Meadows Conservation Area-Bleiman Management Plan
‘Civic Agriculture’ -Food and agricultural systems that sustain and strengthen farm families, local communities, and natural resources. BLEIMAN PROPERTY AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2009 PREPARED FOR: City of Northampton Office of Planning and Development Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Development PREPARED BY: Benneth Phelps, Mosaic Farm Consulting
BLEIMAN PROPERTY AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I. SITE INVENTORY AND CURRENT USES 3 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3 HISTORY 3 RESTRICTIONS 3 SOILS 4 AGRICULTURAL USES 5
ACCESS AND VEHICLE USE 5 II. AGRICULTURAL USE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHOOSING AGRICULTURAL USES 5 AGRICULTURAL USE ANALYSIS 6 AGRICULTURAL USE DECISION MATRIX 7 REGENERATIVE
PRACTICES 10 COVER CROPPING 11 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF LEASE 11 MAINTENANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 III. LOCAL CONTEXT: CUTTING EDGE CIVIC AGRICULTURE 13 LOCAL COMMUNITY
FARM EXAMPLES 13 TOP SIX CIVIC AGRICULTURAL IDEAS 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bleiman Property Agricultural Management Plan is a planning document designed to provide guidance for agricultural management of the Bleiman Donation property.
The plan encompasses a 5 acre portion of a 9.95 acre property on the corners of Potash Rd. and Dike Rd. The goals of this plan is are to: • Provide analysis of agricultural site potential
• Highlight important factors for making agricultural use determinations, and recommend options for use • Suggest land management practices • Recommend elements of a lease agreement
which support the practice of regenerative agriculture The planning process included a site tour and a meeting with the citizen group interested in stewarding the property, for the purpose
becoming familiar with their goals. In addition, a interview with Lisa Depiano, a farmer at Montview Farm currently leasing from the city, added depth of understanding to small scale
farming on City owned property. Site characteristics include an isolated location, seasonal and non-seasonal access issues, and limited infrastructure. Water is a major theme onsite,
including the presence of a mixture of wet and dry soils, the existence of a vernal pool, and the floodplain location, which corresponds with infrastructure restrictions, and some access
issues. The agricultural potential of the site is extensive based on the soil type, with the exception of some seasonally wet locations. Zoning and floodplain regulations, access issues,
as well as city and community wishes all constrain the future intensity of site use, and entail the primary use restrictions. The plan begins with an inventory of the site, followed
by agricultural use recommendations and recommendations on maintenance and infrastructure. Section II addresses potential site uses including: haying, row crops, grazing, composting,
nursery, seed garden, productive perennial plantings, community garden plots, educational programming, farm incubator, farmstands and CSAs. Considerations about potential uses are offered
as suggestions, and are not intended to outline one particular use for the site. It is recommended that the end users, minding site constraints, be the primary determinants of specific
uses. 1
Acknowledging that this parcel is part of a larger interest by the City of Northampton and its residents to understand and encourage regenerative agriculture, the plan includes both
suggestions finely narrowed to the property in section II, “Agricultural Use Recommendations,” and examples more broadly and contextually relevant to the property, and to the understanding
of regenerative and civic agriculture in section III “Local Context: Cutting Edge Civic Agriculture.” Civic Agriculture includes food and agricultural systems that sustain and strengthen
farm families, local communities, and natural resources. After analysis and community input, it is clear that the Bleiman property, with community and city involvement, can fit successfully
into a growing and existing framework of civic agricultural properties in Northampton. Dedication to long term goals and development of assets including site ecological and soil health,
and community investment in stewardship, are key pieces for long term success. 2
I. SITE INVENTORY AND CURRENT USES LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The property consists of 9.95 acres on the corners of Potash Rd and Dike Rd. A 5 acre field comprises a portion of the property,
while the remainder is wooded. This plan covers the 5 open acres located to the southeast corner. Other areas of the site are not part of this plan. A wooded area bounds the northern
and western field edges, while a hedgerow bounds the southern and eastern sides. The hedgerow is interrupted by one access point from Potash Rd and one from Dike Rd. The site is located
in an area primarily composed of conserved fields, woods, and wetlands. The historic Mill River bed forms the Bleiman property’s northern boundary. There is a certified vernal pool that
runs the length of this boundary. Soils are primarily Hadley Silt Loam, and Winooski Silt Loam, some of the highest quality agricultural soils, extremely suitable for agriculture. Privately
farmed fields are also adjacent to the property. The immediate area is primarily undeveloped, and the closest residential neighborhoods are off of South Street, east of the property.
