of Recommendations.........................................................14
Sustainable Native Vegetation Signage, Fencing, and Bench
Examples......................................................................................16
Implement Strategies at Wildwood Park...........................................16
Proposed Prairie Restoration Zone for Wildwood Park....................19
Implement Strategies at Natchez Park...............................................21
Implement Strategies at Glenview Terrace........................................24
Proposed Prairie Restoration Zone for Glenview Terrace Park........26
Prairie Restoration Budget.................................................................27
Additional Future Recommendations................................................28
Conclusion...............................................................................................28
References................................................................................................29
A. Slope Images
B. GIS maps of Golden Valley, (a, b)
C. Contact information, Consultant dates
D. Native Vegetation Map, and text description for SE Minnesota
E. Public Perception Reference
F. Prairie Restoration Costs; figures (a, b)
G. Park Maintenance, Paid Staff
H. Infrastructure Costs
I. Additional Funding Potentials
i
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of neighborhood parks and community parks.........2
Table 2: Findings by subsection..............................................................10
Table 3: Native landscaping 1st year installation costs per acre..............12
Table 4: Turf grass vs. native landscaping 10-year average
maintenance coss per acre..................................................................12
ii
Acknowledgments
This project would not have been possible without the help of the City of Golden
Valley staff who invited us into their city and spent a large amount of time and effort
to help us. We would like to acknowledge the City of Golden Valley, the Golden
Valley Parks and Recreation Board and Golden Valley City Hall for their cooperation
throughout the project, especially Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist; Al
Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator and park manager of Golden Valley; and Tim
Teynor, Assistant Forester of Golden Valley. We would also like to acknowledge the
University of Minnesota, College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource
Sciences and the University’s Horticulture Department for guidance into different
management practices for turf and turf species for particular areas of Golden Valley’s
city parks. We thank the cities of Afton, Savage, Rosemount, Woodbury, and St.
Cloud for allowing us to reference their restoration sites. Lastly, we would like to
acknowledge the residents of Golden Valley for their cooperation, critique and
support.
Overview map of Golden Valley, Minnesota.
iii
Executive Summary
In 2012, the City of Golden Valley joined with students from the University of
Minnesota to address options for the sustainable management of its natural resources.
This inventory and assessment component of the project focused on developing sustainable
solutions for managing vegetation in its parks. These solutions included tactics for
less
frequent mowing, incorporating pilot sites for prairie restoration, as well as
community education on urban sustainability and the environment. These objectives
were completed by:
•Determining which areas could be maintained with fewer labor hours and
materials;
•Determining which vegetation management alternatives were reasonable for
said areas;
•Developing an outreach plan that will introduce citizens and park users to the
benefits and mechanics of said alternatives.
The overall goal was to create a plan that would increase aesthetic and ecological
benefits throughout the parks in the city of Golden Valley while lowering
maintenance costs simultaneously.
Findings
•Maintenance costs are beginning to become prohibitive;
•Many of the existing parks have large expanses of maintained lawn areas;
•Golden Valley has some excellent examples of educational signage
illustrating the benefits of prairie restoration habitat in urban parks;
•Public resistance to changes in park management practices is not uncommon
and presents a challenge;
•Other cities similar to Golden Valley have been successful in lowering their
park maintenance budgets while maintaining their sustainable vegetation in
parks without sacrificing public standards.
Recommendations
•Transform current high maintenance vegetation to urban prairies in select
parks distributed around the city (Zimmerman, 2010);
•Additional investments in public outreach should be made as a critical tactic
in gaining acceptance towards land use changes such as prairie restoration
(Placing Nature Culture and Landscape Ecology, 2012);
•Adequate signage should be placed next to restoration sites to aid in educating
the public about the benefits of natural prairie vegetation, reducing aversion
and confusion within the community (Nassauer, 1995);
iv
It is highly encouraged that fencing be installed around each designated plot, and that the
edges be maintained neat and mowed. General maintenance around and within prairie
restoration sites is essential to public understanding and acceptance, and helps maintain an
aesthetic of intentionality (Nassauer, 1995).
View of educational signage about susainable
native vegetation at UMore Park, Rosemount,
Minnesota
View of fencing around a sustainable native
vegetation garden at UMore Park, Rosemount,
Minnesota
View of bench in front of sustainable native
vegetation garden at UMore Park, Rosemount,
Minnesota
v
Image 1. Brookview Park, Golden Valley Minnesota. SE corner facing native vegetation buffer.
(Image Credit: Thomas Bolas)
vi
Introduction
Golden Valley is a thriving community with population of 20,281 residents, located
northwest of the City of Minneapolis. It is considered a first-ring suburb, which is
defined as having the advantage of being adjacent to a large urban city while also
retaining the benefits of a less dense population. The median age of residents as of
2010 is 45.7 years old, with the median income being considered upper-middle class.
(Golden Valley, Minnesota, 2012). In 1886, the Village of Golden Valley was
established. It was not until 1972 when the city was crowned with its current title due
to legislation that mandated that all villages become cities (City of Golden Valley,
2012).
Golden Valley contains a total of 24 parks and 9 different nature areas. According to
the National Recreation and Park Association, community parks are “larger, more
active play areas for multiple recreation uses.” The neighborhood parks are
considered to be “active areas designed for intensive use by children, family and
school groups near… residential areas” (Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway
Guidelines, 1995). Nature areas or open spaces are public land set aside for
preservation of natural resources, visual aesthetics as well as buffer zones including
trails and other passive recreation areas (City of Golden Valley, 2012).
Golden Valley is known for its wide array of parks and available recreational
activities. There is a portion of the city’s comprehensive plan solely dedicated to the
management and future planning of its parks. There is also a full-time staff coupled
with seasonal workers composed of a Supervisor, Crew Leader, 5 maintenance
workers and an assistant forester. These individuals are dedicated to the management
and oversight of community and neighborhood parks as well as some nature areas. In
2012, the Parks and Recreation department was allocated a budget of approximately
$650,000 to improve and maintain these areas (Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan,
2012).
Golden Valley boasts a wide variety of recreational activities, including but not
limited to organized little league sports as well as amenities for pick-up games such
as basketball courts, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, lacrosse fields, hockey rinks
and warming houses (City of Golden Valley, 2012).
The City of Golden Valley has expressed an interest in expanding on the benefits of
sustainable vegetation practices within their parks. City representatives joined with
the students of the Environmental Science, Policy, and Management capstone course
major at the University of Minnesota to help them develop a blueprint towards
citywide sustainability. This following plan focuses on ways Golden Valley can
better manage what vegetation already exists, and also advises the city on how to
develop new vegetative systems to achieve further benefits.
1
Site Description Summary
Classification
Table 1: Comparison of neighborhood parks and community parks.
