Group_5 ROW_Open SpacesManaging Golden
Valley’s
Right-of-ways and
Open-space Parcels
ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for Environmental Change
Report 5/7 Prepared for:
The City of Golden Valley
Prepared by:
Taylor Hodne—Group leader
Aaron Arvold—Group liaison and field technician
Kylee Sanders—Lead investigative researcher
Martin Gordon—Community garden specialist
Allison Flickinger—Outreach coordinator
Avery Peace—Burkthorn botanist and cartographer
December 10, 2012
Table of Contents
List of Figures...........................................................................................ii
List of Maps..............................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................iii
Executive Summary.................................................................................iv
Introduction................................................................................................1
Golden Valley Vision Statement.........................................................2
Class Vision Statement........................................................................2
Group Vision Statement.......................................................................3
Methods.....................................................................................................3
Site Description....................................................................................3
Literature Analysis/Secondary ROW Management Data....................4
Personal Interview and Outreach to Garden Coordinators..................7
Site Survey...........................................................................................8
Results........................................................................................................9
Literature Analysis...............................................................................9
Community Garden Installations.........................................................9
Buckthorn Findings............................................................................14
Recommendations....................................................................................15
Recommendation 1............................................................................15
Recommendation 2............................................................................17
Recommendation 3............................................................................19
Conclusion...............................................................................................20
References................................................................................................21
Appendix A: Salad Table.........................................................................23
Appendix B: Sample Garden Outline (Merriam Station Community
Garden)..............................................................................................24
Appendix C: First Year Budget for the Merriam State Community
Garden................................................................................................25
Appendix D: Second Year Budget for the Merriam Station
Community Garden............................................................................26
Appendix E: Contact Information for Local Organizations and
Businesses..........................................................................................27
Appendix F: Sample Member Agreement from Uxbridge
Community Gardens..........................................................................28
Appendix G: Sand-Point Well.................................................................29
i
List of Figures
Figure 1: An unimproved ROW in one of Golden Valley’s residential
areas.....................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Plot 17......................................................................................11
List of Maps
Map 1: Map of Golden Valley including OSPs and unimproved ROWs.
October 2, 2012....................................................................................5
Map 2: Map of Golden Valley partitioning off zones that include
OSPs and unimproved ROW, October 2, 2012...................................6
Map 3: Close-up of Section B3 from Figure 3, October 2, 2012............10
ii
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the staff of Golden Valley, specifically Al Lundstrom, City
Park Maintenance Supervisor; and Eric Eckman, City Public Works Specialist; for
sharing their knowledge and information regarding the city of Golden Valley. We
would also like to acknowledge Dr. Anthony D’Amato, Department of Forest
Resources, University of Minnesota; and Linda Loomis, Kristine Frey, Stephanie
Hankerson and Linda Gitelis for the assistance they provided.
iii
Executive Summary
The city of Golden Valley in Minnesota worked cooperatively with students at the
University of Minnesota in the “Problem Solving for Environmental Change”
course to review the city’s unimproved right-of-ways and open-space parcels and
their management. The objectives of this report were to conduct a representative
sampling of the spaces in order to better understand the conditions that they are in,
to determine an ideal plan to manage the invasive species of buckthorn in these
areas, and to investigate the possibility of placing a community garden in one of the
available open spaces.
The results of the objectives were an inventory of selected unimproved right-of-
ways and open-space parcels, findings regarding the ideal type of community
garden for the city which includes the location and procedure to create one, and the
results of a literature review that provides insight into what other cities have done to
manage their land.
Recommendations
•Removal of buckthorn in strategic areas and creation of an educational pamphlet
for residents to educate them about the buckthorn problem as well as other
invasive plants, strategies to remove and eradicate them, and ways to get
involved
•Right-of-ways and open parcels bordering private land could be managed by
local residents through an adoption program
•Implement pilot plot for Community Garden
iv
Introduction
Golden Valley is a city located five miles west of downtown Minneapolis. This
first-ring suburb has a population of 20,655 people living on approximately 10.5
square miles of land. Golden Valley’s demographics skew toward young families
and older citizens, the majority living in single-family homes. However, the
presence of large employers like Honeywell and General Mills means there are
quite a few young professionals that reside in Golden Valley as well. The
community recently celebrated its 125th anniversary, and prides itself on its
commitment to community service and outreach. Golden Valley is very in touch
with its citizens, and in 2012 the Public Works Board won an Exceptional
Performance Award for their efforts in educating their residents on the
environmental effects of inflow and infiltration. The city is committed to pursuing
greater environmental sustainability, and is making great strides toward doing so.
The city recognizes that there are land management issues and they are working to
address them. The areas of Golden Valley that are under investigation are the open-
space parcels (OSP) and the unimproved right-of-ways (ROW). An OSP is a city-
owned piece of land that does not have a specified use. An unimproved ROW is
essentially a piece of publicly held land that borders private land. These ROWs are
generally small cuts of land not much bigger than the suburban lots that they border;
often residents believe they are a part of their own backyards. They are considered
unimproved because the city has no general maintenance plan for them.
The management of the city’s unimproved ROWs and OSPs faces many challenges.
The largest, and most difficult, is the overbearing occurrence of two species of
buckthorn. Both species, glossy buckthorn and common buckthorn, were brought to
Minnesota in the mid-1800s from Europe to be used as hedging material. The plant
is extremely aggressive and domineering and will quickly overpopulate disturbed
areas, such as city forested areas and unmowed, unmanaged places. Buckthorn is
considered invasive because it is “not native to the area and causes economic harm,
environmental harm, or harm to human health” (MN DNR 2012). Historically,
common buckthorn was banned from nurseries and cultivation in the 1930s,
however, glossy buckthorn is still sold in some states; Minnesota only recently
having banned it in the fall of 1999. Being an invasive species, it lacks any natural
controls. It is the unchecked growth of buckthorn that leads to the demise of the
ecosystem and native species as it out competes them for nutrients, space, water,
and light. Buckthorn can also increase erosion by reducing growth of plants on the
ground, and it can host other nuisances, including the soybean aphid and crown rust
fungus (MN DNR 2012).
