HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Habitat Strategy Report of 2010 2011 2012
CONSER VING NA TI VE HA BI TA T
APPROVED DISTRIBUTEDI i
By 11 I Committee,
Now I Committee I
The Fishers Island Conservancy
�}� •qr}
't
q�l�• ,I t,•_ � Ir tt � •� �,,�' I/ • it ,
w
To: Members of the Habitat and Technical Committees, and other interested parties
Let me begin by saying that the only efficient way that Fishers Island grasslands can be
preserved and renewed is through three year rotating burns conducted by the Fishers
Island Fire Department. These volunteers are absolutely critical to the Habitat effort and
should be commended. What we, all Fishers Island stakeholders, can do for the FIFD is to
commit our volunteer organizations to creating specific grassland area burn plans which will make
the FIFD task manageable. Smaller, hotter, three year rotation burns, easily controlled by
firebreaks and feed plots laid out and executed in advance, according to their area burn plans,
are the most effective means of invasive vine control and grassland management. In the ideal,
two-thirds of our grasslands should always be available as Habitat and one-third should be
burned annually in rotation. A similar rotation should be adopted for mowing plans.
On October 8 the Technical Committee met and reviewed items to be recommended to the full
Habitat Committee. On October 10 the Habitat Committee met and reviewed the report from the
Technical Committee. Attached you will find the final report which has been revised to reflect
input from the Habitat Committee. This report was accepted by the Habitat Committee as its
recommendations to the island organizations entrusted with the management of grasslands,
namely the FIFerry District, The FlMuseum and Land Trust, the FlUtility Company, and the
FlWaste Management District. The report provides a broad overview of Habitat on Fishers Island;
it adopts policies for Habitat creation and renewal; it proposes specific 2011 solutions to high
priority FI grassland opportunities; and it has recommendations for smaller holdings and
tree/shrublands. It is a start.
The Habitat Committee adopted the following motions:
1) Six strategies for improving island Habitat.
2)An EPA paper providing baseline best practices to be modified slightly for Fishers.
3) Specific recommendations for five target grasslands.
4) That the use of controlled burns by the FIFD is essential to the grassland Habitat.
5) That the recommended Habitat management plans be submitted to the member organizations
for consideration and response.
6)That burn plans be submitted by the caretaker organizations to the Fire Department.
7) That budgets be created and reviewed by the organizations responsible.
8) That cooperative funding be pursued to accomplish the immediate plans.
Because of Habitat destruction by invasive vines and the resulting loss of grassland Habitat, The
Habitat Committee was created as an ad hoc committee bringing together as many organization
and individual stakeholders as possible to address the threat. The battle is now beginning and a
more permanent and effective organizational structure is required to carry the battle for Habitat
forward. Fishers Island does not need another 501c3 organization. And the mission of the Habitat
Committee overlaps with much of the mission statement of the Fishers Island Conservancy.
Therefore, discussions have begun to include the Habitat Committee under the umbrella of the
Fishers Island Conservancy, possibly as a focused sub-committee. It is under that aegis that
directed contributions, banking, and coordination with other island-wide Habitat problems such as
phragmites should occur.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Henderson
Chair, Technical Committee
Field Report Discussed and Passed Muster by REVISED 10/10/10
Habitat Committee and Technical Committee:
Since our kickoff meeting,which was way too brief, I have spoken face to face with
every member of the committee at some length, and in a large number of instances
have gone into the field to observe conditions. I have also had the pleasure of
speaking with, and in some instances met individually with members of various of
the Fishers Island organizations represented on the Habitat Committee, to review
the slide presentation of 8/29.
A number of organizations have newly appointed officers with whom I have spoken.
And, to my surprise, I found myself discussing various Habitat thoughts at the last
FIFerry District Commissioners meeting. Before my memories are lost to the winds
of senility, I think it useful to try and set down various of the thoughts and some of
the information I have gleaned from these encounters. This is an imperfect recall.
In some instances I may be imposing my own thoughts on others or
misunderstanding their comments. But it's the best I can do just now.
I will add parenthetically, that the time I have spent so far has not only confirmed
the estimation that FI is being overrun by invasives but has highlighted that the
situation is even worse than we thought: 1) The enormous island coverage of the
ranks of the present musclebound vines/invasives - e.g. bullbriar, bittersweet,
clematis, dewberry, honeysuckle, mock bamboo, etc. 2) are being followed by the
latter arrival of a new group of invasives that have yet to fully express their horrors
- namely kudzu, crownvetch and porcelain berry and black swallow wort; 3) the
effect of the invasive vines overwhelming the slow-growing trees and shrubs of the
island, e.g. oak and highbush blueberry, has been to thrust the seeds of the more
rapidly growing trees and shrubs, e.g. wild cherry, sumac, Russian olive,viburnum,
into Fishers Island's rapidly disappearing grasslands; and 4) the invasion on land
has been paralleled by the wetland invasion of phragmites. If we issued coloring
books to the children on Fishers Island and asked them to color the vegetation just
mentioned Crayola Red, most of FI would be red. The deception to our eye is
unfortunately that all of this vegetation is green; some have pretty flowers
(clematis); some have pretty berries (bittersweet and porcelain berry). Very little of
it is habitat that will support animal life.