Neighborhood Park Community Park
Active area designed for intensive use by children and
family groups close to home.
Opportunities for informal recreation and scheduled
activities for all ages
Relatively larger
Active play area that provides for a greater variety of
play experiences and activities.
(Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 6 Parks. 2012).
Park Figures
There are over 20 parks in Golden Valley—with more than 323 acres of parks and
nature areas. There are approximately 15 acres of park per 1,000 residents.
Total public park acreage: 323 acres
167 acres community and neighborhood parks
156 acres in nature area
Issue
The City of Golden Valley currently has a limited number of park personnel. These
individuals are responsible for high frequencies of mowing and extensive turf
management needs. There is, at present, a demand for an alternative vegetation
management system within these highly maintained public areas. This must be
implemented within the existing budget. The goal of a sustainable alternative
vegetation management plan will hold some challenges. One is that there are a large
number of public parks spread across many different communities throughout Golden
Valley. Public perception could also be a barrier to changes introduced by Golden
Valley.
Class Vision Statement
To create a pro-active, cohesive, and flexible natural resource plan that supports
community engagement and advances the role of Golden Valley as a leader in
environmental management.
Project Vision Statement
The hope is that the accumulation of efforts that resulted in this report will provide
continued assessment, maintenance and upgrades to Golden Valley parks. This will
guarantee that the beauty, ecology and usability of parks and recreation spaces will be
2
ensured to the public in the present, as well as to future generations. The intention is
that these modifications will be an advantage to the prosperity and advancement of
individual communities as well as to the city as a whole.
Map 1. Overview of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Highlighted in white are the 3 parks of focus for native prairie
restoration. Map credit: Thomas Bolas.
3
Methods
Developing a sustainable vegetation management plan for the public parks within the
city of Golden Valley took a combination of various efforts. First, an inventory of the
physical attributes of the parks, and assessment methods was divided into primary
and secondary data collection.
Primary Data: New Information Collected
Inventory of Park Land: Physical Attributes
•Parks by Acreage
•Parks by Topography
1. Sloped (3 categories) (see appendix a. for photos)
a. Steep (15% or higher)
b. Moderate (5-14%)
c. Flat (0-4%)
2. Functional Topography: presence of swales or berms.
Primary data collection began with a general inventory of park land. This included
calculating the total acreage of the parks and the acreage of individual parks by
referring to Golden Valley’s comprehensive report (Golden Valley Comprehensive
Report, 2012).
Topography was also considered during inventory of the parks, and was broken down
into 3 categories (steep, moderate, flat) based on a visual assessment from site
visitations (see appendix a. for images). The ranges of topographic slopes were
developed by visiting all parks except those identified by city staff as “do not enter
zones.” Steep slopes were identified as potentially dangerous for mowing, carried the
potential to produce large amounts of stormwater runoff, and estimated to be around
15% slopes or higher. Moderate slopes were considered to be not as dangerous for
mowing, still having the potential to produce large amounts of stormwater runoff, and
estimated to ranged from 5 to 14%. Flat slopes, although not completely flat, range
from 0 to 4%. Flat topographic slopes carry no slope related danger to mowing
practices, and have the potential to produce much less stormwater runoff.
Limited Visual Land Use Assessments
1.Park use categories
a.Neighborhood park/community park
b.Park preserves (nature areas)
c.Sports
i. Organized: Soccer fields, football fields
ii. Informal: Playgrounds, basketball courts
4
Image 2. Example of common park playground.
http://www.cob.org/services/recreation/parks-trails/laurel-park.aspx
2.Park Amenities
a.Parking
b.Restrooms
c.Drinking water
d.Warming house (see image-3 below)
e.Shelters
Image 3. Example of winter warming house in the south metro area, Minnesota.
http://applevalley-rosemount.patch.com/announcements/some-ice-rinks-warming-houses-close-early-
for-season
5
Park use categories were broken down into neighborhood and community parks, and
park reserves. Neighborhood parks were more limited in space and amenities than
community parks (Table 1). Park reserves have been described as designated nature
areas (see introduction for park definitions). When considering sports within parks,
there were two main categories, organized and informal sports. Visual assessments
were utilized on site reference in addition to referencing the Comprehensive Report
of Golden Valley to determine park use categories, and park amenities (Golden
Valley Comprehensive Report, 2012).
Park Demographics of Associated Areas
1.Openness to park
2.Residential
a.Single Family
b.Multi-family
3.Commercial
a.Retail
b.Light industrial
4.Density
a.Single family
b.Multi-family complexes
c.Industrial Property
5.Property Accessibility
a.Fenced properties
b.Open properties
6.Vegetation diversity on adjacent private property
a.Maintained turf
b.Natural vegetation
7.Informal user surveys – 2 occasions
Sept 9th, Kings Park
Oct 23rd, Natchez Park
The final step for inventorying of park land was park demographics. Criteria for park
demographics included assessing the surrounding area which included general
openness to parks. Examples of park openness would be potentially being blocked off
by commercial space, forest, or park location being an extension of residential yards.
This process began by identifying nearby structures such as single family housing,
multi-family complexes, or industrial properties. This information provided a general
understanding of the density of surrounding areas of the parks. Another important
step was to understand property accessibility by identifying whether they were fenced
off or open. Vegetation diversity on adjacent private properties was also identified.
Vegetation diversity varied on whether it was maintained turf, or natural vegetation.
Vegetation diversity on adjacent private property was an indication of acceptance to
native vegetation restoration.
6
Informal surveys of local residents using the parks were the final steps in gaining first
hand park demographic data. Informal user surveys included general questions about
land use, and prairie restoration opinions. These surveys occurred on two separate
occasions. People surveyed were chosen at random during park visits. Examples of
questions asked were: What is your overall satisfaction level of park resources?
What opinions do you/community members hold towards prairie restoration? How
long have you lived in Golden Valley?
Vegetation Assessment
(Visual estimates have been based on percentage of total park area)
• Visual estimate of percentage (%), and location of maintained turf
• Visual estimate on site, of trees and shrubs, and location within each park
1.Edge of park
2.Middle of park
• Visual estimate on site of prairie percentage (%), and location within park
1.Edge of park
2.Middle of park
3.Prairie function
a. Stormwater pond buffer
b. Disconnected prairie (garden)
• Visual estimate of Waterway / Stormwater ponds % and location
1.Visual assessment from site visits
2.Visual assessment form GIS maps provided by Golden Valley
(see Appendix B. for maps)
• Infrastructure
1.Type
a. Storm sewers
i. Visual assessment done on site
b. Underground power lines
i. Visual assessment done on site
Subsequently, under primary data collection was vegetation assessment. This began
with visual estimates of turf, trees and shrubs, and prairie (if any) as a percentage of
the total park area. When considering the trees, shrubs, and prairie, the location of
these features within each park was assessed by site visits, and GIS maps (see
Appendix B for maps). Visual assessments of the waterways and ponds within the
parks of Golden Valley took place by way of site visits, and supplemental GIS maps.