HISTORY In 2009, the property was donated to the City of Northampton by Rita M. Bleiman & Bruce S. Bleiman for the purpose of conservation and agriculture. In recent years, the property
had been minimally cultivated, including haying, tillage and establishment of winter rye as a cover crop. RESTRICTIONS Uses of the property are limited to minimal infrastructure agricultural
endeavors for multiple reasons, including floodplain location, and donation of the property to the City for the purpose of agriculture and conservation. The agricultural use options
for the site are broad based on the soil type. Floodplain regulation, the conservation purpose of the property and City goals are the factors guiding use and restrictions. Specifically,
the City has noted the following site limitations: (1) prevention of encroachment on the vernal pool; (2) location of the property in the floodplain; (3) desire for organic and/or reduced
environmental footprint agricultural practices on cityowned agricultural land, (4) absence of public water supply or appropriate conditions for a well; (5) absence of electricity; (6)
security limitations; and (7) the presence of many mosquitoes. 3
Limitation (2), floodplain restrictions dictate that structures are mostly not practical or possible, except for possibly a small shed, which may then present security concerns. SOILS
Of 5.1 total site acres, 2.9 acres are Winooski Silt Loam, 1.8 acres are Hadley Silt Loam, and .3 acres are Limerick Silt Loam. Hadley Silt Loam is a well-drained flood plain soil, with
slopes 0-3%. Land Capability Class is a measure of the appropriateness of a soil type for particular human activities, including agriculture. Hadley Silt Loam measures a land capability
class of 1, and is therefore highly suited for agricultural use. Winooski Silt Loam is a moderately-well drained flood plain soil, with slopes 0-3%. The land capability class is 2w,
indicating that it is suitable for agriculture, but it has less than perfect drainage and may retain spring moisture longer than other soils, such as the Hadley Silt Loam. Limerick Silt
Loam is a poorly drained flood plain soil, with slopes 0-3%. The land is capability class 3w, indicating that it is less than suitable for agriculture. The depth to water table is 0-18
Hadley Soils Limerick Soils wet Winooski Soils dry Limerick Soils 4
AGRICULTURAL USES Recent agricultural uses include haying, plowing and cover cropping with rye. Comments from a recent site farmer indicated wet portions of the site can significantly
impeded germination and cultivation of crops at certain times of year, although currently the site is established with a rye/grassy mixture without issue. More intensive cultivation
of vegetable row crops or animals has not been part of the recent site history. ACCESS AND VEHICLE USE Access is currently limited to two overgrown entry points in the hedgerow. There
is no signage upon approaching or entering the site, no designated parking, and no designated location for delivery of materials (such as compost) or supplies (such as farm tools and
implements being delivered or retrieved). Existing access patterns consist of a grassy field road around the exterior of the field, running past each of the access points and along the
inside of the hedgerow. Procedures and expectations for accessing the site by vehicle or other means are are currently lacking. In addition, the condition of Dike Rd. is an access concern.
Unpaved dirt with deep potholes, the road is seasonally extremely wet and possibly impassible for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. The beginning of Dike Rd intersects with Rte 5/Pleasant
Street in a busy location without sidewalk improvements and adjacent to a highway onramp. Despite impassability issues, or because of them, Dikes Rd and the surrounding woods and wetlands
are frequent dumping sites. The dumping is of concern to neighbors and community members interested in site stewardship. II. AGRICULTURAL USE RECOMENDATIONS CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHOOSING
AGRICULTURAL USES What makes a site an excellent location for agriculture? What uses are appropriate for any given site? Agricultural sites range from dry-farmed seasonal crop fields
without permanent infrastructure, power or utility access, and visited only a few days a year, to acres covered with greenhouses, fencing, barns, worker housing, storage, retail and
customer parking. Often, civic and community agriculture entails infrastructure and 5 inches, and the drainage class is “poorly drained.” It is worth noting that although Limerick soils
make up only .3 acres of the site, the north side and northern-most two thirds of the east side of the site are bordered by wet Limerick Soils.