I think it might be useful to begin listing the various possibilities of habitat
improvement. I am most focused on Grasslands because they are in the shortest
supply and are going the fastest. However, I think we should also begin noting what
I will call Shrub/Treeland since those are areas which also provide great
possibilities just by cutting the vines and dabbing the stem. Quite a number of
individuals are moving independently on getting after the vines in the
Shrub/Treelands, but they are looking for advice on where to take the effort once
the vines are cut.
Policy Recommendation: The recommended strategy is to adopt six simultaneous
thrusts:
October 10, 2010
Page 2
1)Raise public and Fishers Island organizational awareness of the invasive
vines and shrubs and of the habitat destruction.
2) Identify and map out those degraded grasslands which have now become
shrub/tree areas and demand a more extensive reclamation effort.This
effort will by definition be more expensive to undertake.
3) Promote the practice of reclaiming woodlands by systematic cutting and
elimination of strangling vines.
4) Create and promulgate information and standards for the preservation,
reconstruction and reclamation of Island Habitat for the whole of Fishers,
viewed as an overall life-supporting system.
5) Analyze, map and highlight those grasslands on Fishers which can be
rescued for Habitat if quick and decisive action is taken.
6) The objective of all these efforts is to promote changes in the policies and
behaviour of Fishers' organizations and individuals which will roll back the
invasive vines and species. Responsible property management must come to
include Habitat rescue, creation and preservation.
We must address the Invasives and their consequences at every level. It is not how
much land one owns or controls, but rather what one does with the land,that counts
in the end. This is every one's and every organization's challenge. Standing still is
not an option.
We shall constantly be updating the map of our knowledge base with the best
information and revised conclusions. The following are the grasslands and areas on
which we are focusing as possible initial renewal sites,these are the areas that we
would commend to the Habitat Committee for immediate consideration:
Baseline Practices for the establishment of Native Grasslands:
It is recommended that the baseline practices to be followed in the reestablishment
of Native Grasslands be those best current practices expressed in the article at the
end of this report, entitled," Planting Native Vegetation on Landfill Caps and
Formerly Contaminated Waste Sites in the Mid Atlantic". These practices will be
modified in minor ways for Fishers Island in such as modification of the NWSG seed
mix.Additionally, these practices assume a green-field site and must be modified in
those instances where substantial Native Grass stands are found on Fishers and are
desired to be preserved. It should be understood that the modification of practices
made for the preservation of existing Native Grass stands complicates the
management task, and endanger the ability to establish grasslands without invasive
vines. This is due to the fact that we are beginning with areas already
"contaminated" with invasives.
Initial Grassland Possibilities: Criteria for selection are: 1) Substantial grassland
or abutting substantial grassland in size 2) Still in "early succession stage", which
equates to not too expensive to rescue 3) Visible to the Island population as an
example :
October 10, 2010
Page 3
The End
Wetyof Fishers Island:
Island Priority Habitatabout
L.
isher,!I an
i
r
r
? a
i `
2010
1 Europa1 Google
Image i • •
Image USDA Farm Se"ice Agency
•
2010 N,.York CIS
1
5 Major Grassland sites, 6 Minor- 3 Woodlands
Obvious grasslands on Fishers encompass approximately 123 acres. Out of these
123,it is recommended that,budget issues aside,roughly 51 acres are high priority
grassland areas where immediate grassland improvements and improved Habitat
could be realized.The acreage is concentrated on 5 sites.
October 10, 2010
Page 4
Island Priority Grassland Habitat about
Large45 111 about 51 acres
c
her,Isla'
J O
IS
.. rk
jr
is ers!l an
442 W
.J'
4
.C�
y rt
ra
..
•odlang De ining • acres
2010 Europa Technologies
z 2010 Google
image USDA Farm Service Age ncy
� � •
Image' 2010 New York CIS
•
Large Grasslands- Orranizationally Managed: with Gross acres and 2011
target acres*
1.) Airport Areas - The Fishers Island Ferry District- 37.2 a.,target 11.5 a.
2.) Parade Ground -The Fishers Island Ferry District- 30.0 a.,target 20.0 a.
3.) Across from Ball Field- Fishers Island Utility- 3.5 a.,target 3.5 a.
4.) Pickett Landfill - F. I.Waste Management- 6.5 a.,target 6.5 a.
5.) Middle Farms- H. F. Museum 39.8 a., target 11.3 a.
Minor Grasslands:
1) HH Golf- 2.5+ a.
2) Catholic Church - .8 a.
3) Kernan - .7 a.
4) Ball Outfield - .5 a.
5) Private - 3.7 a.
6) Private - 1.0 a.
Woodland Renovation:
1) Town Center Fergusson Trails 2.7 a.,target 2.7 a.
2) Oyster Peninsula Middle Farms- 6.5 a.,target 6.5 a.
3) Old Husband property- Private - 3.4 a.,ongoing
*note: numbers will not precisely total due to rounding and revisions
October 10, 2010
Page 5
Detailed Maps:
Airport:
+ • � • U- C5VLSIS
fir, V
2010 Europa Technologies
i 2010 Google
Irnage 2010 New York CIS
i
� � •
.•
Airport: four large areas - 1. burn for sure, may require brushing and stumping;
Plot#1 is of highest importance for rescue. It has the best-established NWSG stands
in the area, however it is beginning to be overcome by invasives and shrubs.Area A
is most likely to take a good burn, there being sufficient fuel.Area B is compromised
by encroaching shrubs and invasives and may find it necessary to pursue more
extensive renovation than just burning. Both areas would profit from overseeding
by hand if feasible. Unfortunately, the ground is heavily obstructed.