In order to complete vegetation assessment there was an on-site analysis of park
infrastructure. This consisted of locating approximate sewer placement by way of
identifying street sewers, and visually assessing the direction in which they travel.
This was done only as an approximation of locations to prevent choosing project sites
that have permanent infrastructure beneath the ground’s surface. Also a quick site
survey was utilized in an attempt to identify any areas marked as underground power
7
lines by energy companies, including painting lines during construction/digging
season.
Secondary Data
•Use of GIS maps to determine park distribution (see Appendix B for maps)
•Vegetation
•Current groundcovers
•Consults with city officials (see Appendix C for time and date)
Secondary data began with assessing park distribution by using GIS maps of Golden
Valley (see Appendix B for maps). Also, consulting with city officials to determine
current ground cover was a main objective. This was done through personal
communication at a community meeting of representatives from the departments of
Public Works and Parks and Recreation on September 13, 2012.
Native Vegetation for SE Minnesota as alternative vegetation options (see Appendix
D)
1.Grasses
2.Forbes
3.Meadow
4.Prairie
During this stage of secondary data collection a map of the original native vegetation
to this area of Minnesota was located through the department of Soil, Water, Air, and
Climate at the University of Minnesota (see appendix d for map). Determining native
vegetation within the area helped to provide alternative sources of species for land
cover.
Management Practices
1.Low-mow
a. Low growing species
b. Chemical control
Prairie Restoration. Management practices for various vegetation types were
determined through literature research. Researching low-mow turf species was
conducted to find out the most appropriate species for the project sites considered.
This was done through University of Minnesota resources, and other online resources
(Cavanaugh, 2011; Diboll, 2012). When considering alternative turf species, research
into chemical control of weeds was also needed. This was done through sources such
as: Success of establishing low mow grass on established turf (Glyphosate General
Fact Sheet, 2012; Cavanaugh, 2011; and Diboll, 2012).
8
Researching management practices of prairie restoration was also a critical aspect of
secondary data. Utilizing sources such as: Native Grasses for Prairie Landscaping
(2009), Kilde (2000), Guidelines for Establishing a Prairie (2012) and Prairie
Establishment Guide (2012). This helped to gain an understanding of the dedication
needed for the maintenance of prairie landscapes. Overall, this research helped to
understand the degree of management needed for each option considered in this
study..
Public Perception (see Appendix E for references)
Acceptable changes
What can be done to make things acceptable
Fences
Signage
What is considered unacceptable – (varies with community)
Percentage (%) of area with maintained turf
Consulting research done by Joan Nassauer (1995) contained crucial information
about public perception. This helped gain an understanding of the general public’s
perception of vegetation change and helped to determine what is deemed acceptable
and unacceptable when it comes to alternative vegetation projects such as signage,
fencing, and percentage of area maintained.
Costs
Prairies (see Appendix F for reference)
Establishment
Maintenance
Labor (see Appendix G)
Mowing
Transportation
Infrastructures (see Appendix H for references)
Fencing
Signage
Benches
Another very important perspective for this project of this size was cost analysis.
This ranged from prairie establishment and maintenance, to paid staff maintaining
parks, and even potential costs of signage or fencing upgrades. Prairie costs were
determined by researching establishment and maintenance costs (see Appendix F).
Labor costs were very roughly determined by the number of paid park staff (see
Appendix G). Costs of the infrastructures were determined independently of one
another. Fencing was determined by using a local company for estimates (see
Appendix H-1). Signage was found to be an ongoing project for Golden Valley, and
is already figured into the city’s budget (see Appendix H-2). Options for alternative
and sustainable recycled signage was gathered and provided to Golden Valley (see
9
Appendix H-2). Additionally, costs and sustainable options for benches have also
been provided to the city for future reference (see Appendix H-3).
Findings
Overview of Findings
In this section, the most important findings relating to sustainable vegetation
management in parks are presented.
Table 2. Findings by subsection.
Subsection Finding
Public perception of native landscaping Native landscaping that is surrounded by well kept
infrastructure is more desired by the public
Finances surrounding native landscaping Native landscaping is more cost effective in the long
term than standard turf maintenance practices
Storm-water Mitigation Native landscapes including bio-swales and prairies
reduce stormwater runoff
Low-Mow Grasses Sheep Fescue needs less maintenance than Kentucky
Blue grass
Public Perception of Native Landscaping
“Messy ecosystems require orderly frames”
-Dr. Joan Nassauer
A landscape’s visual appeal is often the general basis for which the public forms its
opinion. In order for the implementation of native landscaping and alternative land
management to be successful and well received, it must be kept “well groomed.”
Research shows that prairie restorations will have a much better public perception if
placed in close proximity to well-kept and neat looking areas. This can include
sidewalks, fencing, viewing platforms, mowed grass, and other maintained areas.
Studies show that a 1:1 ratio of managed turf to native plants currently holds the
highest amount of public acceptance. People often place a higher value on natural
landscapes that provide habitat for butterflies, birds, and other wildlife (Nassauer,
1995). In an interview with a woman known only as Becky, a Golden Valley resident,
she expressed that the public would greatly enjoy native landscapes “… If done in an
aesthetically pleasing manner which includes proper planning and maintenance.”
10
Fencing
Fencing provides protection for the vegetation as to maintain aesthetics and prevent
damage to the prairie ecosystem. Fencing can be relatively inexpensive, and has the
potential to require a low amount of maintenance. Research has found that there is
often especially positive responses when, specifically, white fences are installed (see
Appendix E for references).
Prairie Landscapes and Minnesota
Minnesota at one time encompassed almost 18 million acres of prairie land. Due to
settlement and agriculture, native prairie lands have now been reduced to just over
1% of its original land cover at 235,076 acres (Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan,
2012). Restoring prairie grasses can initially be slightly labor intensive, depending
on the slope, soil type, weed infestation, and watering schedule for the first few years.
Once established though, most native prairie species require little maintenance
(Native Grasses for Prairie Landscaping, 2009; Guidelines for Establishing a Prairie,
2012; Kilde, 2000). Prairie land aids in biodiversity in the surrounding area, provides
habitat for wildlife, and can also be very beautiful and filled with colorful species of
flowers (Prairie Restoration, 2012). Some other benefits of restoring natural prairies
include improved air quality, increased nutrients in the soil rather than becoming
runoff, and the reduction of pesticide and herbicide usage (Wilson and Boehland,
2012).