Another problem of managing these spaces is the unapproved use of the
unimproved ROWs and OSPs by residents. Some residents will adopt adjacent
1
ROWs as their own property. City staff has found that while some residents
routinely mow these spaces, others place tents and fire pits in them. While it has
always been a problem, city officials have noted that illegal dumping in unimproved
ROWs has risen since the economic downturn because it is simply too expensive to
pay for proper removal by the city. Unfortunately, some residents who are faced
with the prices of legal disposal of materials have chosen to illegally dump items in
these spaces. The materials dumped can range from old building materials, such as
bricks, to yard waste, such as leaves and clippings. This unpermitted use of city land
is hard to keep track of or regulate due to the lack of monitoring and an enforcement
system. The accumulation of this waste is seen as undesirable by residents, and so it
is in the best interest of the city and the citizens that this issue is resolved.
Golden Valley Vision Statement
The strength of a community is based on how well it reflects the goals and
aspirations of its people (Envision Golden Valley, 2002). Golden Valley has
focused on encouraging redevelopment and improvement of the current structure of
the city. Preserving and protecting historic sites around the city of Golden Valley
will be an emphasis going into the future as well as environmentally friendly
sustainable growth.
Golden Valley’s Comprehensive Plan focuses on nine main goals for land use
planning:
1. Complete Community
2. Minimized Conflict
3. Development of Commercial Corridors
4. Protection of the Existing Job base
5. High Quality Development
6. Redevelopment
7. Protection of the Environment
8. Accommodation of Regional Needs
9. Improved Health through Planning for Active Living
Golden Valley’s vision for the environment is to preserve the balance of its natural
and developed urban spaces and to protect the environment. The city’s Envision of
Golden Valley report also emphasizes the active engagement of its community in
many ways, including the improvement of neighborhoods.
Class Vision Statement
To create a proactive, cohesive, and flexible natural resource plan that supports
community engagement and advances the role of Golden Valley as a leader in
environmental management.
2
Group Vision Statement
As University of Minnesota students, we wish to successfully collaborate with the
city of Golden Valley in order to determine the best way to effectively manage their
OSPs and unimproved ROWs. The focus of the management strategy will be on
educating the residents and creating a project to efficiently manage public space and
invasive species in a less costly and timely manner.
The goal of this project is to determine what can be done differently regarding the
management of Golden Valley’s unimproved ROWs and OSPs by taking an
inventory of the spaces and exploring the viability of more desirable management
options. This project will determine strategies that could save the city time and
money with their maintenance, primarily community gardens, prairie restoration,
citizen education, and volunteer services.
The objective is to complete an inventory of the unimproved ROWs and OSPs
within Golden Valley. This inventory can be used to determine spaces that are
affected by certain problems and identify which spaces can be maintained in the
best manner. Finally, this inventory will help Golden Valley accomplish the goal of
saving money and creating the most effective natural resource management plan. A
pilot plan for the installation of a community garden will be studied, which will
include the location of the garden, the potential costs and grant opportunities for the
garden, the partner organizations which can aid in the installation of the garden, and
outline the logistical steps needed to get the project started. Other alternative uses
will also be discussed.
Methods
Site Description
The major sites of consideration that were investigated were OSPs, areas that had no
specified use, and unimproved ROWs, small plots of land that are found in and
around residential areas. As previously stated, the OSPs and unimproved ROWs are
located throughout the city of Golden Valley. The city reports that 3% of Golden
Valley’s land is in the form of open space and wetlands, which includes OSPs.
These areas are found near both residential and business zones. The 42 unimproved
ROWs are scattered within the 48% of the land that is residential. The size of the
ROWs ranges from 1,122 to 85,000 square feet (sq ft), with an average area of
15,000 sq ft. These ROWs are often nothing more than small plots of land, as seen
in Figure 1, but they can have an impact on the aesthetics of an area.
3
Figure 1: An unimproved ROW in one of Golden Valley’s residential areas.
These areas are often plagued by problematic infestations of invasive species due to
lack of direct management. They have also been found to attract illegal dumping of
residential waste. These sites vary in size, but on average, the ROWs are smaller
than the OSPs. The sites with the most difficult aspects tend to have tree cover,
while others are included in the mowing maintenance plan or are mowed by citizens
who treat them as their own property.
Using ArcGIS and data layers provided by Eric Eckman, Golden Valley’s Public
Works Specialist, a map of the city of Golden Valley was created that includes the
ROWs and OSPs, as seen in Map 1. These areas were delineated into zones based
on proximity to residences and size, as seen in Map 2.
4
Map 1: Map of Golden Valley including OSPs and unimproved ROWs, October 2, 2012.
5
Map 2: Map of Golden Valley partitioning off zones that include OSPs and unimproved ROW. October 2,
2012.
Literature Analysis/Secondary ROW Management Data
For the community garden initiative it was necessary to examine the tangible
benefits provided by community gardens as well as other garden implementation
projects such as those of the FairShare farm in Southeast Como and the Midway
Greenspirit Garden. It was also necessary to investigate ideal site characteristics,
past budget summaries, sources of funding and/or assistance, and examples of
contracts for gardener participants which serve to create accountability for the
members. Reviewing these characteristics of other examples of how gardens have
worked or failed allowed for the proposal of the best possible implementation
methods and dispelling doubts about the feasibility of this type of project. It also
provided some benefit to see research on other tangible benefits that communities
can experience when they have community gardens, such as property value increase
or use as an educational resource for local schools.