Plot#2 remains in grassland and may not have sufficient fuel for a burn this year.
The recommendation would be to mow the area bordering the landing strip but
allow grasses to grow another year before considering a burn. Does need more
NWSG grass species.
Plot#3A. is unfortunately in dire shape. Shrub and tree growth have set in along
with invasives. An assault should be mounted, but not this year, too expensive and
too much effort. Plot#3 Area B. is too thin for burning and must be let grow, other
than runway border mowing.
Plot#4 Areas A and B need to be re-examined. However, at midsummer they were
too sparse to burn and needed another year to accumulate fuel, with runway border
mowing excepted.
I
October 10, 2010
Page 6
Parade Ground:
e
•t ♦ r
kv
s `
• I�
�A
..
Parade Ground #1 is one of the best Habitat opportunities on the Island. Only here
and at Middle Farms do we have large acreage and sufficient remaining grassland to
enable rapid intervention. This is one of the best recreational opportunities. Blue-
colored paths are approximate and will need to be laid out on site after burning. The
Feagle's paths need to be drawn in and incorporated into the overall path layout.A
sufficient amount of NWSGrasses are present (and shrub/treeland is still nascent) to
warrant cleanup and reseeding.
October 10, 2010
Page 7
`
1 11 ._. -. �1- ., ":::.t.L":.�I•' :flit �¢_iy. =1
#1 Parade Area A can be promoted into excellent Grassland Habitat but requires
work.The Western end is infested with Northern Dewberry, Porcelain Berry, mock
bamboo and other invasives.Additionally,concrete escarpments are overgrown
with Kudzu.A number of Norway Maples are to the west.To the east in Parade Area
A we find low grassland with good stands of Little Bluestem.The area has been
mowed. The area should be burned, excepting the ballfield, but results may be
mixed due to low fuel levels.
After the burn,allow kudzu, invasives and unkilled bushes and small trees to green
up. Then, they should be spot sprayed with broadleaf herbicide,cut off at their bases
and stump-swabbed. The Playing Field will profit from overseeding.The primary
existing NWSG is Little Bluestem in mixed patches,these should be supplemented
with Switchgrass, Big Bluestem and Indiangrass to create a higher protective cover
for birds and animals. The standard NWSG mix, supplemented with wildflower mix
should be tilled in by Plotmaster.
Interior paths should be laid out and planted with cool-season grass and clover mix.
The area must be monitored in the first year to encourage NWSG establishment and
possibly mowed from 12"to a lower 7". These paths will provide recreation as well
as act as firebreaks in the future. In the first growing season,traffic should be
limited on various paths.
October 10, 2010
t+� Page 8
" L
C.
1.�
LSl �
- C
i
'Ll_V,
Plot#1 Area B and C require coordinated but different management from Area A.
Both Areas B and C contain substantial stands of NWSG, mainly Switehgrass and Big
Bluestem. However,they also contain large amounts of invasives, primarily
Northern Dewberry and rampant shrub/tree growth of Russian Olive, cherry, etc..
Sumac has overgrown the area.While not normally considered an invasive, it is
destructive of the precious and scarce grassland. Additionally,Area B includes a
wetland. Both areas should be burned.We should then focus our reclamation effort
on Area C.
We need to shift the balance away from the invasives and towards NWSG,wild
flowers and Habitat. To do this,after burning,we should allow northern dewberry
to green up and then spot spray a broad-leaf herbicide. On green up,bushes and
young trees not killed by the burn should be cut and the stumps swabbed with
herbicide.The broad-leaf herbicide application needs to obey whatever wetland
rules may apply. Unfortunately,we will be able to do little about phragmites in the
short term.Where possible, Plotmaster overseeding with additional NWSG and
possibly wildflowers would then occur. Thereafter, for the next year, and possibly
two,we need to promote NWSG growth by mowing down grass heights from 12
inches to 7 inches. By not letting the annuals set seed and not letting shrubs and tree
sprouts get going we encourage the NWSG seedlings and native grasses to
reestablish themselves. Internal paths would be established and planted in cool
season grasses and clover. These paths would be laid out after the burn improves
visibility and exposes concrete and other hazards.
October 10, 2010
Page 9
Areas A and B:
f Fa70 1
M. -Prt;1
101 .�
+ �. , ,
k. ',V#1-.Lw„ ,lits.
Building paths for the future:
Areas of 2-3 acres bounded by cool season grasses and clovers provide the optimal
blend of a large enough area to confound nest-predators and yet provide easy path
access for nestling birds to feed on insects. The above path layout is notional and
should be revised on site after the burn. It is good practice to follow ground
contours. However,we know that massive concrete foundations will impede our
course. These will become visible after the burn. Parade Area C could well profit
from another crossing path.
As discussed in Habitat Committee session,the cool season grass paths provide fire
breaks for the future. In so doing,they allow for small burns which can be easily
conducted and controlled by a small number of firemen. 2-3 acre burns can
normally be made by 3-4 persons with two sources of carried water.
Once established, it is envisioned that Area B and Area C would be burned
alternately every third year. Depending on the future growth of Area B,we might
have three areas of habitat.These Areas would be burned in rotation. Ideally,two-
thirds of the area would remain in protective habitat at all times,with the other
third being briefly swept by fire with enough fuel to control shrubs and trees.