Financing Native Landscapes
Native landscaping has been determined to be less expensive in the long run than
standard turf maintenance practices. Although installation of native landscaping
requires initial investments, there will be long-term benefits associated with annual
savings due to a decrease in maintenance, water use for irrigation and other
associated costs.
Image 24. Prairie/meadow setting, Murphy
Hanrehan Park Reserve, Savage, MN
(Image credit: Nick Severson).
Image 25. Prairie vegetation on sloped land,
Murphy Hanrehan Park Reserve, Savage, MN
(Image credit: Nick Severson)
11
Cost analyses (Tables 3 and 4) took the following elements into consideration:
•Turf expenses including seed, mulch, fertilizers, and maintenance costs over
five years (such as mowing, fertilizer application, irrigation systems,
municipal water, and aerating/dethatching every other year).
•Native prairie plant expenses included seeding, planting plugs, mulching, and
maintenance costs (including mowing in the first two years; spot herbicide
treatment over five years; and prescribed burning in years two, three, and
five).
Table 3. Native landscaping 1st year installation costs per acre.
Landscape treatment Low-end estimate High-end estimate
Turf grass$7,800$14,825
Native landscaping$3,400$ 5,975
First-Year Installation Costs Per Acre (Natural Landscaping for Public Officials: A Sourcebook. Chicago:
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 2004)
Table 4. Turf grass vs. native landscaping 10-year average maintenance costs per acre.
Landscape treatment Low-end estimate High-end estimate
Turf grass$7,800$14,825
Native landscaping$3,400$ 5,975
10-Year Average Maintenance Costs Per Acre (Natural Landscaping for Public Officials: A Sourcebook.
Chicago: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 2004)
*On average, there is an annual savings of between $4,400 and $8,850 per acre by converting turf grass to
native vegetation.
In addition to the monetary savings associated with decreases in water-use for
irrigation, large amounts of freshwater resources will be conserved. Research
suggests that in the Midwest, more than 162,924 gallons of water are used for every
half acre of turf during the summer months (EPA, 2012). Native plants conserve
water once they are established because they do not need much additional watering.
This results in sizeable reductions of water-use as compared to traditional turf grass
(Healthy Landscapes: Rain Gardens, 2012).
Stormwater Mitigation
Native landscapes including bio-swales and prairies reduce stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff can often result in many serious problems that can cost
communities, including flooding, pollution and damage to stream ecology. Many
communities that are smaller than 100,000 residents must now comply with federal
regulations for managing their stormwater, a policy city planners must now be aware
of.
In recent years, there has been an increase in awareness of problems associated with
stormwater runoff. Stormwater has the ability to pick up chemicals, debris, litter, and
12
other pollutants that are often swept into sewer systems or directly into lakes, rivers
and streams. Associated problems include eutrophication of waterways which is an
increase of nutrients such as nitrogen that provokes an excess of undesirable plant
growth (Eutrophication, 2012), as well as displacement of trash. Also, when
considering stormwater pollution, stormwater mitigation by way of vegetation can
remove bacteria and other pathogens that are dangerous to human health (After The
Storm, 2012).
There are certain areas affected by stormwater runoff where the addition of a
stormwater pond is not feasible. Native landscaping can be used to mitigate runoff
problems in areas such as swales close to the street, areas of sloped topography, and
flat ground near playgrounds. Native landscaping can provide natural areas for
rainwater to accumulate and soak into the ground, in turn naturally watering
vegetation and plant life (Healthy Landscapes: Rain Gardens, 2012).
Below is a list of Perennials and Herbaceous Plants that are very good for mitigating
stormwater (Healthy Landscapes: Rain Gardens, 2012).
Northern Maidenhair Fern, Adiantum pedatum
Jack-in-the-pulpit, Arisaema triphyllum
Wild Columbine, Aquilegia canadensis
Bushy Aster, Aster dumosus
Heath Aster, Aster ericoides
New England Aster, Aster novae-angliae
Dwarf Cornel, Cornus Canadensis
Glade-fern, Deparia acrostichoides
Tufted Hair Grass, Deschampsia cespitosa
Carolina Lovegrass, Eragrostis pectinacea
Sweet Joe-Pye Weed, Eupatorium purpureum
Grass-leaved Goldenrod, Euthamia graminifolia and Euthamia tenuifolia
Wintergreen, Gaultheria procumbens
Interrupted Fern, Osmunda claytoniana
Switchgrass, Panicum virgatum
Low-Mow Grasses
Sheep Fescue (Festuca ovina L.) is a low-mow turf grass that is compatible in the
Upper Midwest (Sheep Fescue, 2012). Once established, this species of grass only
needs to be mowed once a month. Sheep Fescue is drought resistant, and has a
relatively large root system (8-10 inches) compared to Kentucky Blue Grass, which
has a fully matured root system that is only 4-6 inches. It is ideal in sloped conditions
and is able to aid in reducing erosion. Through research it was also found that
Kentucky bluegrass requires the most maintenance of ground cover landscapes
(Native Grasses for Prairie Landscaping, 2009)
13
Recommendations
Overview of Recommendations
The most ideal locations for establishing prairie restoration zones are in the
highlighted zones within the three selected parks (see Map 1), Natchez, Wildwood,
and Glenview. These zones would contain prairie shortgrasses such as, Big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash), prairie
dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) along with native flowers that bloom throughout
the growing season (Prairie Grassland Description, 2012; Zimmerman, 2010). Areas
that are not heavily used by local sports teams would benefit greatest from planting
one or many of the above species. Prairie shortgrasses listed above need less
maintenance than turf once established (Bring Your Landscape to Life, 2012;
Appendix F).
For best results of establishing a prairie on a slope, there will need to be an annual oat
grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) or ryegrass (Lolium) added to the seed mix (Prairie
Establishment Guide, 2012). It is important to lay a light erosion blanket containing
straw or light excelsior over the seeded area (Prairie Establishment Guide, 2012).
This will keep the soil prairie seed mix in place and mitigate potential erosion issues
(Prairie Establishment Guide, 2012).
For all areas that will be designated prairie restoration zones, it is important to control
weeds. Also, old turf needs to be removed, either by fumigation or a sod remover.
This will help the prairie seedlings gain a foothold in the desired area (Prairie
Establishment Guide, 2012). New prairies will need to be mowed at a height of six
inches for the first year (Prairie Establishment Guide, 2012). This should be allotted
in the budget for this phase of restoration project. In the second year around early to
mid-April, the restoration zone should be mowed to the ground and the clippings
should be cleared. Following this it is recommended that mowing at a height of one
foot in June to severely stunt or prevent seeding of biennial weeds (Prairie
Establishment Guide, 2012). The following seasons will be much easier to maintain
the restoration zones. After the second year, mowing only needs to be done once in
the spring, if burning the area is not feasible (Prairie Establishment Guide, 2012).
