Loading...
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