October 10, 2010
Page 10
Middle Farms:
I�,. Q'o �. �ctdJ..G• �, n� , .o I y �
r
t&4-.t 1.
1
p 4eeep �
ildlu- •.
13 E3
1 1
,'
•
..
Middle Farms is the largest potential Native Grassland Habitat Area on Fishers
Island. "Potential" is used to express future possibilities. The lack of three year
rotating burns has caused a host of problems.While largely Native Grassland,
Middle Farms is rapidly being overtaken by shrubs and trees. Its Habitat value is
impeded by deep thatch. Northern Dewberry makes much of the land impassable to
humans and creatures of all kinds, reducing its Habitat value. Well-fueled controlled
burns have not been achieved on Middle Farms. This has resulted in the thatch
buildup, increase of invasives and transition from grassland to shrub/treeland.
In the absence of programmed hot-burns, mowing practices have been used to
attempt to suppress the nascent shrubs and trees. This has the effect of carving the
blocks of NWSGrasses into very small areas which allow nest predators and avian
predators relatively easy access. Historically, Middle Farms used to be burned in
toto. While not an ideal practice,this could be done as long as there were alternate
Habitat areas for wildlife. Such areas no longer exist. Without the large-scale use of
herbicide,there is no feasible alternative to planned, rotating three year burns at
Middle Farms.
To be specific, a burn of Middle Middle Farms (area in green above) in 2011 is
highly recommended.A burn plan following the above layout can be easily
formulated this fall/winter. Only 11.3 acres need be burned,a small number.The
use of a tilled food plot as a 2011 burn barrier along the Driving Range will provide
October 10, 2010
Page 11
winter food next year, 2012 while a 2012 burn of North or South Middle Farms is
being planned and conducted.
It is recommended that an overall burn plan for Middle Farms be developed and
that Middle Middle Farms be designated as a burn candidate this winter, 2011.
Shrubs or treelets not killed by the burn would be eliminated by hand pruning and
stump kill. Internal cool season grass paths would need to be designed into Middle
Middle Farms,and replanted.The above paths in blue are notional and should be
revised on site. This will partly deal with the Northern Dewberry problem by
designing paths into low density Dewberry areas and place the high density
Dewberry areas into NWSG grass areas.After the burn and after the elimination of
shrubs/treelets, Plotmaster overseeding with NWSG, possibly including native
wildflowers,would follow. The ongoing problem will be the Northern Dewberry.
The only potential solution to which is either use of a broad-leaf herbicide or
eventual crowding out by extremely vigorous NWSG and mowed cool season grass
and clover paths. South Middle Farms would be addressed as its own design entity
in 2012 or 2013 depending upon progress at North Middle Farms.
If treated as Greenfield sites as in "Planting Native Vegetation on Landfill Caps and
Formerly Contaminated Waste Sites in the Mid Atlantic",the Roadside Area and
North Middle Farms would be simple. Burn barriers would be mowed around the
Areas and a glyphosate herbicide such as Rodeo would be applied. The thatch would
be burned and NWSG and native wildflowers would be planted.
An alternate recommendation is that these two areas should lie fallow in 2010,and
2011.There should be no mowing and no burning in 2010 and 2011. These areas
should then support a quick, hot fire in 2012. This would be followed by the usual
cut/spot spray/stump paint for the surviving shrubs and trees. Then Plotmaster
overseeding of NWSG and native wildflowers,and Plotmaster cool season grass and
clover path seeding.As a refinement,an experiment could be conducted; after
burning and clearing, the Roadside Area alone could adopt the solution of NWSG
grass seeding and repetitive mowing when the turf reaches 12", cutting down to 7".
Observation would discover the best means of suppressing invasives, trees and
shrubs. South Middle Farms would then be on a burn schedule of 2013.
In no case, in the opinion of this author,will benign neglect recreate a Native
Grassland Habitat.
October 10, 2010
Page 12
West End:
i4 T n
V r
•
y
_ top r
.a
ti %
The two other largest grassland opportunities on the West End are Across from the
Ballfield, owned by the Utility company and the Pickett Landfill overseen by the
Waste Management district.
Each site should be treated as a Greenfield site in line with the practices laid out in
the attached "Planting Native Vegetation on Landfill Caps and Formerly
Contaminated Waste Sites in the Mid Atlantic" article. The Ball Field site has several
Norway Maples which should be eliminated. Modifications may be necessary due to
the waterside presence and wetland proximity of the sites.
Woodland Area Reclamation:
It is recommended that in the nature area in the center of town and on the Oyster
Island that de-vining activities be accomplished by cutting the vine bases and stump
application of herbicide. It may be that simple steps, possibly undertaken by
volunteers will yield surprising results.The Husband House area across from the
HHGolf Course is a private laboratory experiment which should be watched.
October 10, 2010
Page 13
Process:
We suggest that the baseline procedures follow the recommendations of the paper
"Planting Native Vegetation on Landfill Caps..." with slight modifications to the seed
mix. Planting baseline procedures must be modified in the presence of NWSG
stands of sufficient density to warrant preservation and the risk that any new
plantings will be overwhelmed by existing invasives.That report will be appended
to this Habitat paper.
Additional Discussion Topics.
Burn Plans:
FIFD:
Herbicides:
Glyphosate
Brushmaster
Planting-NWSG:
Planting-7 Native Wildflowers
Treelands:
Shrubs and Intermediates:
Finances:
General Practices: Mowing
Articles:
Seasonality_:
Frimites:.