Additional vegetation alternatives surrounding these chosen areas could be low mow
species of turf grass. A study conducted by the University of Minnesota found that
for best results, the old sod should be removed, and seeded with the new sheep fescue
low-mow species. Sheep Fescue is a species of low-mow grass being used as a
substitute in various low maintenance areas (Cavanaugh, 2011). The most desirable
time to replace the sod would be just after the frost has left the topsoil. This way,
evaporation will be minimized, and it will maximize the sheep fescue’s time to crowd
out any residual Kentucky Blue Grass and broadleaf plants.
14
Also, it should be noted that after seed has been applied, a round of glyphosate should
be applied after the emergence of broadleaf plants within new turf zone (Cavanaugh,
2011). Glyphosate is a chemical that is used in various herbicides (Glyphosate
General Fact Sheet, 2012). It should also be noted that glyphosate should be applied
before germination of alternative fescue species, because glyphosate is nonselective
and will kill turf as well (Glyphosate General Fact Sheet, 2012).
If the turf suffers from a long dry spell or drought, the removal of the previous sod is
not necessary. The area could be overseeded with the sheep fescue seeds before the
ground freezes or in the early spring. It should be cool enough to ensure that the seed
doesn’t germinate until the spring if the city chooses to seed in the late fall (Dormant
Seeding Lawns: Last Chore of the Season, 2009). Also noting for fall seeding
practices, germination times of sheep fescue should be known so that any spring
applications of glyphosate take place before germination. This will prevent any
dieback of the turf due to glyphosate.
Once the areas are converted, it has been shown that the length of the no-mow turf
should be maintained at 3.5” (Cavanaugh, 2011; Diboll, 2012). Any lower than this
height, and the no-mow turf stands a great chance of getting stressed and overrun by
undesirable plant species. Also, weekly mowing schedules could be reduced from
once a week with the current turf grass to once a month or less with the new sheep
fescue (Diboll, 2012).
Public Outreach
Making changes to land cover, such as the possibilities described above bring about
another very important recommendation which is public outreach. Public outreach is
crucial to gaining understanding, and eventually acceptance of these alternative
vegetation efforts. It is recommended that public outreach be done through various
following efforts.
Educational signage has been shown to improve understanding by the public
(Nassauer, 2012). Signage should be located in areas visible to the public for easy
recognition. Also, placing benches next to signage can help to recognize the area of
interest, and give reason to visit signage location. Aside from a place to sit, benches
give the site somewhat of an orderly frame suggested by Joan Nassauer (1995).
Public acceptance is a benefit that results from increased public outreach. For that
reason it is recommended that Golden Valley take advantage of educational signage
along edges of the proposed prairie restoration sites. Smaller restoration areas like
those proposed may only need one area with visible educational signage, but larger
projects may need multiple signs to be effective.
Also it is recommended that Golden valley utilize fencing around areas of high
traffic, promoting a well maintained look (Nassauer, 1995). This will also prevent
damage to plants in the first few years while the prairie is being established. These
15
public outreach efforts are recommended in hopes that the city notices improved
public acceptance of these alternative vegetation efforts.
Sustainable Native Vegetation Signage, Fencing, and Bench Examples
Costs associated with these recommended features such as, signage, benches, and
possible fencing are considerations that need to be calculated for any size project.
Many nearby options are available to Golden Valley. Appendix H. contains cost
details along side local and out of state options for these features. It should also be
noted that sustainable options are available through the organization's listed in
Appendix H. Also, reflected in appendix H. is the ongoing budget of Golden Valley
to update park signage.
Image 26. Photograph of educational native vegetation signage taken at the University of Minnesota Outreach,
Research and Education (UMore) Park, Rosemount Minnesota. September 2012.
Image Credit: Nick Severson
Implement Strategies at Wildwood Park
This 4.2 acre park is located in northwestern Golden Valley, nestled in the Bassett
Creek neighborhood East of Pennsylvania Avenue N, and south of Duluth Street (see
Images 4, 5, and Map 2). This park offers baseball diamonds, tennis courts, a
playground, and several densely forested trail areas. Upon entering the park, there is
an overgrown baseball diamond bordering a graded hill that is available to the public,
but hardly used. Siguard Olson School has recently reopened as a community
STEAM school which has potential to develop programs for children interested in
ecology or other environmental or natural resource sciences (Costello, 2011).
16
Along the street bordering the tree stand within the park is a berm that creates a swale
in the landscape that surrounds the woods (see Images 5 to 7). This swale helps to
prevent storm runoff from leaving the sloped woods and entering the street.
Implementing prairie restoration strategies along the street side of this swale would
not only reduce turf maintenance, but help prevent pollutants and stormwater runoff
entering sewers and surrounding water bodies (Jurries 2003). This also has the
potential to represent a “native prairie curb appeal” to the community, and to
encourage students to engage in outdoor learning (see Images 8 to10). As observed
by the research team, this neighborhood would be most likely to accept the new
changes to the park based on the natural landscaping within yards on the adjacent
block.
Image 28. This photograph Is taken of a bench next
to sustainable vegetation at the University of
Minnesota Outreach, Research and Education
(UMore) Park, Rosemount Minnesota. September
2012. Image credit: Nick Severson
Image 27. This photograph shows an example of a
sustainable native vegetation garden surrounded by a
fence at the University of Minnesota Outreach,
Research and Education (UMore) Park, Rosemount
Minnesota. September 2012.
Image credit: Nick Severson
Image 4. Photograph of Wildwood Park
signage, and projected prairie restoration
site. Image credit: Nick Severson
Image 5. Photograph of turf grass berm
running parallel with street. Approximate
ridge of the berm is highlighted red. Image
credit: Nick Severson
17
Images 8-10. Left, Image 8 illustrates the surrounding resident's openness to natural vegetation to within feet of
the road. Directly across the street is Wildwood Park. Middle, Image 9 is of the woods in the center of
Wildwood Park. Right, Image 10 is of additional parkland leading to Golden Valley's Now STEAM education
school. Image Credit: Nick Severson
Image 6. Photograph of Wildwood Park;
view of open area behind park sign.
Highlighted in red is the approximate
location of berm ridge, producing a bioswale
towards the parks interior.
Image credit: Nick Severson
Image 7. Photograph of Wildwood Park,
behind sign opposite side as image 6.
Highlighted in red is berm ridge. Image
credit: Nick Severson
18
Proposed Prairie Restoration Zone for Wildwood Park
Map 2. GIS map of approximate prairie restoration site for Wildwood Park highlighted in
green. Map Credit: Thomas Bolas
19
Before and after pictures of projected prairie Restoration Site:
Images 11-12. Restoration example of Wildwood Park. Image 11 (above) before, and image 12 (below) after.