accommodation for incorporating a wide range of human and agricultural activities, such as educational and community buildings, permanent plantings and experimental or research-oriented
agricultural practices. Decisions about infrastructure are particularly crucial. Even in smaller scale agricultural or gardening enterprises, the presence of basic site infrastructure
is a make or break situation for the success of the agricultural endeavor. For the Bleiman property, site constraints dictate that less intensive uses are most appropriate. The site
users will have to contend with the need for a low-impact, creative approach. The most determinative constraints are: (1) heavy, wet soils in some areas; (2) limited water storage and
no irrigation; (3) limited infrastructure possibilities; and (4) limited access. DECISION MATRIX The decision matrix on the following page shows how factors (1-4) above impact potential
projects. It measures how site conditions relate to possible uses. A site condition can either be positive or negative for a potential use, or the condition may be not a meaningful factor.
In a second step, each use is ranked by the strength of its regenerative impact on the site, and in the greater community. Written analysis of these projects begins below. The matrix
is intended to offer a method of project evaluation for the site, and can be expanded or changed to included new uses under consideration. It is only a useful method if matrix users
understand the needs and impacts of each use. The discussion of particular recommended and not recommended uses in the next sections is meant to assist those who are choosing uses, by
illuminating the necessary elements for each use to be successful, as well as potential pitfalls. 6 RANKING: The ranking is on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being most negative and 5 being
most positive. 1 = very negative 2 = negative 3 = neutral, can be managed easily enough so as to be not a factor, or not a factor 4 = positive 5 = very positive
*For the purpose of this matrix, “limited infrastructure” is defined as: the absence of permanent infrastructure beyond a small shed or trailer for storage, signage, information kiosk,
entry gates, small water catchment, portable solar electric fencing, low tunnels/cold frames, and other similar seasonal, portable items. AGRICULTURAL USES: DECISION MATRIX 7 POTENTIAL
PROJECTS SITE CONDITIONS Heavy, Summary wet soil, in some areas Limited water storage and no irrigation Limited infrastructure* Limited access Resource Garden (perennial nursery, propagation
or seed garden) 4 2 2 4 12 Productive perennial plantings (small nuts, fruits, vegetables, coppice, herbs, medicinal & wild plants) 4 3 2 3 12 Composting, small scale 3 3 3 2 11 Community
garden plots 2 2 3 3 10 Educational programming (timeframe of 3 hrs or less) 3 3 2 2 10 Haying 2 5 4 3 14 Row crops 2 3 3 3 11 Grazing small animals (goats, sheep) 3 2 2 2 9 Farm incubator
2 1 1 1 5 Retail (ongoing, onsite) sales of agricultural products (farmstand or CSA) CSA) 2 1 1 1 5 REGENERATIVE IMPACT Meets Summary and exceeds site needs Meets and exceeds community
needs 5 5 12(5+5) 120 5 5 12(5+5) 120 5 4 11(5+4) 99 3 5 10(3+5) 80 3 4 10(3+4) 70 4 1 14(4+1) 70 3 3 11(3+3) 66 4 3 9(4+3) 63 1 5 5(1+5) 30 1 4 5(1+4) 25
AGRICULTURAL USE ANALYSIS Included below are examples of recommended and not recommended uses, not meant to be an exhaustive list. Many of these uses have been discussed by interested
site stewards. RECCOMENDED USES 1. Row crops, grazing or hay (lease to one farmer) Site use by a farmer who maintains infrastructure elsewhere mitigates many of the infrastructure limitations
onsite. In the case of vegetable row crops, since the farmer also farms elsewhere, crops may chosen as appropriate for a dry-farmed site and rotated effectively. In the case of hay,
limited visits to the site are necessary. With grazing, proper rotational grazing of small animals provides regenerative benefits such as improved pasture quality, and has a low site
impact, with only limited, temporary infrastructure necessary, including fencing, and water via catchment. 2. Community gardens Numerous smaller users are capable of using human or bike
power to carry water, tools, and fertility to the site incrementally. This mitigates access issues. In addition, small scale water catchment, a small tool shed, and moderate compost
piles are appropriately scaled solutions here. 3. Perennial nursery, propagation garden, or seed garden A seed garden was one idea proposed by potential users. A seed garden would be
an appropriate use: the relative isolation of the site would be an asset in seed saving due to the convenience of distance for avoiding crosspollination. A nursery or propagation garden
would also be appropriate. This is best executed with dedication to quality soil prep, and on-going watering needs, in order to grow quality transplants. Each of these undertakings provides
opportunity for an educational garden open to visitors. 4. Productive perennial plantings For example: nuts, coppice, silvopasture, fruits, vegetables, herbs, medicinal & wild plants.