Island Fire Prevention:
Education:
Bibliography:Reading
Reading Lists have been distributed to more than 50 parties.We suggest that
additional names be submitted and a broader e-mailing be undertaken.
October 10, 2010
Page 14
Appended Baseline Article: "Planting Native Vegetation on Landfill Caps and
Formerly Contaminated Waste Sites in the Mid Atlantic" - suggested as baseline
practices on F.I.: See Following Article
October 10, 2010
Page 15
PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION ON LANDFILL CAPS AND FORMERLY
CONTAMINATED WASTE SITES IN THE MID ATLANTIC
INTRODUCTION
In the past,most landfill caps and remediated waste sites have been vegetated with a
monoculture of cool season non-native turf grasses(e.g.,Tall Fescue or Kentucky 31). These
non-native species may provide quick cover that can stabilize soils,but they require regular
mowing and periodic fertilizing to maintain plant vigor. These species are also invasive and can
out-compete native plant species. These non-native species generally provide little food or cover
for birds or other wildlife. The use of these species essentially wastes land that could be
productive for wildlife. This is especially critical when numerous studies document the loss of
native species critical to our nation's biodiversity and the health of our native ecosystems.
ALTERNATIVES
There are alternative strategies that produce vegetative cover that can stabilize the soil and
provide erosion control,sequester more carbon,provide habitat for a wide range of birds and
other wildlife,and have lower maintenance costs than what is currently used.
Native vegetation provides extremely valuable habitat for all varieties of wildlife,from
pollinating insects to birds and mammals. Native warm season grasses used to create meadows,
for example,provide extremely valuable habitat for ground-nesting birds and many mammals.
Native vegetation which is naturally adapted to site-specific conditions makes for long lasting,
stress tolerant,low maintenance plants. When compared with a mowed lawn,a native planting
with a plant layer from one to four feet tall is actually less attractive to woodchucks and other
animals whose burrows may negatively impact the performance of a cap. Once the planting is
established,the burrows of these animals are typically limited to the perimeter of the cap.
Alternatives to monoculture turf grass"habitats"may include grasslands,mixed meadows,
scrub/shrub habitats,and woodlands. While the selection of alternatives depends on site
conditions and the desired future use of the site,appropriate selection will result in lower costs
and the provision of more ecosystem services.
No opportunity to create or replace habitat should be considered too small or too isolated. Even
areas of less than an acre dotting the landscape provide habitat islands for highly mobile species
such as butterflies,birds,and bats,as well as their food sources.
Grasslands and Meadows
A diverse grassland community provides habitat for several species of grassland birds with
declining populations.Breeding bird surveys note continuing declines in populations of many
grassland birds(e.g.,field sparrows,grasshopper sparrows,and Henslow's sparrow).Planting a
seed mix with a both native warm and cool season grasses can provide necessary habitat and
achieve all of the objectives that have already been described. Cool season grasses grow and
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 16
flower in the early and cooler part of the summer. Warm season grasses grow in the later and
warmer part of the summer. Warm season grasses are better adapted to poor soils and drier
conditions,making them well suited for landfill and other caps systems,as well as most formerly
contaminated waste sites. The bunch-type habit of these grasses provides space for the inclusion
of native forbs,wildflowers,and legumes to further improve habitat quality.
The root biomass of native warm season grasses far exceeds that of the introduced cool season
grasses. This characteristic provides increased organic matter critical to soil fertility and carbon
sequestration. According to an Ohio State University Fact Sheet,"Soil carbon sequestration is
the process of transferring carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the soil through crop
residues and other organic solids,and in a form that is not immediately reemitted.This transfer
or"sequestering"of carbon helps off-set emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other
carbon-emitting activities while enhancing soil quality...Soil carbon sequestration can be
accomplished by management systems that add high amounts of biomass to the soil,cause
minimal soil disturbance,conserve soil and water,improve soil structure,and enhance soil fauna
activity."
While grassland and meadow communities do require some mowing/haying to prevent woody
species invasion(if desired)and to maintain plant vigor,these grasses can often be managed on a
three year mowing rotation. Conversely,species typically planted(e.g.,Kentucky 31 fescue)
require mowing and fertilization at least twice a year. In many cases in the Mid Atlantic,former
waste sites may be mowed as often every three to four weeks during the growing season,
depending on weather conditions. Thus the long-term mowing costs of these non-native species,
as proposed for many cap systems,may be well over ten times the cost of mowing a native warn
season grass community. Using 2003 estimates,it costs$50/acre to mow a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)cap. Using Kentucky 31 as a cap seed mixture on a 30
acre landfill and mowing monthly from May through September for six years costs$45,000.
However,managing the same site planted in native grasses for six years costs$3,000. A
significant savings can be realized when considering the lifetime maintenance of a landfill cover
system. Several states are migrating to the use of native grasses. For example,the state of
Delaware Department of Transportation(DOT)is using native species to reduce road side
mowing costs.
Establishing a native grass/meadow community does take more effort,planning,and care
initially. Seeding must be done at appropriate times,and sometimes requires specialized
equipment. It also takes two years to fully establish the warm season grass plants. But the long-
term maintenance costs will pay off,and the difference in habitat value for wildlife species and
other ecological services is substantial.