Images and editing credit: Margaretta Farnham
20
Implement Strategies at Natchez Park
This 6 acre park is located adjacent to Breck High school, just north of Glenwood
Avenue (see map 3). The park offers trails and walkways, a playground, game
squares as well as an area for basketball and a baseball diamond (see image 13). This
park is placed across the street from residential homes.
There are many uses for the main area of the park, although there are some oddly shaped and
seemingly disconnected portions of the park that would be ideal for prairie restoration (see
image 14, map 3). This would eliminate the need for excessive turf maintenance in an area
Map 3. GIS map of projected prairie restoration site for Natchez Park. Restoration area is
highlighted in green to the SE of the pond in the parks NE corner of the park.
Map Credit: Thomas Bolas
21
within Natchez Park that receives minimal use. If acceptance of this proposal is observed
through public perception surveys, a future recommendation would be to implement similar
practices along the boulevard. This implementation of “native prairie curb appeal” would
also substantially reduce turf maintenance, while providing the additional benefits of
reducing stormwater runoff (see images 13, 15) (Jurries 2003).
If the benefits can be clearly demonstrated to the community through signage, and
well kept restoration areas, then this would help set the stage for prairie restoration
within other parks (Nassauer, 1995; Nassauer, 2004). Based on an informal interview
with a local resident, she said that the neighborhood would be resistant to change.
Image 14. Photograph of maintained turf in far
corner of Natchez Park. Image credit: Nick SeversonImage 13. Photograph of Natchez Park, Golden
Valley Minnesota. View of walking trail leading
through park facilities. Image Credit: Nick Severson
Image 15. Photograph facing park facilities from far
NE corner, near image 14 location.
Image credit: Nick Severson
22
So, it would be important to lay out the benefits to a potentially hostile audience
before any work would start.
Before and after pictures of projected prairie Restoration Site:
Images 16-17. Restoration example of Natchez Park. Image 16 (above) before, and image 17 (below) after.
Images and editing credit: Margaretta Farnham
23
Implement Strategies at Glenview Terrace
Images 16-17. Restoration example of Natchez Park. Image 16 (above) before, and image 17 (below) after.
Images and editing credit: Margaretta Farnham
Glenview Terrace Park covers 5 acres, and is off of Zenith and Manor Drive (see map
4). The park is connected to a variety of walkways and trails, and provides access to
playground equipment, tennis courts as well as game squares (see image 19) . Along
Manor Drive to the North—Northwest of the park is a fairly steep sloped area that
receives minimal foot traffic (see image 20, 21). Considering its slope and proximity
to the street, this area is not ideal for seasonal (winter) recreation activities such as
sledding.
24
By restoring a prairie along a portion of the sloped hill, Golden Valley would reduce
the need to maintain turf on an area of the park that is dangerous to mow, and that
currently has little recreational value to the surrounding community. Native prairie
restoration could also benefit Glenview Terrace by mitigating problems associated
with stormwater runoff (Jurries 2003). The proposed prairie restoration zone for
Glenview Terrace Park illustrates the area of concern (see map 4). It is recommended
that any restoration implemented start from the forested area at the western side,
heading northeast to until meeting desired project size (see map 4).
Image 20. Photograph of project area at Glenview Terrace illustrates the moderately steep
slope leading down towards the street. Image credit: Nick Severson
Image 21: Photograph taken from opposite corner of Glenview Terrace from the location
where Image 20 was taken. Shows project area from another perspective. Image Credit:
Nick Severson
25
Proposed Prairie Restoration Zone for Glenview Terrace Park
Map 4. GIS map of projected prairie restoration site for Glenview Terrace Park. Prairie
restoration area is highlighted in green. Map credit: Thomas Bolas
26
Before and after pictures of projected prairie Restoration Site:
Images 22-23. Restoration example for Glenview Terrace Park. Image 22 (above) before,
and image 23 (below) after. Images and editing credit: Margaretta Farnham
Prairie Restoration Budget
The prairie restoration budget for Golden Valley within the year 2012-2013 is
$25,000.00. Savings can be made through the replacement of mowing costs with
maintenance of natural prairie grasses. Native gardens would also be an alternative
for involving community programs (youth and adult) that could assist with the initial
planting labor. Monthly maintenance of prairie restoration is far lower than turf
27
maintenance over the long term, as stated in many of the studies above and in the
Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2012. Additional tables and cost data for prairie
restoration are provided in Appendix F. Also, additional information regarding
potential funding of alternative vegetation can be located in Appendix I.
Additional Future Recommendations
Additional future recommendations for Golden valley beyond this report would be
the expansion of the prairie restoration sites proposed to the city into boulevard areas.
Increasing prairie restoration within these boulevard areas will promote a ‘curb
appeal’ of native vegetation. This future recommendation may only be possible if
public acceptance reaches a point where these areas are seen as appealing by the
citizens of the community.
Conclusion
Golden Valley has the potential to be innovative in many aspects within the city,
including how they manage their park vegetation. Specific suggestions for decreasing
costs include introducing additional prairie restoration sites in three diverse parks
within the city limits.
Parks concluded upon are Natchez Park, Glenview Terrace Park, and Wildwood Park.
All of these parks are adjacent to community hubs such as churches and schools.
Each park and adjacent community hub has primarily maintained turf grass lawn
space. This leaves plenty of opportunity to utilize alternative vegetation in certain
areas. The chosen plots for prairie restoration are very promising for expanding
environmental education opportunities through signage and potential volunteer
planting opportunities within these nearby hubs,.all while boosting the city’s natural
environment. All this can be done, helping to decrease park maintenance spending
overtime. The goal is that after these small sized plots become examples of success,
prairie restoration can begin spreading to many other areas in Golden Valley, saving
the community funds to invest in other future projects.
Additional future possibilities in building a sustainable vegetation plan for the parks
of Golden Valley would be to increase curb appeal. This means increasing overall
attractiveness of turf area next to roadways by planting low maintenance prairie
grasses. Another future recommendation would be to install fencing around any
disconnected, ‘garden-like’ prairie areas to increase attractiveness and protect
vegetation, as well as portray intentionality. Installing adequate signage and
information regarding the benefits of prairie restoration is also highly encouraged for
current and future projects. This will assist in the transitions and to expand
awareness. Alternative suggestions to implementing prairie restoration would be to
28
install low maintenance turf grasses, but the long term benefits of these options are
less extensive.
The payback of implementing prairie restoration in Golden Valley’s parks will far
surpass the initial investment. There are already ambitious visions for ways to
continue to improve Golden Valley’s parks that have been created by dedicated
volunteers and committed personnel (Envision Report, 2012). Implementing
continued prairie restoration in the parks will add immeasurable intrinsic value to the
city’s many green spaces, making them sustainable and enjoyable to community
members and visitors alike.