Long-term plantings mitigate the water constraints onsite. A long term perennial design can easily accommodate for most water needs of the plants without the issue of constant water
provisioning associated with annual 1 "USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC)." USDA National Agroforestry Center . 4 Oct. 2009 <http://www.unl.edu/nac/silvopasture.htm>. 8
plantings. In this case, it becomes essential that user maintain a longer term lease appropriate to the harvest timing of the crop, since the yields are not immediate. Coppice is an
agroforestry system based on 1-25 year stump sprout harvest cycles. It can be easily mixed into vertically layered perennial system with other agricultural yields growing above or below,
including fruits, nuts, edible greens, medicinal herbs, small grazing, etc.... Silvopasture is an agroforestry system that combines trees with forage and livestock production. The trees
are managed for lumber, nut or fruit production, at the same time, provide shade and shelter for livestock and forage, reducing stress and sometimes increasing forage production.1 5.
Educational programming of a shorter nature (less than three hours long) Educational programming is a good addition many other site uses, such as a seed or nursery garden, or community
garden plots. Publically-oriented signage for site elements is one example of compatible education. education. Educational programming of a longer nature is not a recommended site use,
since more involved and lengthy educational offerings would require improved access, and infrastructure such as shelter and bathroom facilities. 5. Small-scale composting, by hand tools
or small tractor Composting is compatible with a wide variety of site conditions and other uses. In fact, it is almost a requirement for a regenerative site. It is by far the most common
and well-understood method of adding organic matter, and increasing soil biological health. NOT RECOMMEDED USES 7. Retail (on-site) sales of agricultural products, including a CSA Farm
stand or CSA-type operations typically require easy customer access and roadside exposure, as well as infrastructure for the washing, processing, distribution and sale of products, storage
of farm equipment, and housing of farmers and/or workers. 9
8. Farm incubator Successful farm incubators typically provide shared equipment and infrastructure, and in addition often provide access to a marketing outlet/location. Any potential
farmer lessee would need to have access to infrastructure and marketing elsewhere. The site potential and constraints would make meeting the whole picture of farm needs unlikely. This
does not indicate that small agricultural endeavors are not appropriate for the site, but rather that expectations should be clear and tailored to site possibilities. REGENERATIVE PRACTICES
Regenerative soil management practices balance nutrient cycles to conserve water and nutrients, increase soil organic matter, sequester carbon, and meet crop needs with site resources
or with recaptured resources present locally. These practices also limit erosion and minimize impact on native ecosystems. In order to manage a site regeneratively, an understanding
of the inputs needs of the agricultural endeavor are essential. It is recommended that site stewards/users map nutrient cycles (water, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus) as they relate to
the site, and develop regenerative, closed-loop, self-sustaining cycles. What sources of water, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, are available? Can you design closed loop systems
that take advantage of these resources? Can you include recaptured organic matter present locally (such as leaves from landscapers), or captured water onsite? In particular, regenerative
issues point to the possibilities of whole farm systems with interconnected parts. For example, the Compost Utilization Trial (CUT) at Rodale Institute demonstrated that the use of composted
manure with crop rotations in organic systems can result in carbon sequestration of up to 2,000 lbs/ac/year, a greater sequestration than side-by-side comparisons to non-manure compost
or chemical fertilizers. Carbon sequestration is associated with the increase in stable soil organic matter (which is mostly carbon). This shows that incorporation of animals and crops
into a whole farm system is one example of a regenerative loop that outperforms other options. Which site projects to pursue depends finally upon the goals of users and, if more than
one cotemporaneous use is desired, upon the synergy of various proposed uses. 2 This and other cover crop information may be found in the Northeast Cover Crop Handbook. Sarrantonio,
Marianne. Northeast Cover Crop Handbook (Soil Health Series). Emmaus, PA: Rodale Institute, 1994. 10
Synergistic uses are strongly recommended. Mutually supportive uses are an important component of regenerative agriculture. Single, monocultural uses do not demonstrate long term stability,
or other self-sustaining characteristics of regenerative systems. COVER CROPING Establishing a nitrogen fixing cover crop is a recommended next step. Plowing and sowing the cover crop