Site Preparation
Final cover material should be tested for routine agronomic parameters to ensure it provides a
suitable growing matrix. Native grasses are very adaptable,but grow particularly well on
moderately well drained soils or better. Soil pH should be adjusted to achieve a pH of 5.5 or
higher. Bring fertility up to medium levels for phosphorus and potassium,but do not apply
nitrogen at or before planting time. Nitrogen will only stimulate weed competition. As soil used
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 17
for final cover on waste sites is often imported from other areas,it may contain levels of
contaminants that are harmful to ecological receptors or be devoid of organic carbon and a
natural microbial community. Project managers should consult with the BTAG to determine if
soil amendments are necessary to reduce contaminant bioavailability,increase organic matter,or
modify the seed mixture.
Seed Mix
The following seed mix is an example of what can be used for restoration. These species are
available from commercial vendors,but orders should allow sufficient time for delivery. The
seed mix and seeding rates can and should be adjusted to site specific and seasonal conditions;
however these species are adapted to a wide variety of site conditions. At former waste sites
where low levels of contaminants remain in the soil,species must be selected based on their
tolerance of the chemical contamination in the soils.
All seeding rates are per acre of pure live seed(PLS). The PLS should be specified when
ordering.
Native Grassland Species Pounds/acre PLS
Big Bluestein(Andropogon gerardi) 4
Little Bluestein(Schizachyrium scoparium) 6
Switchgrass(Panicum virgatum) 2
Indiangrass(Sorghastrum nutans) 6
Canada Wild Rye(Elymus canadensis) 10
Partridge Pea(Chamaecrista fasciculata) 2
Cover Crop Options Pounds/acre
Annual Ryegrass(Lolium multiorum) 25
Oats(Avera saliva)—February through August 25
Winter Rye(Secale cereale)—August through January 25
The heavier seeding with the cover crop provides immediate erosion control,as it will sprout and
easily become established. In the spring the cover crop and the Canadian wild rye will also act
as a nursery crop to protect the smaller seedlings of the other species until they can become
established. Alternatively,oat(spring through summer planting)or winter rye(fall through
winter planting)seeds should be added to the mix at 25 pounds per acre. Planting of a legume
species(partridge pea)will improve soil conditioning and habitat quality. When the nurse crop
dies after one year,the other wane season grass species should be fairly well established,and
will provide the longer term erosion control needed on landfill caps or other cap systems.
Wildflowers can also be planted with the mix to provide nectar source for birds,butterflies and
other insects. The following wildflower species are widely distributed and adapted to similar
conditions and should be added where additional plant diversity,wildlife value,and color is
desired. All of the species listed are tall enough that they will be able to compete with native
grasses for sunlight.
EPA Re®on 3 BTAG 12010
October 10, 2010
Page 18
Wildflower Species Pounds/acre
Black-eyed Susan(Rudbeckia hirta)
Lanceleaf Coreopsis(Coreopsis lanceolata) %i
Common Milkweed(Asclepias syriaca) %i
Wild Bergamot(Monarda fistulosa) `/:
Ox Eye Sunflower(Heltopsis helianthoides) %
There are several commercial suppliers of native seed mixes suitable for use in Region 3. These
suppliers offer mixes blended for specific habitats and wildlife management needs.
Application of Seed
Spring seeding must take place by the typical regional date of last frost(for example,May 15 in
southeastern Pennsylvania). Fall seeding must be delayed until soil temperatures are below 55
degrees and the seeding rate must be increased by at least 25%to account for seed loss due to
herbivory and mortality. At these fall temperatures some cool season grasses will sprout
immediately,however,the warm season grasses will not sprout until the next spring. The nurse
crop of oat or winter rye will germinate and provide the necessary cover and erosion control.
Planting,regardless of the season,should not be done during periods of severe drought,high
winds,excessive moisture,frozen grounds,or other conditions that preclude satisfactory results.
Seeds of native grasses and wildflowers typically require shallow planting for good germination.
Shallow planting of the seed mix can be achieved by two approaches: l)using a grass seed drill
(e.g.Tyedrill or Brillion drill seeder),set at`'A inch depth or 2)broadcasting the seed and then
spraying a''/.to Y2 inch layer of moist compost on top.
If the soil is known or suspected to contain large numbers of weeds seeds or roots,then the
weeds should be allowed to sprout and be treated with herbicide prior to seeding with a native
seed mix.
If steep slopes are seeded,a biodegradable erosion control blanket(e.g.,jute)should be staked
over the seeded area to reduce soil and seed erosion.
Monitoring and Maintenance of Grasslands/Meadows
Monitoring the seed germination and controlling weeds in the first growing season is critical to
success of the grass/forb planting(Ernst 2010). Monitoring must begin once soil temperatures
reach 60 degrees. Grasses,forbs,and weed seedlings must be identified.
During the first full growing season the cool season grasses(e.g.,Canada Wild Rye)will be the
first plants to sprout. The warm season grasses(e.g.,Bluestems,Switchgrass,and Indiangrass)
take longer to sprout,and will primarily establish roots during this season.
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 19
Throughout the first growing season,mowing should be used to reduce the competition from
weeds and prevent weeds from dropping seeds.Seeded areas must be mowed including any
strips of grass between trees and shrubs.Each time the weeds reach 12 inches tall or form
flowers,the area will be mowed to 7 inches high using a sickle bar or brush hog(Ernst 2010). A
lawn mower is not acceptable for this task unless the blade can be set above 7 inches. Mowing
will generally be required two,perhaps three times,depending on rainfall,to reduce annual weed
invasion and enable light to reach some of the small warm season grass seedlings. Mowing
should be timed to prevent seed production by annual weeds(Ernst 2010).