References
After the Storm. EPA.gov. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://water.epa.gov/action/weatherchannel/stormwater.cfm.
Bring Your Landscape to Life! Prairie Nursery. n.d. Accessed 01 Dec. 2012.
http://www.prairienursery.com/.
Can Rain Barrels and Gardens Help Keep Sewage in the Sewers? EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Accessed 01 Dec. 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/january2011/rainbarrels.htm>.
Cavanaugh, M., E. Watkins, B. Horgan, and M. Meyers. 2011. Conversion of
Kentucky Bluegrass Rough to no-mow, low-input grasses. Applied Turfgrass
Science. Accessed 10 Nov. 2012.
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/ats/research/2011/rough/.
City of Golden Valley. Minnesota. n.d. Accessed. 20 Nov. 2012.
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/.
Cost Comparison of Non-Native vs. Native Species for landscaping.
http://www.appliedeco.com/Projects/CostofNative.pdf.
Cost Estimates from Prairie Restorations.
http://www.prairieresto.com/cost_estimates.shtml
Costello, M. 2011. Full STEAM ahead for Olson School-Part II - Golden Valley, MN
Patch. Golden Valley Patch. Accessed 21 Nov. 2012.
http://goldenvalley.patch.com/articles/full-steam-ahead-for-olson-school-part-ii.
Dormant seeding lawns: last chore of the season? 2009. Yard and Garden News.
University of Minnesota Extension. n.p. Accessed 01 Dec. 2012.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/efans/ygnews/2009/11/dormant-seed-now-to-promote-
th.html.
Diboll, N. Prarie Nursery “No Mow” Lawn Mix Factsheet. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov.
2012.
http://www.prairienursery.com/store/images/No%20Mow%20Fact%20Sheet2.pdf
Envision Report. A Shared Vision for Golden Recreation. Accessed 2012.
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/envision/guide/recreation/completelist.html.
29
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/conf12_04/conf_knwldge.html.
Eutrophication. Definition Page. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html.
Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 6 Parks. 2012.
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/comprehensiveplan/pdf/06-Parks.pdf.
Golden Valley, Minnesota. (MN 55422) Profile: Population, Maps, Real Estate,
Averages, Homes, Statistics, Relocation, Travel, Jobs, Hospitals, Schools, Crime,
Moving, Houses, News. n.d. Accessed 22 Nov. 2012. http://www.city-
data.com/city/Golden-Valley-Minnesota.html.
Glyphosate General Fact Sheet. Orst.edu. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.pdf.
Guidelines for Establishing a Prairie. Prairieresto. n.d. Accessed 1 Dec. 2012.
http://www.prairieresto.com/Prairie%20Guidelines.pdf.
Healthy Landscapes: Rain Gardens. Healthy Landscapes: Rain Gardens. n.d.
Accessed 28 Nov. 2012. http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/raingarden.htm.
Jurries, D. 2003. BIOFILTERS (Bioswales, vegetative buffers, & constructed
wetlands) for storm water dischargee. State.or.us. State of Oregon, Department of
Environmental Quality. Accessed 21 Nov. 2012.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/nwr/biofilters.pdf.
Kilde, R., and E. Fuge. 2000. Going native. Dnr.state.mn.us. Minnesota DNR.
Accessed 1 Dec. 2012.
files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/prairierestoration/goingnative.pdf.
Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan. Nature.org. n.d. Accessed 21 Nov. 2012.
http://www.nature.org/media/minnesota/mn-prairie-conservation-plan.pdf
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal
14(2):161-170.
Nassauer, J.I., J.D. Allan, T. Johengen, S.E. Kosek, and D. Infante. 2004. Exurban
residential subdivision development: effects on water quality and public
perception. Urban Ecosystems 7(3):267-281.
Natural Landscaping for Public Officials: A Sourcebook. 2004. Chicago:
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission.
Native Grasses For Prairie Landscaping in the Northern Great Plains. 2009. Plant-
materials.nrcs.usda.gov. USDA. Accessed 22 Nov. 2012. http://www.plant-
materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/ndpmcbr179.pdf.
Placing Nature Culture and Landscape Ecology. Umich.edu. Ed. J.I.Nassauer. n.d.
Accessed 22 Nov. 2012.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nassauer/Publications/Placing%20Nature.pdf.
Prairie Restoration. ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Accessed 22 Nov. 2012.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/prairie_restoration.htm.
Prairie Establishment Guide. Prairie Nursery, Native Plants, Seeds, No Mow Lawn.
Landscape Design & Consulting. n.d. Accessed02 Dec. 2012.
http://www.prairienursery.com/store/prairie-establishment-guide-ezp-18.html.
Prairie Grasslands Description. Minnesota DNR. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snas/prairie_description.html.
30
Seed Mix. Seed Mix. n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://www.mnnativelandscapes.com/pages/SeedMix/.
Sheep Fescue. Nrcs.usda.gov. USDA, n.d. Accessed 28 Nov. 2012.
http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmspg9624.pdf.
Wilson, A., and J. Boehland. n.d. Natural Landscaping and Artificial Turf:
AchievingWater Use and Pesticide Reduction. Fmlink.com. n.d. Accessed 22
Nov. 2012.
http://www.fmlink.com/article.cgi?type=Sustainability&title=Natural%20Landsc
aping%20and%20Artificial%20Turf%3A%20Achieving%20Water%20Use%20a
nd%20Pesticide%20Reduction&pub=BuildingGreen&id=40602&mode=source.
Zimmerman, C.B. 2010. Great Lakes Region. Urban & Suburban Meadows:
Bringing Meadowscaping to Big and Small Spaces. Silver Spring, MD: Matrix
Media, 172-173.
31
Appendix A. Slope images
-Steep (Shied Park) -Moderate (Glenview Terrace) -Flat (Natchez Park)
Appendix B. GIS maps of Golden Valley (a, b)
Map a: Streets, Trails & Sidewalk System
City of Golden Valley. "Streets, Trails & Sidewalk System." Goldenvalleymn.gov.
City of Golden Valley Minnesota, Nov. 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/streets/pdf/streets-trails-walks-map.pdf>.
Map b: Outfalls, Sediment Basins & Ponds
Credit for above GIS map ( b):
City of Golden Valley. "Outfalls, Sediment Basins & Ponds." City of Golden Valley
Minnesota,16 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Appendix C. Contact Information, Consultation Dates
Rick Jacobson rjacobson@goldenvalleymn.gov 763-512-2342(w)
City of Golden Valley Director of Parks & Recreation Park and Recreation
-Consulted October 30, 2012
Tim Teynor tteynor@goldenvalleymn.gov 763-593-3976(w)
City of Golden Valley Assistant Forester Public Works - Park Maintenance
-Consulted September 13, 2012
-Consulted October 30, 2012
Appendix D. Native Vegetation for SE Minnesota
Below is a map that illustrates the original native vegetation of Minnesota.