6
Small OSPs are constantly in flux due to vacant lots and undeveloped areas. These
parcels are the city's responsibility to manage. Often these small areas become
overrun with weeds and are perceived as undesirable and even dangerous. As
government budgets are always changing, the management of these areas has been
handled in a multitude of alternative ways. Many management plans that require
little budget planning have cropped up all over the country and have proven to be
successful. A successful plan needs a positive public perception, low maintenance
cost, and benefits for local residents.
Research was performed regarding buckthorn management strategies, successful
prairie restoration techniques, and mowing regimes. In order to address these
problems accurately and efficiently, case studies were found that dealt with relevant
situations. By analyzing how other cities handled these issues, it was possible to
plan credible and peer reviewed management strategies.
Information on the best management practices for buckthorn is amazingly broad.
Management is closely tied to the plant’s biology and many options exist. This
variety is necessary because as the plant ages and as the seasons change, so do the
most effective and safe treatment varieties. Information found on buckthorn
management is easily broken into two areas: large scale and residential scale. City
and state web pages compose the bulk of the literature found on residential
buckthorn management, whereas information for large-scale management came
from technical reports from large-scale removal projects. The most applicable and
successful report found was the biennial Aldo Leopold and Land Stewardship Staff
“Buckthorn Report” (2008, 2010, 2012) from Baraboo, Wisconsin.
Personal Communications and Outreach to Garden Coordinators
In tandem with the literature analysis, the community garden coordinator of the
FairShare Farm in Southeast Como was asked about how their garden had gone
about starting up their operation. This was done by taking personal notes while the
informal interview was taking place. They were asked questions about what they
have done specifically, challenges they faced, and what has or has not worked in
their case in terms of gaining support and momentum for their project. It was also
advantageous to get a sense of what their budget was in the beginning and what it is
now that they are operational. In this regard, outreach efforts targeted the Midtown
Greenspirit Garden to cross reference the expenditures. These two gardens were
asked how much they charged their clients so that a reasonable value could be
determined for a plot or share of a community garden. With this data, cost-benefit
analyses were possible to allow for comparing and contrasting certain features of
community gardens to provide an open-ended style implementation plan. This
allowed for a plan, which can be tailored to the means of the city council and
external stakeholders, should this idea move into the implementation stage. Data
7
collected during this process was then compared and paired with data encountered
during the literature analysis.
Site Survey
As stated previously, the first objective was to complete an inventory of OSPs. This
is important because all aspects of these parcels must be taken into account to make
critical decisions when it comes to new management plans as well as the
implementation of community gardens because each decision requires specific
qualities in the land. The OSPs were divided throughout Golden Valley into 11
sectors for the purpose of data collection and organization. ROWs and OSPs within
these sectors were selected and surveyed according to the size of the sectors and the
allotted time to emphasize compatibility with community gardens. In order to
inventory these sites, they were physically visited and visual analysis was
performed on the land to check for certain attributes that were found to be the most
relevant to the project objectives. The surrounding area was also examined to judge
how many close residences there are to each plot and how visibly apparent the sites
are or if they are mostly hidden from the public. This is important in judging the
availability of the plot which is essential for recurring participation in a community
garden program.
Another important aspect is the amount and type of vegetation present so that
decisive steps can be made in fixing the issues like buckthorn and other invasive
vegetation. The vegetation data was focused mainly on determining the amount of
buckthorn present and was measured based on visual analysis and a quantitative
percent of the overall vegetation. The current management practices were looked at
using visual analysis, including the extent of mowing taking place on each site. This
was based on the length of the grass and the activities that are common on the parcel
such as baseball games that require constant upkeep. This analysis required multiple
visits over a period of time, but more accurate mowing schedules could also have
been gathered from the city of Golden Valley if such records exist. The last two
items in the inventory were slope and signs of illegal dumping. These last two items
were judged again based on simple visual analysis. The slope was visually assessed
as to whether or not it would be appropriate for a gardening area, and observations
were used for signs of illegal dumping. These are both important for management
changes as well as the potential for creating a garden on these sites. The use of said
spaces was determined by observations.
8
Results
Literature Analysis
OSPs and unimproved ROWs have many opportunities to be improved through
community initiatives and alternative uses. In a study of Baltimore City and the
management plan of vacant lots, alternative management plans were considered and
implemented. The Parks and People Foundation with a grant from National Urban
and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) formed a project that
studied how vacant lots were viewed, used and cared for in Baltimore City. Based
on the experience of the Parks and People Foundation, the following factors
contribute to sustainable neighborhood-managed open space projects (Parks and
People, 2000):
•A cohesive community
• A well-organized group with access to information, resources, and services,
or
•A local person who acts as a catalyst to lead stewardship efforts and who can
gain support from several City agencies.
•A community initiated and designed project that benefits the community.
•Appropriate site design in terms of community capacity to undertake
maintenance.
•Clear delineation of and security for the space, usually in the form of
fencing.
•Age diversity in the group managing and using the vacant lot.
•Adaptability of the space to the interests of users.
In Baltimore as of 1999, there were estimated to be about 200 vacant lots that
community groups had adopted officially as “Adopt-a-Lot” properties and many
more that have been adopted unofficially (Parks and People, 2000). For a
community group to adopt a lot they must provide their own liability coverage
which is considered one of the largest obstacles for this program since many are
unable to do so. The City Department of Recreation and Parks, Horticulture
Division operates seven “City Farm Gardens” across Baltimore (Parks and People,
2000).