Monitoring will resume in the early spring of the second growing season. Grass areas should be
mowed in early spring with the blade height at 10 inches above the ground to avoid damaging
the crowns of the plants. In late spring,the grasses,forbs,and weeds will be identified. The area
will be mowed again only if weeds are growing to 18 inches or blooming.Mow no lower than 10
inches,as mowing lower will significantly damage the crown of these grasses,cause mortality,
or open site for invasion by less desirable species.
During the third and subsequent growing seasons,mow one-third of the site once a year in early
spring(before April 1),and rotate so that each area of the site is mowed approximately once
every three years. Alternatively,half the site can be mowed each year. These cycles may be
adjusted to meet local concerns or needs,but mowing should occur no more frequently than once
per year,and ideally rotating portions of the site will not be mowed annually. After mowing,the
area should by"hayed"(i.e.,collect debris)because the warm season grasses are very dense and
mowed debris will kill new growth trying to germinate. Mowing should not be done during the
nesting season(April 15 through July 30)to preclude killing ground-nesting birds and their
eggs/young. Mow no lower than 10 inches,as mowing lower will significantly damage the
crown of these grasses,cause mortality,or open site for invasion by less desirable species. As an
alternative to mowing,controlled burning may be used to manage grassland and meadows.
Controlled burns replicate the natural processes of these fire-dependent communities and return
nutrients back to the soil. Controlled bums should also be performed prior to nesting by birds
(before April 1).
It is important to note that warm season grass species take several years to become established
and substantial top growth may not occur until the third year. As long as weed species are
mowed as specified to provide sunlight to the small seedlings,these grass species are relatively
easy to establish.
Additional Monitoring and Maintenance Concerns
During the establishment period,the site should be managed for the control and elimination of
non-native invasive plant species(e.g.,fescue,Johnson grass,Japanese honeysuckle,Chinese
lespedeza)from within and from the perimeter of the planting. Techniques employed for control
of undesirable plant species can consist of physical removal and the spot or wick application of
herbicides. Control of these invasive species should only be necessary during the establishment
period.
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 20
During the establishment period,the site should be monitored for any significant erosion. Areas
exhibiting erosion should be restored to pre-disturbance conditions as soon as possible and
stabilized with standard erosion controls methodologies including,but not limited to:
biodegradable matting,seeding with a native seed mix that includes a cover crop,and depending
on severity of erosion,silt fencing,or staked hay bales to reduce soil runoff. Jute matting is
preferred as it is 100%biodegradable and is less harmful to wildlife.
Performance Standards
A metric that can be used to monitor the success of a warm season grass planting is the number
of healthy seedlings of the target species. In late summer of the seeding year,the minimum
acceptable standard is an average of at least 2-4 vigorous seedlings per square foot. By mid
summer of the second year,an average of 2 vigorous seedlings per square foot should be present.
Utilizing these metrics in the fust two years,suitable total areal target coverage should be
achievable by mid summer of the fourth year. At this point the vegetative cover at two feet
above the ground should be 85%. Monitoring and maintenance of the grasses and forbs may be
discontinued when the seeded plants provide 80%soil cover and weeds occur at less than 10%.
Scrub/Shrub and Woodland Habitats
Trees and shrubs can be planted after seeding of grasses and forbs has been completed.
Deciduous trees and shrubs may be planted from mid October through mid May(mid April in
Virginia)whenever soil conditions permit. Most conifers should only be planted in the spring.
If seeding has been done in the late spring or later,then planting of woody plants must be
delayed until fall. Bareroot plants can be installed with a tree planter or by hand,whereas potted
plants must be planted by hand. Trees and shrubs are generally planted in staggered rows with
row and plant spacing determined by the species being planted. Generally species are randomly
mixed within each row.Tree and shrub selections must be made according to habitat desired and
site specific conditions,including,as necessary,their tolerance of the chemical contamination in
the soils. Project managers should consult with the BTAG to determine the appropriate species
for the conditions and objectives at each site.
Monitoring and Maintenance Requirements and Performance Standards
Monitoring of the woody plants must be performed annually in spring and fall. Evidence that
each species of trees/shrub is growing is provided by monitoring 10%of the plants(e.g.,height,
spread).Each plant will be examined for evidence of browse or insect damage,bark stripping,or
disease. If damage is present on greater than 40%of the plants,a control program should be
implemented(e.g.,routine spraying,installing tubes). Dead or moribund trees and shrubs will be
replaced in October. Herbaceous vegetation should be mowed between the rows of trees and
shrubs annually until the plants get tall enough to compete. Monitoring and replacement of
woody plants must be conducted to achieve 80%tree survival and 80%shrub survival of at least
half the species planted.
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 21
ROOTS
The greatest hesitancy surrounding the use of any vegetation other than turf grasses for site
restoration is associated with the misunderstanding of root systems of the alternative species.