may take place anytime between April and August. Red clover, a short lived perennial, is recommended. Red clover prefers heavy, fertile soils of near-neutral pH. It can handle less-than-perfect
drainage, acid soils and clays. It can even tolerate wet soil conditions but not prolonged flooding. Nitrogen yield averages are 100-110lb/acre per season. Red clover seed rates are
11-14 lbs per acre. To establish red clover in the spring, because it is slow growing at first, and liable to leave the field at risk to weed growth, it is recommended that a nurse crop
of oats at 1.5-2 bushes per acre be seeded with it. Clover inoculants should be mixed with the seed (unless clover has been grown in the field in the previous 3 years). In the Northeast
it is generally planted in spring and allowed to grow for a full year before incorporation. This allows one or more hay cuts or mowing before incorporation as a green manure. The clover
should be mowed two or so times over the course of the season, at flowering (before seeding), to prevent developing clover seed as a field weed.2 RECCOMENDED CONDITIONS OF LEASE The
following are suggested as additions to common lease elements. These suggestions are intended to support the practice of regenerative agriculture. • Stable or increasing soil organic
matter, as measured by annual soil tests (biannual is sufficient after numerous years of similar practices), up to a 10% soil organic matter maximum. • Stable or increasing soil nutrient
levels. Except those shown by soil test to be in excess, which must shown to be stable or decreasing. Measured by annual soil tests (biannual is sufficient after numerous years of similar
practices). • Adherence to the NOP Organic Standards for the current year (sustainable practices beyond the terms of the NOP standards are encouraged, but this is 11
set as a minimum). • Maintain covered (not bare) soil at all times via the use of crops, cover crops, or mulch. Excluding possible 6 week at-a-time maximum pre-crop soil prep and/or
summer bare fallow. • Management of plants so they do not set seeds in the field. Including but not limited to: vegetable crops, pasture species, annual and perennial weeds, hedgerows
and weedy field edges. Excluding those plants explicitly managed for seed saving purposes. • Maintenance of the tree line to preserve the field for agricultural purposes, including the
edge running along Potash Rd, which borders the driest and highest quality agricultural soil on site. However, possibly excluding wet edges and/or edges abutting the vernal pool area,
which are determined better left aside from managed agriculture. MAINTENANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS • Close Dike Rd. permanently so as to avoid troublesome access, dumping
in the area, and safety issues where the road meets Pleasant Street. • Develop signage to convey information to the public. Such as signs pointing to the site at neighborhood intersections,
descriptive signage at site entrances, and a kiosk with on-going project and educational information. • Build a shed or a shed on a trailer for tools and equipment storage. • Construct
permanent perimeter fencing and/or lay a hedge, which along with mobile solar electric fencing, will make seasonal rotational grazing for small animals an easy and practical site element.
• Utilize plastic covered low tunnels, cold frames, and other similar temporary solutions to season extension and crop care. • Employ small-scale water catchment, for example from the
shed roof, or in containers. • Include on site other small scale agricultural infrastructure like that mentioned here, with the intention of supporting the success of site projects.
12
• Designate a strategic materials depot with easy entrance access for storage of leaves, cuttings and organic matter, and for the turning of compost piles by hand or small tractor. •
Design for key site development actions like the delivery of organic matter and other soil amendments or site additions by truck or tractor. • Avoid truck/tractor travel to most areas
of the site unless a lessee farmer/grower describes trucks or tractor access as central to production. III. LOCAL CONTEXT: CUTTING EDGE CIVIC AGRICULTURE LOCAL COMMUNITY FARM EXAMPLES
These examples demonstrate the varied purposes of community agricultural endeavors and the varied partners and parties involved. The local nature of the examples is intended to inspire
follow up with organizations who serve their missions especially well. ♣ Land’s Sake, Weston, MA A 501c3 nonprofit farm operated on land leased from the town of Weston, and in operation
since 1981. Focus is on youth environmental education, sustainable land management, community building and caretaking. Innovations include management of the town forest by the farm for
“educational and productive purposes.” www.landsake.org ♣ Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary, Lincoln, MA A property of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, Drumlin farm mixes a nature center
with school programs, summer camps and adult programming, with a working farm including animal and vegetable production. www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/Sanctuaries/Drumlin_Farm/schoolprograms.