Community Garden Installations
In order to reduce maintenance costs for the city of Golden Valley, research has
been compiled investigating the feasibility and steps necessary to install a
community garden in the city of Golden Valley on one or more of the unimproved
ROWs or OSPs. This has been seen as a favorable situation for the city because they
will have the space managed for them while the community is benefitted by having
permission to use the space for cultivation.
9
Using the data collected from the site surveys, two sites have been selected as
suitable candidates for community garden implementation. The sites were chosen
during the surveying of ROW and OSPs within Golden Valley. The sites were
initially chosen because they possessed superficial characteristics such as a flat
slope, accessibility, ease of installation, and size. The two selected plots within the
B2 and B3 sections are 19(B32) and 17(B24) in Map 3.
Map 3: Close-up of Section B3 from Figure 3, October 2, 2012.
These two plots are OSPs that are centrally located within the city of Golden Valley
less than a mile from the City Hall. Of these two candidates, Plot 19 has a small
open space with roughly 10 x 20 meters that is open while the rest of it is closed off
by a canopy of mixed trees. This area could support small beds of flowers or salad
tables (see Appendix A) where community members could grow plants in a limited
capacity. However, it is not recommendable to use this space for vegetable gardens
due to its inadequate size. The second option, Plot 17, is a bigger triangular open
space roughly a quarter acre or more of land in full sun out of a three-quarter acre
plot. This area is a much more suitable candidate in which to install a community
vegetable garden. Plot 17 is adjacent to residential housing and bike trails making it
easily accessible to nearby citizens who could walk or drive to the site. It is located
across the street from both Wesley and Golden Oaks Parks so that neighbors in the
area would not be left without open space after the installation of a garden. It is also
located less than a mile from the City Hall and the site of the Market in the Valley,
making it within walking distance for the people gathering at these places.
10
Ideally, a community garden should be big enough to support at least ten 4 x 10’
plots. These should be laid out so that 360-degree access is possible in every plot
which can be done in a variety of ways (see Appendix B). Plot 17 is large enough to
encompass at least 10 plots of this size with room for expansion if necessary and
thus has been identified as the ideal site among the ROW and OSP candidates.
Figure 2: Plot 17.
Organizing Members and Community Support
The next step is organizing support for the project. A community garden requires a
cohort of leaders, participants, and volunteers to run smoothly. To begin, it is
necessary to identify a garden coordinator. This person works to keep momentum
moving forward for the project by acting as the director of the project, reaching out
to organizations and the community for support, and keeping everything organized.
However, though this individual is doing much of the organizing of the garden, the
decisions made within a project need to be made by all of its stakeholders. This
ensures that everyone’s opinion is accounted for and the garden can best resemble
the needs and wants of the participants. To do this it is best to have a minimum of
five to seven people initially who want to be involved in the garden and who are
willing to help plan it out (Browse Movies, Live Green Toronto). This group will be
tasked with working to recruit more members and making sure that the garden
reflects their opinions as well. In Golden Valley, the local gardening club is an
obvious bank of possible members and/or volunteers, and so the planners should
reach out to this group.
11
Ideally, the garden group would reach out to the community for support as getting a
garden started is physically and financially. To do this, the group can reach out to
the Golden Valley Gardening Club, Market in the Valley, or Valley Community
Presbyterian Church participants for volunteer assistance. These groups represent
organizations that deal with gardening or, in the case of the farmer’s market,
represent people who are interested in fresh local food and may be willing to help
out for the benefit of the garden. Start-up can be a costly period in the life of a
garden. To overcome this, financial aid may be sought out to help get the project
started. The group should investigate funding or grant options for starting gardens in
Golden Valley or the greater Metro area. Possible resources for financial support
include The Messerli & Kramer Foundation, the Fiskars’ Project Orange Thumb,
and a list of other current funding options can be found at the Gardening Matters
website. There is also the possibility that the garden could receive support such as
tool donations from local hardware stores such as Kuiper’s Ace Hardware,
Menards, and USA Hardware store which are all in Golden Valley (see Appendix
E).
Finally, the stakeholders should come together to draft ground rules for themselves
as members of the community garden (see Appendix F). This is important to create
so that each participant knows the rules of the garden and can be held responsible if
they decide to abandon the project without holding back the remaining group. This
document should create accountability, understanding of rules and regulations as
well as a more cohesive group dynamic.
Overview of Steps for Organizing
1.Identify garden coordinator
2.Gather five to seven people who want to be involved in the planning of the
garden
3.Reach out to community organizations for support
4.Have the stakeholders establish ground rules for participants and, if necessary,
city involvement
Types of Community Gardens
The two most common types of gardens used in the United States by community
gardens are allotment gardens and communal gardens. The first method is an
allotment garden in which individuals or groups rent and manage their own parcel
within the garden to grow what they please. Participants typically pay a fee to
become members and receive access to this plot. Here they can grow whatever
annual crops they want within reason and so long as their plants are kept in check.
Golden Valley already has a very successful allotment garden at the Valley
Community Presbyterian Church, and for this reason this style may be preferable as
it has proven effective. The benefits and drawbacks of this approach are as follows.
12
•Pros
- Flexible Schedules
- Planning Freedoms
•Cons
- Individualistic
- Lacks Support Network
The second type is a communal garden where all of the beds in the garden, the
workload, and the produce is shared by all of the participants. Here they decide as a
group which crops they want, how many of each they want, and where they want
them. Participants select one of several work days in the week that they can make it
to and work is divided up based on what needs to be done on a given day. Often
communication to other day’s work groups is done via workbook notes describing
what has been/needs to be done. This method’s positive and negative features are as
follows.
•Pros
- Support Network
- Collective Learning
- More Crop Varieties
•Cons
- More Rigid Work Schedule
- Less Planning Liberties
The decision to use one model of gardening over the other should be made by the
participants involved in the process. This will ensure that the participants are getting
the most enjoyment and benefit out of the space. It also works to create a feeling of
belonging for those involved in the planning process (Hankerson, personal
communication, October 8, 2012). Ideally, they will be aware that both approaches
to community gardens exist before going forward and deciding on one or the other.