Excavation of plants and examination of root structures indicates that most roots:
-are within the top 18"of soil;
-follow water,won't go through impervious material in search of water;
-follow the path of least resistance;even grow horizontally over an impervious layer;
-take advantage of cracks in clay caps that are most likely attributable to desiccation'
-will"drain"any water that flows into the voids in the cap
(Robinson and Handel 1995,Handel et al.1997,Mooney et al.2007),
REGION 3 EXAMPLES
Delaware
-Tybouts Comer,Wilmington
-Wildcat Landfill,Dover
Maryland
- NAS Patuxent River,MD(Site 11 Former and Current Sanitary Landfills,Sites 1 Fishing Point
LF and Site 12,Landfill Behind the Rifle Range)
-Southern Maryland Wood Treating,Hollywood
- Woodlawn County Landfill(LF),Cecil County,Woodlawn
Pennsylvania
-Berks County Landfill,Sinking Springs
-BoRit Asbestos,Ambler
-Butz Landfill,Monroe County Township
-Craig Farm Drum Dump,Armstrong County
-Dorney Road Landfill,Mertztown
-Eastern Diversified Metals,Schuylkill County Rush Township
-Hamburg Lead Site,Hamburg
-Industrial Lane Landfill,Northhampton County
-Metal Bank,Philadelphia
-MW Manufacturing,Valley Township,Montour County
-Navy Ship Parts Control Center,Mechanicsburg
-Revere Chemical Co.,Nockamixon Township
-W.R.G.4 Vermiculite Site,Ellwood City
Virginia
-Avtex Fibers,Warren County,Front Royal
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 22
-Norfolk Naval Shipyard,Portsmouth
-USN St.Julien Cr.Annex,Chesapeake
West Virginia
-West Virginia Ordnance,Pt.Pleasant
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Andreas,L.,et al. 2005. Physical Properties of Steel Slag to be Reused in a Landfill Cover.
Proceedings Sardinia 2005,Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
b=s://www.Itu.se/polopoly fs/1.39418!physical prop steel slags landfill cover.pdf
Breshears,D.D.,et al. 2005. Ecohydrology Monitoring and Excavation of Semiarid Landfill
Covers a Decade after Installation. Vadose Zone J.,4:798-810.
http://vzi.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/3n98
Dwyer,S.F. 1998. Alternative Landfill Covers Pass the Test.Civil Engineering.
b=://www.graniteconstruction.com/construction-
services/pdfs/MatCon%20Alternative°/a20Landfill.pdf
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).2009.Ecological Revitalization:Turning
Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets.(EPA 542-R-08-003). htta://www.clu-
in.org/download/issues/ecotools/Ecological Revitalization Turning Contaminated Properties I
nto Community Assets.ndf
EPA.2006.Revegetating Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-06-
001). http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/reve eg tating_fact sheet.pdf
EPA.2003.Evapotranspiration Landfill Cover Systems Fact Sheet.(EPA 542-F-03-015)
hqp://www.clu-in.org/download/remgdka542fD3Ol5.t)d
Ernst Conservation Seeds.2010.Planting Guide:Upland and Meadow Sites.
http://www.emstseed.com/service—view.aspx9id=1682
Garber,J. 1999,Updated 2010.A Guide to the Revegetation and Environmental Restoration of
Closed Landfills. California Integrated Waste Management Board.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LeaCentral/Closure/Revegetate/Part4.htm
Handel,S.N.,G.R.Robinson,W.F.Parsons and J.H.Mattei.1997.Restoration of woody plants
to capped landfills:root dynamics in an engineered soil. Restoration Ecology.5(1):78.
Marton,D. 1996. Landfill Revegetation:The Hidden Assets. Waste Age.
htto://wasteage.com/mag/waste landfill reveeetation hidden/
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010
October 10, 2010
Page 23
Mooney,S.J., K.Foot,T.R.Hutchings,and A.J.Moffat.2007.Micmmorphological
investigations into root penetration in a landfill mineral cap,Hertfordshire,UK.Waste
Management.27:1225
Ritchie,J.C.,et al,ed. 2000. Proceedings of The Second Eastern Native Grass Symposium,
Baltimore,MD 1999.
http://oermanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12575/www.nhg.nres.usda. ov/bcs/pmc/enwmn99proceed.
Off
Robinson,G.R.and S.N.Handel.1995.Woody plants fail to penetrate a clay-lined landfill:
management implications.Environ.Manage.19(1):57.
Sillick,J.M.and Jacobi,W.R. 2009. Healthy Roots and Healthy Trees. Gardening Series.
Colorado State Extension. Fact Sheet no.2.926.
httM://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/Garden/02926.htmi
Sinned,D. The sustainable establishment of woodland on landfill sites-results of a ten-year
study. http://www.treecouncil.ie/word docs/sustainable establishment woodland.doc
Slattery,Britt E.,Kathryn Reshetiloff,and Susan M.Zwicker.2003.Native Plants for Wildlife
Habitat and Conservation Landscaping:Chesapeake Bay Watershed.U.S.Fish&Wildlife
Service,Chesapeake Bay Field Office,Annapolis,MD.82 pp.
vti%%�,ti.nps.gov/plants/pubs/Chesapeake/pdf/chesapeakenatives.pdf
Stoltz,E.and Greger,M. 2006. Root penetration through sealing layers at mine deposit sites.
Waste Management&Research,24(6)552-559.
htip://wmr.sageRub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/6/552
Zalesny,R.S.and Bauer,E.O. 2007. Selecting and Utilizing Populus and Salix for Landfill
Covers:Implications for Leachate Irrigation. International Journal of Phooremediation,9:497-
511. btip://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/OmU2007/nrs 2007 zalesny 005.pdf
EPA Region 3 BTAG 1/2010