php 13
♣ The Food Project, Lincoln, Beverly and Boston, MA Exemplary for its focus on youth development through an agriculture and sustainable food systems medium. The Food Project provides
long term opportunities for youth to engage with the farm, and gain leadership skills to build sustainable food systems. www.thefoodproject.org ♣ Natick Community Farm, Natick, MA A
501c3 nonprofit farm, on land leased from the City of Natick, in operation since 1974. Offers school and family programming, sells vegetables, fruits and plant starts through a farm
stand and annual plant sale. Also offers community garden plots. www.natickfarm.org ♣ Appleton Farms, Ipswich, MA Operated by the Trustees of Reservations, Appleton offers interpretative
historical and nature tours, a 500+ member CSA, 500 acres of pasture used for grazing beef and dairy cattle, rare bird habitat, and recreational trails. Agricultural products include
vegetables, beef and milk. www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/northeast-ma/appleton-farms.html ♣ Food Bank Farm, Hadley, MA The Food Bank Farm is a community farm focused on producing
affordable food for both 700+ CSA shareholders, and the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, to which the Farm donates and average 200,000 lbs per year. The farm also operates a store
open to shareholders, which draws annual gross revenue equal to sales of CSA shares. The store provides an outlet for an abundance of local agricultural food products. The farm focuses
on efficiency of production, which provides fertile training ground for farm interns who often move on to managing other similar operations. www.foodbankwma.org/farm 14
♣ Nuestras Raices, La Finca, Holyoke, MA The Nuestras Raices Farm is an example of a community organization that established a farm to service the vision of the local community, who
wished to extend food production beyond their existing garden plots, and to create a space to share common food and agricultural practices. The central programs of the farm are a beginning
farmer training program, youth gardens and programming. These programs, combined with a restaurant, and events complete the food and culture focus of the farm. The farm is unique in
its careful financial planning for self-sufficiency, rather than relying long-term on grants or donations. www.nuestras-raices.org/en/nuestras-raices-farm ♣ Holcomb Farm, West Granby,
CT Holcomb Farm is a nonprofit located on a historic 322 acre farm property owned by the town of West Granby. Holcomb focuses on environmental and arts education for school groups, children
and adults. The site also contains public hiking trails and other amenities. The Hartford Food System operates a 400+ member CSA onsite on 27 acres of the farm. www.holcombfarm.org TOP
SIX CIVIC AGRICULTURE IDEAS These examples focus on meeting civic agricultural goals such as community food security, regenerative land management and education. Each example is relevant
to local needs and opportunities, and portions of each project coincide with ideas discussed for the Bleiman site. Some of the ideas, (for example, plant nursery), are repeated here,
but with the addition of example sites, and an explanation of how
each idea has been implemented in other places. Included in each explanation is years to project potential, and which choices are revenue neutral, revenue seeking, or revenue generating.