Budgeting
The scale and degree to which a community garden is installed depends on the
desires of those involved as well as the spending budget of the project. However,
several major expenses are necessary for the majority of community garden project.
These include tilling or land preparation, compost, measuring supplies to stake out
plots, water access, and liability insurance. In 2011 the FairShare farm spent
$981.00 on compost alone (Hankerson, personal communication, October 8, 2012).
This makes applying for grants a highly desirable option. However, some of these
expenses can be recouped in the membership fees which are determined by the cost
of the project and the value of the services it provides to its member (see Appendix
C, D). Other implementations such as raised beds are not necessary for a
community garden and while they are effective in reducing maintenance, they
require compost and wood to be built (Hankerson, personal communication,
October 8, 2012). Options such as raised beds are popular but can raise the project’s
13
budget substantially. Which components are going to be used needs to be decided
by the group’s members and their budget.
Moving Forward
The only roadblock to successful implementation for Golden Valley is the question
of water access. There is no visible water source, such a fire hydrant or other spigot,
directly adjacent to Lot 17. However, directly across the street on the west side of
the entrance to Wesley Park, there is a municipal hydrant. Hose lines could be run
across Plymouth Avenue during lull times in traffic in order to water the garden if
approved by the city. However, not all gardens use hydrants as their primary source
of water. Other methods for procuring water are used when hydrants are not
available, such as rain barrels, spigots from neighboring houses or individually
transported water. If the garden proves successful in its first couple of years
installing a sand-point well on the site may be a good option for the garden (see
Appendix G). This technology is relatively inexpensive and typically costs a couple
hundred dollars depending how deep the water table is. Golden Valley has a high
water table and is prone to flooding, thus a sand-point well is a reasonable strategy
for procuring water sustainably in the future. A solution to this issue needs to
include the help of the city of Golden Valley in order to be overcome.
Going into the future, having stable lines of conversation between the garden and
the city will be very useful. Within the first few years of startup participants should
consider forming an awareness committee that meets a couple times a year to
discuss what is working and what is not and what the garden has planned for the
coming months. Several members of the garden who have particular interest in the
happenings of the garden should be the ones to step up and represent the garden in
these meetings. The gardeners can make requests of the city such as delivering
compost or permission to hold events. In this way the city will know what is
happening at the garden and the participants of the garden can streamline their
efforts by having consultation with the city regulators.
Finally, some community gardens possess components such as beehives, chickens,
fruit trees or mushroom logs which add new dimensions to the standard vegetable
garden. These, however, can be expensive, logistically complicated, and
unnecessary. It is recommended that these endeavors be avoided in the first couple
years. In the case of bees, the keeping of them is a banned practice in Golden Valley
and chicken keeping is currently under review (Rose, Webber, 2012). Yet, these
may need to be considered as possible add-ons several years into the project.
Buckthorn Findings
As described in the methodology section, the city of Golden Valley’s OSPs and
unimproved ROWs were inventoried. The table with the raw data from the sampling
can be found in Appendix H. Of the 24 sites sampled, there was an average
14
buckthorn cover of 31%. However, when excluding the four sites that did not have
any buckthorn present, the average buckthorn cover of sites with the species present
rose to approximately 42%. There were only nine sites that had a buckthorn cover
of 50% or more. This means that while a majority of the sites do have buckthorn
present, most sites are not choked with it.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Buckthorn Busting
•Areas with small amounts of buckthorn should be managed to restore quality
forests, prairie and green space.
•Eligible areas overrun by buckthorn should be converted to other uses, i.e.,
community garden space, prairie space.
•Large areas saturated with buckthorn need professional management.
Discussion
Buckthorn has earned its spot for being “the biggest problem [in Golden Valley]” of
all other invasive species, according to Golden Valley’s then Environmental
Coordinator Al Lundstrom (Golden Valley City News, July 2004). Lundstrom now
works as Golden Valley’s Park Maintenance Supervisor and agrees that buckthorn
is as aggressive a problem as it is subtle. It has unassumingly taken over public and
private areas throughout Golden Valley and much of Minnesota. The feeling often
associated with this problem, especially one as wicked as this, is that of being
overpowered. Buckthorn removal can be a daunting task, especially when it is
broadly dispersed. However, removal is possible, and the benefits greatly outweigh
the challenges associated with it. Combined with data from the SEH Natural
Resource Inventory project commissioned by Golden Valley in 2003 and the
sampling completed during the past three months by this group, areas of special
interest have been delineated from those with less public exposure and high
buckthorn densities.
The advice often given to buckthorn management projects is most eloquently put by
Chris Mattrick, a Senior Conservation Program Manager in Framingham,
Massachusetts. He emphasizes how it is necessary to “‘pick your battles’ in fighting
the spread of invasive species” (Monthey and Mattrick, 2001). He also emphasizes,
as do Golden Valley officials, that the “battle” by landowners with small acreage of
land whom want to retain their woodlots as close to native as possible is very
important (Monthey, 2001). These residents make up an equally important faction
and, with proper tools and education, can effectively manage these areas. The final
point of emphasis is to not waste resources to address every invasive plant in the
15
city, at least not immediately. The problem is mighty enough and needs to be
prioritized.