"Original Vegetation Of Minnesota." Swac.umn.edu. University of Minnesota, n.d. Web. 22
Nov. 2012. <http://www.swac.umn.edu/classes/soil2125/img/2vgmnmp.jpg>
Text Description of Native Vegetation:
Throughout the history of settlement in Minnesota there have been those who have
recorded the natural environment. Pre-settlement surveys were created by using journals from fur
traders, etc. The deciduous forest area that is now part of Golden Valley, was called by French
explorers the “big woods”. The big woods covered an area of over 3000 square miles and was
predominantly maple-basswood forests (Biological Report No. 1). In 1974, the F. J. Marschner
map that was completed in 1930 by using surveyor notes was published; this map has been used
in the latest classification system that has been revised by the Minnesota DNR. In Marschner’s
version the Eastern Broadleaf Forest province serves as a transition between semi-arid regions to
the west that were prairie and to the northeast mixed conifer-deciduous forests. Predominant tree
species are oak, basswood, elm and maple with smaller areas of oak savanna and prairie
(Marschner, 1974).
The classification of the ecological systems revised by the Minnesota DNR is divided
into six levels. Golden Valley is in the Mesic Hardwood Forest system, the Floristic system of
southern Mesic maple-basswood forest, the province of Eastern Broadleaf Forest, the section
MIM-Minnesota & NE Iowa Morainal, the subsection-Big Woods (Aaseng et al, 2003).
The six levels of Minnesota’s native plant community classification are as follows: In the
System Group the dominant factors are the vegetation structure and hydrology. In the Ecological
System the dominant factors are ecological processes. In the Floristic Region the dominant
factors are climate and paleohistory. In the Native Plant Classification Class these factors are
local environmental conditions. In the NPC Type the dominant factors are canopy dominants,
substrate and fire-scale environmental conditions. And in the NPC Subtype, the dominant factors
are distinctions in canopy dominants, substrate and environmental conditions (Aaseng, et al
2003).
In the Big Woods the canopy is mainly made up of sugar maples, then with basswood
and less frequently with northern red oak, red elm or American elm. Sugar maple is also
abundant in the sub-canopy and shrub layer. Other common species in the shrub layer are
basswood, bitternut hickory, prickly gooseberry, red-berried elder (Sambucus racemosa), and
chokecherry (Aaseng et al, 2003).
Aaseng, Norm E.; Almendinger, John C.; Dana, Robert P.; Hanson, Dan S.;Lee, Michael D.;
Rowe, Erika R.; Rusterholz, Kurt A. & Wovcha, Daniel S., 2003. Minnesota’s native plant
community classification: A statewide classification of terrestrial and wetland vegetation based
on numerical analysis of plot data
Marschner, F.J. 1974. The original vegetation of Minnesota, compiled from U.S. General
Land Office Survey notes by Francis J. Marschner [map]. 1:500,000. Redrafted from the original
by P .J. Burwell and S.J. Haas under the direction of M.L. Heinselman. St. Paul: North Central
Forest Experiment Station, United States Department of Agriculture.
Natural Vegetation of Minnesota At the Time of the Public Land Survey 1847-1907,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Report No. 1
Appendix E. Public Perception reference
Joan Nassauer –
"Placing Nature Culture and Landscape Ecology." Umich.edu. Ed. Joan Iverson
Nassauer. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.
<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nassauer/Publications/Placing%20Nature.pdf>.
Appendix F. Prairie restoration costs; figures (1, 2a, 2b)
Prairie Grasses vs. Kentucky Bluegrass
Figure 1. Chart of Comparative Installation and Maintenance Costs
Table provided by the EPA that illustrates the cost benefit of prairie grasses and forbs over
Kentucky Blue Grass.
"Green Landscaping: Greenacres." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 22
Nov. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/tooltestkit/gallary/TKSlide09.html>.
Figure 2 (a, b). Cost comparison charts for prairie installation and non-native lawns
Tables represent the savings of native prairie/meadow over nonnative on ⅓ acre sites. Figure 2a,
is a general cost comparison. Figure 2b is a 10 year cost comparison.
Zimmerman, Catherine B. Urban & Suburban Meadows: Bringing Meadowscaping to Big and
Small
Spaces. Silver Spring, MD: Matrix Media, 2010. 21-23. Print.
Appendix G. Park Maintenance - Paid Staff
Announced during city council meeting September 13, 2012
Recorded by: Margaretta Farnham
Park maintenance - Paid Staff:
Supervisor -
Crew Leader-
Assistant Forester-
5 maintenance workers
Appendix H. Infrastructure Costs (1, 2, 3)
(1) Fencing:
Fenc-Co North
1126 Florida Ave N
Golden Valley, MN 55427
tel: 763-582-0447
Cost estimator is based on min of 100 feet.
4' high white picket fence
30 ft. length = $600.00 with one walk through gate
200 ft. length= $3300.00 with one walk through gate
website: www.fenc-co.com
(2) Signage:
Golden Valley has $3500.00 (ongoing) for signage per park
Comprehensive Plan 2008-2018 Appendix 6-C-1: Park Improvement Estimates
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/comprehensiveplan/pdf/06-Parks.pdf
Signage Options:
"Recycled Plastic Message Centers." On Kay Park Recreation Corp. N.p., 2009. Web. 22
Nov. 2012.
<http://catalog.kaypark.com/viewitems/recycled-plastic/recycled-plastic-message-centers>.
(3) Benches:
"Recycled Plastic Benches." On Kay Park Recreation Corp. N.p., 2009. Web. 22 Nov.
2012. <http://catalog.kaypark.com/viewitems/recycled-plastic/recycled-plastic-benches>.
Appendix I. Additional Funding Potentials
·
Tree City USA / Arbor Day Foundation
o http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/benefits.cfm
o http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/standards.cfm
The Four Standards for Tree City USA Recognition
To qualify as a Tree City USA community, a town or city must meet four standards established
by The Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters.
1. A Tree Board or Department
2. A Tree Care Ordinance
3. A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita
4. An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation
http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/standards.cfm
The Tree City USA Contact for Minnesota is not the Urban Forester. It is:
Jennifer Teegarden
DNR Forestry
Forestry Outreach Specialist
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4044
651-259-5285
Jennifer.teegarden@state.mn.us
Below are images that illustrate an example of community fundraising efforts for replanting in
Golden Valley following storm damage at North Tyrol Park.