Each of the six projects is an example of an approach to utilizing land and community resources to support local food security, educational, and agricultural goals. 15
Community Greenhouse A community greenhouse is like a community garden under cover. Community greenhouses are designed for gardeners and upstart farmers to rent bench space to grow their
own plant starts each season. Instead of renting a garden plot or plots, users sign up for bench space and a pay a user fee to cover a share of annual operating cost. An excellent use
for shuttered retail garden centers, or underutilized state or educational facilities. Revenue Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue seeking in year 1, revenue neutral thereafter. Years
to Potential: 2 Example: Inuvik Community Greenhouse, Inuvik, NT www.cityfarmer.org/inuvik.html Compost Production Production of compost closes nutrient-cycle leaks, channeling resources
back to regeneration of agricultural land. Compost production revenues typically exceed those of food production, making a compost operation an excellent addition to many civic agriculture
sites. The quantity of successful civic agriculture projects utilizing compost production as a revenue generator to support other endeavors demonstrates its well-tested success. Revenue
Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue seeking in years 1-3, revenue generating thereafter. Years to Potential: 2-4, contingent on marketing, distribution and growth of sales. Examples: Intervale
Center, Burlington, VT www.intervale.org Stone Barns Center, Tarrytown, NY www.stonebarnscenter.org Growing Power, Milwaukee, WI www.growingpower.org 16
Food Security Plant Nursery Nurseries have unique site requirements which may make them appropriate for sites where other agricultural endeavors are not desirable. For example, urban
sites with asphalt or contaminated soil are not appropriate for inground food production, but make excellent sites for pot-grown plants. Even shaded sites are appropriate for growing
shade-loving starts, or protecting delicate young plants. As with compost operations, nurseries have higher revenues and more assured profitability than agricultural operations oriented
only towards food production. This makes them an excellent choice for those seeking a revenue generating project. Commercial nurseries often focus on plant species for landscaping, not
on locally-adapted food-producing plants. Availability of plant starts for diverse and locally hardy perennial fruit, vegetable, and nut crops are lacking in the local area. Continual
provision of diverse plant starts is vital to improving community food security and diversifying agricultural operations. Revenue Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue seeking in years 1-4,
revenue generating thereafter. Years to Potential: 4-5, depending on scale of operation and investment. Examples: Edible Plant Project, Gainesville, FL www.edibleplantproject.com Food
Forest Farm, Holyoke, MA www.permaculturenursery.com Educational Farm and Regenerative Agriculture Demonstration Site The model educational farm has evolved over the past few decades.
Currently, the most exciting examples include sustainable design features like carbon neutral operating and regenerative agricultural practices where fertility and production needs are
met from on site renewable resources, or from redirecting leaks in the local nutrient or waste cycles. Heavy on infrastructure and upfront capital needs, educational farms are long-term
projects suited for permanent sites with easy community access and high visibility. Organizational structures are typically city-owned farms, non-profit farms on city-owned land, independent
non-profits, or projects linked to schools or colleges. 17
Revenue Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue seeking Years to Potential: 5-10 Examples: 21 Acres Center for Local Food and Sustainable Living, Woodinville, WA www.21acres.org Teal Farm/Living
Futures Foundation, Huntington, VT www.tealfarm.com/Dispersed, Localized Community Food Production This is a recently established model, focusing on creation of dispersed perennial plantings
for ongoing, localized food production. Common sites include under utilized public, semi-public or private spaces such as: school yards, church yards, public parks, community gardens,
community centers, collections of neighboring yards or vacant lots. This model is useful for communities focusing on localized community food security issues, and communities with limited
access to larger agricultural sites. The model is scalable over space and time, working as well in one neighborhood as in a city -wide program. Revenue Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue
seeking but scaleable, and with limited costs over time. Years to Potential: 3-5 Examples: Digging Deeper, Des Moines, IA www. c i .des -moines . ia.us /depar tment s /pr /Comm_Gard/digging_deeper.ht
m Philadelphia Orchard Project, Philadelphia, PA www.phillyorchards.org Schoolyard to Cafeteria Program Well-known, but not nearly widely enough implemented, school-run gardens that
contribute to school lunches are a learning opportunity connecting environmental education, agriculture, and healthy living in a hands-on environment. The best examples include children
in food production, food 18
preparation and cooking, and connect the garden to classroom learning subjects. Revenue Granting/Revenue Seeking: Revenue seeking Years to Potential: 3-5 Examples: Edible School Yard,
Berkeley, CA www.ediblesschoolyard.org Digging Deeper, Des Moines, IA King Elementary School www.ci.des-moines.ia.us/departments/pr/Comm_Gard/digging_deeper.htm “Over 100 students and
volunteers at King Elementary School … dug, mulched, and planted a garden that covers much of the school's campus and will eventually feature a butterfly garden, patch of prairie, and
wild flower garden, in addition to vegetable beds and two orchards. The project is funded in part by a USDA community food security grant.”3 3 "Weekly Harvest Newsletter -May 11, 2005."
ATTRA -National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: organic farming, sustainable ag, publications, newsletters. 3 Sep. 2009 <http://attra.ncat.org/newsletter/19