Several negative aspects to buckthorn monoculture include dense, low-lying
vegetation that often hinders sunlight to seedlings as well as limits visibility and
personal safety in these areas. These areas are also prone to decreasing biodiversity
and fewer native wildflowers, shrubs, and animal species. They will ultimately limit
the succession of plant species and lead to entire buckthorn monocultures after adult
trees have felled. Benefits to buckthorn removal are great and can be appreciated by
many. Most important, removing buckthorn makes areas safer. The danger and fears
associated with these wooded areas lay in a thick understory where vision is
hindered and the mind wanders. Removing dense buckthorn stands opens the
understory not only to native plants, birds and important pollinators but also to
variety of colors associated with returning mushrooms, song birds, and flowers.
The city of Golden Valley currently does not manage buckthorn. Many city parks,
large ROWs and property easements, the General Mills Research Nature Area in
particular, are inundated with buckthorn growth and have been since at least 2003.
Everyone on staff is aware of this problem and understands it needs a solution.
Currently, no money is appropriated to buckthorn management and removal.
Buckthorn will never be removed from the city of Golden Valley, and it will
continue to spread if the city does not take action to remove it. Many of the foresters
and parks supervisors know of the practices involved in removing buckthorn. The
next step is to present compelling reasons as to why buckthorn must be addressed
and to allocate funds for city employees or a private company to remove large
stands of buckthorn on public lands. It is no longer enough to have buckthorn
busting volunteer programs at three city parks. Aggressive steps must be taken to
address such an aggressive problem. Both the city and the citizens must take action
to remove this threat to their woodlands and forested areas.
While many organic options exist, the more successful techniques involve the
combined application of chemical mixtures and mechanical removal. Many state
and city web pages offer step-by-step buckthorn removal directions, however, these
are meant for small-scale projects. The best large-scale reports came from two
separate projects. The first is a technical report by The Aldo Leopold Foundation
from 2010. This report presents a dynamic instruction to the management practices
followed during a ten-year-plus buckthorn management program.
Organic options do exist and can be effective for those concerned with using
chemicals. These options often work well for citizens with small buckthorn stands
and are more cost effective than buying chemical sprayers and herbicides. Creative
and effective options include the tin can method where large buckthorn shrubs are
cut leaving three inches protruding from the ground. A tin can is placed over the
stump and a nail is driven through the can into the stump to prevent shoots from
developing (“Bust Your Buckthorn”). Other options include mechanical removal for
16
large shrubs with a Weed Wrench or hand pulling for small shrubs. Routine mowing
is an option for areas with young buckthorn. However, this eliminates the
understory entirely and can be necessary for up to eight years while the seed bank is
still viable. Mowing for a year and then planting a new understory of native shrubs
and trees has also been effective.
Recommendation 2: Community outreach to encourage local residents
to remove buckthorn and manage right of ways and open parcels
•Advertise the Buckthorn Busting volunteer program and Weed Wrench Rental
Program to educate and engage residents about invasive species and how to
manage them on private property, through pamphlets the addition of
instructional videos on Golden Valley’s website to educate them how to best
remove buckthorn.
•Temporary signage along residential right of ways to promote adoption and
involvement of the public.
•Adopt-a-Lot program to allow the community to experiment with own ideas and
values for the space.
•Increase advertising and value of community managed parcels
•Improve the system for communities to publicly manage an area
•Create a system to allow individuals to adopt an unmanaged area (i.e., a ROW
next to their backyard) and provide information on invasive species
management and tool rentals through educational pamphlets and an addition to
the city of Golden Valley webpage.
•Evaluate the effectiveness of any outreach programs that are implemented,
possibly through questionnaires sent out by the city to residents
Discussion
Envision Golden Valley was created to engage residents to find their visions for the
future of Golden Valley. These viewpoints and opinions coalesced into the birth of a
community vision that can be expressed in two core ideas: Creatively Connecting
People and Places, and Inspiring Care for Community (Envision, 2002). Golden
Valley's outreach initiative has shown a desire for resident involvement, community
identity, and spaces for events that bring people from all demographics together to
create a safe environment.
Regarding community involvement, residential buckthorn management is an area
with an opportunity for improvement. Citizen action is one weapon to bringing this
problem down. Many residents do not understand the problems associated with
buckthorn monoculture. However, a drive through Golden Valley shows the care
taken to have tidy and beautiful yards to be apparent. Addressing not only the
problems and ugliness associated with buckthorn to residents, but also the benefits
to its removal can be motivation enough for change. Many of the ROWs are small
areas adjacent to and between houses. These can be difficult for the city to manage
17
due to their erratic distribution, small-size, and immediate proximity to residential
property. For these three reasons, it is proposed that a program be launched to enlist
property owners living adjacent to ROWs that will educate, inform, and arm them
with the tools to treat this buckthorn.
The information on the Golden Valley website does not provide clear information
on the city’s removal programs. It is recommended that the city updates its website,
based on other Metro cities, to show not only the importance of buckthorn removal,
but also the proper steps to removal. The city of Minnetonka web page provides a
very thorough 8-page report by Janet Van Sloun Larson (2002). It covers everything
from history and identification to mechanical and chemical removal of buckthorn.
The selected audience appears to be interested but not well-versed citizens wanting
to remove buckthorn: exactly the target audience of Golden Valley residents.
In part to updating the City of Golden Valley’s web page, more information to the
Weed Wrench Rental Program and Buckthorn Busting event should be presented.
The bimonthly Golden Valley CityNews programs provide a good update to
upcoming invasive species events. They can be even more successful by adding a
link to the city’s web page where more information can be found. This is a great
advertising opportunity and should be used as one.
People value available open space and informal trails and will pay more to live near
them. Surveys show that 40 to 80% of people living in golf course developments are
not golfers, but that they choose to live there because of the open space visible from
their windows (Monahan et al.). Creating community spaces that reduce
management time and cost while beautifying the neighborhood are desired by both
the city and the residents. Through a Community Engagement Plan educating the
public and advertising for a Weed Wrench Rental Program, costs to the city could
be reduced and local residents could help maintain the quality of the area. Another
potential management strategy to be encouraged is prairie restoration projects.
Similar recommendations were made by LARKE Planning regarding unimproved
ROWs. LARKE Planning is a group of graduate students from Portland State
University. Their first recommendation was to create an information campaign
designed to inform and guide property owners adjacent to unimproved streets.
Subsequently, they recommend pursuing pilot projects on unimproved streets,
which provide a unique opportunity for innovative practice (Hyman et al., 2010).
By allowing community groups to manage OSPs and ROWs, each area becomes a
new potential success story driven by the residents who take pride in what they have
accomplished.
Once these measures have been taken, there needs to be a reporting system so that
the city can determine whether these implemented measures are successful.
Questionnaires could be sent out to residents who live near ROWs and OSPs to see
if the program was implemented in their area, to determine whether these optional
18
programs are being taken advantage of, and if they see an improvement in the
managed area, to determine if the programs are effective.
Recommendation 3: Implement pilot plot for Community Garden
•Initiate initial contact with organizations like the Golden Valley Gardening Club
through a forum to gauge public support
•Work with the group to plan rules and assure streamline implementation process
•Help to facilitate water access for garden
•Provide delivery of materials like compost or wood chips
Discussion
Community gardens have been proven to provide tangible benefits for the
communities in which they are located. These gardens can do this in a number of
ways ranging from social benefits to both environmental and economic advantages.
Socially and economically, community gardens provide benefits in the form of
increasing property value, reducing neighborhood crime and providing educational
benefits for children and adults alike (Bremer et al, 2003; Chicago, 2003; Sherer,
2006, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Furthermore, community gardens can be observed to
provide environmental benefits in tandem with social benefits. For instance,
community gardens are well documented in their ability to conserve resources in the
food production process while also helping to conserve soil and water resources
(Bremer et al, 2003; Sherer, 2006). Other common benefits reaped by gardeners and
their communities come in the form of improved health, civic engagement, and
community strengthening. Golden Valley can encounter these same benefits should
they decide to go forward with implementing a community garden in the city.
Golden Valley has expressed an interest in implementing community gardens as a
part of their long-term goals, as stated in the city's comprehensive plan’s park
improvements section (Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2010). The city can
achieve this intent while reducing city spending on parcel maintenance by means of
mowing and providing the community with a valuable asset. With relatively
minimal assistance, the implementation of a community garden would show the
residents of Golden Valley that the city is committed to community betterment and
meeting citizen’s desires. Former mayor of Golden Valley, Linda Loomis, has
observed many requests for community gardens from residents over the years.
There are some outlets for these requests such as the community garden at the
Valley Community Presbyterian Church, which according to Loomis has roughly
tripled in size since its start in 2010 (L. Loomis, personal communication,
September 16, 2012). However there is reason to believe that there is still a need to
expand gardening opportunity resources for the public’s benefit. Since the Valley
Garden at the Valley Community Presbyterian Church is an allotment garden and
has proven successful in the past several years, it may be prudent to repeat this
gardening model.
19
Decisions need to be made by the garden coordinator, the planners and the members
of the garden in conjunction with the city so that there are no misunderstandings
between the two groups on the regulations and city codes. It is up to these
individuals to plan out what they want their garden to look like so that the garden
space reflects their desires. By implementing community gardens both the city of
Golden Valley, who will save money on land care, and members of the community.
Conclusion
The city of Golden Valley is striving to improve both its sustainability and engage
its citizen in a meaningful way. In order to meet those goals, it should re-examine
its management practices regarding unimproved ROWs and OSPs. In doing so, they
will increase the use of these areas by residents and improve the ecological status of
the city. Through analysis of the available OSPs and ROWs, three recommendations
were drafted to aid in reducing city spending and beautification.
1.The removal of buckthorn in strategic areas to halt the spread of this
invasive species, along with an educational campaign to raise awareness of
invasive species and promote the city’s existing removal options (i.e., Weed
Wrench & Buckthorn Busting).
2. The implementation of an adoption program to allow unimproved ROWs
and OSPs to be managed by private citizens to cut management costs and
give citizens a feeling of accountability and pride toward public spaces,
reducing dumping and fostering a sense of community responsibility.
3. The implementation of a pilot plot community garden in to provide the city
with further environmental, social and economic benefit while lowering the
management costs for OSPs and fulfilling a community desire for a second
community garden project.
These recommendations were created to explicitly address the issue of effective
buckthorn management while lowering city management costs in unimproved
ROWs and OSPs. They also serve to inform and engage the public in ways that will
foster a sense of accountability, pride, and togetherness. By implementing these
recommendations, the city of Golden Valley would move closer to achieving its
goals of environmental sustainability and community improvement.
20
References
Aldo Leopold Foundation and Land Stewardship Staff. Buckthorn Report. 2008,
2010, & 2012. https://www.aldoleopold.org
Bremer, A., K. Jenkins, and D. Kanter. 2003. Community Gardens in Milwaukee:
Procedures for their long-term stability & their import to the city. Milwaukee:
University of Wisconsin, Department of Urban Planning.
Browse|Movies |Upload Live Green Toronto - Starting a Community Garden. Perf.
Sarosh Anwar. Browse|Movies |Upload Live Green Toronto - Starting a
Community Garden. 2010. Live Green Toronto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKJexyPwBfk (accessed November 1, 2012).
“Bust Your Buckthorn.” City of Saint Paul.
http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2272 (accessed November
1, 2012).
Chicago Botanic Garden and the City of Chicago. 2003. Green connections: A
research assessment of community gardening in Chicago. Chicago: City of
Chicago.
City of Saint Paul. “Bust your buckthorn.”
http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2272 (accessed November
1, 2012).
Envision Golden Valley Report. 2002. City of Golden Valley.
Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Six, Parks. 2010. City of Golden
Valley, Minnesota.
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/planning/comprehensiveplan/index.php
(accessed November 1, 2012)
Golden Valley City News. July 2004.
http://goldenvalleymn.gov/news/publications/citynews/pdf/2004/citynews-0708-
2004 (accessed November 8, 2012).
Hankerson, S. (2012, October 8). Personal Interview
Hyman, L., A. Klein, R. Boyle, K. Lynd, and E. Lieb. 2010. Unimproved streets in
Portland: An exploration of opportunities and challenges. LARKE Planning.
Kuo, F., and W. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33(3):343-367.
Larson, J. 2002. Buckthorn: A threat to our native woodland ecosystem. Minnesota
PlantPress. Revised 2009.
Loomis, L. (2012, September 16). Personal interview
Monahan, R., J. Gibbons, and C. Arnold. n.d. Conservation subdivisions: A better
way to protect water quality, retain wildlife, and preserve rural character.
NEMO Project Fact Sheet. University of Connecticut.
Monthey, R., and C. Mattrick. 2001. Control of nonnative invasive plants on your
woodlot. http://na.fs.fed.us/stewardship/pubs/invasive_cntrl/invasive_cntrl.htm
(accessed November 8, 2012).
21
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Buckthorn.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/index.ht
ml (accessed September 26, 2012).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Invasive Species: Minnesota DNR.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index.html (accessed September 26,
2012).
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC). 2000.
Neighborhood open space management: A report on greening strategies in
Baltimore and six other cities. Parks and People Foundation.
Rose, M. 2012. Council Likely to Allow, Regulate Beekeeping. St. Louis Park
Patch. 29 Aug. 2012 (accessed November 12, 2012).
<http://stlouispark.patch.com/articles/council-likely-to-allow-and-regulate-
residential-beekeeping>.
Sherer, P.M. 2006. The benefits of parks: Why America needs more city parks and
open space. http://www.tpl.org.
Webber, S. 2012. Chicken Study Will Take 10 Months in Golden Valley. Sun
Focus, 14 May 2012. http://focus.mnsun.com/2012/05/chicken-study-will-take-
10-months-in-golden-valley/ (accessed November 12, 2012).
22
Appendix A: Salad Table
23
Appendix B: Sample Garden Outline (Merriam Station
Community Garden)
24
Appendix C: First Year Budget for the Merriam Station
Community Garden
25
Appendix D: Second Year Budget for the Merriam Station
Community Garden
26
Appendix E: Contact Information for Local Organizations
and Businesses
Gardening Matters: http://www.gardeningmatters.org/funding-opportunities
Kuiper’s Ace Hardware: 7914 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley, MN 55427
Phone Number: (763) 545-9627
Menards: 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley MN 55426 Phone Number:
(763) 541-9300
USA Hardware:6960 Madison Avenue West Golden Valley, MN 55427 Phone
Number: (763) 417-0094
27
Appendix F: Sample Member Agreement from Uxbridge
Community Gardens
28
Appendix G: Sand-Point Well
29
Appendix H: Table of Sampling Data from Chosen ROWs and OSPsLocationROW/OSPCurrent useSurroundingsVegetation
Buckthornpresent
%
Buckthorncover
Mowingextent
Slope / garden compatibility
Signs of
dumpingB12ROWTrailResidentialWoodedYes70N/ANot compatibleXB21ROWTrail
Residential, business,creekWoodedYes30N/AFlat, not compatibleX
B31ROWCreekResidentialWoodedYes20N/ANot compatibleXC22ROWEmptyResidentialGrassYes10HeavyFlat, possible garden areaXC12ROWNoneResidential, ChurchGrass, few treesYes10N/ANot compatibleXB16OSPWoodedResidentialWoodedYes40N/ANot compatibleXB23OSPHeavily woodedResidential, General MillsWoodedYes50N/ANot compatibleXB24OSPNoneResidentialFew treesNo0HeavyFlatXB22OSPPondBusinessWoodedNo0HeavyFlat, not compatibleXB32OSPNone
Residential, business,churchWoodedYes60N/ANot compatibleXB33OSPWoodedResidentialWoodedNo0HeavyFlat, not compatibleXB34OSPConstructionResidentialWoodedNo0HeavyFlat, not compatibleXB41OSPNoneResidential, creekWoodedYes40HeavyFlat, not compatibleXB42OSPNoneResidential, pondForest, wetlandYes40N/ANot compatibleXB43OSPSmall pondResidential/ businessTrees/buckthornYes10N/ANot compatibleXB44OSPNone
Residential housing/ traintrack
Assorted trees/buckthornYes60N/ANot compatibleXB51OSPSmall pondResidential housingBuckthorn/treesYes70N/AFlat, not compatibleXB52OSPSmall pondResidentialTrees/buckthornYes70N/ANot compatibleXB53OSPSmall pondResidentialTrees/buckthornYes65N/AFlat, not compatibleXB6OSPPondBusinessTrees/brushYes10N/AFlat, not compatibleXB61OSPNoneResidential, parkGrass and pineNo0minimalFlat, not compatibleXB71OSPSmall pondResidentialTrees/buckthornYes50N/ANot compatibleXB72OSPSmall pondResidentialTrees/buckthornYes50N/ANot compatibleXB6-1ROWBrushResidentialTrees/buckthornYes20N/ANot compatibleYB6-2ROWManagedResidential
Lillies, lilac and cuttrees, tall treesYes5N/ANot compatibleN
B5-1ROW
Partially adoptedinto yard (mowed)Residential
Grass, buckthorn,treesYes25HeavyNot compatibleNB5-2ROWTrail/pondResidential, park, schoolWoodedYes30N/APossibly compatibleN